Posted on 10/25/2012 2:08:18 PM PDT by JerseyanExile
The manufacturer of the eight-wheeled Stryker vehicles that make up the backbone of the Army’s fleet at Joint Base Lewis-McChord is unveiling new models of at a conference this week, including ones that would have run counter to their initial purpose as a rapidly deployable medium weight infantry carrier.
General Dynamics is pitching the new models as a path for the Army to improve its vehicle fleet without spending billions of dollars designing new options.
One of the new models is a tracked Stryker that weighs some 42 tons – 22 tons more than an off-the-floor, basic Stryker infantry carrier.*
That’s a significant turn from the Army’s call to create a lighter, wheeled vehicle when it launched the Stryker program and sent the first models to then-Fort Lewis a decade ago. The tracked model is intended to help General Dynamics win a contract to create the next Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, replacing M113 personnel carriers.
“It’s going to be quite a good offering for us,” tMike Cannon, senior vice president for ground combat systems at General Dynamics, told Shepard Media.
“And even if it doesn’t go as the AMPV solution we still believe that we needed a medium weight tracked vehicle in our portfolio. And this will be our first one…And it’s pretty slick looking,” he told Shephard’s Scott Gourley.
Reports from the conference show that Cannon is pitching the new Strykers as more fuel efficient than armored personnel carriers it would replace. National Defense Magazine reports that Strykers cost $18 per mile to operate compared to $45 per mile for the M113.
Lewis-McChord has about 900 Strykers for its three infantry brigades, the largest concentration of the vehicles in the Army. General Dynamics and the Army have redesigned the vehicle several times over the past decade of constant ground warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, most recently by creating a slanted “double v hull” to deflect the impact of deadly buried bombs in Afghanistan.
In other Stryker news, the Army is considering placing more of the vehicles in Hawaii under the Pacific Command. The goal, reports the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, is to put them closer to where they might be needed for conflicts in the Pacific as the war in Afghanistan ends.
*An earlier version of this post misstated the weight of the tracked Stryker. It is estimated to be 84,000 pounds.
They could call it the SHINSEKI.
I can’t believe that just going to tracks will add that much weight.
I suspect there are major armor improvements in this thing. The Israelis are going with heavy APC’s for survivability.
And to think the M-8 AGS was already developed, approved for production, and Shinseki cancels it to adopt the Stryker POS. Perfect example of why the procurement system is corrupt and broken beyond repair.
L8R
My son is back at JBLM from Douchebagistan. He says the Strykers are used effectively. A tracked one that is more IED resistant could be useful.
i'd still like to see this 30mm M1 looked into... 
General Shelton Chair Joint Chiefs in 2000 said:
The Chief of Staff’s revolutionary plan has not been free of criticism from other high-ranking Army officers. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Henry H. Shelton, who serves as the highest ranking officer in the entire US military, recently offered a note of caution concerning the Shinseki Transformation plan even while he continues to support its overall objectives.
I’m all in favor of increased agility, lethality and mobility...But there is a fundamental flaw in the logic that we can achieve this only at the expense of our 2-MTW capability. ... (which) allows us to meet our commitments to our allies. If we abandon our 2-MTW capability, we risk our own security and the security of our friends around the world.
General Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, June 16, 2000
General Shelton argued against allowing the Shinseki plan to do away with the ‘heavy’ forces from going too far to degrade or even eliminate the ability of the US Army to fight and win two simultaneous major theater wars (MTWs). Shelton stated that those who say the United States should
abandon its capability to fight two MTWs are wrong.
So what we get is the 1968 design that weighs 42 freaking tons? How is it possible to be better on fuel than prior?
This is one screwed up notion from the abject failure— Shinseki.
Our fighting forces must look a lot like those little clay pipes, that move across the gallery in an arcade, to our enemies.
Interesting. Would be cool in a game, don’t know about real war scenario.
it was looked at as an urban warfare assault vehicle, and where running over an an IED didn't stop it cold by killing one of only two tracks
You CAN get a 30mm Bushmaster cannon on an Abrams (or a Stryker) that fires the same ammo at a lower rate. You can also get a GAU-19 .50 cal gatling gun on there.
I would like to see a Stryker with two or three internally-operated guns, like maybe a Bushmaster, a grenade launcher, and a gatling gun.
Let's see - the Russians managed to fit in a 100mm gun/anti-tank missle launcher, a co-axial 30mm automatic cannon, and three machine guns.
and air droppable too...
i like the idea of four tracks so losing one doesn't put it out of commission, the guns can vary as to what works best, the striker on the other hand, should stick with wheels and with multi-gun systems maybe like the pic above
Send them to every Embassy
is that a Vulcan cannon-type gun??
Shinseki, huh... we all know how the motor hogs are going to name it,,....the Sh*tski!
i believe the original concept was a 30mm like on the A10 but it's been said it's not feasible i think a Vulcan would definitely suffice though...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.