http://www.tribnet.com/news/iraq/stryker/story/4544450p-4519311c.html

Looks like the vehicle is proving to be durable. The soldiers have faith in the vehicle which is really all that matters.

The problem with IEDs is that you can always make one bigger.

Of course, bigger is harder to hide, which is half the point.

However I may feel about the vehicle (the original intent of its employment and reality are decidedly different), I Thank God that it is saving lives.  Now, with that said, is it now the intent to throw away every Stryker that gets hit?

What really matters is whats over the next hill, what the other guy can do, and is it gonna rain, snow, blow and in what combination...

I would be willing to bet that the Army will make strides to implement a more useful fire suppression system on future models. Having an engine fire become the main catalyst for the ammo and whatnot cooking off you would think some sort of automated fire surpressant would be the key. Just my two cents mind you, I am not qualified for anything else.

A couple of well place fire extinguishers or halon system bottles or something could have saved the Army millions of dollars and the troops their gear.

God bless them all and may they all come home safe.

Proud Parent of a Paratrooper.(Stuck in legland surrounded by Cav Scouts)Suivez Moi

11c1pDad,

Fire suppression systems on vehicles are not always what they are made out to be.  For them to work effectively the hatches all must be closed so that no O2 can get back into the vehicle.  If the vehicles fuel cells start to burn an extinguisher may suppress the fire initially, however, depending upon how hot the metal is it can reignite.

One of the biggest problems with interior fire suppression systems is that if the vehicle get's buttoned up with people inside and the system goes off, you have a high chance of killing the occupants remaining inside.  As soon as the fire is out the crew has to bail out.  This allows O2 to re-enter the vehicle and the fire can re-ignite.  But the crew survives.

As far as what happens to burned out hulks.  Well they get sent back to Redstone Arsenal for evaluation first and foremost (evaluation of the blast damage).  After that they are returned to AMCCOM to be evaluated for repairability.  If the assessment says it can be rebuilt it goes back to the manufacture to be fixed and returned.

Well it's really too early to be able to tell anything at this stage.  That article contained much propaganda put out by the Army as it had a very obvious spin to it.  Two IED strikes is not nearly enough data to draw ANY conclusions, PRO or CON.  What size were the IEDs?  How far from the vehicle were they when detonated and what part of the vehicle was struck?  There is a lot of important info that is left out. 

Secondly the article says that the Stryker is safer than an HMMWV.  Well no shit shirlock, everthing in the Army inventory is safer than being in a HMMWV when hit with an IED.  We all knew that before.  The real question is, is it safer than a Bradley?  Seeing as how the SBCT deployed by ship, Bradleys could have easily been shipped over in their place.  Which would you rather be in?

Also, notice that the vehicle roll overs and fires have been minimized.  If the Stryker did not have an internal fuel tank, that one may not have burned to the ground, but we will probably never know for sure.  What I see here are several destroyed light armored vehicles at $1.5-2.0 Million a pop.  There are cheaper vehicles that provide the same level of troop protection with superior strategic mobility, lower operating costs, and greater firepower.