Where did I do that? I merely pointed out that legions of so-called "experts" around here questioned things like its mobility and protection. Issues that have been proven to be completely wrong.
People who’ve worked with, driven in and lived in combat vehicles have had legitimate issues with the Stryker from the start. Not all of those concerns have been alleviated.
No, really? It isn't perfect? Go figure.
I just read a journal article on some proposed improvements to the M1. Already a pretty robust system, no? But there's always room for improvement.
Some around here predicted the worst for the Stryker, and they were proven wrong.
Your original post referenced “all the experts” and many of them, through education, training and experience were, indeed, experts. Many of their concerns were valid and remain so.
The Stryker was part of a “interim” vehicle program that was supposed to be followed by the delayed/defunct FCS. Many of the target points of the Stryker were missed (specifically, air-deployability aboard C-130 aricraft). This was a significant concern because getting the Stryker to the battlefield was already a huge hurdle. As it is, it takes TWO C-130s to meet the original objective and even then it requires some wrenching to do so.
I like the Stryker because I’ve spend 16 years in the M113-based variants and it was, indeed, a huge improvement. I longed for a more reliable, more on-road maneuverable wheeled FDC vehicle to replace my M577 command track. I literally drool over the CP variant.
I, too, think that those who predicted “disaster” were mistaken. As it is, the FCS program is nowhere in sight and the Stryker will likely become much more than the “interim” vehicle proposed. With that in mind, deployability concerns become more of an issue. Of course, if the DOD would get off its ass and extend the C-17 line in California, this shortcoming would be heavily mitigated.