# Some confusion about the Stryker, IBCTs, and the AGS



## MAJOR_Baker (3 Feb 2004)

I have read throughout the forums and found there is some confusion about the US Army‘s Interim Armored Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs), Concept, and the AGS too.

I am not involved in the AGS or IBCT programs but I am getting ready for my next one which is with the Future Combat Systems (FCS) vehicles. 

So this is the deal, as far as I understand it.   :blotto:     The IBCT vehicles are a stop gap for a medium weight brigade, and only until the FCS vehicles are ready for fielding.  The name Interim in fact implies that fact!  The AGS is also meant to give the 18th ABN Corps armored defense not armored offensive capability.  Also the 1AD and other armor heavy units will not get Strykers.

The FCS vehicles fielding date varies, but around 2010 is the consensus. In my opinion CDN and AUS (smaller defense budgets) and possibly UK should all contribute to the FCS family of vehicles.  I am afraid that CDN politicians will see that if they blow a small wad of cash now will not have to pony up later for what CDN Forces should have.  (Again for all you CDN super-Ultra nationalists, please don‘t take offence, just my opinion).    

and a good overall description of the FCS program

FCS


----------



## Infanteer (3 Feb 2004)

Good point sir.  I concur; buy jumping in early, we can ensure that the "Coalition of the Willing" (Which I think we are a part of despite poor decisions in the past) has nearly complete interoperability.

I haven‘t had the time to fully look over the project.  Can you tell me if the push is for the next series of combat vehicles to remain tracked?


----------



## Franko (4 Feb 2004)

The band track will not be picked up by Canada. It has a BIG problem of melted snow building up to a point where it either breaks or comes comletely off the track. Did trial that lasted 3 months in the winter and it failed at least 5 times a day...no matter how many times we cleared the sprockets.   

For summer ops...it‘s a dream   

Regards


----------



## Infanteer (4 Feb 2004)

How hard is it to switch from a band track to a more conventional track?  Does it require mechanical changes, or can it be a seasonal swap, like winter tires?


----------



## Franko (4 Feb 2004)

You have to swap the sprockets and idlers. It also takes about 2-4 hours to get it off or on(using many people or another track).

I do believe we swapped out the final drives as well, but this was about 4 years ago. I seem to recall we did because the gearing in the drives was modified for the lighter track.

Regards


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Feb 2004)

Does the BV 206 & 210 use banded track?


----------



## Franko (11 Feb 2004)

Yes but a completely different beast. It was designd to use rubber traks in the first place. The M113 however, is being upgraded. There are just too many problems with it during the winter. Even mud can snap the track.

Regards


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Feb 2004)

Thanks franko what do the troops think of the BV 206? any comments about the BV210 which is slightly larger and armoured?


----------



## Infanteer (12 Feb 2004)

I am curious to see how the Brits in Basra regarded them.

Personally, I like the BV...it seemed to be the only vehicle (besides our fully-loaded tobaggan    ) moving around in the -30 meter deep snow.


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL (5 Aug 2005)

Infanteer:what stryker are you talking about, the US Army's or the british tracked vehicle.


----------



## ArmyRick (23 Aug 2005)

I like what baker had to say about investing in the FCS. I think we should contribute some $$$ to it, maybe help develop some of the technology in Canada ? Apparently we make Abrams sighting systems or something.

So lets say this system comes on line around 2010, it will take a couple of years to develop the TTP for the FCS and lets go with 2012-2014, then we could move the LAVIII and coyote family to the reserves and the REg F would go with FCS.

What thinks ya?


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2005)

Franko, not to be my usual pain in the arse, but I will be....

If the Bv206 is equipped to work with Band Tracks and works with them because it was "engineered from the start" to use them couldn't the FCS be "engineered from the start" to successfully work with the same tracks?   After all the system has barely reached the drawing board yet ( oops displaying my age - should I say the CADD palette?)

As to the FCS system itself, I don't know if the Brits have withdrawn from development now, I think they might have, but at one time they were looking at working with they Americans on the development.

Finally, WRT Wheels/Tracks, I thought the answer was both? As in the Swedish SEP where one box and one drive train would be acquired, some with wheels, some with tracks and possibly some interchangeable.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/sep/
http://www.alvishagglunds.se/default.asp (you might want to check out the video at the bottom, after the specs)

By the way the Swedish SEP, which uses band track, is designed and manufactured by Hagglunds (A division of Alvis, in turn a division of BAE)  which also manufactures the Bv206/BvS10.

As well they are the same company which designs and manufactures the CV90 series

Based on these press releases the CV-90 costs around 6 MCAD to move a section under armour, while the BvS10 costs around around 1.25 MCAD.  Of course one is a Fighting Vehicle and the other is just Transport.

http://www.alvishagglunds.se/default.asp


----------

