Stryker

IAV Stryker

M1126 Stryker ICV
Type Armored fighting vehicle
Place of origin Canada / United States
Service history
In service 2002-present
Unit cost $3.8 million[1]
Specifications
Weight ICV: 16.47 tonnes (18.16 short tons; 16.21 long tons)
MGS: 18.77 tonnes (20.69 short tons; 18.47 long tons)
Length 6.95 m (22 ft 10 in)
Width 2.72 m (8 ft 11 in)
Height 2.64 m (8 ft 8 in)
Crew Varies. Usually 2.
Passengers Varies

Armor 7.62 mm/14.5 mm resistant[2][3]
Main
armament
M2 .50 cal. machine gun or MK19 40 mm grenade launcher mounted in a PROTECTOR M151 remote weapon station (RWS) (ICV)
Secondary
armament
.50-cal M2 MG and M240 7.62 mm MG (MGS)
Engine Caterpillar C7
260 kW (350 hp)
Power/weight ICV: 15.8 kW/t (19.3 hp/sh tn)
Suspension 8×8 wheeled
Operational
range
500 km (310 mi)
Speed 100 km/h (62 mph)[2]

The IAV Stryker is a family of eight-wheeled,[4] 4-wheel-drive (8x4), armored fighting vehicles derived from the Canadian LAV III and produced by General Dynamics Land Systems, in use by the United States Army. The vehicle is named for two American servicemen who posthumously received the Medal of Honor: Private First Class Stuart S. Stryker, who died in World War II and Specialist Four Robert F. Stryker, who died in the Vietnam War.[5]

Contents

Development history

Background

In October 1999, General Eric Shinseki, then U.S. Army Chief of Staff, outlined a transformation plan for the army that would allow it to adapt to post-Cold War conditions. The plan, dubbed "Objective Force", would have the army adopt a flexible doctrine that would allow it to deploy quickly, and equipped for a variety of operations.[6] An early phase of the plan called for the introduction of an 'Interim Armored Vehicle' which was intended to fill the capability gap between heavy and lethal, but not easily deployable vehicles (such as the M2 Bradley), and easily deployed, but lightly armed and protected vehicles (such as the Humvee).[7] A variant of the Canadian LAV III offered by the General Dynamics-General Motors Defence Canada team was ultimately awarded the contract in November 2000.

Production

The Stryker MGS moved into low-rate initial production in 2005 for evaluation.[8]

The vehicle is employed in Stryker Brigade Combat Teams, light and mobile units based on the Brigade Combat Team Doctrine that relies on vehicles connected by military C4I networks.

The Stryker has come under intense scrutiny from military experts since its introduction in the US Army; this has also been the subject of reporting in the mass media.

General Dynamics's Robotic Systems division was developing autonomous navigation for the Stryker and several other vehicles with a $237 million contract until the program was cut in July 2011.[9] TARDEC has also tested an active Magneto Rheological suspension, developed by MillenWorks for the Stryker, at the Yuma Proving Ground, which resulted in greater vehicle stability.[10]

Upgrades

The US Army plans to improve its fleet of Stryker vehicles with the introduction of improved semi-active suspension, modifications reshaping the hull into a shallow V-shaped structure, to protect against improvised explosive devices. Also included are additional armor for the sides, redesigned hatches to minimize gaps in the armor, blast absorbing mine resistant seating, non-flammable tires, an upgrade to the remote weapon station that allows it to fire on the go, increased 500 amp power generation, a new solid state power distribution system and data bus, and the automotive and power plant systems improvements to support a 25% Gross Vehicle Weight increase. The upgraded V-hull will be part of the new StrykShield situational awareness kit, which will address many of these upgrades. Allegheny Technologies' ATI 500-MIL armor steel was designated the primary armored plating for the StrykShield package in 2008.[11]

The upgrade incorporating lessons learned from Afghanistan is designated LAV-H and General Dynamics had a technology demonstrator displayed at the 2007 Association of the United States Army (AUSA) Exposition.[12] In March 2010, it was reported that General Dynamics and Army were working to incorporate a double V-hull into the Stryker design.[13][14][15][16] In July 2010 the Army awarded a $30 million contract to GDLS to start production of the new hull.[17]

On 9 March 2011, the Department of Defense's director of operational test and evaluations testified that the new V-hull design was "not suitable" for long missions in Afghanistan's terrain. The issues are due to the tight driver's compartment and difficulty releasing the seat to extract an incapacitated driver. General Dynamics stated these issues would be corrected before the new Stryker version deploys.[18]

Future

The U.S. Army is seeking replacement of the M113 APC and derivatives by Stryker, MRAP, and Bradley Fighting Vehicle vehicles starting in 2017. In the long term the army is tentatively pursuing replacement with the 50+ ton Ground Combat Vehicle family of vehicles concept.[19][20]

Design

The Stryker is based on the LAV III light-armored vehicle, which in turn was based on the Swiss MOWAG Piranha III 8x8.

The vehicle comes in several variants with a common engine, transmission, hydraulics, wheels, tires, differentials and transfer case. The M1130 Command Vehicle and M1133 Medical Evacuation Vehicle have an air conditioning unit mounted on the back. The medical vehicle also has a higher-capacity generator. A recent upgrade program provided a field retrofit kit to add air conditioning units to all variants, and production started in 2005 of the Mobile Gun System mounting an overhead GDLS 105 mm automatic gun.

Engine and mechanical features

For its power pack the Stryker uses a Caterpillar diesel engine common in U.S. Army medium-lift trucks, eliminating additional training for maintenance crews and allowing the use of common parts.[21] Because of obsolescence concerns, the Caterpillar 3126 engine was recently replaced by a Caterpillar C7 engine and the Allison 3200SP.[22]

Pneumatic or hydraulic systems drive almost all of the vehicle's mechanical features; for example, a pneumatic system switches between 8X4 and 8X8 drive.

Designers strove to ease the maintainer's job, equipping most cables, hoses, and mechanical systems with quick-disconnecting mechanisms. The engine and transmission can be removed and reinstalled in approximately two hours, allowing repairs to the turbocharger and many other components to be done outside the vehicle.

Command, control, and targeting

Extensive computer support helps soldiers fight the enemy while reducing friendly fire incidents. Each vehicle can track friendly vehicles in the field as well as detected enemies. The driver and the vehicle commander (who also serves as the gunner) have periscopes that allow them to see outside the vehicle without exposing themselves to outside dangers. The vehicle commander also has access to a day-night thermal imaging camera which allows the vehicle commander to see what the driver sees. The vehicle commander has almost a 360-degree field of vision; the driver, a little more than 90 degrees.

Soldiers can practice training with the vehicles from computer training modules inside the vehicle.

General Dynamics Land Systems is developing a new Power and Data Management Architecture to handle computer upgrades.[23]

Protection

The Stryker's hull is constructed from high-hardness steel which offers a basic level of protection against 14.5mm rounds on the frontal arc, and all-around protection against 7.62mm ball ammunition.[25] In addition to this, Strykers are also equipped with bolt-on ceramic armor which offers all-around protection against 14.5mm, armor-piercing ammunition, and artillery fragments from 152mm rounds.[21][26] Problems were encountered with the initial batch of ceramic armor when it was found that a number of panels failed in tests against 14.5mm ammunition. Army officials determined that this was due to changes in the composition and size of the panels introduced by their manufacturer, IBD Deisenroth. A stopgap solution of adding an additional 3mm of steel armor was introduced until a permanent solution could be found.[27] The issue was eventually resolved later in 2003 when DEW Engineering was selected as the new, exclusive supplier for the ceramic armor.[28]

In addition to the integral ceramic armor, optional packages have been developed. These include slat armor[29] and Stryker reactive armor tiles (SRAT) for protection against rocket propelled grenades and other projectiles, the hull protection kit (HPK), armored skirts for additional protection against improvised explosive devices, and a ballistic shield to protect the commander's hatch.[25]

The Stryker also incorporates an automatic fire-extinguishing system with sensors in the engine and troop compartments that activate one or more halon fire bottles, which can also be activated by the driver, externally mounted fuel tanks, and a CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear) Warfare system which will keep the crew compartment airtight and positively pressurized.

There are plans to add the Boomerang anti-sniper system and Raytheon Quick Kill anti-RPG system.

Reports from military personnel and analysts state that the Stryker is superior to other light military vehicles regarding survivability against IEDs (improvised explosive devices).[30][31]

Armament

With the exception of some specialized variants, the primary armament of the Stryker is a Protector M151 Remote Weapon Station with .50-cal M2 machine gun, 7.62 mm M240 machine gun, or Mk-19 automatic grenade launcher. The choice of armament was driven by many factors. The US Army wanted a vehicle that could rapidly transport and protect infantry to and around battlefields.

Mobility

Strategic and operational

One of the key objectives outlined as part of the army transformation plan was the ability to deploy a brigade anywhere in the world within 96 hours, a division in 120 hours, and five divisions within 30 days. Operational mobility requirements dictated that the vehicle be transportable by C-130 aircraft.[6] While ultimately the Stryker's ability to be transported by C-130 has been demonstrated, there has been criticism about the Stryker's suitability for C-130 transport as the aircraft’s range may not meet its 1,000 mile goal. This is affected by many variables such as the particular C-130 variant and conditions at the departure airport.[32] The Stryker is too heavy (19–26 tons, depending on variant and add-on features) to be lifted by existing helicopters.

In August 2004, the US Air Force successfully air dropped an up-weighted Stryker Engineering Support Vehicle from a C-17.[33] This test was to determine the feasibility of air dropping a Stryker MGS. Even though this test was a success, none of the Stryker variants have been certified for airdrop.

Tactical

The Stryker can alter the pressure in all eight tires to suit terrain conditions: highway, cross-country, mud/sand/snow, and emergency. The system warns the driver if the vehicle exceeds the recommended speed for its tire pressure, then automatically inflates the tires to the next higher pressure setting. The system can also warn the driver of a flat tire, although the Stryker is equipped with run-flat tire inserts that also serve as bead-locks, allowing the vehicle to move several miles before the tire completely deteriorates.

Some criticism of the Stryker continues a decades-long ongoing debate concerning whether tracked or wheeled vehicles are more effective.[34] Conventional tracks have superior off-road mobility, can pivot a vehicle in place, and are more resistant to battle damage. Wheeled vehicles are easier to maintain, and have higher road speeds. The US Army chose the Stryker over tracked vehicles due to these advantages.[35]

An additional issue is that rollover is a greater risk with the Stryker relative to other transport vehicles, due to their higher center of gravity. The high ground clearance, however, is likely to reduce the damage caused by land mines and improvised explosive devices on the vehicle.[36]

While not amphibious, the Stryker's watertight combat hatch seals allow it to ford water up to the tops of its wheels.

Cost

The unit cost to purchase the initial Stryker ICVs (without add-ons, including the slat armor) was US$3 million in April 2002.[37] By May 2003, the regular production cost per vehicle was US$1.42 million.[38]

Mission

The Stryker family of vehicles fill a role in the United States Army that is neither heavy nor light, but rather an attempt to create a force that can move infantry to the battlefield quickly and in relative security. Brigades that have been converted to Strykers have primarily been light, or, in the case of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, unarmored Humvee-based cavalry scouts. For these units, the addition of Strykers has increased combat power by providing armor protection, a vehicle-borne weapon system to support each dismounted squad, and the speed and range to conduct missions far from the operating base.

Stryker units seem to be especially effective in urban areas, where vehicles can establish initial security positions near a building and dismount squads on a doorstep.[39]

The Stryker relies on its speed and communications for the majority of its defense against heavy weapon systems. It is not capable of engaging heavily armored units, relying on communication and other units to control threats outside of its classification. One variant is armed with anti-tank missiles.

However, at the National Training Center (Fort Irwin California) 3rd Brigade 2nd ID proved that, through the use of unconventional tactics and small dismounted teams armed with anti-armor weaponry, a Stryker unit could hold its own against a conventional armored unit, should the need arise. This situation is something that commanders would most likely avoid due to a higher casualty rate.

Brigades equipped with the Stryker are intended to be strategically mobile (i.e., capable of being rapidly deployed over long distances). As such, the Stryker was intentionally designed with a lower level of protection compared to tracked vehicles like the M2 Bradley, but with much lower logistic requirements.

Comparison with contemporary vehicles

Below is a comparison of some modern APCs and IFVs including the Stryker:


Fuchs[40]

VBCI[41]

LAV-25[42]

Stryker ICV[43]

BTR-90[44][45]

Terrex

Patria AMV[46]
Weight 18.3 t (20.2 short tons) 26 t (29 short tons) 12.8 t (14.1 short tons) 16.47 t (18.16 short tons) 20.9 t (23.0 short tons) 25 t (28 short tons) 16 t (18 short tons)
Primary armament Up to three 7.62 mm (0.300 in) Rheinmetall MG3 machine guns 25 mm (0.98 in) NATO dual feed cannon 25 mm (0.98 in) M242 chain gun 0.50 in (13 mm) M2 Browning machine gun 30 mm (1.2 in) 2A42 automatic cannon 25 mm (0.98 in) M242 chain gun, 105mm stabilised turret or RWS 0.50 in (13 mm) M2 Browning machine gun
Secondary armament - 7.62 mm (0.300 in) coaxial machine gun 7.62 mm (0.300 in) C6 GPMG machine gun x2 - 7.62 mm (0.300 in) PKT machine gun, AGS-17 30 mm automatic grenade launcher 40 mm (1.6 in) AGL, 7.62 mm GPMG (twin-weapon RWS) -
Missile armament (Range) MILAN (400–2000 meters) - - - 9M113 Konkurs (700–4000 meters) SPIKE (4000 meters) -
Road range 800 km (500 mi) 750 km (470 mi) 660 km (410 mi) 500 km (310 mi) 700 km (430 mi) 800 km (500 mi) 800 km (500 mi)
Maximum speed (on road) 96 km/h (60 mph) 100 km/h (62 mph) 100 km/h (62 mph) 100 km/h (62 mph) 100 km/h (62 mph) 110 km/h (68 mph) 100 km/h (62 mph)
Capacity (maximum) 2 crew + 10 passengers 2 crew + 9 passengers 3 crew + 6 passengers 2 crew + 9 passengers 3 crew + 7 passengers 2 crew + 12 passengers 3 crew + 10 passengers

Service history

Deployments

Iraq War, 2003–present:

War in Afghanistan (2001-present):

Field reports

Since the Strykers have been in the current Iraqi conflict, many reports have come back on their performance. These reports have mostly been favorable. Stryker critics caution that any positive testimonial must be evaluated against the fact that five of the six planned Stryker brigades were previously foot-infantry units, hence the Stryker (or any armored vehicle) provides a great improvement on their former mobility and protection.

An article by Defense Industry Daily addresses both a negative Washington Post article and the surprise of POGO[48] at the positive reviews Stryker got from soldiers who had used it in combat. It includes extensive additional quotes and experiences from soldiers and reporters who have served with Strykers in Iraq, and even a Russian analyst review. It concludes by discussing the broader lessons from these experiences that apply beyond the Stryker itself.[49]

Soldiers and officers who use Strykers defend them as very effective vehicles;[50] an article in the Washington Post states:

But in more than a dozen interviews, commanders, soldiers and mechanics who use the Stryker fleet daily in one of Iraq's most dangerous areas unanimously praised the vehicle. The defects outlined in the report were either wrong or relatively minor and did little to hamper the Stryker's effectiveness, they said.[51]

In the same article, Col. Robert B. Brown, commander of the 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, Stryker Brigade Combat Team said that the Strykers saved the lives of at least a hundred soldiers deployed in northern Iraq.[51]

The article also states that the bolt-on slat armor is effective ballistic protection, which, at the time of the article, was the main flaw cited by critics. A 2003 report to Congress acknowledges that the suspension is a mobility limitation in wet conditions, especially with the added weight of the slat armor.[52]

Reports from military personnel and analysts indicate the Stryker is superior to other light military vehicles regarding survivability against IEDs (improvised explosive devices).[53][54] Although soldiers have anecdotally referred to Strykers as "Kevlar Coffins," blogger James Hasik believes that this nickname does not reflect poorly on the vehicle's protection.[55][56]

Variants

The Stryker chassis' modular design supports a wide range of variants. The main chassis is the Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV). There have been no proposals yet for an Air Defense variant along the lines of LAV-25 LAV-AD Blazer turret, M6 Linebacker or AN/TWQ-1 Avenger vehicles.

The Stryker vehicles have the following configurations:[57]

Operators

Current operators

Potential customers

See also

References

  1. ^ http://costofwar.com/en/publications/2011/analysis-fiscal-year-2012-pentagon-spending-request/
  2. ^ a b "Army Fact File - Stryker". http://www.army.mil/factfiles/equipment/wheeled/stryker.html. Retrieved 2008-04-16. 
  3. ^ "Stryker Armored personnel carrier". http://www.military-today.com/apc/stryker.htm. Retrieved 2008-04-16. 
  4. ^ http://www.tanknutdave.com/component/content/article/101
  5. ^ "Army Announces Name For Interim Armored Vehicle". U.S. Army. Retrieved 15 August 2007.
  6. ^ a b "Stryker". ArmedForces-int.com. 6 March 2006. http://www.armedforces-int.com/article/stryker-2.html. 
  7. ^ Captain S. Lucas (8 February 2005), HELL ON WHEELS: The U.S. Army’s Stryker Brigade Combat Team, pp. 1–2, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA505224&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf 
  8. ^ "General Dynamics Delivers First Production Stryker MGS Vehicles". http://www.generaldynamics.com/news/press_releases/2005/NewsRelease%20December%2015,%202005.htm. Retrieved 2008-07-13. 
  9. ^ Autonomous Navigation System (ANS)
  10. ^ Suspension test report, MillenWorks
  11. ^ U.S. Army Stryker Combat Vehicles to be Equipped with Allegheny Technologies' ATI 500-MIL Armor Steel
  12. ^ US Army Outlines Future Improvements for the Stryker. defense-update.com
  13. ^ Brannen, Kate. "U.S. Army 'Moving Rapidly' To Add V-Hull to Strykers". Defense News, 3 March 2010.
  14. ^ Rutherford, Emelie. "Army Weighing Quick Fielding of V-Hull Kits For IED-Prone Strykers". Defense Daily, 4 March 2010. subscription article.
  15. ^ "U.S. Army pushes Stryker modification". UPI, 11 March 2010.
  16. ^ Lee, Richard. "W-Shaped Hull Patent Application Publication".
  17. ^ "US Army Awards GD $30 M For Stryker Double-V Hull Production"
  18. ^ Tiron, Roxana. "Pentagon Tester Says General Dynamics’ New Stryker Needs Fix." Bloomberg News, 9 March 2011.
  19. ^ Brannen, Kate. "Chiarelli: GCV usually will not weigh its max". Army Times Publishing Company. http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/05/army_gcv_weight_052010w/. Retrieved 21 May 2010. 
  20. ^ 11 by 17.fm
  21. ^ a b "Stryker Armored Vehicle". globalsecurity.org. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav.htm. 
  22. ^ US Army Outlines Future Improvements for the Stryker. defense-update.com
  23. ^ "Stryker Armored Personnel Carrier". http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/stryker.htm. 
  24. ^ Bradford, Spc. Lindsey M. (6 June 2008), General Lee rides again, US Army, http://www.army.mil/-news/2008/06/06/9708-general-lee-rides-again/ 
  25. ^ a b "M1126 Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle". http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/inf/M1126.html. 
  26. ^ Staff Sgt. Marcia Triggs (9 March 2002). "Stryker gets new armor, decreases in weight". US Army. Archived from the original on 23 June 2004. http://web.archive.org/web/20040623011941/http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=965. 
  27. ^ Ray Rivera; Hal Bernton (16 September 2003). "Some Stryker tiles fail under fire Maker rushes to fortify vehicles before deployment". Seattle Times. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20030916&slug=stryker16m. 
  28. ^ "GDLS-C provides $39.5 Million order to DEW for Stryker Armour" (Press release). DEW Engineering. 15 January 2010. http://www.dewengineering.com/update051109/news.htm#GDLS-C. 
  29. ^ "Slat Armour for Stryker". defense-update.com. http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/slat-stryker.htm. 
  30. ^ Clay Wilson (25 September 2006), Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in Iraq and Afghanistan: Effects and Countermeasures, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, http://www.fit.edu/fip/documents/SecNews1.pdf 
  31. ^ "Stryker increases troops’ survivability". U.S. Army 40th Public Affairs Detachment, Jan. 3, 2007.
  32. ^ "Fielding of Army’s Stryker Vehicles Is Well Under Way, but Expectations for Their Transportability by C-130 Aircraft Need to Be Clarified". August 2004. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04925.pdf. Retrieved 2004-08-09. 
  33. ^ "Stryker airdrop test". http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/08/mil-040819-afpn01.htm. Retrieved 2008-07-12. 
  34. ^ Paul Hornback (March/April 1998). The Wheel versus Track dilemma. Armor. pp. 33–34. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/2wheels98.pdf. 
  35. ^ "GAO Denies protest in choosing the Stryker over the M113 and M8". http://archive.gao.gov/legald425p10/a00952.pdf. Retrieved 2008-07-13. 
  36. ^ "GDELS briefs on evaluation of the PIRANHA armoured wheeled vehicle system at EUROSATORY 2008" (Press release). General Dynamics European Land Systems. 16 June 2008. p. 2. http://www.gdels.com/descargas/ELS_Press%20Release_PIRANHAv2.pdf. 
  37. ^ Jeffrey St. Clair: the General, GM and the Stryker
  38. ^ "GAO Compares Stryker to M113A3". p. 20. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03671.pdf. Retrieved 2008-07-13. 
  39. ^ Army of Dude: Three Sixty Five
  40. ^ "Fuchs 2 Armoured Wheeled Vehicle, Germany". army-technology.com. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/fuchs/. Retrieved 2008-09-28. 
  41. ^ "VBCI Wheeled Infantry Fighting Vehicle, France". army-technology.com. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/vbci/specs.html. Retrieved 2008-09-28. 
  42. ^ "Light Armored Vehicle-25 (LAV-25)". globalsecurity.org. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/lav-25.htm. Retrieved 2008-09-28. 
  43. ^ "Stryker Armored Vehicle". globalsecurity.org. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav.htm. Retrieved 2008-09-28. 
  44. ^ "BTR-90 (GAZ 5923) specifications". globalsecurity.org. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/btr-90-specs.htm. Retrieved 2008-09-28. 
  45. ^ "BTR-90". onwar.com. http://www.onwar.com/weapons/afv/data/rusapcbtr90.htm. Retrieved 2008-09-28. 
  46. ^ "Patria Armoured Modular Vehicle". patria.fi. http://www.patria.fi/a125fa004da8a787b851fc66ad44c293/AMV_8x8_Armoured_Modular_Vehicle.pdf. Retrieved 2010-09-08. 
  47. ^ Hal Bernton and Nancy A. Youssef. "8 U.S. troops die in Afghanistan, making October worst month". Miami Herald
  48. ^ Tell all the Truth but tell it...slat?, Project On Government Oversight, 24 June 2005, http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2005/06/tell_all_the_tr.html 
  49. ^ "M1126 Strykers in Combat: Experiences & Lessons", Defense Industry Daily, 11-Oct-2005, http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/10/m1126-strykers-in-combat-experiences-lessons/index.php 
  50. ^ Gittler, Juliana (10 November 2004), Stryker: Bulky Fighting Vehicle Is Winning Over Once-Skeptical Soldiers, http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,SS_111004_Stryker,00.html, retrieved 10 October 2010 
  51. ^ a b Fainaru, Steve (3 April 2005), Soldiers Defend Faulted Strykers, washingtonpost.com, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22009-2005Apr2.html, retrieved 9 October 2010 
  52. ^ Military Transformation: Army’s Evaluation of Stryker and M-113A3 Infantry Carrier Vehicles Provided Sufficient Data for Statutorily Mandated Comparison, GAO, May 2003, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03671.pdf 
  53. ^ Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in Iraq and Afghanistan: Effects and Countermeasures, Congressional Research Service, Sept. 25 2006.
  54. ^ Stryker increases troops’ survivability, U.S. Army 40th Public Affairs Detachment, Jan. 3, 2007.
  55. ^ Carter, Sara A., "'Kevlar Coffin' A Dangerous Ride: Armored troop carriers unsuited for Afghan duty". Washington Times, 5 November 2009, p. 1.
  56. ^ Hasik, James, "Some real numbers on Stryker performance in Afghanistan", 5 November 2009
  57. ^ "SBCT Project Management Office". http://www.sbct.army.mil/. 
  58. ^ J.C. Mathews (12 August 2005). "Latest Stryker variant arrives for duty". Army News Service. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/08/mil-050815-arnews03.htm. 
  59. ^ Stryker Self Propelled (SP) 105mm Indirect Fire. GlobalSecurity.org.
  60. ^ Jane's International Defence Review, June 2006, p. 64-5
  61. ^ General Dynamics Awarded Contract for Stryker Production
  62. ^ Army to switch 2 heavy brigades to Strykers, 3 October 2009.
  63. ^ http://fbmonitor.com/2011/01/19/%E2%80%98ready-first%E2%80%99-becomes-first-stryker-bct-at-bliss/
  64. ^ A Soldier's Guide to Army Transformation - Building a Direct Fire Unit -
  65. ^ CBC News In Depth, Equipment: Mobile Gun System vs. Leopard tank, Oct 30 2003
  66. ^ Army might buy surplus tanks from Germans, Swiss. CTV News, Oct 31 2006
  67. ^ http://www.casr.ca/doc-lav-tua-isc.htm
  68. ^ Arieh O'Sullivan (19 July 2004). "Stryker APC deal tabled for two years". Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 22 July 2004. http://web.archive.org/web/20040722212207/http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1090208251924. 
  69. ^ "Iraqi military plans major arms purchase". 12 December 2008. http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/12/iraqi_plans_to_order.php#ixzz0n2z3kM00. 
  70. ^ "Iraq – Light Armored Vehicles" (Press release). Defense Security Cooperation Agency. 10 December 2008. http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2009/09-05.pdf. 
  71. ^ "Iraq Buys What It Knows". strategypage.com. 18 December 2008. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20081218.aspx. 
  72. ^ "Iraq Plans To Buy 2,000 Tanks". Defense News. 12 January 2009. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3896249. 
  73. ^ "Dossier". Naval Forces. Febrero 2011. http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/4405/pginasdesdenf211news.png. 

External links

Official U.S. Army web pages
Other web pages