[Condor51]

You would cancel the program because the vehicle is too heavy for the C-130?

Unfortunately I'd have to say yes, no more to be built. And BECUASE that was one of the major design criteria. And C5A's can't land in a hot LZ with a dirt runway, C-130's can and that's THE delivery system the 'NEW" vehicle must comply with.

What would you do with the Stryker Brigades already equipped?

Well sine we have them - we're stuck with them. Natch we have to keep enough spare parts to keep them operational for at least 10-15 years.

With what would you replace the Stryker? How long would that take?

That's the $64 dollar question. I'd say we start from scratch and BUILD a vehicle NOT designed 'by committee' like the Stryker was and it sticks to the spec's or payments to the contractor are cut off - period. And as to the time, easily 10 years, like most weapons 'systems'. That's why we need the spare parts for the existing ones.

But to keep the Stryker, and to build MORE, just because 'they're there' is not prudent IMO. And it's not like other 'failed' military projects have been canceled after a sort time. The B-36 Peacemaker comes to mind. It didn't last too long - all things considered.

[Valin]

Question, do they fit in a C-17?
no flame.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

I think the Stryker is a done deal, unless Kerry gets in and kills it while he guts the military. The Stryker is key to Army Transition and the Future Force and Future Combat Systems. Kill Stryker and you throw a monkey wrench into all of that.

In the end, the B-36 turned out to be a place holder for the B-52 Stratofortress. The Stryker is an interim vehicle holding a place for Future Combat Systems that haven't been invented yet.