Any news?

OK, here's the deal on this thing. The 500 pound bomb was inside a vehicle, which is why it didn't do much more than flip the vehicle over. The vehicle was then flipped back over and it drove itself back to the FOB where it broke down and the wrecker had to be called. Trust me on this one. I can personally vouch for how kick-ass this vehicle is.

It takes between 8lb-12lbs, depending on type and configuration of the charge, to shred a vehicle. If the platform vehicle was able to absorb enough of the blast to prevent any appreciable damage to the Stryker, it was way less than a 500lb charge. Strykers weigh about 19 tons empty. That's a lot of resistance for a shock wave to overcome. How was it righted at the blast site in order to be driven under it's own power to the FOB? 19 tons is pretty heavy without the aid of a lifting device (AKA wrecker). The AAR is currently "close hold" which leads me to believe that things may not be as rosy for the Stryker as some believe. There is a great push at the "Puzzle Palace" to support the concept that the Stryker is the greatest combat vehicle ever fielded. They only "close hold" Stryker info when it is unfavorable. Stryker Haji, what's your background? Give me a reason to "Trust you on this one".

Big Deal, The proposed M113 variant/upgrade could have probably survived the same blast with te same results. You are misisng the point here. The release of this news was somehow supposed to be vindication for those who where behind the flawed if not criminal decission to buy the Stryker in the first place. The most important reasond behind the creation of the Stryker Brigades was to increase Army strategic mobility. To give the Army a rapidly deployable medium force. In this respect the Stryker fails. In fact becuase of the size difference you can transport more Bradlys than Strykers in a C-17. The Stryker easily ranks up there with the Osprey as a fiasco. When you add on the Generals invovled inthe selection process who later retired and went on to make money it becomes criminal. http://www.combatreform.com/strykerprogram.htm http://www.militarycorruption.com/stryker.htm

Point is not missed. The adoption of the Stryker was a near unilateral decision by then Chief of Staff Erik Shinseki. It was almost a "This project or no project" environment. Everyone needs a legacy and a place to go after retirement it seems. Still a very interesting challenge to recreate the event from the presented evidence. Will keep pursuing the AAR until I get it or someone tells me to stop.

I'm not sure where the "criminal decision" comes from, but I can assure that the Stryker DID indeed increase mobility. Could a 113 travel the entire length of Iraq in less than 2 days to kick bad guy ass as a country-wide QRF? Could a 113 act as route security and serve as convoy escorts for logistics trucks? Could a 113 allow an infantry brigade to cover the entire region that a division covered previously?

The Stryker did not accomplish the assigned goal of stratgic mobility: deploying a Stryker brigade anywhere in the world in 96 hours. It is too heavy to be flown in a C-130 except the J model and only then with an Air Force safety waiver. C-130J make up only 10% of the Air Force C-130 fleet. Nor does the Air Force have enough C-17s. These goals however wer achiveable with modifications of the M-113 to the same standard as the Stryker at far less cost. The actions of officers connected withe proram that could be considered in vilation of the law are detailed here: http://www.militarycorruption.com/stryker.htm

I'm with you on all that, Ambush. What amazes me most, is all the fuss over the Boeing tanker "scandal", which is almost to a "T" what happened in the Stryker program, yet no one is raising the same amount of fuss over the Stryker. Go figure. Besides, except for the plethora of integrated electronics, is the Stryker really anything more than an over-glorified, re-launched LAV/Piranha? .

The tanker scandal ran its course, but let's face it a tankers are not high profile sexy items like Strykers or the Osprey.

It has a lot more horsepower and is more state of the art electronically than any LAV, although it is based on a similar chasis. Argue all you want about the Stryker fielding process, but ultimately... who cares? As someone who has deployed with the 113, Bradley and Stryker, I would take Stryker any day. At least while I was in Iraq, I knew that if I took an IED or RPG, I could still get out of the kill-zone without having to worry about breaking track. It also allowed my platoon to respond to calls halfway across the city in a matter of minutes. The 113 and Bradley could never do that, not to mention that the bad guys could hear them coming from miles away. The only people who don't like the Stryker are the ones who have never fought in it. Ask any of my soldiers or any of the others who have spent the last year in Mosul. They will swear up and down by it. Shouldn't the fact that soldiers trust their equipment count for something?