[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.

[R. Scott]

and it can't be transported 'combat ready' on the plane it was supposed to be delivered on…

While it can’t be transported as intended on the C130, the C17 can handle it - and use unimproved relatively short strips.
This wouldn’t be as big a problem if people had not tried to change the Stryker into something it was not intended to be. It was intended to be a troop transporter with the capability of delivering covering fire. It was not intended to be a tank. Because of the changes introduced afterward, it did become a vehicle “designed by a committee”.

[Grzegorz 246]

"Well.. when the cost is $4.7 million each"

It costs $4.7 million each ? It should be less expensive.