According to the Nov. 17th issue of Jane's Defense Weekly, the U.S. Army is preparing for the long awaited arrival of the M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System, or MGS.  Touted as the face of amoured fighting vehicles to come, and a key piece of SecDef Rumsfeld's plan to streamline the Army's ability to respond quickly to real world events, the MGS has nonetheless run into its' share of criticism and problems.  A decision by the Canadian Army to adopt the MGS as a replacement for its' aging force of Leopard I MBT's was met with derision when a computer simulated fight between 4 MGS vehicles and 2 Russian T-80 MBT's resulted in the destruction of all 4 MGS vehicles and no appreciable damage to the Russian tanks.  An analysis from Global Security. Org is noteworthy:


"The Stryker vehicles are designed not to exceed a 38,000-pound weight limit, to enable them to fly on a C-130. As of early 2002 the mobile gun exceeded the maximum by 3,000 pounds. The mobile gun system had weighed 45,000 pounds until an aggressive weight reduction program began in January 2002.

The effects of this problem are apparent in the composition of the MGS Platoon (Mobile Gun System.) FM 7-22 lays out the MGS PLT as an organic element of each IBCT Infantry Company within the IBCT BN. Each Company Commander has at his disposal within the MGS PLT 3 MGS Strykers, with the mission of supporting the dismounted Infantry with direct, supporting fires IOT destroy hardened enemy bunkers, machine guns, and sniper positions. The MGS Stryker is armed with a 105mm Low Profile Turret capable of a 6 second cycle rate and 18 ready rounds. Apparently, the MGS is a popular system and will be a tremendous asset to the IBCT Company Commander. Similar to an AT Platoon attached to an Airborne Infantry Company; the MGS PLT will provide the lighter armed Strykers and dismounts with outstanding firepower.

The armor protection creates a contradiction for the MGS Stryker. Currently, the MGS is fielded with armor protection capable of .50 cal munitions. The add-on scalable armor in development promises protection against 14.5mm and hand-held HEAT up to and including RPG-7 penetration. The obvious rationale for the developmental armor is the precise evaluation of MG and ATGM threat during support to infantry assault operations. Emerging technology finds itself between a rock and a hard place when faced with the MGS platform. Armor already in use on tanks can stop ATGM, but is too heavy for the air-mobile MGS. Developmental reactive armor must meet the cost, weight, size, and soldier-proof requirements established for the MGS Stryker. Caught in-between the weight restrictions and the desire to protect against ATGM threats on the future battlefield, the MGS is suffering an identity crisis. The stryker makes no attempt to perform in ways it is not capable of; it embraces it's light-skinned composition, and uses it's reduced weight and speed to fight as a faster, more agile force on the battlefield. The MGS, with it's tank-like 105mm top, wants the best of both worlds with the speed of the Stryker, and armor resistance of a Bradley. As seen in large cashes seized in Afghanistan, the RPG is a cheap and heavily saturated weapon system available to every possible IBCT opponent in the world. "

Much of the problem could be rectified by the addition of a new armor concept known as "Active Protective Systems", or APS.  The Israeli Army has already tested and purchased such a system, known as "Trophy" for deployment on its' new Merkava IV MBT's starting in 2007.  According to Jane's:

The recent Israeli experience in Lebanon has also prompted new examination of survivability. The vulnerability of Israeli main battle tanks to anti-tank guided missiles in Lebanon prompted the Israeli Ministry of Defence (MoD) to accelerate its investment in active protection systems (APS). Jane's recently reported that the Israeli MoD has asked Rafael Armament Development Authority to speed development of its Trophy APS, now scheduled for delivery in 2007. The Israel Defence Force is also planning the future evaluation of another system, Israeli Military Industries' Iron Fist APS, for possible procurement.


The concept works by pairing a sensor suite with one or more turret defense weapon stations that engage and destroy incoming ATGM's and rockets.  The Trophy system was tested in the United States and requested for purchase and immediate deployment in Iraq.  For reasons unclear, the purchase has been blocked, and a contract awarded to Raytheon to develop a similar system to be tested and deployed in several years.
The 1128 MGS is essentially the real-world test for what the Army has promised will be the future of armored combat.  The next-generation FCS (Future Combat System) is an ambitious and startling departure from the Main Battle Tank concept that has dominated battlefields since France of 1940.  According to Global Security:

"The objective of the FCS effort is to develop lightweight (no individual element greater than 20 tons), overwhelmingly lethal, strategically deployable, self-sustaining and survivable combat and combat support force, systems and supporting technologies for the 2012-2025 timeframe and beyond. Additionally, it is anticipated that the aggregate force will be significantly (at least 50%) lighter than the existing force structure at equivalent force level. The FCS will be a single multi-functional system (or system of systems) which optimizes performance of the force leveraging on the advanced technologies (with the capability to incorporate future advances).

The FCS will be light enough to permit two systems for transport on a C17. Full second generation digital systems will provide the nexus for combined arms operations, fully embedded training, and ease of system operation. The FCS will have the sensors and lethality to detect and destroy any target with a near perfect probability of hit/kill at ranges beyond an enemy's capability. It will have a non-line-of-sight capability that will dramatically increase the task force commander's battlespace and combat power. An embedded second generation integrated defensive system will make the FCS nearly immune to enemy weapons. The FCS propulsion system will provide speeds in excess of 100 kph and require significantly less fuel than the Abrams. The FCS-equipped force will require at least 50% less logistical support than the Abrams fleet."

How realistic this vision is will be anybody's guess.  The optimistic predictions of a second generation defensive suite seem wildly out of place considering we cannot seem to get a first generation suite deployed on the battlefields of today.  Traditionally in the armor vs bullet contest, the bullet usually wins...at least until the M1A1 turned up and laughed at almost everything thrown at it.  I admit to a great deal of scepticism that the FCS family will simply be able to avoid virtually all incoming fire and out-duel opponents at long range, especially since the battlefields of  this century are increasingly predicted to be urban environments where insurgents and enemy soldiers will have ample opportunity to engage our vehicles at close quarters.  The increasing lethality of "top attack" ATGW's is also a concern, as well as simple kinetic energy penetrators such as the commonly used Uranium APFSDS type round.  (armor piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot)

Still, the optimists are in the drivers seat, and conferences around the world discuss the future of wheeled combat vehicles and the ignoble decline and death of the "Queen of the Battlefield", the Main Battle Tank.  A seminar focusing on the Stryker series just wrapped up last week, and an international conference in London on January 24-25 of next year will focus on medium and light armoured vehicles, their tactical employment, future, and R&D.   The keynote speaker will be South African  Brig General Chris Gildenhuys, and will contain extensive presentations from systems managers and experts from the US, UK and French Armies.  I will be keeping my eyes and ears open in the meantime.