rolex replica watches - $98 swiss , we don't sale replica watches.The Art of E-commerce

Posted by: replica watches at August 5, 2008 08:28 PM

I had only a little lunia gold and the remedy was not enough, but I still to add the blood to our cavalier which were battling, we saw the enemy became more and more fearfulness, at last my best friend dead. At this time I needed the more lunia war gold to buy blood to save my best friend. I couldn’t go to save my friend, because the enemy was coming and carrying off his lunia online gold.

Posted by: lunia gold at August 5, 2008 07:44 PM

I had never buy cabal alz to it I prefer to use a little money to buy the cheaper. I could use the cheaper to change for cabal money. Yes, I was so clever.

Posted by: cabal money at August 5, 2008 07:39 PM

In my opinion it lick into shape the real myself, if you didn't like it, please didn't hurt it, my country people had never felt the other's feeling and used it to earn money, they sold the more cabal gold to change for the more money. I had never buy cabal alz to it I prefer to use a little money to buy the cheaper. I could use the cheaper to change for cabal money. Yes, I was so clever.

Posted by: buy cabal alz at August 5, 2008 07:35 PM

"Modularity Focused Force of Expeditionary Excellence"? Is that with or without the bad-a** Berets? Give me a break already, guys. It's time for the Army to give up the 5th Ave. name game and I-wanna-be-like-the-USMC tag lines and get in the fight already...

And tracked behemoths causing less damage than wheeled vehicles? Reference please!

Posted by: Jack O'Derry at September 25, 2007 09:17 PM

Many have perceived a disproportionate focus on the limited socio-environmental impact of the Stryker System. It must be observed, however, that tracked vehicles create less soil erosion than wheeled vehicles as well as less foundation cracking, wellshaft failure, terrain ruttage and diverse effects all due to superior displacement ratios which the tread drive system provides. This fact when taken in concert with the greater mobility that tracks provide, being much more difficult to mire or high center, logically tend toward the favor of tracked systems such as the M113 Gavin. While the M1126 may be truthfully termed the more courteous system for the pavedroadways of Host Nations, pavements are not a part of any natural environment. As such General Shinseki's intitial criterion for the interim LAV IV system as the basis of the Modularity Focused Force of Expeditionary Excellence remains at issue.

Posted by: Ryan Bailey at September 23, 2007 07:49 AM

...and let me correct myself before somebody else notices that the NEW ZEELAND army uses the LAV III with the FN MAG-58 machine gun, vice the Canadians who utilize the C6 GPMG on their variants. This vehicle, which is identical to the Canadian version with minor exceptions, is clearly not marked with the Maple Leaf roundel and is carrying the MAG 58 up top, making it a Kiwi LAV III.

Posted by: Jack O'Derry at April 26, 2007 11:48 AM

Shawn,

Hate to burst your bubble, slick, but that is a photo of a Canadian LAV III (Piranha III) in what looks like Afghanistan. The Canadian's did a righteous re-mod of the USMC LAV, and the product had the 25mm Bushmaster Chaingun as part of the package. The U.S. Army started with that version and proceeded to slap an extra 2+ tons of gizmos on it, thus negating the ability to house the weapons system that the vehicle was designed around. Incidentally, the Canadian version IS C-130 transportable. A link to the official Canadian Army website devoted to this great war machine:

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_display.asp?product=64

Looking at the photo caption, I would say you were most likely misled by it, as the .jpg was misnamed in that photo. Was probably posted by somebody who didn't really know what he was looking at or maybe an American soldier who had a wishful moment...?

Posted by: Jack O'Derry at April 17, 2007 08:01 PM

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Ground/Stryker.jpg

Posted by: Shawn J Corter at March 21, 2007 10:15 AM

You Think there is no Stryker with the 25mm Platform...Take a look at this picture and then Explain why this isn't so....

Posted by: Shawn J Corter at March 21, 2007 10:13 AM

Was pleased to see some comments following mine that echoed my impression of the Stryker, though it was equally encouraging to hear accounts of Strykers saving lives.

For those that haven't looked over the deficiency report, I'd recommend it highly.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2003_rpt/stryker_reality_of_war.pdf

For a good insight on the boondoggles of military procurement I'd suggest the movie "Pentagon Wars" about the development of the Bradley. It's quite funny if you ignore the money and lives potentially wasted.

Posted by: LanceThruster at March 16, 2007 09:09 PM

124Strikersoldier.

Get with the program. I case you didn't realize it - the US Marine Corps has had LAV's since 1983. The US Army in its infinite wisdom decided in the early 80's not to go with the LAV but to instead buy the Bradley. I won't get into an inter-service rivalry argument. I've served with some extremely professional US Army soldiers throughout my 18 years of service. This isn't about us against you but about the vehicle debate. During 15 of my 18 years I've served in Light Armoured Reconnaissance Battalions who are equipped with Generation 1 LAV's - Strykers are a modified Gen 3 version of the same vehicle. I have also seen combat in both Desert Shield/Storm and OIF in the LAV. During 1998, I was also lucky enough to be stationed near Fort Lewis when the Stryker trials were being conducted. What I can say is that the US Army bureaucracy has ruined a perfectly good vehicle by making the platform try to do to many things at once. They got the concept right but should have left a brillant vehicle design alone. The Canadian and NZ Armies both employ the same vehicle to tremendous success without all the design flaws induced by overzealous Generals. The C130 requirement? Who in their right mind came up with that one then decided to penalize the platform through gross modifications. Remove four of the eight tire run flat devices?? Don't buy the turret mounted 25mm M242 Chain Gun system but instead stick with just a M2 50cal MG or Mk19 40mm GLA? In Iraq today there are a lot of Marines who owe their life to the 25mm and its destructive offensive fire power.

Bottom line - don't try to slander another service before you know all the facts. The US Marine Corps has pioneered the us of the GM LAV - not the US Army.

Gunny B

Posted by: Gunny B at January 22, 2007 06:05 AM

Silly Marines. Stupid superiority complex. The stryker's a good vehicle, and has saved many of our lives. You guys just might benefit from having it in your inventory. And this comes from a deuce four vet, just like Sgt. Brown there. Quit being hardasses and accept the fact that the stryker is a great vehicle for urban combat. Lethal, survivable, and maneuverability is great.

Posted by: 124strykersoldier at January 14, 2007 09:48 PM

The previous poster has spoken like a soldier who has an obvious inferiority complex with Marines. I am not, nor ever been, in the military but I have witnessed through my workings as a Defense Contractor that the Army seems consistently obsessed with proving their worth as compared to the United States Marine Corps. This guy, if he really is a soldier at all (and I question that due to his disrespectful tone towards "Major LAV") seems to have that complex in spades. I would put forth that the Marines have of late been forced to shoulder the majority of the load in the toughest combat zones in Iraq (probably no coincidence), and are reluctant to accept the Stryker due to it's multitude of limitations as a reconnaissance platform and lack of transportability. The statement from the poster asking whether the Major "has ever been in combat in a Stryker" shows his misunderstanding of what was I think his target was trying imparted; that the Marines do not want the Stryker due to the reasons listed in the post, mainly it's vulnerability due to it's weight/size. If "Major LAV" truly works in PM-LAV (which seems to be authenticated with the knowledge he has on the future development of that platform), then I would assume he is/was an LAR Battalion Commander who has probably seen some tracers coming in the wrong direction at some point in his career. I, by the way, deal directly with those in the Stryker Program Manager's Office, and can say with first-hand confidence that the Stryker is a pig on wheels, and that the Army is already having "buyers remorse" over many of the variants it chose to rush into production. That being said, I still feel that the Army has it's purpose, and must further agree with the opinion that our great soldiers and Marines ought to stick to doing what they do best. The Army is much more bureaucratic and encumbered by layers of redundant processes that make it much more suited to theater governance and occupation roles, whereas the USMC has been at the pinnacle of "breaking the door down" operations and is unarguably the best on the planet in that capacity. I have the highest respect for each and every one of the U.S. armed services, and hope that the Joint Operations now occurring around the globe will enhance their capabilities by complimenting each of their core strengths, while resisting the temptation to "cross over" into areas they are less suited for by using "transformation" as an alibi, simply to enhance their own ego's. Just my 2 pennies...

Posted by: Jack O'Derry at December 23, 2006 09:53 AM

Apparently Major Lav has an issue with the Army period. Having endured some the worst Iraq has to offer while assigned to Aco 1-24 "Punisher's" ( look us up Major Lav, you might learn something ) I can personally attest to the Stryker's durability and, contrary to what the Major would have you believe, all those bells and whistles serve a legitiment purpose. Personally I think the Major is a bitter, opionated dumbass. When's the last time YOU were in a Stryker in combat, Major? You think a Marine grunt on the ground wouldn't appreciate a vehicle that can survive not one or two but REPEATED blasts from IED's and direct hits from SVBIED's? It just goes to show you that the brass, no matter what branch of service, seem to think with their fifth point of contact. Have a nice day, Major.

Posted by: SGT BROWN at November 19, 2006 09:02 PM

Okay, let me weigh in on this. I work at the Program Manager's Office for the USMC LAV. Let me dispel the rumor that we are even considering the Stryker. For one, it's not even remotely amphibious, which is a requirement. Two, it's way to freakin' heavy to transport. The Army, as it usually does, loaded it down with an extra 10,000 pounds of crap, making CH-53E or KC-130J transport a non-starter. We are developing an "A2" version which will be a rebuild of the original Gen 1 design, with some significant upgrades, such as an electrical turret and more powerful Turbo Diesel engine. Four, even if the USMC wanted the Stryker, we couldn't afford them. They have too much gee whiz stuff that effectively priced us out of the market. We deal a whole lot with the Stryker PM, and they are not very happy with the rushed into production variants they got stuck with. The Army, which is fixated on developing a MAGTF type of "expeditionary" brigades, is obsessed with trying to duplicate the fast deployment that Marines are best at. They will never get there, for many reasons, but will continue burning tax dollars at a cyclic rate trying to get there. The main issue/Achilles heel is with the Army's use of this weapons system. The Army envisioned this as a battle wagon to wage urban combat on a scale with many of their heavier rolling stock. Marines know better, as we employ the LAV in a role it was designed for - RECONNAISANCE! Hooking and jabbing with RPG wielding maniacs is something a Light Armored Reconnaissance Company avoids at all costs. That's what tanks are for. The Army should stay with what they do best - a heavy land force with a mission to slug it out and occupy territory after Marines take the objective. You might guess that I am a little bitter about the Stryker. I am, I hate seeing taxpayer dollars wasted. I may be biased, being a Marine, but the Army would have been better served investing in more HBCT's than trying to be the USMC.

Posted by: Major LAV at July 29, 2006 11:29 PM

Interesting mods to the old Bucket. Note the gunshields.
http://www.combatreform.com/aesindex.htm
According to Mike Sparks, no one has died inside a modified M-113 in Iraq so far.

Posted by: SR at July 4, 2006 03:09 PM

That Skinner guy can't spell.

Posted by: Pantowanto at February 14, 2006 12:10 AM

Let me start by noting that I have never been in the service but would certainly like to thank all those who are who have shared their experiences regarding the Stryker. My friend's son returned from Iraq recently and had much to say about his dissatisfaction about the conduct of the war but was non-committal on the Stryker (my question was "Is it a piece of sh*t like I've heard?) His response was similar about the SAW btw.

Going by what I've already read elsewhere and the comments I've seen here, the Stryker is part of the same sort boondoggle that sends troops into combat with inferior body armor. (here is where I learned the most about its deficiencies: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2003_rpt/stryker_reality_of_war.pdf)It costs too much and does too little. I wonder if a newly produced M-113 (especially one that could tap Stryker budget dollars for upgrades) would still be thought of as rickety. I agree that the roles it performs are largely a result of add-ons that are suited to many other platforms that can better deal with the trade-off between speed, survivability, and firepower. I also read that (if you're lucky), the RPG bird cage (it looks like folding cot springs to me - eternal sleep anyone?) is good for about one(1) hit which will mean that unfriendlies will certainly get frustrated and elect not to fire multiple rounds.

Just as with character witness testimonials, I tend to put more weight to those who can testify with a first-hand account of serious flaws, than those (even if fairly numerous) that state that they didn't have all that negative experience. I hope they shelve that dog and find a designer/contractor that remembers that his work is first and foremost, to benefit the soldier and Marine sent in harm's way the instead of major shareholders who at worst may lose face (and not the flesh and blood kind).

That reminds me, my friend's son got some sort of Distinguished Action Commendation for his action in a firefight when his (LAV - Bradley?) was hit (RPG?)and he juggled returning fire and tending to a fellow Marine who had lost half his face from the initial explosion. He recounted this matter-of-factly by stating that earlier he had told that same Marine what an *sshole he thought he was and that they pretty much hated each other. The account of the experience is somewhere in this book: A Table in the Presence : The Dramatic Account of How a U.S. Marine Battalion Experienced God's Presence Amidst the Chaos of the War in Iraq by LT. Carey H. Cash. I am an atheist and have no motive for mentioning it other than it recounts Adam's (though not by name) combat action.

Thank you all again for providing your experiences and opinions regarding the Stryker.

Posted by: LanceThruster at December 10, 2005 01:11 AM

Re Striker,

I have to say that the Striker ,like any other Lav or Av has its weak and its strong points. We in Canada use the Lav 1,2 and 3 as well as the Lav-25 and many other Lav derivitives and all perform well to very well,in their assigned tasks.
The vehicle is not an APc or an AIfv or a AFv. It is what we call an ISc or infanty section carrier. It is not designed for head to head slug outs , like the Bradley. It is not designed for close in urban combat. It was designed as a medium weight, Lightly Armoured vehicle to be used where speed and quiet and cover are in abundance. It is, I would have to say in its application,that the problem arrises not in the vehicle its self. The Canadian Forces kept many of its M113 and up engined and up armoured them for use where the LAv's are not sutiable.
A mixed force of about 1/2 Tracked and 1/2 Treaded carriers make up the typical Motorised/Mechinised Infantry Battle Group.
All aspects of the All- Arms Force are kitted out with weapons systems mounted on both types. This gives the ability to deploy into almost any situation and have the correct vehicle type available for any tasking that may be requested or demanded. We augment this with G-Wagon(our German Built Hummer type UV's)mounts for recon and patrol.
Add in the Various softies for haulin the Beans and bullets and taking our the trash and there is the complete package.
In short I would ask that you give the Striker a chance to prove itsself , but do not expect that it will be all to all. It is waht it is and if used correctly will be a great asset to your Army and other Armed Forces.
Thanks!

Posted by: Dave at December 8, 2005 09:44 PM

I would think that the Marine Corps wouldn't want a vehicle that won't swim. Strykers don't have any swimming capability.

Posted by: John Middleton at November 29, 2005 08:34 PM

I'm wondering how the manoverability of the Stryker with it's rubber tires stands up to the M-113?

Posted by: Ken Miller at November 13, 2005 07:59 PM

Good Evening Mr. Van Ronzelen,

Unfortunately your post reflects others that I've read from returning Veterans and conservations over a picture of beer and a pizza with guys/gals who have returned from Iraq.

I first got the heads up from an officer of the OPTFOR force at Ft. Irwin who ran the certifications on the Stryker. He perdicted many of the probles you mentioned.

The Stryker is being "sold" to the public and the military press, the reason I can only assume is that careers and positions on boards of directors are at steak for Pentagon Brass.

During peace time it's only money, big deal but as you so strongly pointed out that during time of war it is leathal. Like you I have seen friend die in combat needlessly because of screw ups with equipment the M-16 to be specific.

When the Army take a good journalists like David Axe and subjects them to the fore play of a embeded visit to the war zone in order to sell the Stryker things have gone over the edge.

To the people who don't have to live it 24/7 for a year, war is romantic and sexy. I can see where it would be easy for journalists who are going to spend a fed days with a unit to get caught up in the geewiz of the whole experience.

The Army is shamelessly using this to create a false picture of the war that fits better the political spin at home of the war. The embeded program that is being used by the military in Iraq is little more then censorship of the media.

In the case of Stryker journalists would rather take the word of an officer or a ride with a selected group of soldiers then ask to see some vehicle log books. Of course such a request would get a reporter a quick ticket on the next C-130 back to Kuwait.

The post that fallows yours by Mr. West I think sums up the frustration that is building with in the community that cares about what is happening in the war zones and to the men and women who have to shoulder the burden of defending America.

The least the Army owes these people is the best equipment that money can buy to do their jobs. The Stryker doesn't fulfill this requirement.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
"Stewart's Platoon"

Posted by: Byron Skinner at November 6, 2005 07:08 PM

Two years after pearl harbor the U.S. had built tens of thousands of tanks, ships, planes. The "lets not be hasty here" feeling about armor for the troops nearly two years after the invasion is making me CRAZY. I can only believe that it comes from the fly boy mentality of "lighter, faster, more lethal" that works with airplanes but has no place on a battlefield. We need WHAT WORKS and damn the dogma.

Posted by: Herbert West at November 6, 2005 05:12 PM

Those things are nothing more than expensive bullet-traps and I concur whole-heartedly with Mr. Skinner's comments about their reliability and the comments 'not' made by soldiers. When we escorted the first of the Strykers across the DMZ into Iraq, it was the biggest debacle I had ever seen on a convoy. Between these things breaking down with many of the ailments mentioned above, to them running out of gas(!), to multiple flats on the same vehicle, these Strykers were the biggest PITA we ever had to deal with.
And it wasnt a one time thing. Having kept in contact with many people in these Strykers brigades, we kept hearing more and more stories like this. Talking to our 3rd shop guys, they'd have more of the same to say also about the frequency of breakdowns and deadlines they saw with them.
As far as combat effectiveness or survivability, junk. I lost a good friend of mine when an Iraqi with a car bomb drove up along side of his Stryker and detonated. All four occupants were killed because the explosion propelled the pieces of the car through the thin skin of the Stryker.
The weapon systems the Strykers can mount are no different than what can be mounted on other, more capable vehicles. The simple fact that its rolling on rubber and not track makes it a liability as well. There are few times you are more vulnerable then when underneath a vehicle on the side of the road in Iraq.
The Strykers may have a use in the military, but it sure isnt what they are being used for now, and the uses you CAN find for it can be performed more effectively by existing platforms. Best thing we could do is sell them to someone we dont like and make them their problem.

Posted by: Matt Van Ronzelen at November 6, 2005 12:38 PM

Good Morning Carter,

Ah you are wrong the Canadians are in the the "Stryker game", and pretty big time too.

On Nov. 2ed. an open ended contracted (#DAAE07-02C-B001) with a down payment of $69.130 Million was put out by the U.S. Army to GD GDLS Defense Group LL, for repairs to the Strykers.

This was a no bid contract and the DoD waited two days after award and a second post on a Friday night to make it public. That usually indicated they would perfer that no one noticed.

Back to how my Canadian friends are in the game, 75% of the work is to be done in London Ontario, Canada, 19% at Ft. Lewis and balance (6%) in Sterling Hgt's. Mich., cashing the checks I assume.

The Strykers are still in production and they need all this repair that must be done out of country. What gives Stryker guys?

This is more the just repairing some flats and few bum transmissions. Sine the ones that will be returned from Iraq will be recycled. This is serious work.

In response to David Lange, I would guess that his CPT friend is making a slick move in avoiding another tour in Iraq.

The worst he could get is Alaska (25ID or 172BCT) but the other choices would be Germany (2ACR), Hawaii(25ID), Korea (2ID), or Ft's Carson or Lewis (2ID).

It is doubtful that the Stryker will ever see Iraq again, 301 were deployed and recycled through tours for two years and from all reports are all to be red lined when the last rotation is finished.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
"Stewart's Platoon"

Posted by: Byron Skinner at November 5, 2005 01:36 PM

The Canadian's aren't getting into the Stryker game. It's the Americans who have. We've had the vehicle (and earlier versions of it) a lot longer, and we developed and manufactured them and their many variants. (BTW: It's called the Coyote up here - with its relatives, the Bison and Grizzly.)

By the way, those vehicles are *fast*. In some respects that makes up for a little less armour.

Posted by: Carter at November 5, 2005 05:18 AM

The first Stryker brigade-3rd Bde, 2ID-did convert from heavy (2 tank Bns, 1 Mech Bn) to Stryker, but they're the only ones who will do so.

I'm a CPT in the Army, and two of the other CPTs in my unit went to Iraq with the 3/2ID, one as a company commander, one as a PL. The one who went as a PL is trying to get back to a line unit, hopefully being able to go back to Iraq as a company commander. His unit type of choice? Strykers.

Posted by: David Lange at November 4, 2005 05:40 PM

Good Morning David,

My references were for the 1AD and 2/2ACR and the battle histories in Karballa and Najaf in the late Spring of 2003 and the use of M-113's is well documented. I'm kinda "old school" on the subject of armored vehicles. If they bring you back alive well who cares if they ride like a Caddie or not, I sure didn't.

I know from first hand experience that the Alum. side Armor will stop a Soviet ".51 Cal." round. The M-1126 Stryker won't.

As for the 1ID it was 39 years ago this month that my unit was on a little adventure with the 1/16 Inf. and later the 2/26 Inf it was called Operation Attleboro.

Sicne we were the new guys in the field we took a lot of ribbing about our ACAVS as being nothing more then moving foxholes and should be used for the proposes you mentioned. By 15 Nov. when the Operation Attlebroro was extended they were believers.

I would suggest that if the 1ID troopers took there "Old" M-113's for a "Rickety and dangerious" ride into downtown Bagubah and then picked out the rounds embedded in the side armor they would have a new respect for the old war horse.

As to the endoresements by the troopers from the 2ID and the 25ID for the M-1126 Stryker, I don't put much faith into what they say with their officers just off camera.

Like what are they going to say, the .50 Cal. in the cupola can't transverse fast enough to engage a target or that the driver had to check the air pressure in the tires after every run because the vehicle is so over weight, or that we blew out our Allison Transmission (every Stryker did at least once in Iraq) with in the first 1,000 mile or the suspension couldn't handle the weight, or that the electronics fried because the Stryker is not AC'ed. and got to hot. I don't think so David.

The U.S. did extensive testing of both track and wheeled combat vehicles in 1937 at Ft. Benning and the operational history of Germany in WWII on the Eastern Front back up the findings that track vehicles have a higher crew survivorability then wheeled vehicles.

Being the selfish guy that I am, I perfer comming back alive, maybe a little nicked up but still able to talk about it, to the alternative.

Sorry David but on this one again we have some areas of disagreement.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
"Stewart's Platoon"

Posted by: Byron Skinner at November 4, 2005 12:04 AM

Hey Byron,

The 1ID troops I was with in Baqubah refused to ride in their old M-113s, the things were so rickety and dangerous. Instead, they parked the -113s at gates and intersections as obstacles. On the other hand, the 25ID guys in Qayyarah loved their Strykers ... and when I was with them, they had no "minders" telling them what to say. Besides, in a low-intensity environment, reliability is a major plus -- soldiers in Iraq put a LOT of miles on their vehicles -- and the Stryker beats the M-113 (and any tracked vehicle, for that matter) when it comes to reliability, hands down.

Posted by: David Axe at November 3, 2005 04:04 PM

You know Byron-even though the Stryker Brigade wasn't deployed to Baghdad-doesn't mean they haven't been all around town. Sometimes supplementing the armored ground mobility system-sometimes not.

Posted by: max at November 3, 2005 03:02 PM

One look at the picture with this story says all that needs to be said about the bureactic screw up called "Stryker". Why the bird cage?

Any compairson to the M-2 or M-3 Bradley's is very misleading. From the begaining the Stryker was never even considered as a replacement for there APC's.

It is also noted that the manufacturing lines for both the Bradley's and the Abram's Tank will be up and ready to go on December 31, 2005.

What's notable of Stryker's tour in Iraq was where it wasn't, places like Najaf, Karbala, the Sar District in Baghdad, An Bar Provence and it even misssed Fallugah, twice.

In both Karbala, 1AD and Najaf, 2ACR 60 year old M-113's were brought in and served well as usual. In both of these engagements no soldier riding in an M-113 was killed. The only KIA casualities that came to these units were to dismounted elements.

Stryker was only used in the areas with the lowest combat levels and like everything about this rolling cofin all reports and evulations have been santitized. Even the glowing reports from the troops was not with out minders just off camera.

Now Stryker, which even the Army no longer calls a Combat Vehicle is being shoved up the six of the Marines as a replacement for a much more able Combat Vehicle the LAV.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
"Stewart's Platoon"

Posted by: Byron Skinner at November 3, 2005 02:08 PM

Mike,

The Stryker was never intended to replace MBTs or even Bradleys, at least not in heavy units ... rather, it was meant as a medium-weight bridge to a future medium-weight force that WOULD replace the M-1/M-2 combo -- hence the Stryker's early "interim armored vehicle" moniker. That future medium force has become the Future Combat System. Considering the FCS's problems with its JTRS (a snazzy new radio), the Stryker will end up being much more than an interim vehicle. And in light of its (relatively) low cost (relative to FCS), I think we'll see Strykers in the force for a very long time.

Back to the point about the Stryker replacing MBTs ... consider that most of the current Stryker brigades converted from motorized infantry (Humvees). I'm wracking my brain for an example of a heavy unit converting to Stryker, and I'm not coming up with any. Let me know if you think of one.

Posted by: David Axe at November 3, 2005 01:59 PM

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I don't think the Air Force owns those Strykers -- the Army does. They just like having the TACPs ride around with them.

Schoomaker made some comments about the Strykers at a roundtable about a month or so ago -- he loves em' and he especially loves having 'battlefield airmen' with his boots in the field. He mentioned that he had discussions with (former USAF Chief) Gen. Jumper to add up to 800 more battlefield airmen into the mix, most of which would go into the Stryker program.

Posted by: mvs at November 3, 2005 09:53 AM

There is a need for something that presents a smaller target than the EFV for the marines for apres beach work. Of necessity surf-capable amphibious AFVs are large, way too large for inland use.

Posted by: JSAllison at November 3, 2005 09:47 AM

The Stryker is just fine as a basic armored car. The critics were concerned about it's abiltiy to REPLACE M1s in a standup tank battle - which is what it was supposed to do. Good wheeled armor has a significant place in the force structure, but there is no way in hell that it will replace a MBT.

Posted by: Mike at November 2, 2005 09:00 PM

The problem with the thing is that it is still too expensive. When we are in peacetime we seem obsessed about building state of the art weapons that turn out to be really good at their missions, but that cost too much to ever be deployed in numbers sufficient to accomplish them. We'll still be using Hummers for combat patrol for years in the future, despite their known failings, because we will never afford the number of Strykers necessary to replace them fully. When we are in real knockdowns, like WW2, we shed this way of doing things like a bad habit. Would that we could do that now; it would save a lot of lives.

Posted by: Tracy at November 2, 2005 08:50 PM