Meet the US Army's new SHORAD vehicle

Boeing's turret was the most publicized, but not the only contender.

Your opinion is duly noted.

the purpose of the stryker was to domestically produce a cheap efficient vehicle
this looks like the m3 lee of the 21st century

I thought Hellfires were Air/Ground to Ground?

Is this vehicle to be used as SHORAD and anti-tank? I thought they had the Stryker TOW for that

Except it's not an opinion. The SBCT is just a shittier version of the FCS, which was a bad Idea to begin with. It's overkill against sandniggers and useless against anyone with more than a T-55. It takes as long to deploy as an ABCT while not providing any significant firepower of note.

The Hellfire's been adopted for G2A work, like the Sidewinder/Chaparral situation.

So they took existing missiles and stuck them on a more expensive platform. Why?

Attached: AN-TWQ-1.jpg (3000x1972, 3.74M)

Longbow Hellfires use a radar seeker.

Your opnion is just an opinion.

>the purpose of the Stryker was "random bullshit I made up"

>DURR STRYKER GUD ARMEE NEEDS TO BEE FAST AND LITE

Attached: DSvU-odUQAAbXER.jpg_large.jpg (645x729, 33K)

>Is this vehicle to be used as SHORAD and anti-tank? I thought they had the Stryker TOW for that

Being able to support ground units when there is nothing flying to shoot at is a bonus.

These will be going to more than just SBCT, and in SBCT there is only ~9 TOW Strykers in the weapons troop.

>I will use greentext and a brainlet meme to hide my idiocy

If we ever have to go to war with a country with even a decent standing army and we use the SBCT, retards like yourself are going to get our troops killed. Not to mention that trying to use these medium rapid deployment meme brigades cost us important shit like the crusader.

>3, ENGAGE THAT, APC, 200 METRES
>ROGER

Attached: Arma.jpg (1200x675, 956K)

>Strykers caused Crusader artillery to be cancelled

Thank you for proving my point more thoroughly than I ever could.

>infantry are not a key asset in warfare between peers

Becuase the humvee is a coffin and needs to be retired.

>>Strykers caused Crusader artillery to be cancelled
This is a 100 percent objectively correct assessment. Trying to make the army lighter is why it was cancelled, and the stryker is how they did it.
>infantry are not a key asset in warfare between peers
I never said that, though they are less important than submarines and fighters. Putting them in underarmored shitboxes that can't take or dish out damage for the sake of being C130 deployable is an incredibly stupid decision.

A short history of the u army and fighting with aircraft from the ground

>hey we need an aa weapons platform that can actually hit jets
>lets build the most advanced possible missile system with cuttung edge radar to defend the troops
>what shall we mount it on?
>............... the m113?
>oh wait this is super fucking expensive and barley works, we need something more simple

Attached: MIM-46_Mauler.jpg (690x536, 118K)

>Hydra 70

Attached: 0e3.png (379x214, 18K)

Why americans are so obsessed with Making Vehicle Names From Acronyms?

>okay this time wee need simple
>lets just get one of our static anti air guns and make it mobile, what shall we mount it on?
>................. the m113?
>oh wait it turns out other countries have worked out how to use jet engines, we need something more advanced

Attached: M163_VADS.JPEG.jpg (1920x1271, 457K)

>alright, lets just get some of those sweet navy air to air missiles and make them ground mobile
>what shall we mount them on?
>....................................... the m113?
>oh wait this shit takes ages to lock on and reload to the point of being ineffective against helicopters, also its fragile as fuck, we need something more rugged

Attached: MIM-72_Chaparral_07.jpg (701x545, 81K)

>This is a 100 percent objectively correct assessment.

The Crusader was cancelled because the Army couldn't justify buying a new SPH for the sandbox, if low weight was the reason then the Crusaders development would never have started.

>okay lets do what everyone with a brain is doing and combine some proper guns with a modern aa radar
>what shall we mount it on?
>................................................. the m11- i mena, the m60!
>okay cool this works
>but wait! This shit is too cheap we wont make any money selling it, and the airforce doesnt like the idea of the army being able to defend itself from the air, and this thing doesnt even have any missiles

Attached: M247_DIVAD.png (989x772, 88K)

>okay so how about a missile system that can engage planes and tanks and helicopters at the same time
>what shall we mount it on?
>.......................................................
>.......................................................
>...................... the m113?
>okay cool this shit works the canadians are even already using it
>but wait, the cold war is over, and none of our enemies besides the soviet union use planes or helicopters whatsoever, lets scrap this useless shit

Attached: 585px-ADATS_2008.jpg (585x600, 96K)

The sad thing about the York was that it actually worked but yellow journalism and Reformers managed to effectivily spread lies about its performance.

Guy behind died from the exhaust?

Lol looks like it. Its happened to me before in that game.

>oh shit, it turns out people other than the soviets know how to use aircraft
>and all our aaa is over 30 years old
>we need a new vehicle now
>...............................
>can we just slap some stingers on a bradley?

Attached: CSA-2005-10-03-101023.jpg (1156x887, 503K)

>oh shit, it turns out stingers bolted to a vehicle are no more effective than stingers being carried around by troops
>we need a real aa solution, at the moment we might aswell just be using a truck full of stingers
>i understand your point precisley
>lets fill a humvee truck full of stingers!

Attached: Avenger_missile.jpg (1920x1262, 409K)

wats next

If competence is involves, NASAMS.

>>okay cool this works
It also appears to be the only one not actually built, meaning it had no chance to show its flaws to anyone but a few engineers staring at the specs and wondering how the fuck they'd ever get that shit to do what it's supposed to.

Sparky? Is that you?

You don't have to be Sparky to think the Stryker is a piece of garbage. The 8X8 APC has it's place- It's a good vehicle for certain applications and some of them, like the Boxer, are quite good. Organising an entire combat formation around the thing was an absolutely horrid idea, as was procuring the Stryker, which is hated by the troops who use it for good reason.

the dunning kruger is off the charts

>I can't actually argue against any of the points he made so I'll make a snarky bitch response instead

Other user here, I'm laughing at how upset you are about the utility of a formation you do not understand.

>Other user here
I-I'm someone else!
>I'm laughing at how upset you are about the utility of a formation you do not understand
It has no utility. It isn't mobile like a light infantry unit and it can't go into heavy combat like an ABCT can.

I bet you aren't even aware of what event, and the experience gained from it, prompted the Army to adopt Strykers.

somehow i felt this had to be done

Attached: a brief history of US army and AA assets.png (1248x1520, 307K)

But I am someone else.

>It has no utility. It isn't mobile like a light infantry unit and it can't go into heavy combat like an ABCT can.
It's more tactically mobile than light infantry by far and is more strategically mobile than ABCTs by far. It's only really marginally less strategically mobile than IBCTs, because IBCTs have a host of light vehicles they need anyways. As far as combat goes, the only task it cannot perform adequately at is attacking into enemy armor without attached tanks of their own. They can defend against enemy armor quite ably. You'll find that IBCTs are in a much worse position than SBCTs.

Wirbelwind was the coolest SPAA vehicle in history. Change my mind.

Attached: Wirbelwind.jpg (470x350, 18K)

Why? It's not even correct.

Which is why MPF is such a high priority for IBCT, a TOW on a Humvee or Maxxpro isn't much.

feel free to add more then champ, no one is stoping you

*blocks your path*

Attached: 800px-Buk-M1-2_9A310M1-2.jpg (800x890, 135K)

Task force hawk in Bosnia and the time it took to deploy for Desert Shield.
>But I am someone else.
Maybe you are, since you actually responded.
>It's more tactically mobile than light infantry by far
Sure
>and is more strategically mobile than ABCTs by far
Not really. The baseline stryker almost doesn't fit in the C-130, while the MGS doesn't at all. You'd have to use a C-17 to carry the rest of that shit.
>because IBCTs have a host of light vehicles they need anyways
Mostly Trucks and humvees, although you may turn out to be correct if they get the M8 like the army wants.
>As far as combat goes, the only task it cannot perform adequately at is attacking into enemy armor without attached tanks of their own. They can defend against enemy armor quite ably
I doubt that. They have a few TOW launchers and obsolete 105mm guns, to say nothing of artillery, which is towed. They couldn't stand up a serious attack by a near-peer force.

I'm getting Bradley vibes from this thing. Starting to kinda look like one too but longer.

MPF is only one part of it. Honestly, the big thing is the JLTV. That brings some tactical mobility back to the IBCT. Then you need to make sure the IBCT can keep on moving to its objective without getting bogged down by light screening forces. It takes a long time to deploy light infantry from battle taxis, assault the enemy, destroy them, and then remount and reform back up in their light vehicles, they need some heavier firepower that can easily defeat said forces. MPF is one part of it, the other is a new scout vehicle with decent armaments. It appears like they're going to go with an interim solution of a JLTV with probably a 30mm for now, but we'll find out what the result is in a year or so.

Was that supposed to be a Pantsir?

>Not really. The baseline stryker almost doesn't fit in the C-130, while the MGS doesn't at all. You'd have to use a C-17 to carry the rest of that shit.

Ignoring how many you can put in a C-17, or if you simply choose to drive to your destination.

MVNFAs are an easy, efficient way to name and remember various kinds of vehicles in the US military, and I would thank you to keep that in mind.

>The baseline stryker almost doesn't fit in the C-130, while the MGS doesn't at all. You'd have to use a C-17 to carry the rest of that shit.
That's fine, the C-130 is an intratheater transport anyways. With a single C-17 you can carry 3 ICVs and an MGS, giving you a fairly capable platoon on the ground in a single plane ride. And yes, they're MUCH more strategically mobile than ABCTs. You can move them much more easily, and once they're there, you can drive them hundreds of miles onroad without suffering casualties due to mechanical failures. There was one instance of this happening in Iraq with less than 48 hours of warning. The entire brigade travelled over a hundred miles back down to Kuwait (or maybe it was the other way around), only suffering a single mechanical failure, which hardly resulted in any lost time as that one vehicle was towed by another one, so the entire brigade arrived together. Try doing that with an ABCT and you'd have lost almost half a company.

>Mostly Trucks and humvees, although you may turn out to be correct if they get the M8 like the army wants.
Mostly trucks and humvees is still a massive vehicle footprint. And there's a correction, the MPF program has not been decided to be the M8. And even if the MPF is procured, it will make up only a small portion of the vehicles of an IBCT.

>I doubt that...
It's fine if you believe that, but it's wrong. Even when they were first doing tests with it they recognized that the Stryker units were capable of defending against enemy armor capably. Look up some of the first company level maneuvers they did. The secret is mostly in the one weapon you didn't mention at all- the Javelin. Every squad can carry a Javelin and several reloads in the ICV quite easily. Once they hit some targets, they can return to the ICV and get out of there before they get overrun. It's quite capable.

>2018
>Stryker

for what purpose?

>Once they hit some targets, they can return to the ICV and get out of there before they get overrun.
That sounds like an older civilization's ground tactics. Run in, pelt a few times, run out. Rinse and repeat. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? I can't remember.

Almost all of them. It's extremely basic skirmishing. One might use many of the cultures which used horse archers widely as a particularly standout example of this, but it's found everywhere.

>acoustic

Attached: c8453e5b11cb88346b48de45a597d2c2.jpg (420x429, 27K)

>That's fine, the C-130 is an intratheater transport anyways
Sure, but the C-130 transportability was a goal that it failed.
>With a single C-17 you can carry 3 ICVs and an MGS
There isn't room in a C-17 for that many Strykers, plus you'd need ammo/fuel for them.
I'll concede that the Stryker is a lot less fuel hungry and more reliable than a heavy armored unit, but that doesn't make up for the loss in combat power.
>Even when they were first doing tests with it they recognized that the Stryker units were capable of defending against enemy armor capably
What kind of enemy armor- T-55 and early T-72s, or the latest Russian/Chinese exports? I wouldn't want to go up against an attacking force of T-90MS, BMP-3, and supporting artillery with the Stryker.

>Even when they were first doing tests with it they recognized that the Stryker units were capable of defending against enemy armor capably. Look up some of the first company level maneuvers they did.

I'm not sure you actually read the NTC reports, user, or maybe you're exaggerating for muh internet debates.

Sure, a SBCT can defend against armor if 1. the enemy is unprepared and 2. the Stryker unit has excellent intelligence on them.

If either condition fails (which is almost inevitable in the friction of near-peer war conditions), SBCTs get gang raped by armor companies. They can't take casualties and can't maneuver under tank fire, so they get ganked in place.

SBCT stays operational will less fuel and other supplies.

More room for sophisticated sensors and fire control systems. Also more electric power.

Continued; a SBCT isn't actually a skirmishing unit. It's a reserve defense that quickly deploys infantry to garrison a zone that will attrite enemy units that have already punched through a defense or rebuff probing attacks away from the main line of advance. It cannot attack, and it cannot defend against a prepared mechanized attack.

>Sure, but the C-130 transportability was a goal that it failed.
Only one variant isn't C-130 transportable, so you're being more than a little disingenuous and false in your statements.

>There isn't room in a C-17 for that many Strykers, plus you'd need ammo/fuel for them.
There is, and you can carry your basic load with you on plane trip numero uno for if you need to be somewhere and fighting in a matter of hours after landing. Yes, further supply will need to be transported in in later lifts, but there's enough to make a fight of it to start.

Also, quote from the Army Logistician in case you don't take my word for it.

>The Army’s newest fighting vehicle—wheeled but armored—is the 36,000-pound Stryker. It can be transported on the ground using trucks or by air on C–5, C–17 and C–130 Hercules aircraft. The C–5 and C–17 can carry seven and four Strykers, respectively. One large, medium-speed, roll-on-roll-off (LMSR) vessel or two fast sealift ships (FSSs) can lift almost an entire Stryker brigade combat team (SBCT). MSC currently has 8 FSSs and 19 LMSRs in its inventory.

And no, fuel performance and reliability don't make up for combat power, but deployability does. Otherwise why would airborne forces even exist?

>What kind of enemy armor
That they were tested against? Abrams. I wouldn't want to be facing a top of the line Russian brigade in the attack no matter what I was in, but you could defend against it in a SBCT. Remember, every single squad has a Javelin. A Platoon has three of the best handheld ATGMs in the world today. A company, nine of them. Battalion, 27 from just the rifle platoons, plus an additional few with the reconnaissance platoon and any attached TOWs and MGSs. You put them in good positions, you'll be killing at least one vehicle with each one, probably two. You just are not going to succeed in attacking into that and coming out in any condition to continue offensive operations.

Loud noises are indeed a weapon.

>I'm not sure you actually read the NTC reports, user, or maybe you're exaggerating for muh internet debates.
Technically, they weren't NTC reports, but I read them nonetheless. And I'm not exaggerating, that's the conclusion they came to. I'll just note that these were early maneuvers and the Stryker MGS had yet to be finished, so they were using the TOW variant as a standin for the MGS, using predominantly bunker buster TOWs as HE rounds.

An SBCT can defend against enemy armor even if the enemy armor is prepared and without perfect intelligence. You just need to pick several good fighting positions with covered paths of ingress and egress. Correct, the ICVs cannot maneuver under direct fire from tanks. Only thing that can to any extent is other tanks.

Again, even a rifle company has an impressive array of anti-tank armament, not all of which can be suppressed by artillery before an attack.

I didn't say the SBCT was a skirmishing unit. And no, everything you just said was wrong. The SBCT is as much a line unit as anything else. It is capable of all action required before ABCTs can arrive to a fight, and once they do arrive, with even the attachment of a single platoon of tanks to each Stryker infantry battalion, is capable of the whole breadth of combat operations

because buying Boxers would be a waste if money

C-130 transportability was a goal that was dropped by the time Strykers entered service. It's like complaining a Bradley cannot swim anymore, except that flat bottom Strykers can still fit in a C-130.

*Misses*

The large amount of heavily armed infantry in a SBCT is always ignored by critics.

Dunno. Can you cram grunts into a Stryker with the Leonardo on it? Boeing's design makes it obvious that there's no transport capability.

*hits civilian airliner instead of military target*

Like the MCT-30, RIwP doesn't have a turret basket.

This is a boon for RIwP's chances at being selected for the Stryker Lethality ECP.

It should also be noted that the Boeing turret did not have radar.

The cab is still there, but it might be used for other things, such as ammunition stowage or more power generation. We don't know yet.

you mean where the engine and vehicle crew go

No it didnt, it couldnt even hit hovering drones. The press certianly did it a disservice but it never worked parti ularly well and also it probably would have been obselete by the time it entered service since the soviets had ddveloped helicopter atgms that outranged it.

The built 50 and extensivley tested them wtf are you talking about

I'm talking about the rear half of the vehicle for the Leonardo offering. There may be space for grunts there, but it might be used for other things.

test, sry for spam

those things didnt do shit to anything beyond a car. most useless thing in the whole game. although that figures since it was Chinese.

>it couldnt even hit hovering drones

Next you will tell us that it locked on to a lavatory..

And better yet, it's heavily armed infantry in transports that can actually survive artilleryfire en route to where they're going while still being fast and reliable and having an insane level of combined arms fire down to the company level. I mean, 2x 120mm mortars in your bog standard rifle company? A full platoon of them at the battalion level for a total of 10 in the battalion? That's a whole lot of boom.

Attached: SHORAD.webm (1920x1080, 502K)

this .webm looks so stupid, I know the cam is following the missile, but it looks like the Drone is flying into a stick