[TheGunny]

It looks like our LAV??? Is it better or worse?

[.cnI redruM]

Much worse, the Army should temporarily suspend inter-service rivalry and just buy a bunch of LAVs with MWOs to match Army-specific gear.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Here are the Advantages of the LAV-25 over the Stryker ITC (Infantry Troop Carrier):

1) LAV-25 is amphibious, Stryker is not.

2) LAV-25 is more nimble and cross country maneuverable due to 10,000+ lbs less weight. LAV-25 is around 14 tons and the Stryker is around 19 tons.

3) LAV-25 can be sling loaded by CH-53, Stryker cannot.

4) LAV-25 has 25mm bushmaster and turret. Stryker has remote mounted .50 cal OR Mk19.

5) LAV-25 is truely C-130 transportable, Most of the 10 Stryker varients are not.

6) LAV-25 costs 1/3 the price of a Stryker

[SJSAMPLE]

The LAV's a great tool, because it meets (mostly) its stated objectives and fits in with the USMC force structure and mission posture.

Many of the features of the Stryker were taken from the LAV and enhanced (engine, armor, electronics). However, many of the additions (weight, size) have placed it outside its stated deployment envelope. In addition, its enhancements move it too close towards the realm of heavy armor. As soon as they begin to mount the (undecided) main gun on the thing, it will, in effect, become a de-facto tank. Albiet, with too little gun and too little armor.