Home » Land » Super Stryker Pitched for FCS Son

Super Stryker Pitched for FCS Son

By Greg Grant Friday, October 9th, 2009 2:55 pm
Posted in Land

At the Army’s annual conference this week in Washington, D.C., General Dynamics rolled out their “Wheeled Combat Vehicle Demonstrator” a clear effort to pitch the Army on a relatively off-the-shelf fighting vehicle that could meet the Army’s accelerated timeline for fielding the future Ground Combat Vehicle; the Army wants the GCV fielded in five to seven years. Of course the GD’s enhanced Stryker only makes sense if the Army goes for a wheeled solution for the GCV.

“We’re taking the Army leadership through, just to show them that we can do a lot of things with Stryker, it’s not a platform at the end of its growth cycle, it still has a lot of growth you can put on it and keep it in the Army’s performance envelope,” said Mike Peck, director of business development for GD Land Systems. The enhanced Stryker incorporates a bunch of lessons learned from the battlefield, with added systems that many observers (including me), have wondered why they weren’t there to begin with, Peck said. It can be built for future brigades or the various systems can be retrofitted to existing Strykers during reset.

The first thing you notice is the low-profile remote turret, provided by Kongsberg, that can carry either a 25mm or 30mm auto-cannon, along with a coaxial machine gun. Fitting a remote turret eliminates the need for a turret bustle, yet adds the firepower the Army has long wanted in the Stryker. The enhanced Stryker has a bigger engine than the original Stryker, providing 100 more horsepower, has added armor, wider tires, added sensors, video displays, better suspension and drive train, weighs around 30 tons and still fits in a C-130.

To better protect against IEDs, the vehicle is higher off the ground, has ballistic floor plates and specially designed blast protected seats that absorb the blast rather than transmitting it directly to the soldier’s spine. Along with other hull reinforcements, it almost gets to MRAP 2 mine blast protection, Peck said. The vehicle has camera pods mounted on the front, sides and rear providing full 360 video coverage to the troops inside and a Lockheed Martin built mast mounted sensor ball carrying a 3rd generation FLIR and other sensors.

The Army said it wants the GCV to carry a ten man squad. With the mast mounted sensor and accompanying work station, the enhanced Stryker can only carry six. But the mast could be pulled and four more seats installed, keeping the gun turret. Or, the mast mounted version could be used in reconnaissance units or as command or fire support vehicles in the companies working alongside the troop carrier version.

The break point in wheeled vehicles versus tracks is about 35 tons, Peck said, above that point tracks make more sense on off-road use. He said GD could add appliqué armor to protect against up to 30mm auto-cannon on the front of the vehicle and still keep it under the 35 ton limit.

GD is pitching the enhanced Stryker for other Army units, not just the Stryker brigades. Peck said the vehicle is a perfect fit for the reconnaissance units in the Heavy Brigade Combat Team; coincidentally, the Armor Center at Ft. Knox is looking at a Stryker variant for just that reconnaissance unit.

I asked Peck what he thought GD’s chances were in the GCV competition. The enhanced Stryker meets many of the requirements the Army is notionally looking for in the GCV, he said, and is mindful of the budget pressures the service faces, which might favor a more off the shelf solution. “The Army has a lot of decisions to make, their struggling with force mix, how many and what types of brigade, what should the brigades look like once they get out there, how much modernization and integration of new technology, it all costs a lot of money,” he said.

Share |

Join the Conversation

	Solomon October 9th, 2009 at 9:53 pm Do you have any other photos of the vehicle?
	Greg Grant October 9th, 2009 at 11:11 pm Solomon, I’m afraid the other photos I have are just as bad as this one. The lighting was terrible in the convention center basement, of course my lousy photo skills didn’t help matters. I’m trying to get a shot from GD and if I do I’ll post it. Greg
	TMB October 9th, 2009 at 11:35 pm If the enhanced Stryker has a lower profile than the Bradley and you can mount an LRAS on it, then it sounds like a good fit for the recon role.
	Solomon October 10th, 2009 at 2:57 am I’m not tracking with this. From his statements regarding the EFV, I thought for sure they were leaning toward a tracked vehicle. I just wonder if this vehicle would provide the necessary margin of growth necessary to meet their requirements. Also that wt figure given for diminishing returns seems high. This enhanced stryker will be heavier than a Bradley M3A3. That puts it firmly into the heavy APC class and wheels just don’t seem to cut it over about 25 tons. Add it being taller and I wonder about its true off road mobility. Regardless thanks Greg. Hope you can get those up, I’m really curious about its layout.
	Iowa61 October 10th, 2009 at 6:01 am One RPG. DOA…
	pfcem October 10th, 2009 at 6:38 am I don’t know what Mike Peck is smoking but the ‘break point’ where tracks make more sense on OFF-ROAD use is <5 tons. The ‘break point’ where tracks make more sense for most/all mixed operations (mix of on-road & off-road) is ~20 tons — ‘current’ Strykers are pushing that now with all the crap that needs to be placed on them to improve their survivability vs ‘current’ terrorist/insurgency forces much less an enemy with a REAL army. The 1st thing the Army needs to do before deciding what ‘son of FCS’ GCV is to be is to decide what ‘son of FCS’ is to be. Is it to be a rapid deployment force (meant mearly to ‘hold ground’ until heavier forces arrive &/or operate in regions where heavier forces can’t) that makes up a small % (<20%) of the future US force or is it to be more of an actual suppliment/replacement for current Abrams/Bradley that makes up a significant % (>20%) of the future US force. Is it to be THE primary force of the unit (like Abrams/Bradley) or rather than BEING the primary force, are to support infantry as THE primary force of the unit (like Stryker).
	Solomon October 10th, 2009 at 7:41 am Oooh great point pfcem! I just don’t know how all these vehicle programs are going to survive. The GCV, EFV, JLTV, M-ATV, Marine Personnel Carrier, Future Truck Replacement, that’s alot of vehicle programs going on at the same time. The DOD budget is out and the elephant in the room is the Air Force. They’ve taken a pounding for the last couple of years and the neglect can’t go on forever (and I’m an Air Force critic). They’re going to have to start replacing some of their legacy airplanes, you can bet that once these wars wind down the US won’t have the stomach for another land war for a while (unless ABSOLUTELY necessary…national survival necessary) so that means that the Navy and Air Force will replace the Army and Marines at the tip of the spear. Whatever they do procurement wise…the land forces better hurry!
	roland October 10th, 2009 at 8:11 am An idea: How about an AUV Tank armed with multple pin point accurate –long and short range surface to air missles and missile defense with radar that can detect incoming enemy missiles and live enemy combatant.
	Trophy October 10th, 2009 at 11:24 am Current doctrine emphasizes air superiority, which negates the necessity of surface to air missiles being mounted on our vehicles. Though much is uncertain about our ability to guarantee air superiority in the coming years. Equipping SAM’s on our vehicles may become necessary, as the need for it may soon become reality.
	Trophy October 10th, 2009 at 11:47 am However, long-ranged SAM’s would not be feasible for two reasons. 1) The missiles would be too large and 2) a radar powerful enough to guide the missiles would be too large and require more power than the vehicle would be able to provide. At the moment, such a vehicle would be left with the Stinger for air defense. Which is only really effective against helicopters, which in this application it still wouldn’t be very effective.
	HungrySeagull October 10th, 2009 at 4:02 pm I honestly believe it will become reality. We cannot continue to fight wars assured of complete air superiority. I recall a document from years ago that dared say that direct fire against enemy tanks by main battle tanks are obsolete. In place of that was presented a tank without a turret but carrying a vertical box of missiles designed similar to the Hellfire that might engage enemy tanks at greater ranges and spotted by other friendly forces through some kind of network. We will always need a gun. We need to defend against at least a RPG because Humans will get into close against a armored vehicle and take it out, or die trying. One thing they did not mention other than fitting into a C130, is European Clearances. You need to be able to fit the Vehicle onto Euro Trains, through euro tunnels and other restrictive places. Personally I prefer Abrams and Bradley. Plenty of firepower, armor and backup. The Striker and the Wheeled Marine Armored vehicles are very good for what they do. I’m pretty impressed with them. At the end of the day you need to have a vehicle that is Easy fix, able to be self sufficient for a while, able to function in situations not planned for and be useful. But above all things, it must be able to absorb enemy fire and survive or at least provide survive to the Infantry inside. If I was a enemy force, I fear recon most. I dont wish to be spotted while making movement to contact on my terms. Because I may not enjoy the networks that are developing with US forces to spot me, locate and fix vehicles and call in strikes from just about anything in range up to and including Navy ships thousand miles away.
	roland October 10th, 2009 at 4:12 pm This type of equipment/ Tank are already invented by the Russians and the Chinese and they call it Tor M1 9M330 Air Defense System. But ourscan be desined better than that. I hope we develope somthing like this, to add to our missile defense in the near future.
	DStarseer October 10th, 2009 at 1:10 pm Quoting Trophy, “At the moment, such a vehicle would be left with the Stinger for air defense. Which is only really effective against helicopters, which in this application it still wouldn’t be very effective.…”, there has been work in the US to create land-based AMRAAM systems, even recently the announcement of a submarine-launched AIM-9 in the works (or at least to prove it can be done). My thought is, if we’re in dire need for land-based AA vehicles that can also act in the C-RAM type roles if necessary, what about a land-based RAM (RIM-116) missile vehicle? Should have more reach and punch than any Stinger-based system, and the missiles themselves aren’t really any bigger than the AIM-9 family, that was at one time used in the Chaparral system (something similar could resurface with AIM-9X’s which are vastly superior to those older AIM-9s). Figure we’ve effectively transitioned Phalanx CIWS into a land-based C-RAM system (called Centurion), why not go for the added range and warhead of the RAM missiles? It almost suggests a dual-application missile like the ADATS, which can engage aircraft and vehicles. Shouldn’t take much to further it into adding C-RAM capability also (the ADATS missile body is large enough). Figure also that the Centurion system is really only software-modified for land use (plus HE ammo instead of APDS), so the 11-round SeaRAM that uses the same “R2D2” Phalanx radars could theoretically work in a land-based configuration with the proper software for the missile. It might even be possible for the same platform to almost simultaneously take out both the ATGM fired at it and the helicopter or aircraft that launched the missile.
	roland October 10th, 2009 at 5:15 pm Long and short range missiles can also be designed to be small and can fit on an UAV Tank, and will depend on its propolsion. With todays technology long range missiles need not to be large or big and can be designed to be small and will depend on what kind of propulsion the missile was using . Propulsion such as with electric rocket engine and nuclear electric engine can be adopted on each missiles to give the trust it need. See: http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/mpd.htm ; http://www.braeunig.us/space/propuls.htm; http://www.aerospaceguide.net/rocketengines/elect...
	Byron Skinner October 10th, 2009 at 3:25 pm Good Afternoon Folks, Gee GD wants in on the gravy train called Stryker, more for less money, of course they now are now in competition with Government Motors. This could become like Boeing and NG are real cat fight. Another story that happened yesterday, and to change this well worn subject of FCS’s, is the sale by GM of the Humvee brand to the Chinese “firm” of Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Company os Sichuan Provence China. It’s no secret that Tengzhong is operated by the PLA. Like with the sale of IBM to Levono a couple of years ago there is a great deal of dual use and purely military technology being sent to the PLA, considering the much discounted $150 million price for the brand and everything else Hummer it’s one heck of a bargain. Beside the obvious here there is a back story and that is the Purchase of India last year from Ford of Jaguar and Land Rover. Land Rover being a UK military staple for decades gave India access to a stable and well proven light combat military platform, something China was lacking, the Chinese admiration of the U.S. Humvee in the urban fighting in Iraq is well know. The inability of China to build a platform like the Humvee was one of the issues in a recent paper on modernization of the PLA. When GM first floated the sale of Humvee besides China there was Canada (Bombardier) and Embraer of Brazil. The asking price was if I recall about $2.5 billion, Embarer passed as did Bombardier when the Canadian Government took a 10% equity share of GM in the bankruptcy. ALLONS, Byron Skinner The acquisition of Humvee will fill a gaping hole in Chinese Military platforms and will have a considerable impact on the PLA ground doctrine and with the advantage of sales in the U.S. and domestic to the civilian market that will turn a profit to the PLA.
	peckmi October 10th, 2009 at 9:02 pm The vehicle had an integrated 15 foot mast mounted 3rd Gen FLIR sensor. Twice the distance and clairty of the LRAS. L-M and Raytheon provided it.
	FormerDirtDart October 10th, 2009 at 9:15 pm The CHinese acquired HUMMER brand from GM, not the HMMWV from AM General. They are two completely different companies. AM General Built the Hummer H1’s for GM to sell, but never gave them manufacturer rights. The only manufacturer rights the Chinese aqcuired with the HUMMER brand was to the H2 & H3. Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, and Dongfeng Motors have been building copies of the HMMWV since 2002 & 2003 respectively. Both varients are believed to be reverse engineered copies of the civilized HUMMER H1 and some assistance from AM General, and are assembled with a portion of parts bought from US companies
	Byron Skinner October 11th, 2009 at 3:48 pm Good Afternoon FormerDirtDart, I don’t see much disagreement here. I agree the military variants frame, drive train and body were made by AM General, then the vehicle was sent around the country for up armor, glass and finally to Army/Marines Depots for the the electronics and weapons. The Chinese have had problems with reverse engineering. Frankly they have yet to have a success where a domestic manufacturing could copy a foreign product successfully, be it military aircraft, (Russia, France and Israel), armor (Russia, France and Israel) or ship building, (Germany, France, US, Japan etc.). The Chinese have been students of the U.S. and Iraqi war and have been strongly impressed with the Humvee as a light urban combat fighting infantry carrier. I believe that the acquisition of the Hummer line and the two civilian models with greatly increase the ability of the Chines to produce the military vehicle they are looking for. The irony is that that vehicle may be produced in Louisiana and Mississippi where 3K jobs are on the line. When the lease agreement is up in 2012 and the decision will have to be made either for the Chinese to buy the assembly lines dismantle them and ship them and reconstruct them in China or keep the American lines going where during normal time their is a market for 30-50K Humvees and do Chinese domestic production in the United States. As far as a Chinese Humvee being a military threat to the U.S., it is very unlikely. The PLA’s biggest concern as show by their las war games, which showed mobilization of the PLA with in China is domestic terrorist and open rebellion by minorities mostly in the southwestern part of the country. For this type of operation the armored/armed Humvee would be a preferable weapons platform to their IFV’s and Type-99 tanks. The comparative low cost of the Humvee would make possible larger production runs and a combat vehicle to the Peoples Militia and the PAP. Both of these revamped commands will have a larger roll in future domestic paramilitary activity involving the civilian population. No more tank and students in large public squares for the international media to martyrize . ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	Daniel October 12th, 2009 at 12:09 am just admit you did not know the difference between hummer and hmmwv
	Solomon October 12th, 2009 at 9:59 am The Chinese are very good at copying foreign equipment. As a matter of fact they already have a HMMWV clone. http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/?p=2444 and for info on the Chinese versions of the BMP, BMD and other equipment check this site out… http://www.sinodefence.com/army/weapon.asp
	Jeff October 12th, 2009 at 12:25 pm If china built any sort of a military vehicle based on reverse engineering the H2 or H3, they’d be hurting themselves big time. Both are reknowned for having all the short comings of the HMMWV with out any of the benefits. They have poor reliability and fuel economy, they can’t carry as much and the narrower wheel base and high center of gravity makes them ill suited for the off road driving expected of the HMMWV. If you did want to speculate, China may simply have bought the Hummer brand to expand their ability to purchase higher quality parts that they still can’t reverse engineer.
	Mwiselog October 12th, 2009 at 1:58 pm I was at the 2000 Demonstration at Ft Knox, Ky and they would not put the Stryker in the C130 trial fitup. Now this enhanced, heavier and higher vehicle “fits in a C130”?
	Jeff October 12th, 2009 at 4:09 pm The Stryker to fit into a C130 must be locked down into it stowage configuration. That limits its ability to have any exterior fitting or mounting and certain types of equipment packages. I don’t think height is much of an issue. There is plenty of head room in a C130. I think weight is the real killer for getting on plane. Fortunately enough for the Stryker, the GCV doesn’t yet have that requirement. http://www.generaldynamics.com/prod_serv/combat/S... From a money stand point purchasing the “Super Stryker ” because the commonality with the normal Stryker should cut down on maintainance costs and parts purchasing. That savings could allow the army to have that many more vehicles at the same cost.
	Curt October 13th, 2009 at 3:12 am Byron, You need to keep up more on who ownes and produces what. “Gee GD wants in on the gravy train called Stryker, more for less money, of course they now are now in competition with Government Motors. This could become like Boeing and NG are real cat fight.” General Dynamics purchased GM Defense several years ago. It is now General Dynamics Land Systems — Canada. They are already on the “gravy train”. Also concerning the Hummer sale, if I remember right, the Chinese got the Hummer Brand, the dealer network, the designs for the H2 and H3 Hummer, and the right to buy H2s and H3s and parts for both vehicles from GM for something like 5 years. Hard to develop a conspiracy theory from that.
	Tom October 13th, 2009 at 11:47 am Hmmmm.… This thing is bigger and MUCH heavier than any of the current Stryker variants. The current Stryker variants just barely “fit” in a C130 (in some cases making a total mockery of the requirement to be C130-transportable in a combat capable configuration). But GDLS says this thing will “fit” in a C130 I want some of whatever drugs these guys are taking.
	Macman October 13th, 2009 at 12:47 pm Put an autoloader in it and run it!
	TMB October 13th, 2009 at 1:56 pm I can’t remember the numbers, but a fully loaded Stryker (torn down for shipping) will technically fit in a C-130. The catch is it cuts the flying time of the C-130 by more than half. This super Stryker will probably fit in C-130 like GD says, but will probably only be able to fly from Reagan to Andrews before crying uncle.
	TanksAway October 13th, 2009 at 5:04 pm C-130J takes 40,500 lbs. According to GD’s specs (AUSA handout) without the mast sensor it weights 40,500 lbs.
	Solomon October 14th, 2009 at 3:52 am TanksAway…is their anyway you can post the AUSA handout online???
	Colonial-Marine October 14th, 2009 at 5:26 am Again first the Army had to decide if they should go for high weight and high protection design or if they should go the medium route. Once an AFV is above some 40 tons in weight you can only carry one in a C-17A, and you might as well make it heavy enough (45–60 tons) to provide a high degree of all around armor protection. As such it would be lighter than the Abrams (M1A2 is 69 tons), but not by enough to have a large impact on strategic mobility. A medium weight family of vehicles would have a max weight of 41 tons, enabling two to be carried by a C-17A. This means greater strategic mobility and an easier system to maintain and supply from a logistics point of view. However it won’t have the same degree or armor protection that extra weight can provide. I presume light options are off the table after the cancellation of the Future Combat Systems MGV program, which was a family of AFVs weighing roughly 25 tons. While it would be great if the Army could afford a few divisions equipped with such rapidly deployable AFVs, in the current political climate they cannot. And while not as capable as what MGV promised, the Stryker fills the same role. While this “Super Stryker” looks like a fine vehicle. I don’t believe it is the right solution, especially if the Army wants to use the GCV chassis as a basis for a number of different designs. Even if you could fit it in a C-130, you wouldn’t be able to take off anyway. Hopefully some of the improvements will find their way into the regular Stryker fleet, without such a large weight increase.