GD develops tracked Stryker

GD develops tracked Stryker

General Dynamics Land Systems was the talk of AUSA 2012 with its new tracked version of the venerable Stryker wheeled vehicle.

GD built the tracked Stryker concept vehicle is as a potential offering for the Army’s upcoming competition to replace the Vietnam-War era M113 armored personnel carrier.

“One of the major benefits of this platform is it maintains the Stryker chassis Double-V Hull protection,” said Garth Lewis, Stryker Program Manager for General Dynamics Land Systems, at the Association of the United States Army’s 2012 meeting and exposition. “This vehicle will go everywhere an Abrams tank goes, everywhere a Bradley goes, and you will have the top speed to keep up with those platforms.”


Seeing a Stryker outfitted with tracks is a little ironic since many in the armor community feared that the 1999 launch of the wheeled-vehicle concept would lead to the end of tracked vehicles. Then Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki fueled that fear when he announced his vision of a medium-weight force and alluded to a possible future of an “all-wheeled force.”

The Stryker-equipped combat brigades that emerged from Shinseki’s vision have proven to be a game-changing asset for ground commanders. In Iraq, Stryker units quickly became known as the senior ground commander’s 911 force because of their ability to cover great distances quickly and deliver highly-mobile combat power on short-notice.

But lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan have also shown that wheeled vehicles have their limitations, especially in loose or muddy terrain.

That’s why the Army is planning to consider both wheels and tracks in an upcoming Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle program.

“I will tell you I’m not married to a track solution. … If you can come in with a wheeled variant that can meet our mobility force protection levels, bring it. If it’s a hover craft, it’s whatever you got, a reindeer pulled sled, I don’t care, as long as it meets the requirement, the target cost, the target affordability and all the capabilities we’re looking for,” said Col. Bill Sheehy, Heavy Brigade Combat Team program manager.

Right now, the Army has only released a draft performance-specification document, said industry officials who are awaiting a draft request for proposal.

GD’s concept vehicle displayed at AUSA is completely drivable, but the next-generation vehicle will maintain the Double-V hull and feature a wider platform for better stability. It will have six road wheels on each side and will have a wider track, Lewis said. It will also have a larger power plant offering up to 700 horsepower.

“At the end of the day, what that does for you is it gives you the survivability of the underbelly of a Stryker DVH and it also gives the mobility of an Abrams,” he said.

GD officials estimate that the tracked Stryker will have “greater than 60 percent commonality” with the wheeled version, an asset that will make it a strong candidate for the AMPV program, said David Dopp, program manager of the Stryker Brigade Combat Team.
Sheehy agrees, but it will still have to prove itself against all other contenders.

“I think what GD is doing is outstanding trying to push the envelope and innovate with what we have; I welcome it,” he said. “As far as the question about whether it will cut the mustard [for the AMPV program], I don’t know.”

Join the Conversation

Unfortunately, adding tracks pushed the Stryker TR weight up to 70,000 lbs. That comes in around an M2 Bradley, with turret and weapons. I would assume a turret-less Bradley GPV comes in under that weight, and shares commonality with the current armor fleet.

Stryker TR weight info in 12th paragraph: http://​www​.nationaldefensemagazine​.org/​b​l​o​g​/​l​i​sts

Wow is all I can say. I was not a tanker or in armor. I consider myself well read on military technology also, but I never heard of this. What a great concept. I hope we hear some opinions from people with actual experience in armor.

Thanks

I think its a great idea they will share some parts and training with current Strikers so BIG money saver. Like its low profile and has nice CROWs system. Overall I do not see this coming into service 2 years from now with budget cuts maybe in 2017–20 sometime. Id say for now get used to your M-113.

Next thing you know, UD’s response will be to produce a wheeled Bradley and try to replace the Stryker.

What a comedy show.

I wonder how much giant MATTRACKS would’ve cost…

Just another M113 and a waste of tax dollors.

I used to be a 113 driver and think this is a great idea, I drove jeeps and now drive the PLS for the guard, a track vehicle will go anywhere.

Tbh, these ARE improvements compared to the M113. Not quite sure compared to a Bradley though.

Fuel efficiency?

This is just the Swedish SEP concept which was abandoned a couple of years ago.

blight_ commented:
Next thing you know, UD’s response will be to produce a wheeled Bradley and try to replace the Stryker.

Indian’s have a wheeled BMP-2, and remember the gun trucks with M113’s on the flatbed from Vietnam.

I’m getting ready for the wheeled M2, haha.

M-1 I mean

“Gun trucks with M-113s on the flatbed”? Never heard of such a critter. Some Trans units, on their own,
reconfigured 5 ton trucks, welded steel plate boxes to the bed, layered the floor with sandbags and had
hard mounts for 4–5 M-60s and M-2 50 cals. Some even placed a Quad 50 (when available) dismounted from it’s trailer, in back. These were all “Home-made” vehicles to provide convoy security. “Necessity is/was the mother of invention.”

Track vehicles have better All-Terrian abilities that WHeeled vehicles have some difficulties remiding. Its good have some tracked vehicles in the inventory. Wheeled is more for flat lands or urban situations. Too bad weight problem may push Striker out from competition. I’m not sure why a lite-weight version IFV can’t be made with tracks but not too heavy. Unless armor becomes stronger and lighter, there going always be weight problem.

Good points, although it should be noted that a M113 replacement based on a turretless M2 Bradley would also have the same type of cost savings. Either way offers big savings over a all new solution.

Even at 35 tons (w/ full combat load) I see some significant advantages over a Brad. 1) The double V-hull provides protection the flat-bottom Brad doesn’t. 2) 700HP power plant versus a 500 or 550HP (been a while since I was around the M2) would suggest quicker acceleration, top speed, and/or towing capacity. 3) Brad can only carry 6 crunchies + 3 crew if memory serves versus 9 dedicated dismounts for a Stryker (someone fact check me on that one because I was an M1A2 SEP tanker not mech inf). Disadvantage I see is far less firepower. A .50 versus the 25MM Bushmaster + 7.62 Coaxial + TOW launcher. However, by widening the tracks as suggested would allow for a version of this to carry a 105MM or possibly a 120MM al a the MGS version of the Stryker to give the mobile force some big hitting firepower. If this is just a possible replacement for the M113 and other versions like the M1064 and FST-V then I would say this offering from GD represents a generational leap.

BAE is offering a Turret-less Bradley for the AMPV, so the Stryker+TR has no personnel capacity advantage.
The –A2 Bradleys have 600hp power plants, and without a turret would probably weigh less than the Stryker+TR, and might actually offer a fuel saving over a 700hp powered Stryker.
The Bradley is a proven system, and the AMPV offering shares commonality with the current fleet, and the M-109 PIM.
The Stryker+TR barely exists, a DVH version hasn’t been built yet. So, there’s no telling what that thing will weigh.

The army tested a Bradley chassis for replacement for the M113/M577 Medical vehicles and did not want to spend the money. So we use ancient M113 series vehicles that can’t keep up w/ Brads and Abrams! Now Stryker reinvents their over weight vehicle that should have stayed an LAV-25 for commonality! There is no need to Air trans this very heavy tracked Stryker when the wheels can go. The Abrams can be airlifted so adding armour to a light force is fiesable. Please replace the M113 series! They are old, slow and have very limited protection. They should have replaced it with the Brad variant or keep the wheeled stryker ambulance for the entire aramy! Forget about new dress uniforms and the Pacific Front! Get new vehicles that work!!

Good point on the commanality with M109 and I give points to the Bradley as a proven system. The M2’s kept up fine with the M1’s and with the larger 600HP (thanks for the correction there) they were actually pretty nimble compared to my pig. I do remember the engineers, mortars and medics were supposed to get the turret-less Bradley back around 2000ish but that never happened. Did anyone ever field those? So when we (4ID) hit Iraq in 2003 the M113’s were getting left in the dust or getting towed behind an M88. I like the Bradley platform but for a M113 replacement why think about a 1970’s hull design when you can have something designed for the modern battlefied we find ourselves fighting on? You are right to call out the weight question. Without a full list of specs and capabilities it’s hard to make any kind of intelligent argument for or against. It does look pretty cool though.

“why think about a 1970’s hull design when you can have something designed for the modern battlefied we find ourselves fighting on”

We’ve tried. FCS? Trashed. GCV? Trashed.

Light-weight armor becomes a problem in the sense that it becomes very expensive and prices the vehicle out of the competition. The tradeoffs otherwise are between mobility, firepower, and protection.

Just get a good armored APC. No super tank. No IFV. Just a APC.

M-113 is not an APC. It is a utility vehicle with some armor protection. The Bradley if the ABCT’s infantry carrier. So, you are looking to replace vehicles that are used by the 1st Sgt, medics, mortar crews, and C2 vehicles. They do not routinely perticipate in the assault formation. You could very easily use the DVH Stryker that is currently in production and requires no development or testing like either the Bradley — T, or this new concept vehicle. You could replace the entire M-113 fleet in the ABCT before the big buy of GCV that begins in 2018.

I believe MLRS and some logistics vehicles are based on the M2/M# chassis too.

Just to get this straight before the M1 Abrams and the M2/3 Bradely, The M113 APC was just that a APC that worked with the M60 Tanks. And the first versions could run at 40 to 50 mph. Ford 302 engine no less.

When they tested the M2 chassis it worked as advertised but as said before did not want to spend the money. Here we are again going the same route and will the money be spent in a age of dwindling budgets?

Again the answer will be know and the Combat Arms will suffer.

The FCS went far beyond replacing the M113 and was canned because of the ever-expanding scope which included replacing the M1 and M2 fleet altogether. GVC hasn’t been trashed by the way. When I talk about a modern hull design I’m specifically referring to a V-shaped design with features making it more survivable to the threats we face on the asymmetric battlefields of the 21st century. The compressed aluminum, flat-bottomed, square shaped M113 isn’t capable of taking an IED or EFP hit. Trust me on this one, the log trains, including M113’s, LHS’s, PLS, 5-Tons, Fuelers, and HMMWV’s were woefully under-prepared to support the combat power in Iraq. That’s why you see armored everything now.

Considering the losses in Sheridans in RVN you’d think tank design would also include mine protection, but the Bradley and M1 weren’t designed with explicit IED/EFP protection in mind either.

I imagine the Army wanted to nail all the birds with one giant boulder and pushed/pushes for a new common design that makes the entire force more ready for mine/EFP warfare than the legacy force.

I find it highly unlikely that adding tracks to a Stryker DOUBLES it’s weight (16–19 to 35 tons????). Calling bullshit on that one.

Another thing to consider i suppose is that there may not be a do-all-multiple purpose armored vehicle. You can have jack of all-trades, but it not going do well in every situation. Maybe they would save money by maintaining seperate mission/environment type vehicles as APCs. I know it sounds like it would be alot money, but in the long run maybe it wouldn’t. MRAT is vehicle for tough desert where insurrents popping off RPGs and land mines. While Striker would be used quick rapid deployment situations and lite urban conficts. While a successort for M113 would be used for more traditional warfare situations. Seems like when ever there been conflict, new vehicles emerge to handle it instead of making due what’s been in the inventory.

I like this idea for one big reason.… Cross platform parts and weapons. The tracked version and wheeled version can share much the same across each platform saving money and resupply issues. In the field a wheeled or tracked version of the Stryker can share parts so if one is destroyed or damaged beyond repair maybes it parts can repair another one that is also down regardless of its chassis.

Sounds good due to the comonality withb the wheeled stryker. I personaly like the Stryker more than the Bradley A3. However with just getting the new A3 a year ago in deploying units I’m not sure if putting tracks on a stryker would benefit the army compared to getting a whole new machine. Another problem with this is that would this new machine make the bradley obsolete and if so how long would it take for the new stryker to trickle down with the current problems with congress? My last issue is that tracked vehicles aren’t as efficient in afghanistan due to terrain and the hard ground. Anyways it should be interesting to see how this goes, no doubt well be able to see some demo vids of it.

I’m surprised nobody has mentioned the possibility of a *drone*…why need a 3-man crew, if 1 guy back at base with a joystick would work?…
Or, a full-size, crewed command vehicle, with a bunch of little full-tracked & wheeled drones…
Technology seems to change faster than Pentagon brains can adapt…

GD may be on to something here. The Stryker is a good vehicle for the road with the wheels allowing better fuel economy, but will have trouble in rough terrain. A tracked Stryker would be about like a Bradley without the TOW missile launcher. The missle launcher could be fitted later, if necessary.

The tracks will make the stryker more stable, but it will not add weight to it. But I always thought GD was gonna use the M1 chassis for the replacement of the APC. I got to admit, the stryker chassis is not a bad idea.

Hopefully the designer was thinking ahead, and did double the weight when adding tracks. Another bonus of using tracks instead of wheels (not mentioned in the article) is that tracks can support more weight. Since tracked vehicles aren’t as maneuverable as wheeled vehicles, hopefully some of the increased weight is due to added armor.

I remember throwing and changing a track on a M113 in Yakima Firing center down at the bottom of a ravine.. What a bitch. I can’t imagine changing one of these.

VERSATILITY !
Each type of Stryker has its advantages and drawbacks. A common hull design, engine, drive train and modular systems should really help to increase the number of qualified crews for BOTH designs and keep the overhead cost down developing a brand new and completely different vehicle.
Nice to see some common sense at the JCS level on this one !

Funny how we’ve forgotten that the Stryker was originally meant to be delivered by C-130 over a considerable distance and be ready to fight upon rolling off.

Does this mean that the next variant of the wheeled Stryker will finally break the 30 ton mark as well?

It’s likely that GD made some changes to the platform that they want to retrofit into legacy Strykers…

They don’t share common engines.

I used to drive M113s and M577, ITV. These vehicle where good and just need upgrading. They are not front-line vehicles. The Australians are making them longer and adding an extra wheel. While there adding return rollers would help with throwing the tracks as they are known to do. Bigger engines that are more fuel efficient and 6 speed transmissions. Add V under hull and Israeli armor, put whatever turret or weapons system you need on top and you have a new vehicle based off already available chassis. The DOD has thousands of them just sitting in storage. No reason this would not work better and be more cost effective. But of course it’s the DOD and even though they need to start saving money why bother. Look at the new Marine Corp and their spend-thrift ways, $50 slings and Growlers. Look at the thousands of Hmmwvs that can be refurbished and are sitting in pieces waiting for a rebuild. The equipment and kits are out there to rebuild these vehicles into useful ones, no need to spend billions of dollars on R&D to add to the cost of new vehicles.

Mike Sparks rumorland suggests that a re-engined M113 without governors has decent…but I’m betting when fully loaded such isn’t true.

Re-engining will cost X. “Add V under hull” would require a fair amount of redesign and rebuild. And while there was a mine kit issued during the Vietnam years, it will probably never be as good as a purpose-build hull. A refit of M113s to put in a proper rehull would eat all of your projected “savings”…

At a cost of $700 a gallon for our fuel in Afghanistan why not consider the old idea of mules?

I guess there are still somethings a tracked vehicle can do that a wheeled version can’t. What makes it even better is that the military just modified an existing platform instead of spending millions developing something brand new.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.