[Michael121]

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.

[Condor51]

Please read this article in the WAPO:

GAO Calls Stryker Too Heavy To Transport

And this:
Controversy Surrounds Army's Stryker

Initially, the Army called for its Stryker to be deployable by C-130 transport aircraft, and be ready to fight as soon as it was unloaded. But, Shoultz says in a lengthy analysis for MilitaryCorruption.com, a Web site that monitors defense-related issues, that requirement was changed in "mid-stream."

When the Army "learned that General Dynamics could not lighten the 'Stryker' and make it meet its contracted weight, instead of leaning on the contractor to perform up to standard in the contract, Army liaison personnel approached all Congressional points of contact and convinced them that they never 'really, actually meant' flying the Stryker in Air Force C-130s was required," he said.

"There is a reason that Congress mandated the Strykers use C-130s. If a Stryker brigade is to be deployed anywhere in 96 hours, as promised by Shinseki, the Air force would have to use all of its 500 c-130s to transport the 308 Stryker variants in a brigade.," Shoultz writes. "The Air Force only has a little less than 120 C-17s. They cannot allot all of them to the Army’s Strykers …"

In addition; This 'new' weight problem isn't the ONLY problem with the Stryker. Problems have plagued the Stryker from it's inception - but that ^&%$* Gen Shinseki was determined to build the dam thing.

And FYI, I've been reading about these 'design problems' and 'design changes' for a good four-five years and basically, this 'thing' NEVER should have proceeded. Some of the issues were things like:

• 1st the armor was to thin
  
• So then they increased it
  
• But then the engine and HP had to be increased to compensate
  
• Those changes then decreased the combat operating speed
• It them became unstable as a gun platform
  
• So they increased the weight
  
• That made it slower - dangerously so.
  
• So they increased the engine size - again
  
• Still unstable for the designed main gun
  
• So the went to a smaller main gun
  

And on, and on, and on it went. This 'thing' isn't a weapon system or combat vehicle. It's a frickin Rube Goldberg wet dream. Or it's like the person who we all know who thinks anything can be 'fixed' with duct tape. The Stryker is a personnel carrier with 20,000 lbs of duct tape!

If it wasn't so expensive it'd be funny -- almost.

And please, don't take my word, Google 'Stryker'. Then get ready to pray for our guys in them.