Military.com has a link to an article about the U.S. Army canceling the competition for the GCV. What I am not getting is why there's such a push for a new IFV when the Brad has proved itself in combat? I know the Brad is old and the Iraq War has worn out equipment, but would it not be cheaper, more efficient to upgrade the Brads with new engines, transmissions, band tracks, etc - then going out and spending billions on a new vehicle that we all know will run way over budget? Heck, remove the turret and put on a remote gun with javelins - free up space to move a 9-man squad.

Also, it the Stryker really that bad? I read the U.S. Army report from 2002 or so, I read the M113 to Stryker comparison, I read the Washington Post or Times articles about the vehicle in Iraq and I read the the more recent article where soldiers referred to it as the Kevlar Coffin. I have also read books such as Killing Time and Kaboom and the Stryker received favorable reviews - especially in regards to it's stealth (noise signature) and speed. Is there anyone posting on this site with combat experience in the Stryker? Anyone know of a no b.s. combat analysis of the Stryker combat vehicle?