There's an article today from the GAO that states that at current 38,000# combat weight they CAN'T be deployed by our C-130's as they where originally intended. It now takes TWO C-130's to deploy, one with a bare-bones Stryker, the second with all the armor and gear. And the Stryker 'gun platform' version - furgetaboutit! Absolutely TOO HEAVY.
Thank YOU Gen Shinseki -- you klintoon suck-up maggot!
Question:My question is about the Strykers. I remember before the war there were a lot of news stories about its armor, whether or not wheels (instead of tracks) was a good idea, etc. Maybe you could give a short"Consumer Reports" like review of the Strykers. How's comfort, road noise, reliability, etc. What's good about it? What would you change on it? Good luck to all you guys. -Jeff North Huntsville, Alabama
Answer: I remember shortly before our deployment here to Iraq, the Washington Post printed a huge article on what a piece of overpriced sh*t the Stryker was and how the armor couldn't protect against anything. Which wasn't really an assuring thing to read prior to coming to Iraq. Soldier Of Fortune also tore apart the Stryker in their current issue. These people have no idea what the hell they're talking about. Here's the deal, before deployment, if you would have asked me what I thought about the Stryker, I would have told you: No Comment. In fact a lot of soldiers would have told you that. But now that we've been out here and its been combat tested, and we've seen what it's capable of doing, and how it can withstand anything that's thrown at it, I will never say negative thing about the Stryker again, ever. In fact, no lie I don't know of a single person in my Brigade who has anything negative to say about the Stryker anymore. Even people I know who hated it and bad mouthed it every chance they had, talk very highly of it now. Yea, Stykers are kind of an RPG magnet, but it can take a hit, and EVERY vehicle here in Iraq is an RPG magnet. For what we're doing out here, they're perfect, they're extremely mobile, quiet, high speed, the armor works, and it's reliable. People I know who came from a light unit love it, and people who came here from 11Mike world, love it. Tracked vehicles suck in urban environments, too slow, too loud, and they always break down. The big advantage with the Stryker is that it's not a tracked vehicle, which allows it to be extremely mobile and fast. Which is what you need here.
The above is from a blog written by a 240 gunner in B/1-23 INF, 2/3.
I agree that we were told two years ago about the Stryker's air transportability has turned out to be untrue. What are we to do about it now?
Drama queen alert.
“Stryker Boondoggle”??
So it won’t load on a C130. Use the C17.
Stryker is doing a great job. Should it be dumped for just this one thing?
There's an article today from the GAO that states that at current 38,000# combat weight they CAN'T be deployed by our C-130's as they where originally intended.
A C-130 J-30 has a maximum allowable payload of 44,000 pounds. How far can it fly with aerial refueling? http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=92
The C5 the new combat cargo plane can carry the Strykers. It can take off in the same space as a C130.
The C5 has performed so well as it is smaller than the c141 but can handle the cargo load. If it can handle an Abrahms it can handle a Styker.