Why did we develop the Stryker for the US Army instead of buying the off-the-shelf General Dynamics LAV 3?

2017-12-10T13:58:07-05:00

It seems like duplicative effort for me for the US Army come up with their own light armored vehicle. Canada General Dynamics had this system for decades. The USMC bought it the LAV 25...hopefully, we see them upgrade to the existing LAV 3. River Crossing operations is one Army mission but the Stryker is not amphibious.The US Army is doing the same thing as it did to its most recent uniform fiasco and in Reinventing the wheel. Puzzle Palace Politics??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6Szn-1TJVI

General Dynamics to upgrade LAV III 8x8 armored vehicles of Canadian army in LAV 6 0 standard

General Dynamics Land Systems–Canada has been awarded a CA$404 million contract amendment by the Government of Canada to upgrade 141 Light Armoured Vehicle (...

Response by LT Brad McInnis made Dec 10 at 2017 2:13 PM

2017-12-10T14:13:35-05:00

I think there is some line in a FITREP for Flag types that mandates they herald and bring about a new program. What the line or requirement should be is that they found a similar system off the shelf and saved a ton of money... The Navy had its own disaster like this and it is called the LCS.... New class, new materials, new technology... Doesn't work right, and there was a much better already tested design out there we could have modified at a huge cost savings... Maybe I am cynical, but my 2 cents.

Response by PO3 John Wagner made Dec 10 at 2017 2:13 PM

2017-12-10T14:13:59-05:00

Sounds like a bad case of "Not invented here" syndrome.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Dec 10 at 2017 2:23 PM

2017-12-10T14:23:35-05:00

You mean the vehicle the Marine CORPS want to get rid of, that one?
https://www.rallypoint.com/shared-links/corps-to-upgrade-lavs-searching-for-a-replacement-marine-corps-times?loc=similar_main&pos=0&type=qrc

Why would the Army buy into a vehicle that has 1960's Tech in its AT weapon system, a turret that can not handle modern electronics because the slip ring is not capable, a vehicle that has parts obsolesce NOW and will only get worse

Corps to upgrade LAVs, searching for a replacement | Marine Corps Times | RallyPoint

The Marine Corps' light armored vehicles qualify for antique license plates in most states, but the service is planning to upgrade half the fleet and keep them in service until 2035 while it searches for a next-generation replacement. It’s not a best-case scenario, officials said, but it is the best option as the Corps tries to find money to replace old vehicles and implement new technologies. The Corps is in a zero-sum game, according to Lt....

Response by SPC David S. made Dec 10 at 2017 2:55 PM

2017-12-10T14:55:56-05:00

From my understanding the Stryker was the Army's F-35 - one frame but many configurations:
ICV - Infantry Carrier Vehicle
MGS - Mobile Gun System
RV - Reconnaissance Vehicle
MC - Mortar Carrier
CV - Commander's Vehicle
FSV - Fire Support Vehicle
ESV - Engineer Squad Vehicle
MEV - Medical Evacuation Vehicle
ATGM - Anti-tank Guided Missile Vehicle
NBCRV - NBC Reconnaissance Vehicle

As such it needed by built from the ground up in order to account for all the roles.

While I get the reasoning - less complicated supply chain due to many like parts - I've never liked the idea as in many cases something was giving up in order to make it work for all. Kind of like using a 5 pound hammer for both a sledge and a claw hammer. I'm thinking if not needed to carry troops - smaller more mobile unmanned vehicles would be the way to go for mobile fire support.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 10 at 2017 2:57 PM

2017-12-10T14:57:03-05:00

It is not the puzzle palace - they don't make these kinds of decisions.
This is the Military Industral Complex - the Pentagon fed by Comgressional pork barrel politics.
Warmest Regards, Sandy

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Dec 10 at 2017 4:40 PM

2017-12-10T16:40:40-05:00

The contractors got to spend billions developing it. What is "developed" is not important, it's how much you can bleed the taxpayer for that counts

Response by CPT Lawrence Cable made Dec 11 at 2017 10:29 AM

2017-12-11T10:29:05-05:00

My understanding is that both the LAV and the Stryker designs were based around the Swiss Piranha hull and both were build in the same plant. The biggest difference that I see between the two is that the LAV was designed around 1980 technology and the Stryker was designed from the ground up to use todays technology and to be upgraded accordingly. Since the only other Army vehicle I know of that is amphibious is a M113 APC, I don't see it not being amphibious as a big negative, swimming a M113 was one of the scariest things I did in the Army. It was boating in a 13 ton steel bath tub. Do they still try to swim a Bradley with the big skirt around it? The Styker was designed around being deployable and adaptable, so far it seems to be doing the job that it was designed to accomplish.

Response by SFC Mark Bailey made Dec 12 at 2017 11:13 PM

2017-12-12T23:13:40-05:00

The Stryker came because of a need to "Air Deploy" more vehicles and Infantry than could be done with M2 Bradley's.

It was the mistaken belief that more vehicles meant more combat power... I say 'mistaken' because 1x Bradley can kill an nearly infinite number of Strykers.

...the phrase back in the 1990's was 'Air Force Heavy Lift Limitations', and we all laughed when they first came up with the idea of a Stryker (I am retired Bradley Mech myself). C-17's can airlift 65 tons, (1x Bradley or 2 Strykers), C-5's can airlift 150 tons (4x Bradleys I believe).

It was all about "how many vehicles can we airlift into combat theater"?

So they designed and built the Stryker to fill that gap. They made it to do what the Bradley had originally been designed to do, bring Infantry into combat and support it with direct fires if possible. It did not need river crossing abilities (Bradley's long ago lost river crossing abilities due to sheer weight of armor). Strykers now fill a somewhat vital role of Light INF Mech that can be deployed by C-17's in greater numbers than can Bradleys.

The hope is that just one of our Commanders will realize that it is much more than a INF symbol on a map as to what the capabilities are.

My hope is that for every Stryker Battalion that is brought in by air can be supported by at least one M2 Company and an M1 Platoon. Otherwise all it will take is a determined Anti-Armor presence to reduce the Strykers back to sheet metal once more.

There are some factors to take into consideration (Pro's and Con's)
Stryker is faster, has a longer range, and carries more dismount troops.
Bradley is heavily armored, can kill Tanks, and has greater firepower.

Stryker variants can have bigger weapons, but is still vulnerable
Bradley variants are fewer, and are twice as heavy

Used in a combined arms environment, the Stryker will do well
Used all by itself it will fail against any other combined arms force because it simply cannot take a hit.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Dec 16 at 2017 5:01 PM

2017-12-16T17:01:15-05:00

Toyota Pick ups are popular with Isis

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2017 8:41 PM

2017-12-16T20:41:08-05:00

The short answer is "To meet the Army's requiernment". Everything in Army Acquisitions is done to meet a requirement in an approved requiernments document. The driving force behind many early decisions on Stryker was the requiernment to be C-130 transportable. We could have done a lot of things diferantly without that requiernment.

Response by SGT Russell Wickham made Dec 16 at 2017 10:22 PM

2017-12-16T22:22:25-05:00

Each Stryker IFV can carry an entire squad of infantry soldiers in relative comfort while the LAV loses much of that capability because of the turret. With the exception of the MGS, all Stryker versions have a lower center of gravity than the LAV, and all are easy to load on a C-130, allowing them to be quickly transported to wherever needed. The same basic chassis can be fitted to accomplish a wide array of missions, while reducing supply chain logistics issues through standardized parts. This flexibility designed into the Stryker system makes it superior to the LAV in every way except armament. I missed that Bushmaster when I switched from Bradley to Stryker combat vehicles.

Response by Sgt Nick Walsh made Dec 22 at 2017 7:53 AM

2017-12-22T07:53:35-05:00

The Army has to do it its own way, for stupid ass reasons. Good example watch the classical movie PENTAGON WARS, with Kelsey Grammer playing a Brig General. Its all about who gets this for that. Or did you not hear that “Congress can no longer use insider trading as a way to make money” Yeah that little law got attached to a bill and one saw it go in until it was to late. Thats how Congreesmen (women) become millionaires on 175.000.00 pay check.

Response by Sgt Nick Walsh made Dec 22 at 2017 7:57 AM

2017-12-22T07:57:05-05:00

The Bradley is to slow period, they wanted all track vehicles in the 80-90’s and turned down the LAV for the Bradley.

Response by SGT Kenneth Young made Feb 11 at 2018 5:08 PM

2018-02-11T17:08:20-05:00

I don't know anything about the Stryker. I was on Bradley's.

My question is what was wrong with the Bradley? We could swim them easily.

Response by LTC Stephen Franke made Feb 18 at 2018 10:46 PM

2018-02-18T22:46:04-05:00

Greetings to ALCON in this interesting and relevant thread.
May I observe -- with all due respect accorded to all concerned parties -- that, IMPO, the LAV series of wheeled tactical vehicles -- when in employed in a light infantry (i.e. absent an armor-dominant) operating environment -- is a much-superior and substantially more-mission-adaptable system than the Stryker series (which have reportedly emerged in their using US Army units as support-heavy "maintenance dogs"). Releasable details provided on request.
Hope this helps in this discussion. Today is Sunday, 18 February 2018.
Regards,
Stephen H. Franke
LTC, U.S. Army Retired

Response by SFC James High made Feb 20 at 2018 8:34 AM

2018-02-20T08:34:52-05:00

The Army has always insisted on "out doing" the other branches, especially the Marine Corps. Since the 1980s the Army has gotten more and more ridiculous with its "MILSPEC" requirements. First was the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, 17 years to develop at a cost of more than 14 billion dollars, and I don't know how many dead Soldiers from testing. Of course the Upgraded Cobra was not good enough for the Army either, they had to have the Apache. It is the single most expensive piece of Army equipment and the most maintenance heavy. If an Apache even sees a wrench it will break and not fly. The Cobra the Marines fly can carry the same weapons and kill the same type of tanks as the Apache and do it for 1/3 the cost. It is only natural that the Army would insist on having its own creation instead of borrowing one from the USMC. However, the Army is not the only guilty branch, they are just more obvious. All 4 primary branches of the military have a different camo uniform. I can remember when the woodland camo pattern was good enough for all branches, of course the Army did start that fiasco as well. Things will never change, take the Air Force, does it really need a plane that costs over 100 million each, the current F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s can out perform any thing any enemy can field. We don't need fighters to be able to beat alien attackers.

Response by SFC Kevin Teinert made Feb 22 at 2018 11:21 PM

2018-02-22T23:21:12-05:00

As a person that help in testing the Stryker I can say the Stryker armor is batter then the Lav 25.
However the Stryker was not designed for the role that it is being used now. At the time of the Strykers conception the military was involved in peace keeping missions ie Bosnia, Herzegovina, Serbia, Haiti and others. The Army had no wheeled armored personnel carriers only tracked. The Stryker was to fill this short fall and designed for the peace keeping missions not a true combat platform but by the time the Army started to field the Stryker 911 happened and we went to war with what we had. The Army has made a lot of upgrades to the Stryker to include getting the m242 bushmaster being fielded now

Response by PV2 Rigo Rivas made Feb 25 at 2018 4:28 AM

2018-02-25T04:28:23-05:00

The LAV III, originally named the Kodiak by the Canadian Army, is the third generation of the Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV) family of Infantry fighting vehicle built by General Dynamics Land Systems first entering service in 1999. It is based on the Swiss Mowag Piranha IIIH 8x8.The LAV III, originally named the Kodiak by the Canadian Army, is the third generation of the Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV) family of Infantry fighting vehicle built by General Dynamics Land Systems first entering service in 1999. It is based on the Swiss Mowag Piranha IIIH 8x8.
It was developed in Canada and is the primary mechanized infantry vehicle of the Canadian Army and the New Zealand Army.[1] It also forms the basis of the Stryker vehicle used by the US Army and other operators.
Piranhas are available in 4×4, 6×6, 8×8, and 10×10 wheel versions. There are several variants within these versions, giving different degrees of armour protection and several kinds of turret, for use in a variety of roles. Piranha derivatives have been assigned roles as troop transports, command vehicles, fire support vehicles, tank trainers, and police vehicles.

Piranhas are used by the Swiss Army. Swiss-built Piranha derivatives have been exported to Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Romania, Spain, and Belgium. The Romanian and Belgian Armies have selected the Piranha IIIC 8x8. Belgium converted to an all-wheeled force, and replaced all their M113s, AIFVs and Leopard 1s with 268 Piranha IIIC in 7 variants.[2][3]

Piranha derivatives have been manufactured under license by General Dynamics (Canada), BAE Systems Land Systems (UK), Cardoen and FAMAE (Chile), and in the USA. The 8x8 US Army Stryker vehicle is derived from the Canadian LAV III, which in turn is based on the Piranha, as is the LAV-25 family in service with the USMC. The Australian Defence Force also has its own modified version of the Piranha I 8x8, known as the ASLAV (Australian Light Armoured Vehicle). The ASLAV is operated by two cavalry regiments (the 2nd Cavalry Regiment and 2nd/14th Light Horse Regiment) and is used in the armoured reconnaissance and armoured personnel carrier roles.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2018 8:56 PM

2018-06-26T20:56:53-04:00

Well you know sir. It's the military insdustrial complex. It's a hook up to their friend of a friend who is cheaper or I'll give the contracts for my campaign contribution.

Response by PFC Odis Lee made Mar 24 at 2019 1:07 PM

2019-03-24T13:07:59-04:00

The Stryker is just an updated LAV III. Makes sense to take an existing platform and update it, so that is what they did

Response by SFC Tom Jones made Apr 3 at 2019 6:57 PM

2019-04-03T18:57:43-04:00

Well I don't know much or anything about those 2, but from 1st hand experience can tell you that the Bradley is a very awesome vehicle, just as long as it's in open country or forest's but get it in the city alleyways it becomes a big casket. Example is when the 24th Inf Div. went to Somalia it didn't take very long for them to want to talk. Cause if it was hot in the scope it was shoot, just like what we did during Desert Storm but when the ROE changed the Iraq's were a little bit more braver. Bottom line is this if it is good in the field and it saves lives that's what really matters.