Military Review

Stryker still serve

38

The standard means of supporting indirect fire in SBCT brigades is a self-propelled mortar M1129 Mortar Carrier Vehicle version B


Since its introduction in 2002, the Stryker project has continuously evolved, finding its purpose in the intermediate mechanized teams that needed a fast and easy to deploy machine.

The project on the Stryker wheeled armored combat vehicle, initially deployed in the US Army as an interim solution, was aimed at the army's desire to diversify its staffing and organizational structure and get good deployability.

These new units were supposed to fill the tactical gap between heavy armored brigades with tanks M1 Abrams and BMP M2 Bradley and light infantry units. The former was difficult to deploy due to limited air transport, while the latter could deploy quickly, but did not have mobile secure means upon arrival.

In 1999, the Chief of the General Staff of the American Army, General Eric Shinseki, proposed to form new brigades based on vehicles with a lower level of protection than the main battle tanks (MBT) and infantry fighting vehicles, but with high ground mobility that could be transported by C-130 or larger transport aircraft.

As planned, this should have been autonomous combat units, which after receiving an order within 96 hours could be transferred by air and deployed immediately after landing for combat and other tasks. It was assumed that the most likely battle scenario would be the conduct of small contingents of operations against the low- and medium-level armed forces.

Turns of fate

Shinseki’s proposal reminded the previous attempt by the US Army infantry command to arm light armored vehicles when the army joined the marines in search of a similar machine back in the 80s of the last century. In the framework of the joint LAV (Light Armored Vehicle) armored vehicle program, in which the wheeled and tracked candidates participated, the Piranha 8x8 option from GM Defense of Canada (now part of General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS)) was chosen. After issuing the contract, the army conducted troop tests, but then withdrew from the program.

The goal of the system search program for the intermediate brigade was to find a machine that could be quickly deployed after minimal training and that could provide all eight configurations necessary to perform combat missions. GDLS's LAV III was selected as the platform that best met these criteria. She received the status of "ready for production," because by that time she was already in service with several other countries.

The machine, named "Stryker" in honor of two American heroes awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, was the only interim solution in anticipation of the Future Combat Systems Future Combat Systems program launched in 2003 year. Therefore, in this case, in order to meet the accelerated deployment schedule, compromises in this project could be quite justified. However, the abolition of the FCS program in 2008 year de facto guaranteed that for some time this platform would remain in service with the SBCT (Stryker brigade combat team - a mechanized brigade equipped with specialized Stryker wheeled combat vehicles).


Armored personnel carrier M1126 Stryker ICV

Development and improvement

The SBCT brigade is a major combined-arms tactical unit with its own armored personnel carriers, artillery mounts, self-propelled mortars, mobile long-range anti-tank missile launchers, reconnaissance, observation and fire support, engineering, staff and medical equipment having an equal level of mobility and protection. provided by the Stryker platform.

SBCT brigades have demonstrated that they can quickly and confidently move long distances and then perform combat missions. New features that gave the machine Stryker, forced to revise some of the traditional tactical techniques of armored / mechanized parts. As a result, the tactics of brigades were continuously improved, and this process played a significant role in increasing the efficiency of subunits and the combat capabilities of the machine.

The deployment of the Stryker machine caused an ambiguous reaction, here its role was played by its unique character and different visions of the prospects for heavy and light units. Prior to that, the US Army did not have an alternative in the form of a medium category vehicle, because during the reorganization of armored units at the end of the 70s, they received the M1 Abrams MBT and the M3 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle.

In the process of deploying Stryker machines, concepts, tactics and methods of warfare had to be specially developed for them. Stryker’s participation in combat operations hastened this process. Some problems, such as vulnerability from reactive anti-tank grenades, could have been foreseen in advance, since the Americans faced an RPG in Vietnam, and the Mujahideen’s use of this weapons in the Soviet-Afghan war was well documented. Other threats, such as the use of directional land mines and improvised explosive devices, were less predictable.

Stryker kinship with other machines from the MOWAG Piranha family, such as LAV-25, LAV III, ASLAV (Australian LAV) and Piranha versions from I to V, provides a ready-made model for improvements. The similarity of the machines deployed by the Australian army, the Belgian army, the Canadian army, the Irish army, the Saudi National Guard and the US Marine Corps and others, allows you to share experiences and share technical solutions.

Due to this, the community of Piranha / LAV / Stryker operators, GDLS divisions and many component suppliers implemented their innovations on a machine of one type, and then transferred it all to another type of machine with less financial investment and risk.

Stryker still serve

Combat reconnaissance vehicle M1127 Stryker RV

Protect and survive

The involvement of the Stryker armored vehicles in Iraq’s operations in 2003 gave impetus to the correction of deficiencies found in operation. Wendy Steiger, the Stryker project manager at GDLS, said that "from the very beginning, GD worked closely and successfully with its customers: with the US Marine Corps and the Canadian Army according to the LAV version, as well as with the American Army according to Stryker."

It was necessary to immediately increase the levels of protection and survivability. The frontal booking of the Stryker machine, which protects against 14,5 mm bullets, was reinforced with additional ceramic tiles, originally from the German company IBD Deisenroth Engineering, and later from the Canadian DEW Engineering.

Although even heavier machines were vulnerable to RPGs, the shaft of criticism struck precisely the vulnerability of the Stryker machine. The rapid development and installation in combat units of lattice screens to combat RPGs solved the problem, although at the cost of an additional two tons and greater width.

Later, at the end of 2009, General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems and Rafael Advanced Defense Systems began supplying SRAT (Stryker Reactive Armor Tiles) dynamic protection kits to replace the trellised armor. Although the SRAT kits yielded nothing to the mass savings, the width of the machine returned almost to the initial values.

Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan also highlighted another vulnerability — improvised explosive devices (IEDs). This unforeseen threat called into question not only the survivability of the Stryker, but almost every tactical vehicle on the balance sheet of the American army.

The flat bottom — a design feature common to most of these platforms — could not reflect the blast wave from the VCA, which caused the destruction of the hull structure and, as a result, led to serious consequences for the crew. A thorough and rigorous analysis of the structure was needed. By 2010, GDLS demonstrated for the Stryker a Double Vee-Hull (DVH) V-package solution, which effectively reflected the blast wave from the VCA. In combination with the energy-absorbing crew and landing seats, modified by the commander’s hatch and re-arranged storage sites, this has significantly increased the survivability of the crew and vehicles.

Although some specialists consider the wheel configuration as a disadvantage, the experience of operation and combat showed the exact opposite. Crews of cars from the SBCT brigades regularly performed combat missions and returned to the base even with a few destroyed wheels. Michelin radial-type tires were gradually refined, based on the operating experience of ASLAV machines, they became larger and received a more aggressive tread pattern.

In addition, Hutchinson's anti-wrinkle wheel inserts not only allow you to continue driving on damaged wheels, but also reduce the impact of the blast wave from mines. Hutchinson has developed side shields that protect the thinner side surfaces of radial tires from punctures, although they are not yet used on the Stryker.


A key feature of the Stryker machine is its ability to deploy military transport aviation

Mobility and vitality

Protecting the Stryker RPG and additional ballistic protection reduced suspension travel, power density, and increased ground pressure. For example, the mass of the BMP in the DVH configuration is over 16455 kg. Some variants of the Stryker, such as the MPG (Mobile Protected Gun) self-propelled artillery with the 105-mm gun, have already reached the limits of its suspension. As a result, security enhancements made on other Stryker machines were not implemented on MPG.

Based on a number of modifications to the undercarriage and power unit made on the LAV machines of the Canadian Army, GDLS offered a survival package for the Stryker. The US Army, using the funds allocated for the project of a double hull DVH, included several more important improvements.

All Stryker DVH configuration machines are overhauled at the Anniston Army Depot state plant, including a more powerful suspension designed for 27270 kg, a more powerful 450 hp engine, a generator for 910 amperes, increased driver protection and an internal digital high-speed network.

Tim Reese, business development manager at GDLS, explained: “These Stryker machine upgrades restore performance, increase survivability and improve system compatibility with new digital technologies. This work makes it possible, with smaller investments, to increase the capabilities of the machine as compared to the initial ones. ”




M1134 self-propelled ATGM with TOW-2 missiles provides fire support at long ranges

Firepower of ICV variant

The Stryker family of vehicles consists of eight variants, four of them have the main armament for direct combat. The remotely controlled combat module of the Norwegian company Kongsberg M153 Protector with the 12,7-mm machine gun M2 is installed on the armored personnel carrier M1126 Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV) and some others.

After being integrated into 2005, the TIM 1500 thermal imaging camera with the 640x480 matrix manufactured by BAE Systems was provided with longer detection ranges and higher resolution. The choice of the M153 module was due to its availability and classification by the American army by type, after which it received the designation Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station (CROWS). However, it limits the installation of the CROWS module on such infantry combat vehicles, such as the Stryker, for example, the absence of a coaxial machine gun.

Common to the MBT and the BMP is the installation of twin machine guns to hit manpower and lightly armored vehicles; they can potentially cause less indirect damage compared to 12,7-mm machine guns. They are better suited for reconnaissance by fire when the enemy’s positions are opened in order to force them to reveal themselves.

Today, Elbit Systems, FN Herstal, Kongsberg, and a number of others are offering an SDS with 12,7-mm machine guns or automatic grenade launchers and with a paired light machine gun. Modules similar to Kongsberg's Dual Remote Weapon Station module allow the shooter to quickly switch between large and small caliber, besides, they are usually installed on the seats of previous models and use the displays of their predecessors.

The new armament program provides for an increase in the fire power of the Stryker armored vehicles through the installation of a module MCRWS (Medium Caliber Remote Weapons Station) with an 30-mm gun. In May, the US Army 2015 approved applications for operational needs from the 2 Motorized Regiment stationed in Europe to increase the mortality of the Stryker machines. The initial funding of the 81 system was included in the army budget for the 2016 year in the form of an accelerated program.

In December 2015, GDLS selected the Kongsberg MCT 30 mm module, which was already demonstrated in the 2010 and 2014 years. The MCT30 is a remote-controlled turret with an Orbital ATK 30-mm XM813 cannon. It has a no-feed feeder from Meggitt with 150 ammunition ready-made shells in two shell boxes located on the sides of the gun. The gun mask is mounted 7,62-mm machine gun.

The tower does not occupy space inside the vehicle and provides access to the armament from inside the hull. The Vice-President of Orbital ATK explained: “The XM813 cannon is based on the MK44 Bushmaster II external power gun. Ammunition includes armor-piercing incendiary, high-explosive fragmentation incendiary, armor-piercing sub-caliber projectiles and the new programmable air-launched MK310 munitions. Such a set of shots provides ample opportunities and enhanced impact on the target. "

Reese noted that “the development is likely to be accelerated due to the priority work of GDLS and Kongsberg, we do not think that there are high technical risks”, adding that the company expects to test Stryker with the MCRWS module in the first half of 2016 year, and the supply of mass-produced products to begin in 2018 year.

In fact, as was often the case with Stryker machines, GDLS worked closely with them on the army and soon, 16 January 2016, received a contract from her command to install, integrate and deliver eight prototypes. Although today only the 2 motorized infantry regiment is planned to be equipped with 30-mm armament, a general from the management of ground combat systems programs said at the AUSA 2015 exhibition that the army would like to extend this trend to other units with Stryker armored vehicles in the future.

Self-propelled artillery installation

Self-propelled artillery installation Stryker MGS (Mobile Gun System), despite the fact that it offers unique opportunities for the American army, was at one time the object of significant disagreement. Its 105-mm M68 gun (mounted on M60 tanks and the first M1 MBT) is installed in an uninhabited low-profile fully stabilized turret with a rotating automatic loader manufactured by Curtiss-Wright.

This 105-mm gun is known for its versatility, for it there is a wide range of types of ammunition optimized for many purposes. Warheads these munitions include armor-piercing, high-explosive, cumulative, explosive with plastic explosive (the British Army received term "co crushes the head part"), cassette (anti short range XM1040), smoke (ideal for marking purposes and the placement of the veil ). Armored piercing piercing projectile with a core of depleted uranium is able to hit most of the armored vehicles, including MBT.

According to first-hand information, the MGS self-propelled unit had a good reputation for fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, where it performed tasks that other combat vehicles could not perform. Her ability to quickly travel long distances allowed her to accompany and provide close support with direct fire from Stryker units.

The fire power of some of the MGS projectiles expanded the capabilities of the original Stryker platform. With a weight of 18770, kg is the heaviest member of the family (ICV weighs 17240 kg). One would expect that the suspension upgrade, which is part of the DVH kit, the upgrade of the 30-mm gun and the optional 225-6630 kg would help cope with the stabilization and driving performance problems of the MGS.

A similar upgrade for MGS has not yet been planned, although a number of other improvements are underway. In fact, the army reduced the number of MGS in each SBCT brigade from 27 to 10 vehicles, despite its unique combat configuration. Some suggest that this reflects historical skepticism in the US military in relation to the main guns of light vehicles. Whether this is true or not, GDLS claims that all the problems identified for MGS will be resolved and the first of them will be delivered to combat units in April 2016.

Another option Stryker M1134 - self-propelled ATGM with TOW-2 missiles - provides anti-tank and armor-piercing capabilities at long range. Its twin wire-based TOW-2 missile launcher can hit targets day and night at ranges up to 3750 meters using day and thermal sights. The unit is stabilized, which allows you to monitor and capture targets while moving. However, the process of combat use requires that the machine be in place during the flight of the rocket. A hatchback lid allows the operator to recharge the launcher. The M1134 self-propelled ATGM is capable of providing surveillance and fire support to Stryker's advanced combat units.

A regular means of providing fire support from closed positions for the SBCT brigade is the Stryker M1129 Mortar Carrier or MCV-B self-propelled mortar. Its 120-mm smoothbore mortar M121, mounted on a turntable, allows all round fire on the 360 °. The mortar has a range of 7200 meters and can fire various ammunition, including high-explosive, smoke, lighting, and Guided Mortar Munition mines with GPS guidance from Orbital ATK Precision. The mortar is often called the “commander’s pocket artillery,” because it can quickly solve operational needs. Stryker MCV can also transport 81-mm or 60-mm portable mortars for firing from the ground by dismounting.


The M1128 Mobile Gun System self-propelled gun mount has a stabilized 105-mm tank gun and a twin-7,62-mm machine gun M249

Engineering support

The general trend at the moment is the increase in the SBCT combat brigade of the number of personnel of engineering units. The reorganization of the staff battalion of the brigade is due to a significant amount of engineering support tasks, which require qualified personnel and special equipment.

Mobility is the key to the success of the SBCT brigade. And to ensure this mobility is the task of the M1132 Engineer Squad Vehicle (ESV) machine. Each ESV is equipped with the M151 OBD, a dozer blade or roller mine trawl is installed ahead, often using the Peart Engineering universal quick-install kit Jettison Fitting Kit (JFK). In addition, an engineering vehicle can tow a wheeled trailer with tools, equipment and materials.


Engineering Machine Stryker M1132


Universal Quick Installation Kit Jettison Fitting Kit

The JFK (mechanical, hydraulic, electric) kit interface allows you to quickly and easily install, remove (10 minutes) and change various mounted systems, including anti-mine (plow or roller trawl), dozer blade, minefield markings and bridge guidance. The lack of means of overcoming ditches and similar obstacles in the SBCT brigade is a concern for the command, but this could be solved with the adoption of the bridge guidance system BLM (Bridge Launch Mechanism) and the bridge itself. The BLM system underwent an evaluation test at the start of the 2015 of the year during the evaluation process of the expeditionary capabilities of the American army.

Space for improvement

Throughout the life of the Stryker program, the army, together with GDLS, continued to determine areas of development, many of which were implemented by “blocks” included either in serial configurations of new machines or in recovery programs according to which old or damaged Stryker machines undergo major repairs. The latter approach was successfully applied in the DVH upgrade program.

In November, 2015, the company GDLS announced its latest proposal for making changes to the design of the Stryker. Steiger said the following about this: “The previous changes focused mainly on survivability. The current modernization kit aims to improve mobility and reliability. It is based on some new methods and components, as well as a redesign to improve performance and solve problems identified in actual operation. ”

The changes consist in a more powerful cooling system, in greater energy production for consumers, larger wheels with a more pronounced tread pattern, as well as several modifications aimed at improving ergonomics, including simplifying operation.

“These changes, although often not obvious, will provide significant operational benefits and reduce life cycle costs,” continued Steiger. GDLS has announced its readiness to implement its proposals in a phased program.

Mr. Reese added in this connection: “After the implementation of these proposals on the machines, the army must complete the control tests by July 2016. Then, after receiving a positive conclusion, we will deliver our ICV machines in a new configuration in 2017. ”

Future machine stryker

World events of recent years have increased the need for deployable highly mobile forces that are well adapted to various changing combat missions. The SBCT brigades, like the Stryker family of machines, have demonstrated their ability to meet the above requirements. This is an example of the successful integration of special equipment and weapons with the operational concept.

An active program to identify deficiencies, develop upgrades and implement them allowed Stryker machines to remain in service. This lively, almost unprecedented dialogue between industry and the army, between engineers and operators of the LAV, Piranha and Stryker platforms made a decisive contribution to the current demand for the entire fleet.

Increasing the fire power of the 2's motorized regiment demonstrates the ability of the Stryker to respond to the changing threats and demands of new combat missions. The interest of Chile and Colombia indicates a wide recognition of the capabilities and operational flexibility of Stryker machines. The SBCT brigades and their Stryker vehicles provide the US Army with, perhaps, combat capabilities with which the capabilities of any other armed forces cannot be compared.

Materials used:
www.shephardmedia.com
www.gdls.com
www.baesystems.com
www.pearson-eng.com
www.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
38 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Zomanus
    Zomanus April 12 2016 07: 03
    0
    I hope that our "Kurganets" will not be worse.
    1. warriordima
      warriordima April 12 2016 07: 30
      +3
      I hope that is better))
      1. Alex_Rarog
        Alex_Rarog April 12 2016 07: 51
        +2
        I will say this .... it is already better ... by default)
        1. just exp
          just exp April 12 2016 07: 55
          -5
          Americans themselves admit that even armored personnel carriers in Russia are better in arms. if we compare the striker in the BTR variant.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek April 12 2016 08: 18
            +11
            Why is the BTR - 82A better than the Stryker? The number of modifications? Armor? The KAMAZ engine? Navigation and communication? The only weapon.
            In our army, there are analogues for almost all vehicles, but there is no such unification on the platform. Only with the appearance of the "Kurganite" will it be possible to come to this.
            1. just exp
              just exp April 12 2016 13: 45
              0
              what exactly to you in the phrase "in arms is better. if you compare the striker in the armored personnel carrier version." was it not clear?
              the Americans themselves whined that their strikers were armed with 12.7mm machine guns when we had armored personnel carriers with a 30mm gun.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov April 12 2016 19: 02
                +2
                Quote: just explo
                Americans whined that

                They didn't whine, they solved the problem. And they will be the first to receive combat modules with 30-mm Strykers cannons of the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (military base "Rose Barracks", Filsek, Germany).
                The very ones who "dragoons traveled" across Eastern Europe last spring.
            2. Come on
              Come on April 12 2016 21: 54
              +3
              Why aren't you Kurgan’s guys confused with Boomerang? It's not about a tracked platform, but a mobile, wheeled 8 to 8. Kurgan is a rival to Bradley rather.
            3. wanderer_032
              wanderer_032 April 13 2016 13: 02
              +1
              Quote: Zaurbek
              Only with the appearance of the "Kurgan" will it be possible to come to this.


              With the advent of "Boomerang" probably? "Kurganets" is a tracked vehicle, not a wheeled vehicle. And it cannot provide such mobility as a wheeled armored chassis.
              Due to the lower maximum speed, as well as the cost of fuel and material and technical materials. To replace the elements of the chassis - for example. Those. caterpillar tracks, track rollers, gear rims of driving wheels, etc.
              The service life of all these parts of the caterpillar undercarriage is significantly lower than the service life of the wheel undercarriage. And replacing all these parts is much more expensive than replacing wheels.
              In addition, the tracked undercarriage has lower combat survivability. An infantry fighting vehicle or a tank with a caterpillar killed in battle does not have the ability to continue further movement.
              Wheeled armored personnel carrier can continue to move, even with two or three completely damaged wheels or suspension units.
              Therefore, all the "wet balls" that a tracked infantry fighting vehicle has greater opportunities for the mobility of motorized rifle units than wheeled vehicles of a similar purpose do not have any sensible grounds.
          2. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek April 12 2016 08: 18
            -1
            Why is the BTR - 82A better than the Stryker? The number of modifications? Armor? The KAMAZ engine? Navigation and communication? The only weapon.
            In our army, there are analogues for almost all vehicles, but there is no such unification on the platform. Only with the appearance of the "Kurganite" will it be possible to come to this.
    2. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock April 12 2016 08: 35
      +13
      Quote: Zomanus
      I hope that our "Kurganets" will not be worse.

      Russian competitor to Striker Boomerang, not Kurganets-25. Since Kurganets is on a tracked platform.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek April 12 2016 08: 39
        0
        Sorry, I meant it ..
  2. tchoni
    tchoni April 12 2016 07: 46
    +2
    Somehow uncertainly Americans praise him. There is a feeling (I don’t even know how to explain it) that the army device is not particularly needed ... And it seems impossible to refuse it. So they are trying to adapt it to all sorts of needs. Avost by tyke method will find its niche.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov April 12 2016 09: 23
      +2
      Quote: tchoni
      There is a feeling (I don’t even know how to explain it) that this army device is not really needed ...

      Because this is a half-hearted solution. "Both yours and ours." The "striker" team is no longer "easy", but not yet "heavy"
      1. tchoni
        tchoni April 12 2016 10: 34
        -2
        I am afraid that this is a common property of "medium" armored personnel carriers, including our "Kurgan" and "boomerang" They are too heavy and well armed to perform a transport function, and too weakly protected for the modern battlefield, where an anti-tank grenade launcher can be used by every soldier (I I'm talking about "flies" and others like them)
        1. would
          would April 12 2016 13: 13
          +1
          including our "kurganets" and "boomerang"

          , and too weakly protected for a modern battlefield, where every soldier can have an anti-tank grenade launcher (I'm talking about "flies" and others like them)


          Kurganets will definitely withstand a hit from the same "fly". After all, there is KAZ on the tower + DZ + definitely good armor. For such protection to open one "fly" is not enough, even an ATGM is not enough. Boomerang's protection is worse, the performance characteristics of the armor are classified, but I somehow believe that the armor will not fail even there when checked with a "fly" or PG-7VS from RPG-7. Otherwise, what was the point of doing them?
          1. tchoni
            tchoni April 12 2016 16: 14
            +1
            Quote: rait
            Kurganets will definitely withstand a hit from the same "fly". After all, there is KAZ on the tower + DZ + definitely good armor. For such protection to open one "fly" is not enough, even an ATGM is not enough. Boomerang's protection is worse, the performance characteristics of the armor are classified, but I somehow believe that the armor will not fail even there when checked with a "fly" or PG-7VS from RPG-7. Otherwise, what was the point of doing them?

            Have you tested it? Did they run in real combat? KAZ and dynamic protection, it can also be hung on a striker ... There the Israelites succeeded in production ... Yes, and DZ is not only in Russia ... I have already expressed this opinion on the pages of VO, and I repeat: Basic armor does not completely replace anything. It can only complement.
            1. would
              would April 12 2016 16: 30
              +1
              Have you tested it?


              You want to say that the equipment that did not exceed the BTR-80 in terms of security was adopted and it was subject to PR as an ultramodern and increased weight and size characteristics? What is DZ props? Sorry, but even for Russia it looks like a joke. Especially after a series of materials about the Boomerang armor. It remains to wait for a demonstration of the tests or generally declassification of the characteristics to make sure of this.

              Did they run in real combat? KAZ and dynamic protection, it can also be hung on a striker ...


              And when tested, is that a fly less real? In my opinion the same. And not just a fly. Well, the fact that you can hang on Stryker a lot of things does not change the fact that KAZ intercepts RPGs for a sweet soul, DZ only keeps on the road, and so on.
              1. tchoni
                tchoni April 12 2016 17: 28
                0
                Quote: rait
                You want to say that the equipment that did not exceed the BTR-80 in terms of security was adopted and it was subject to PR as an ultramodern and increased weight and size characteristics? What is DZ props? Sorry, but even for Russia it looks like a joke. Especially after a series of materials about the Boomerang armor. It remains to wait for a demonstration of the tests or generally declassification of the characteristics to make sure of this.

                I didn’t tell you this ... But you didn’t hear me
                And you don’t want to hear ..
                Quote: rait
                when tested, is the fly less real? In my opinion the same. And not just a fly. Well, the fact that you can hang on Stryker a lot of things does not change the fact that KAZ intercepts RPGs for a sweet soul, DZ only keeps on the road, and so on.

                The fact of the matter is that the Americans tested both KAZ and DZ on a striker, which is essentially an analogue of a boomerang., Or rather, on the contrary. And they were very dissatisfied with the result. Moreover, they experienced all this on the Bradley BMP, which is essentially an analogue of Kurgan, or rather the opposite ... And the same is not thrilled ...
                And then there are the Israelis who continue to punch heavy armored personnel carriers at the base of the tank and equip them with KAZ and DZ. And now they are just happy with their tbtr ...
                As for the "realness" of tests, reality has little in common with the testing ground. Remember contact tests. In the field, the tank withstood 3-5 hits. In life, there were craftsmen able to burn it from one
                1. would
                  would April 13 2016 07: 21
                  +1
                  I didn’t tell you this ... But you didn’t hear me
                  And you don’t want to hear ..


                  That is, all the same, and you understand that this cannot be?

                  The fact of the matter is that the Americans tested both KAZ and DZ on a striker, which is essentially an analogue of a boomerang., Or rather, on the contrary. And they were very dissatisfied with the result. Moreover, they experienced all this on the Bradley BMP, which is essentially an analogue of Kurgan, or rather the opposite ... And the same is not thrilled ...


                  And there are many mistakes right away. On Boomerang, there is neither DZ nor KAZ, at least not yet. So it’s not clear why there is such a comparison. BMP Bradley analog Kurganets? O_O The fact that the construction is, to put it mildly, different, is it nothing? The fact that Kurganets-25 was originally developed for its own KAZ, for its own DZ, would it be anything? And Americans may be satisfied or unhappy, we are not discussing Americans and their cars here, but us and our cars which, as I have already noted, to put it mildly, others.

                  As for the "realness" of tests, reality has little in common with the testing ground.


                  Quite often the opposite happens: the reality is much softer than field tests. For it is hard to imagine a real battle in which an armored vehicle stands and allows itself to be calmly fired on more than once or twice from any side. And that is how they are now being conducted. At the same time, the tests will not start and the car shot from the RPG and small arms will also be blown up by a mine. And the "fly" is the same everywhere, whether at the range or in a real battle, it does not become more powerful. And as for the craftsmen, you yourself confirmed my words: The fact that craftsmen can find an unprotected place in the DZ tank does not get any worse and continues to provide protection from 3-5 hits. And here we are not talking about an outdated tank on which the DZ was hung, but about the advanced technology that was originally developed in order to withstand a hit from an RPG, initially under DZ, etc.
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov April 12 2016 18: 46
          0
          With proper organization, a collision between an armored personnel carrier and an enemy with an RPG is unlikely. Their main function is protection against fragments when exposed to enemy artillery.

          These are not tanks ...
          And from protection against anti-tank systems - the thing you need.
          1. tchoni
            tchoni April 12 2016 22: 17
            -1
            Quote: Spade
            With proper organization, a collision between an armored personnel carrier and an enemy with an RPG is unlikely. Their main function is protection against fragments when exposed to enemy artillery.

            Then why do they need weapons, a tank-like design and other brutalities in the form of eight wheels? - the Americans thought ...
            -And there is no need-the Americans answered themselves ....
            And they began to transfer to various kinds of MDIs, which are better adapted to road conditions and people or some other kind of junk can be taken into the body more, and generally more comfortable and provide the landing with a normal and better protection against the worst road scourge - mines ...
            Such here they are, Americans, entertainers ...
            Yes, and we have such a profile people ...
  3. Olkass
    Olkass April 12 2016 08: 06
    +1
    I'm embarrassed to ask, but did the wheels stop flying off this "supershitanmachina" on the move?
    And the second question, in the Afghan company these masterpieces were brought to one site and declared incompetent. Shaw, have all the technical problems been solved, or are we "sawing and mastering the next budget"?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov April 12 2016 09: 00
      +2
      Quote: Olkass
      And the second question, in the Afghan company, these masterpieces were brought to one site and declared legally incapable.

      Rather, it was recognized that their use was impractical. For pliers hammering nails, in principle, is possible, but very inconvenient. But this does not mean that they must be abandoned.

      If the Americans chose to build a bunch of FOBs, "forward operating bases" on the territory of Afghanistan, and work from them, this does not mean that there is no need for Stryker-type vehicles.
      1. Olkass
        Olkass April 12 2016 23: 25
        0
        Quote: Spade
        Rather, it was recognized that their use was impractical.

        Yeah, and that's why we considered it necessary to buy the Tigers in Russia.
    2. max702
      max702 April 12 2016 12: 25
      0
      Quote: Olkass
      have technical problems been solved or are we “cutting and mastering the next budget”?

      Judging by these statements All Stryker DVH configuration machines undergo a major overhaul at the Anniston Army Depot State Plant, including a more powerful suspension designed for 27270 kgmore powerful engine 450 hp generator on 910 ampp, enhanced driver protection and internal digital high-speed network.
      I didn’t really drink, and the movement in the right direction .. The striker had all the problems from being flimsy, now this is being eliminated .. And with the means of communication, detection, SLA and other things, the Americans always had order.
      1. Olkass
        Olkass April 12 2016 23: 29
        0
        Quote: max702

        Judging by these statements [i] All Stryker DVH configuration machines undergo a major overhaul at the Anniston Army Depot state plant, including ....

        Something all this reminds me of an epic with the "best in the world" BMP "Bradley".
        Or F-35.
  4. Dangerous
    Dangerous April 12 2016 11: 37
    +6
    The quick reaction of the designers to the identified shortcomings is surprising. Either the bottom of a different shape will be installed, then the protection will be increased, then the screens will be installed plus new weapons. Ours, after Afghanistan and Chechnya, both riveted the BTR80 and are riveting without any special changes, and the "brought" Burenang in a few years will only get into the troops
    1. max702
      max702 April 12 2016 12: 21
      +1
      Quote: Dangerous
      The quick reaction of the designers to the identified shortcomings is surprising. Either the bottom of a different shape will be installed, then the protection will be increased, then the screens will be installed plus new weapons. Ours, after Afghanistan and Chechnya, both riveted the BTR80, and riveted without any special changes, and the "brought" boomenang in a few years will only get into the troops

      Well Duc look at the technological capabilities of the United States and ours .. Yes, in terms of human resources alone, they are 10 times superior! Yes, yes, I do not share the United States and other countries of the Western world because any developments on topics of interest and the technological component of the United States can quickly and easily get anywhere in the world! And look what we have? Narodishku 142 million, factories after 20 years of devastation scientific thought in the same corral of "liberal" decades .. And how can you excuse me to resist and keep up with all this everywhere? It’s surprising not that we are lagging behind, but that we are more or less at the same level with incomparable material and human resources!
      1. would
        would April 12 2016 13: 34
        +4
        But here I disagree. I am of the opinion that this is not primarily a matter of technological capabilities, not of human resources, but simply of organizing the relationship between personnel, military officials, and a manufacturer. The former collect and systematize information expressing their wishes, the latter study all this and proceeding not from economy (well, the well-known "women give birth to new ones"), but from combat effectiveness and preserving the life of a soldier, they come to the third and say "We have such problems, we want that would be so and so. " Well, the latter are developing modification options that are ultimately used. How about us? We have not surrendered such a system to any of the military officials, and some indicators there, even during the war in Angola, South African MRAPs were captured and definitely thoroughly investigated, then Afghan where mines and IEDs were blown up just wildly. Everyone knew about this wonderfully, the information was in their hands, the industry made it possible to organize the production of MRAPs, the personnel would scream with joy ... but the military officials did not need this, the manufacturer did not receive the order. So they continued to ride the usual Urals to which the maximum armor plate would be attached at the bottom of the cabin. We have come to this only now, when both Afghan and Chechnya have been killed. More than once or twice, situations have been described when a manufacturer developed small arms, sent them to the subdivisions on a proactive basis, from there official papers were sent to military officials and the manufacturer in which enthusiastic reviews and opinions about extreme necessity (of course from users), from military officials were written the manufacturer received papers in which it was written "these divisions do not need these products, their purchase is inexpedient." The curtain. The most widely used BMP of the RF Armed Forces is the BMP-2 with more than 4000 vehicles in service (and not in storage)! For comparison, the BMP-3 is only about 500. The BMP-2 has an anachronistic control system and weak armor, and so on. It is necessary to modernize, more than one modification option has been developed on an initiative basis, the personnel with all limbs for ... Military officials do not see the need and are not in a hurry to modify, mass modifications are still unknown. And so you can go on for a long time. On the same BTR-80, "Research Institute of Steel" developed a set of lattice screens with an efficiency of protection against PG-9S of at least 0.5, the probability of breaking armor when hit by RPG grenades is no more than 0.2, and so on ... Here everything is more rosy and on single armored personnel carriers they have ...

        With such matters, any industry can be, what is the use if its products are refused to be purchased? What is the use of it even if they don’t want to know about technology flaws? Here's how to fix this disdainful attitude, how to establish a relationship will immediately become better and more substantial.
  5. aviator1913
    aviator1913 April 12 2016 12: 19
    0
    Judging by the article, the striker in the modified version is protected from fire on board the RPG-7, plus the bottom has been improved to counter the VCA (I wonder what kind of power).

    Now the question is: Will our Boomerang be able to counteract the standard and most common PG-7В or Chinese counterparts that are very common among broads, etc. groups.

    And the second question: Like our Boomerang with a bottom (not V-shaped).

    And a rough comparison of wheeled infantry delivery and support data?
  6. demiurg
    demiurg April 12 2016 13: 17
    0
    That's what they can do overseas, is to praise their technology. BTR as BTR, equal among equals, but how much pathos. It destroys everything, it is protected from everything, it moves hundreds of kilometers in a couple of hours and immediately deploying orders they attack and sweep away everything.
    But the strikers didn’t really smell gunpowder. Partisan persecution is hardly a war.
    M-113 or Bradley fought, our 70-80 and 1/2/3 infantry fighting vehicles do not climb out of wars at all. They deserve a much more similar story.
    1. Artem25
      Artem25 April 13 2016 03: 14
      +1
      Quote: demiurg
      Partisan persecution is hardly a war.

      So your war in Afghanistan 79-89, in Chechnya, is it not a war? request
      1. the47th
        the47th April 14 2016 13: 13
        0
        The USA fought in Chechnya and Afghanistan in the 80s ?! What a surprise!
        1. would
          would April 14 2016 13: 56
          +1
          Actually, we fought there. And we drove partisans there. Without any sarcasm.
  7. An60
    An60 April 12 2016 14: 00
    +1
    "to increase the lethality of Stryker machines." - the medical term in relation to this machine sounds ambiguous ... yes
  8. ibirus
    ibirus April 12 2016 21: 11
    0
    Answer the question - what will be the cross-country ability of Strykera on weak-bearing soils with such a huge mass of 27 tons?
  9. Forever so
    Forever so April 12 2016 23: 23
    -2
    All weapons of the American army are sharpened under police operations. Crush the enemy with aircraft and artillery, and then arrive on the haamers and shoot solitary of the 16 wounded. This sticker fits into this American doctrine. After all, the main thing in the tank is that ?? that there would be a heated toilet, a mild stroke and engine noise would not be hammered by your favorite Mouzon.