Stryker taken XM-8s !!!!!

[seruriermarshal]

http://tinypic.com/e13dj8.jpg

[davis411]

what date was that pic taken?

[Swedish Chef]

Nice! woot

[enzo100]

YESSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!! woot

[Aerosoul]

Yuck..

[Midav]

Nice find!!

[jetsetter]

I see atleast three different versions of the XM-8 in the photo.

[bleaches]

i see the MG type and regular rifle type only :roll:

[flanker7]

First guy maybe carrying that "ultra" short version

[Airborne44]

Probably taken at some "dog and pony" show about the future of the army or something.

[Frens]

Probably taken at some "dog and pony" show about the future of the army or something.

+1 also the vehicle looks too clean

[One_A]

Probably taken at some "dog and pony" show about the future of the army or something.

Or an evaluation of the XM8 when employed with a Stryker unit.

[pooch]

I hope you guys don't get too disappointed when the XM8 is shelved.

[Scottie]

the xm8 ist just too much pudding for my belly.... looks like a toy...

id take the rugged FN SCAR anyday...

[Frost]

the xm8 ist just too much pudding for my belly.... looks like a toy...

id take the rugged FN SCAR anyday...

Those comments are just stupid. Remember that the "Oh-so-lovely" M16 was spit at by the troopers in Nam who all thought is was a toy (hey, that sounds familiar)

I don't give a **** about how it looks. If it's more reliable, easier to handle and clean than I'm satisfied. The thing is supposed to kill other people, not to look fancy on a picture.

This picture is most likely some promo-shoot or a field-test with the weapon. I don't think the current XM8 will be fielded, but a new rifle will be fielded in the near future to replace the aging M16/M4 series

[Scottie]

If im not mistaken i am entitled to my own opinion

[ABNINF]

Looks like it was taken at Benning, they're always doing demo's for higher-ups.

[Jakkech]

I would take xm8 over m4 anytime. Looks Kool and propably performs better in field.

[Frens]

I would take xm8 over m4 anytime. Looks Kool and propably performs better in field.

that's not the best way to choose a rifle


just my 0.02$

[noFlooder]

I would take xm8 over m4 anytime. Looks Kool and propably performs better in field.

that's not the best way to choose a rifle


just my 0.02$


My words.

You hardly can take an opionion of the xm8 without fireing it or even know it's inside.

[pooch]

I ate an opionion one time and it made me burp all day.

[rokdoc]

It is not more reliable in the field. It is signifigantly less reliable, and development has already been halted.

[Little J]

Development has not been halted, the spec's have changed and the test opened to other manufactors - there is a differance

I've seen the video that this is taken from (Army Times maybe), all that happens is the stryker pulls up, the troops leg it out the back and present arms infront of a grandstand.

[Freibier]

I would take xm8 over m4 anytime. Looks Kool and propably performs better in field.

that's not the best way to choose a rifle


just my 0.02$


My words.

You hardly can take an opionion of the xm8 without fireing it or even know it's inside.
Yep, same goes for the SCAR

[EchoSierraTwo]

If im not mistaken i am entitled to my own opinionSir, while you are entitled, nah, allowed to your own opinion. Opinions are like A-Holes, everybody has one. Please take no offense.

I definately would have to agree with the individual. I would not base my desision on looks and the such. maybe an indicator of your age, maybe not. bear in mind that some of the people here are very knowledgeable and have alot of information to share. Comments or "opinions" just dont make sense when some people come here for serious reasons, etc. ok, im coming down the mountain :D

Anyways, I see three configs myself. While SCAR is a beaut, is it really ideal for the grunt?

[ronin2172]

If im not mistaken i am entitled to my own opinionSir, while you are entitled, nah, allowed to your own opinion. Opinions are like A-Holes, everybody has one. Please take no offense.

I definately would have to agree with the individual. I would not base my desision on looks and the such. maybe an indicator of your age, maybe not. bear in mind that some of the people here are very knowledgeable and have alot of information to share. Comments or "opinions" just dont make sense when some people come here for serious reasons, etc. ok, im coming down the mountain :D

Anyways, I see three configs myself. While SCAR is a beaut, is it really ideal for the grunt?
If I remember SCAR is intended for SOCOM use only...unless something has changed recently...so your question is moot... ;)

[Bluezoo]

Great picture! woot

[AlexNenadic]

In case you haven't noticed, things regarding XM8 have quieted down. It is not going to be accepted by the Army.

[deptacon]

bigger picture?????????

[Jani.R]

In case you haven't noticed, things regarding XM8 have quieted down. It is not going to be accepted by the Army.

Source on that??

[kutter]

According to Modern Firearms apparently the XM8 program has been suspended in order to re-think the requirements for a Joint Service Weapon. So its anybodies guess if the XM8 will eventually enter service.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as61-e.htm

[TuNeRsHaRk]

i know this is off topic but if anyone here has seen forest gump, im looking for a song thats in the film , when forest goes to vietnam theres a song playing as the heli lands, theiy were saying something about "red white & blue"

i cant seem to find the song anywhere can someone help?

[Sir Zach of R.]

Fortunate One - CCR

[TuNeRsHaRk]

thanks i found it on google though

im thinking about a video with this as music

not sure yet

[Abolith]

the xm8 ist just too much pudding for my belly.... looks like a toy...

id take the rugged FN SCAR anyday...

Those comments are just stupid. Remember that the "Oh-so-lovely" M16 was spit at by the troopers in Nam who all thought is was a toy (hey, that sounds familiar)

I don't give a **** about how it looks. If it's more reliable, easier to handle and clean than I'm satisfied. The thing is supposed to kill other people, not to look fancy on a picture.

This picture is most likely some promo-shoot or a field-test with the weapon. I don't think the current XM8 will be fielded, but a new rifle will be fielded in the near future to replace the aging M16/M4 series

and just what doe sthe XM-8 bring to the table that the M16/M4 doesn't have (or couldn't have with a minor upgrade that would be a ****load cheaper)?

A caliber change and I could see the value but the XM-8 is nothing but a new package.

[SMGLee]

Probably taken at some "dog and pony" show about the future of the army or something.

yep.....

[rokdoc]

Development has not been halted, the spec's have changed and the test opened to other manufactors - there is a differance


And I've fired the weapon, and ate lunch less than 50m from a dozen of the early models today....it comes from the horse's mouth that the XM8 is not being adopted. By changing the specs and taking it to different manufacturers, it is no longer an XM8.

[wiking]

investing lots of money in remaking a perfectly good design (G36) and then scrap it, seems bloody stupid to me.

They could have saved the money, tested the G36, and then seen what happened. But that would be smart and logical, what i've heard is that those are not words used about the beuracracy of most any armed forces in the world.

[Hiroshima]

Hey rokdoc, the budget department says otherwise. I'd go check that horse into the vet before I'd listen to it. Besides, according to the army's 2005 Weapon Systems book, it's got a green light to go.

[Rictor]

At least the XM-8 tries to be a step forward, even if it evolutionary and not revolutionary. It has interchangeable part, light construction, built in scope and a proven foundation (G36). What exactly distiniguished the SCAR from other comparable rifles? Sure, it's meant for use by Special Forces, but what is the edge it has over other rifles in the same class?

For my money, the XM-8 is better for general deployment, while the SF can choose whichever weapon they want.

[Hiroshima]

Of course, we've all seen these discussions before, seen the pro's and con's from each person's opinion.

[CANsoldier]

sh sh shweet

[Russ.Dill]

If im not mistaken i am entitled to my own opinion

have you fired the xm-8 or fn scar?

[rokdoc]

I am not saying that we're keeping the M16/M4 family. I'm not saying that all development and testing of future weapon systems is being dropped, because it's definitely not. I'm saying the XM8 isn't the replacement. I'll put money on it not being adopted, ever.

(Oh, the information that I'm basing this off of is not outdated. It's current as of noon, yesterday. If you wouldn't mind checking...I bet the 2005 weapon systems guide was more tha likely printed a while back?)

[MEGR]

Just replace the uppers with piston-driven systems--save a bunch of cash. Unrealistic? Probably.

[Hiroshima]

I am not saying that we're keeping the M16/M4 family. I'm not saying that all development and testing of future weapon systems is being dropped, because it's definitely not. I'm saying the XM8 isn't the replacement. I'll put money on it not being adopted, ever.

(Oh, the information that I'm basing this off of is not outdated. It's current as of noon, yesterday. If you wouldn't mind checking...I bet the 2005 weapon systems guide was more tha likely printed a while back?)

2005 as of this year. I'll have to check my sources to double check, but unless your informant is handling budgetary matters, I'd doubt it.

Edit: On a small note, if I'm wrong I'm wrong. If I'm right, I'm right...so what?

[OMEGA7]

Of course, we've all seen these discussions before, seen the pro's and con's from each person's opinion.
It's not be concerned me ?

[-stk-]

the xm8 ist just too much pudding for my belly.... looks like a toy...

id take the rugged FN SCAR anyday...

Those comments are just stupid. Remember that the "Oh-so-lovely" M16 was spit at by the troopers in Nam who all thought is was a toy (hey, that sounds familiar)

I don't give a **** about how it looks. If it's more reliable, easier to handle and clean than I'm satisfied. The thing is supposed to kill other people, not to look fancy on a picture.

This picture is most likely some promo-shoot or a field-test with the weapon. I don't think the current XM8 will be fielded, but a new rifle will be fielded in the near future to replace the aging M16/M4 series

and just what doe sthe XM-8 bring to the table that the M16/M4 doesn't have (or couldn't have with a minor upgrade that would be a ****load cheaper)?

A caliber change and I could see the value but the XM-8 is nothing but a new package.

x2......... a caliber change is whats really needed. The 6.8mm showed alot of promise but for some reason the project seems to be on the back bench at the moment

[pooch]

Just replace the uppers with piston-driven systems--save a bunch of cash. Unrealistic? Probably.

Can you say "HK416"?

[Sgt.Axeman1224]

x2......... a caliber change is whats really needed. The 6.8mm showed alot of promise but for some reason the project seems to be on the back bench at the moment

as long as they quit trying to compare bullets leathality by shooting blocks of ballistic gelitan, they should definetly go with 6.8. Have they fixed the overheating problem yet?? Kinda hard to cool down the barrel when the heat can't escape through the plastic.

[petsan]

450 billion dollars
5 years of development and billions of dollars wasted.

We could have fielded
the XM-8 rifle, chambered for 6.8mm for every soldier in the us services
(back to competition phase after almost finishing)

the armored humvees and M1 tusk could have been on every street in tal afar (its comming guys just wait a while)

Crusader super artillery could have been pounding the ragheads to oblivion (too heavy at 40 tons cancelled)

A 120MM mortar system based on spare bradley chassis with AMOS or Dragonfire (short listed but too expensive)

weapons our guys need in the field now and dont have them

and i could go on and on

I read this 450 BILLION SPENT
..........DOESNT THIS CRAP PISS ANYBODY OFF




copied from defence org
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001831.html
Slow, Fat "Future" for Army

It's official: After $450 billion, the Army's quick-moving force of the future will be just about as slow as the one that's around right now.

As I noted in June, one of the big ideas behind the Army's massive modernization effort, Future Combat Systems, was to make American troops more mobile – able to get around the world in a matter of days or weeks, instead of the months that are needed now.

Mortar2004-10-19.jpgThe first step: slim down the service's cannon and armored vehicles. Today, it takes a gargantuan C-17 or C-5 transport plane to lug a single, 32-ton Paladin 155 mm howitzer. Army planners wanted the Paladin's next-gen replacement to weigh in at 19 tons or less – so one could fit inside a much smaller C-130 transport plane, instead.

After dancing around the issue for a couple of months, the Army has now delcared that neither the Paladin replacement nor any other FCS vehicle is going to fit into a C-130, according to Defense News' Greg Grant. And that "appears to abandon the fundamental rationale for FCS, which was intended to speed Army brigades to combat zones around the world within 96 hours."

The Army created the FCS concept about five years ago, after long delays in deploying a small air-ground task force to the Balkans raised questions about the service’s strategic relevance. Under Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army’s former chief of staff, the service scrambled for lighter armored vehicles to replace heavy Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles...

[Army Secretary Francis] Harvey’s announcement appears to confirm that the Army does not have the technology to allow lighter vehicles to survive future anti-armor threats. This is in part a realization born of tough losses in Iraq, where 70-ton Abrams and Bradleys have been lost to roadside explosives and rocket-propelled grenades.

But more than FCS' weight requirement has changed. As recently as last year, the program was slated to cost $92 billion. Then, suddenly, that estimate ballooned -- first to $127 billion, and next to $145 billion. Finally, we were told that this gargantuan sum would only pay for transforming a third or less of the Army.

And what would be so different, after all that cash was spent? When the program first got started, the armored vehicles were not only going to be light -- they were going to be electric-powered. And they were going to fire laser weapons. Now, all of that has been dropped, understandably.

But even the more basic changes have seemed near-impossible to pull off. The effort to get all soldiers on a common radio, for example, is facing massive restructuring, after the project's main contractor, Boeing, seems to have flushed $5 billion and three years worth of work down the toilet.

"The government has not seen sufficient evidence of the contractor teams’ understanding of the scale of integration required… to ultimately achieve the program requirements," the Army told Boeing in an April letter. "Nor has the industry team displayed sufficient ability to estimate a cost and schedule baseline and rigorously manage to that baseline."

In other words, the radio project has become slow and bloated. Just like the rest of FCS. 5 years of development and billions of dollars wasted. sounds like just about everything the administration has done.

[MEGR]

Just replace the uppers with piston-driven systems--save a bunch of cash. Unrealistic? Probably.

Can you say "HK416"?

There's an idea. Thing is, the military seems hellbent on getting a brand new rifle rather than making the older one much, much better.

Not that I have anything against the XM8.

[Wilco]

File change date and time: 2004:09:30 14:18:51
Image DescriptionSpc. David Foley
A nine-man infantry squad armed with XM8s exits a Stryker armored vehicle during a live fire demonstration at Red Cloud Range Sept. 22.

Opera rules.

[wiking]

This is a US inclination of refusing to field forign made kit.

The G36 was changed so that it would atleast be partly american, and this has cost a ****eload of US tax payers $$ wich in the end was wasted.

Bloody hell. Do it simple, make a sodding decision instead of beating around the bush for X number of years, spending X*20 Dollars to make a new thing.

HK G3's in 7.62, a proven caliber that is powerfull and has long range, so does the rifle. The problem of range is gone, the power is excellent and it looks cool for those who like that argument ;)

Then you allso buy a ****eload of G36's from HK, 5.56 in 30 round mags for those pescy urban incidents. Or just keep the M16\M4's for that.

Field the army with some units with one, and some with the other. Or field platoons with either squads with 50\59 G36 and G3 or half the squads of a platoon with g36 and the other with G3's.

Then you've got units fit for any fight in any terrain.

[Ratamacue]

This is a US inclination of refusing to field forign made kit.
The US uses the FN Minimi and MAG, as well as the Beretta 92F.

[wiking]

This is a US inclination of refusing to field forign made kit.
The US uses the FN Minimi and MAG, as well as the Beretta 92F.

The Beretta is so americanized through movies, you can hardly count it, but you've got a point on the FN minimi and MAG.

But there has still been a considerable inclination to opt for american made gear over forign gear when they were equal, or even when the forign gear was cheaper and better. Political decissions take precedence over quality and price. (i think thats why the M16 made it into the US army in the first place?)

[rob]

This is a US inclination of refusing to field forign made kit.
The US uses the FN Minimi and MAG, as well as the Beretta 92F.

The Beretta is so americanized through movies, you can hardly count it, but you've got a point on the FN minimi and MAG.

But there has still been a considerable inclination to opt for american made gear over forign gear when they were equal, or even when the forign gear was cheaper and better. Political decissions take precedence over quality and price. (i think thats why the M16 made it into the US army in the first place?)

what foreign competitor did the m16 have when it was first avaliable? non, so the army really couldnt opt for the foreign rifle if you europeans where behind. :P

but if two weapons are equal can you give me a good reason why you should go with the foreign weapon. and dont act like german or other countries dont have a bias for what weapons they buy.

honestly i personally believe that the new rifle contract should be limited to american companies(there are already some good entries). at the very least the military can try to buy american after all they are there for the support of your nation, so why not support it, and it will do a lot to getting american companies back on the international market. but i guess some senators are just too stupid to see that.

but the my understanding the xm8 as we know it today is done. the specs are different and hk was told not to come back with a rather impolite we will call you. the xm8 did not proform to satisfaction and i dont see why that its difficult to understand.

[AOCBravo2004]

Hey rokdoc, the budget department says otherwise. I'd go check that horse into the vet before I'd listen to it. Besides, according to the army's 2005 Weapon Systems book, it's got a green light to go.

Just so you know, when official gov't stuff says 2005 on it it really means it came out in 2004. Take this for example, tomorrow 30SEP05 is the last day of the official government calendar. FY 06 begins on Saturday October 1st. So that 2005 Weapon Systems Book likely came out in late 2004.

[Hiroshima]

Hey rokdoc, the budget department says otherwise. I'd go check that horse into the vet before I'd listen to it. Besides, according to the army's 2005 Weapon Systems book, it's got a green light to go.

Just so you know, when official gov't stuff says 2005 on it it really means it came out in 2004. Take this for example, tomorrow 30SEP05 is the last day of the official government calendar. FY 06 begins on Saturday October 1st. So that 2005 Weapon Systems Book likely came out in late 2004.

Well, the other option is to pull up the latest budget projections (complete with recommendations from the various commities) and quote from them, but I feel like being lazy.

[MEGR]

This is a US inclination of refusing to field forign made kit.
The US uses the FN Minimi and MAG, as well as the Beretta 92F.

Don't forget MP5s, Sig Sauers, G36 varients used by US government agencies.

[David.Hasselhof]

I like the dingleberry 2000fn by FU ordinance. It's mostly being used by the C.H.I.M.P. brigade, but should spread to use by other mammals by next year. It's an evolutionary design that takes a dingleberry and makes it a weapon.

it ROKKS!

[-=TFN=-Karab]

Those comments are just stupid. Remember that the "Oh-so-lovely" M16 was spit at by the troopers in Nam who all thought is was a toy (hey, that sounds familiar)

I don't give a **** about how it looks. If it's more reliable, easier to handle and clean than I'm satisfied. The thing is supposed to kill other people, not to look fancy on a picture.

This picture is most likely some promo-shoot or a field-test with the weapon. I don't think the current XM8 will be fielded, but a new rifle will be fielded in the near future to replace the aging M16/M4 series
But the thing is... The XM8 has horrible problems that come along with it.

I'm basing that off of human intel, not Internet readings p-)

[crazyman]

the stryker is one of the newer types that 172 is using. you can tell by the add on armor around the airguard hatches. as for the XM8. **** my M4 worked just fine in mosul, so thats enough for me.

as far as future combat systems...all i know is i love strykers. im convinced i'd be in a hospital or worse if i had gone to war in anything else.

[Hiroshima]

the stryker is one of the newer types that 172 is using. you can tell by the add on armor around the airguard hatches. as for the XM8. **** my M4 worked just fine in mosul, so thats enough for me.

as far as future combat systems...all i know is i love strykers. im convinced i'd be in a hospital or worse if i had gone to war in anything else.

You probaby rode in a modified Stryker. The Stryker as a weapon platform just out and out fails. It is, though, the only vehicle in the US arsenal that has gone through all the tests at Aberdeen, failing two notable ones....the joints where the plates come together, those seems, are not resistant to .50 cal rounds, and on a test where an inert RPG fired at it, the rpg hit the gas tank, went through it, and imbedded itself in the armor of the vehicle.

[Drunkensquid]

This is a US inclination of refusing to field forign made kit.
The US uses the FN Minimi and MAG, as well as the Beretta 92F.

Don't forget MP5s, Sig Sauers, G36 varients used by US government agencies.

add Glock to the list as well, many cops use them

[crazyman]

modified my ass. the strykers we (1/25 SBCT) had were the same ones 3rd bde brought with them. the original vehicles. whatever happened at aberdeen, im here to tell you that strykers work great.

[Hiroshima]

modified my ass. the strykers we (1/25 SBCT) had were the same ones 3rd bde brought with them. the original vehicles. whatever happened at aberdeen, im here to tell you that strykers work great.

WOW? Really? So they don't flip over because the bird cage put on them to protected them from 30yr old technology makes them top heavy? How about the computer systems not working properly because they get too hot? or the soldier's gear burning? How about the need for a huge snowball of logistics because someone had the bright idea to have contractors supply the nessessary maitnenance on a vehicle that needs seven wheel assembly changes a day? Works great my rump.

[thatguy96]

This is a US inclination of refusing to field forign made kit.
The US uses the FN Minimi and MAG, as well as the Beretta 92F.

The Beretta is so americanized through movies, you can hardly count it, but you've got a point on the FN minimi and MAG.

But there has still been a considerable inclination to opt for american made gear over forign gear when they were equal, or even when the forign gear was cheaper and better. Political decissions take precedence over quality and price. (i think thats why the M16 made it into the US army in the first place?)
This just exposes a certain amount of ignorance over how things both currently work in US defense procurement and how they have worked in the past.

Firstly, the M16 was chosen by the USAF first, without any real competition as a replacement for the M1 Carbine, then later selected as a replacement for the woefully dissapointing M14 (at least as a standard infantry rifle). In both cases there was a serious amount of grumbling from the powers that were inside various parts of the US military. At that point in time, they didn't like the idea of something that had been designed by private industry, outside of the US Army's arsenal system, an very proud institution in of itself.

Secondly, the US in inclined to purchase things in large numbers with an eye toward benefitting its own citizens, like any good capitalist power. Huge armament and equipment contracts provide jobs and money, and why in the world would you not want to have some of that benefit your economy? So it gets down to if you're gonna pay the Germans or the Belgians or whoever to do it, they better at least do it on US soil.

This is why Israeli Military Industries has debated for years about setting a US plant. US foreign military aid comes with the same stipulations as most defense contracts. The purchased material must be at least 70% American, because that way you're essentially handing out money to be spent in your store, benefitting at least someone in your country, your buddies perhaps, or not.

A purist of sorts, who would really champion the use of only American goods would be better served to start championing for the return of the arsenal system across the boards, where things are all developed in house, and then contracted out to whoever has the production capacity.

It is also important to remember that the roots of that system still dominate defense procurement in the United States. People who win contracts have to surrender their patents, and open their contract up to bidding after their initial contract comes up. This is why the US military will never adopt a Glock. Many foreign manufacturers, like Glock, protest this system by not involving themselves in it.

[jetsetter]

modified my ass. the strykers we (1/25 SBCT) had were the same ones 3rd bde brought with them. the original vehicles. whatever happened at aberdeen, im here to tell you that strykers work great.

WOW? Really? So they don't flip over because the bird cage put on them to protected them from 30yr old technology makes them top heavy? How about the computer systems not working properly because they get too hot? or the soldier's gear burning? How about the need for a huge snowball of logistics because someone had the bright idea to have contractors supply the nessessary maitnenance on a vehicle that needs seven wheel assembly changes a day? Works great my rump.

Have you actually used one you f*cktard? I trust the soldiers and not your dumbass.

[Hiroshima]

modified my ass. the strykers we (1/25 SBCT) had were the same ones 3rd bde brought with them. the original vehicles. whatever happened at aberdeen, im here to tell you that strykers work great.

WOW? Really? So they don't flip over because the bird cage put on them to protected them from 30yr old technology makes them top heavy? How about the computer systems not working properly because they get too hot? or the soldier's gear burning? How about the need for a huge snowball of logistics because someone had the bright idea to have contractors supply the nessessary maitnenance on a vehicle that needs seven wheel assembly changes a day? Works great my rump.

Have you actually used one you f*cktard? I trust the soldiers and not your dumbass.

Hey knucklehead:
I worked in G-8, Army Budget, my father still works for G-2, Logistics; so while I've never have ridden in one of those overglorified, highly overpriced armored cars, I know enough about them to tell you with certainty that it's getting to be the next Bradley in development SNAFUS. Also, there are reports from soldiers complaining about the armor, the systems not operating properly, the fact that the 'bird cage' makes it far to top heavy and causes more roll overs than one would like from their vehicle. The info seven wheel assemplies that need to be replaced each day, out of the 25 wheel assemblies comes straight from my father, plus the fact that the Stryker is contractor maintained, the amount of logistics just to support those fifty six contractors. The Stryker had to be stripped to the bare bones to be rated flight worthy, and in Afganistan where we have high altitude bases, the air is too thin for a c-130 to actually take off from the airfields if they have a styker in the hold.

Since you think I'm full of horse pocky, here's a link to a March 2005 article on the problems facing the Styker:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14284-2005Mar30.html

Another from April 2005, and a different news paper:
http://starbulletin.com/2005/04/01/news/story13.html

And a web site dedicated to the Stryker:
http://www.strykernews.com/archives/2005/03/31/study_faults_army_vehicle.html

Now, obviously crazyman's unit hasn't had the issues that have befallen other units (Like two roll overs that killed five soldiers each, three of them dead because their seatbelts couldn't be fasten while wearing body armor, RIP to them), and I wish them the best of fortunes in those things. Hopefully when they come out with the LAV III mk 2 they'll fix most of those issues...or should at $10 million a unit.

Fun Fact: The Stryker uses over 30 lubricants not in the standard US Army supply chain!

Edit: Also, if you're gonna use names and sling obscenities, do it in private messages.

[crazyman]

dunno where you got all that junk from, but we never had any issues with rollovers or computers overheating, nor did we change 7 tires a day. only time we did change tires was after an IED blew one out, and that took all of 5 minutes down at the motor pool. also never had one burn anyones' gear. did have one light on fire (engine blew) but the fire systems kicked in, and the thing was back in full working order within a week...more importantly no one was hurt.

[Hiroshima]

dunno where you got all that junk from, but we never had any issues with rollovers or computers overheating, nor did we change 7 tires a day. only time we did change tires was after an IED blew one out, and that took all of 5 minutes down at the motor pool. also never had one burn anyones' gear. did have one light on fire (engine blew) but the fire systems kicked in, and the thing was back in full working order within a week...more importantly no one was hurt.

That's the biggest thing going so far for the Stryker...troop survivability is amazingly high, which is good. The wheel assemblies arn't the Tires, it's the gear making the whole thing roll....and that info comes from G-2, the folks who ensure you get the gear you want. Your unit might not have suffered losses from Styker Roll overs, but at least that's not as embaressing as having your humvee land on you (some poor soldier was changing his tire when the jack, which was improperly placed, gave way...in '03..RIP). And if I gave the impression that i was per vehicle, I apologize. You unit has to be the lucky one out of the bunch, since from the Center of Army Lessons Learned reports:

1 Vehicle bogs down in mud and the engine strains when 5,000-pound armor is added to protect troops from insurgents' explosives.
2 The armor's extra weight also is causing problems with the Stryker's automatic tire-pressure system.
3 The weapon system does not shoot accurately when the Stryker is moving.
4 Troops cannot fasten their seat belts when they are wearing bulky body armor.
5 Computer systems for communications, intelligence and other systems have malfunctioned in the desert heat due to air conditioning problems.

Also, are you doing your own maintenance on the vehicles?

[jetsetter]

I still trust the opinions of the troops over yours. It is a good vehicle. It is not a perfect vehicle but it is good.