US Army Standardizes Stryker Brigades

[Gunner]

In a decision that will save the US Army $500 million, it will restructure the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (slated to become operational late in 2006) to an infantry-based Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT).  The Stryker cavalry regiment design would cost $1.4 billion, the infantry configuration, $940 million.  The change is driven in part by lessons learned from the first fielded SBCT, the Fort Lewis, Wash. based 3rd Brigade 2nd Infantry Division. The brigade's 50 reconnaissance units with range, sensor packages and technology are providing the needed cavalry functions in Iraq and overall performing â Å“extremely well.â ?  The General Dynamics (GD) LAVs are part of a $4 billion order awarded in November 2000 to GD to equip six SBCTs with 2,131 Stryker vehicles.  Examples of the differences are that a cavalry SBCT would have had only 13 infantry carriers, as an infantry unit it will have 127. There will be fewer Mobile Gun Systems, dropping from 48 to 27, and while a cavalry unit would have had no anti-tank guided missile vehicles, the infantry SBCT will have nine.  Additionally, an infantry SBCT has 51 reconnaissance vehicles while a cavalry configuration would have 108.  The US Army announced the reconfiguration May 14, which will make all six planned SBCTs infantry-centric, thus increasing the number of Army infantry available to combatant commanders. 

 

[Yard Ape]

This is the US way of recognizing that the LAV III/Stryker is not an ideal cavalry vehicle, but is excellent in an dismount focused force.  I wonder if the same decision would have been reached in the cavalry brigades were to have been equiped with a LAV-25 turreted Stryker?

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The US Army has declined the 25mm turret for many reasons, some of which give me cause to wonder about the decision makers in Ottawa.

The LAV III was designed as an APC, not an IFV.  The fitting of a turret degrades from its primary role.

The 25mm gun is too small for effective HE properties, too big to use as an MG, and too small to take out IFV's.  Further, it is totally inadequate in providing suppressive fire during an assault.  Another reason is it has to few rounds available for suppressive fire, and it does take a while to upload.

The turret requires a two man crew, the RWS/PWS requires one.

A combination of 7.62, .50 and Mk 19's provide superb suppressive fire.

The LAV III is not designed to operate in isolation, it will always operate with some kind of direct fire support vehicles.

The addition of the turret makes the LAV III too heavy to be carried in any but the "J" model Herc, and even then, it is not operational, as no ammo can be carried, minimum fuel, etc.

 

[Yard Ape]

In my comment, I was not thinking of the turreted Stykers as APCs, but at the cavalry Stryker only.

I have long questioned the details of our turret though.  We could have had the same turret with a 30 mm gun (I know it is only a little bigger, but that may make the difference against some targets), the 7.62 mm coax and a 4o mm AGL coax.

We also could have had that turret with all the above (or just our 25 mm) and  two TOW launchers.