Mr. M
S
P.O. Box
, GA
Dear Mr. S,
I have been forced to be
silent for far too long about the Army’s ill-fated choice of the Stryker
vehicle for its Interim Force. However, because of my close association with
the program and my position, I must remain anonymous. I would only ask that you
read this letter and the piece accompanying it, which is fully supported with
the Army’s own documentation.
Recent events have served to
clearly demonstrate the Army’s faulted choice of this vehicle. The report on
the Medium Armored Vehicle Comparative Evaluation (CE) is rampant with
unsupported falsities and half-truths. The most striking is the Army’s allegation that the
Stryker is clearly superior to the M113A3. The marginal increases in
performance do not justify the cost differential between the two vehicles. A
delta of over $2 billion dollars would not stand the scrutiny of a true
cost-effectiveness evaluation. The data is flawed and circumspect. The reliability,
availability and maintainability are all based on marginal sample sizes and in
some cases based on the manufacturer’s prediction of reliability, as opposed to
demonstrated performance. Furthermore, since the contracting mechanism is a
Requirements-type contract and the Army does not have either possession of the
Technical Data Package or the rights to it, they are limited to procuring spare
parts from only one source - the manufacturer. The Army cannot compete the
parts for production by other small-business or minority sources.
While the CE attempts to
paint a glowing picture of the vehicle, its testing and performance does not.
What was advertised by the Army as “integral” 14.5mm armor has not performed as
advertised. The armor has
failed at least 2 iterations of test and resubmission, yet still cracked
during vehicle testing and will therefore not withstand a 14.5mm hit after
cracking. In addition, the
add-on armor that was bid with the vehicle also failed to perform and
was recently put out for bid to a second-source. In live-fire testing, the
overhead airburst armor on a sample Engineer vehicle recently failed when the
fragment hit some explosive C-4 stored externally and the entire vehicle was
subjected to a high-order destructive loss of the vehicle. This demonstrates
that there is no standoff protection inherent in the armor selected for the
roof of the vehicle. All of these failures compound the basic weight problem of
the vehicle, as solution of these deficiencies will likely further increase the
weight of the vehicle. Here
again the Army has painted a false picture. The requirement in the
original solicitation was to transport a combat-loaded (crew, Infantry Squad
and 72 hours of basic supplies) over a distance of 1,000 Nautical miles on a
C-130, without a waiver. Thus far, they have failed to demonstrate this
capability and have negotiated a Memorandum of Agreement with the Air Force to
establish a waiver process for the transport of the basic vehicle with only 4
soldiers instead of 11. This too is disingenuous.
The major failure of the CE,
however, is that Congress directed that the comparison be between the existing
inventory and not what was proposed against the Stryker. The vehicle that lost
the competition had a larger internal volume, a larger engine and numerous
other upgrades that ultimately negate the vast majority, if not all, of the
factors where the Stryker was determined to be superior to the existing M113A3,
according to the Army Meanwhile, the OSD Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation (DOT&E) concluded that the M113A3 is equally effective as the
Stryker: “The operational portions of the MAV CE showed no differences in unit
effectiveness, weapon system Lethality, or operational suitability.” Yet, the
bid cost of the MTVL, let alone the less expensive M113A3, was over $2 billion
dollars less than that of the Stryker.
The bottom line is that the
Army is desperately seeking to protect and defend a flawed selection of the
vehicle for its Interim Force to demonstrate their commitment to transformation
in accordance with the Secretary of Defense’s mandate at all costs. On the eve
of a potential conflict, it is imperative that this entire issue is openly
investigated and the truth be brought to light before American soldiers are put
in harm’s way in a substandard combat vehicle.
Sam Damon
“Once An Eagle”