[R. Scott]

“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?

[Darksheare]

No, not dumped.
Modified.
Give it offroad stability and a tighter turning radius.
Whoever set the spec at 'greyhound bus' needs to be launched from a torpedo tube.

Other than that, it does seem to be doing better than thought based off the suspect criteria of it's inception.

[Condor51]

Well.. when the cost is $4.7 million each, and it can't be transported 'combat ready' on the plane it was supposed to be delivered on, with all due respect - yeah to me that's a boondoggle.

Again, I think some of you are missing my point here, the C-130 can go where none of our other transports can. THAT's the problem. The Stryker cannot be inserted into 'hot' combat areas and that's why the thing was developed.

Now I could go on about all the other numerous problems with the Stryker, but suffice to say it has nowhere near the capabilities as originally intended.

It's kind of like that old saying, "The Camel is a horse designed by committee." The Stryker is the military version.