However, from my own experience, and the experience of many European nations-the light skinned vehicles cannot protect and withstand the duties of high intensity combat against any foe. The Russian BTR series of vehicles prove this: they carry alot, but not heavy armor (defeating the ability to load a Stryker on a C-130, which barely fits to begin with-only stripped to the bone as is!). They are also less mobile in harsh terrain (proven for the last 60 years, the German light wheeled fighting vehicle fleet in WWII suffered this). The only good is that they are less fuel consuming, and usually require less maintenance overall. IMO, Stryker is not an improvement, just a step back with old technology, nothing to see here folks, move along.
There are cheaper ways to test the FCS than fielding an entire set of brigades with less than combat worthy gear. Lots of computer stuff has been imbedded into the brigades, and that is the real tech advantage. However, this same equipment can, and has been loaded into regular heavy divisions with outstanding results: see Iraqi Freedom, 3rd ID.
In sum: The Stryker is not as deployable as they make it seem (too heavy, arrives in theater unarmed, unarmoured-now it takes two C-130's to bring the equipment for just one vehicle to be combat-ready). We don't have the lift capability to deploy an IBCT in the first place. The computer tech edge has already been applied and used by heavy units with superior results. The IBCT, in it's current form, gives the US no military advantage it did not already have in the Marines.
FCS is a whole other kettle of fish, and one that has much larger implications.