Posted on Oct 16, 2015
AUSA 2015: Army defends high cost for up-gunned Stryker - IHS Jane's 360
5.46K
8
15
1
1
0
Army defends high cost for up-gunned Stryker
Army defends high cost for up-gunned Stryker
US Congress defence committee leaders agreed to authorise USD411 million to add heavier weapons to 81 of the US Army's Stryker wheeled personnel carriers in fiscal year 2016, and army acquisition officials defended that high per-system cost as necessary for a small and rapid procurement.
The army is working to up-gun 81 Strykers with 30 mm cannons on remote weapon systems and others with Javelin anti-tank missiles, a long-considered upgrade that was pushed through an operational need statement from the 2nd Cavalry Regiment based at Vilseck in Germany. Service leaders approved the plan in April and now testing and integration work remains.
The cost per system appears particularly high (about USD5 million per vehicle), and according to Heidi Shyu, the army's acquisition executive, this is partly schedule driven because it is through an urgent need statement that is seeking the upgrade as soon as possible. It is also for only 81 systems, so the limited quantity drives up per-unit costs. The price includes a design and integration element as well, she added.
These lethality upgrades are not for the heavier armoured Stryker Double-V Hull (DVH) vehicles, and rather are for the original flat-bottom configuration, although a Stryker engineering change proposal (ECP) effort may eventually include a 30 mm weapon for the DVH, Shyu said. "If we want more Strykers to have this capability beyond the 81 [requested in Europe], we will start a programme of record to do that," she said, noting that the cost could be lower with a procurement of thousands of units.
http://www.janes.com/article/55223/ausa-2015-army-defends-high-cost-for-up-gunned-stryker
Army defends high cost for up-gunned Stryker
US Congress defence committee leaders agreed to authorise USD411 million to add heavier weapons to 81 of the US Army's Stryker wheeled personnel carriers in fiscal year 2016, and army acquisition officials defended that high per-system cost as necessary for a small and rapid procurement.
The army is working to up-gun 81 Strykers with 30 mm cannons on remote weapon systems and others with Javelin anti-tank missiles, a long-considered upgrade that was pushed through an operational need statement from the 2nd Cavalry Regiment based at Vilseck in Germany. Service leaders approved the plan in April and now testing and integration work remains.
The cost per system appears particularly high (about USD5 million per vehicle), and according to Heidi Shyu, the army's acquisition executive, this is partly schedule driven because it is through an urgent need statement that is seeking the upgrade as soon as possible. It is also for only 81 systems, so the limited quantity drives up per-unit costs. The price includes a design and integration element as well, she added.
These lethality upgrades are not for the heavier armoured Stryker Double-V Hull (DVH) vehicles, and rather are for the original flat-bottom configuration, although a Stryker engineering change proposal (ECP) effort may eventually include a 30 mm weapon for the DVH, Shyu said. "If we want more Strykers to have this capability beyond the 81 [requested in Europe], we will start a programme of record to do that," she said, noting that the cost could be lower with a procurement of thousands of units.
http://www.janes.com/article/55223/ausa-2015-army-defends-high-cost-for-up-gunned-stryker
IHS Jane's
Army
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
Two things jump out at me on this story:
1. 2 SCR has an operational needs statement requesting the upgrade. To fight whom exactly? This has to be for their organic vehicles in Germany, so it must be with an eye towards the Russians. So if the Russians come rumbling through the Fulda Gap, 30mm guns will help? This little fool's errand not only costs $411 million today, but a whole lot more every year to train with in comparison to the .50 caliber it replaces.
2. $5 million per vehicle? This doesn't make sense to me. Are the bolting on a whole Bradley turret, or just mounting the cannon? If the former, there are plenty of mothballed Bradleys lying around, unused. If the latter, it is an existing weapon already in procurement. The only thing they have to figure out is integration with the CROWS. I can't imagine it is that different from a BFV.
1. 2 SCR has an operational needs statement requesting the upgrade. To fight whom exactly? This has to be for their organic vehicles in Germany, so it must be with an eye towards the Russians. So if the Russians come rumbling through the Fulda Gap, 30mm guns will help? This little fool's errand not only costs $411 million today, but a whole lot more every year to train with in comparison to the .50 caliber it replaces.
2. $5 million per vehicle? This doesn't make sense to me. Are the bolting on a whole Bradley turret, or just mounting the cannon? If the former, there are plenty of mothballed Bradleys lying around, unused. If the latter, it is an existing weapon already in procurement. The only thing they have to figure out is integration with the CROWS. I can't imagine it is that different from a BFV.
(2)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SGT Jeremiah B., that 30mm might as well be shooting spitballs at tanks.
If the Russians really do come rolling through (and does anyone really think they will?), that unit will have to revert to a scout and scoot role or they will not survive long at all.
If the Russians really do come rolling through (and does anyone really think they will?), that unit will have to revert to a scout and scoot role or they will not survive long at all.
(0)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
1SG (Join to see) - Most of Russia's tanks are older T-72 and T-80 models, which the 30mm will kill quite nicely. We'll want Abrams to deal with any T-90s for sure, but I think Russia has less than 400 of those in service.
In ANY scenario, a war with Russia is lots and lots of Armor assets. Time to bring back the 19K!
In ANY scenario, a war with Russia is lots and lots of Armor assets. Time to bring back the 19K!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I hate to complain, but lets take that $411 and buy some MRAPS with some weapons systems mounted. I admit I don't know the specs on the Stryker as to how much it will withstand. Are we done with the IED threat?
(1)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
I with you on this one. You have the Cougar MRAPS with V hulls already. Why not use them in conjunction with the V hulled Stryker's? I would also need additional information and a comparison between the two weapons systems. But having a flat hulled vehicle has been proven to be a rather deadly idea for those in the vehicle.
(0)
(0)
TSgt David L.
SSG Warren Swan - The only down side was that it was too tall for some of the POS streets of Iraq. Outside the cities they were almost only the perfect rig.
(0)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
These would be in specific response to a return to Cold War standoffs with Russia. The Stryker is a much better vehicle for this as IEDs wouldn't be as much of a concern.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
(0)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
TSgt David L. - For real, it don't really need to be that expensive ... the manufacturer make HUGE profit out of it. Each in term feed each other in the way of profit and political contribution in one way or the other. Look at the F-35 ... that is the prime example for it.
(0)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
TSgt David L. - In this case, a new Stryker with all the fancy add-ons is roughly the same price. Upgrading makes no sense.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google