APC Development and related topics.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Just got home. STRYKER DRAGOON was there (2017) for evaluation only IAW with the current contracts with the now 4 industry corporations involved in the current evaluation ongoing process. That FUE is straight from the USA, all I did was convert "Fiscal Quarters" to their corresponding months and calendar year.

This is in "limbo" right now with the congressional investigation currently ongoing. Again WHY did the other 2 companies drop from the evaluation? Congress wants to know is there a problem as yet undisclosed? Is the STRYKER DRAGOON turret not compatible with the vehicle?

It is important to understand the USA did the development of this piece of equipment and built it from "off the shelf" parts. What could possibly go wrong there?

They are the ones to open it up and chose the defense contractors to further evaluate this equipment because you need industry to mass produce it and develop or improve future and current technologies.

Based on my readings of the refs and more STRYKER DRAGOON is looking more "Putting the Cart before the Horse".

USA should've set the design parameters and operational requirements.

Industry should've designed and submitted the PROTOTYPEs.

And we all how the rest goes from there...I suspect an issue with the turret possibly making the platform unstable somehow.

All I know for sure is the USA has pushed back the date before it equips the FIRST Army Unit.

It sucks but, I can't get around that.

I'm back a little later (Why? )...

"Quick bites" with a couple of my questions asked from above now answered below concerning the 2 "dropouts".

First PROTOTYPE 26 January 2017
https://www.army.mil/article/177472/...ivered_to_army

Competition extended 13 April 2020 Focus on Para #3
https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/20...etition-again/

Add on #1...
From this early ref. 2 May 2018.
"In FY17, the Army conducted full-up system-level (FUSL) live fire testing of the ICV-D to assess platform survivability against a spectrum of operationally realistic threats. ]Preliminary assessments demonstrate that stowed 30 mm ammunition on the ICV-D represents a unique platform vulnerability that is not present on other vehicles in the Stryker fleet. Underbody protection afforded by the ICV-D is limited due to the flat-bottom Stryker hull.

In FY17, the Army also conducted a user excursion using soldiers from the 2nd Cavalry Regiment (2CR) to validate development of gunnery training tables to support the operational test in February 2018 in Germany."

The chassis has the Double V-Hull underbody as noted in #3.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/may_...up_poland.html

Add on #2
Current ref. 21 June 2019

" The MCWS program will be carried out in two phases, which will culminate in equipping a Stryker DVH A1 brigade in fiscal 2022, according to the Army."
https://sdquebec.ca/fr/nouvelle/foll...stryker-design

Add on #3
Current ref. 22 June 2020

"In a call with reporters June 16, Col. Bill Venable, the project manager for Stryker brigade combat teams, fielded questions about the health of the MCWS competition, but declined to identify at this sensitive stage which companies dropped out. He said he is satisfied the Army will have options when it begins the next phase of the MCWS competition on Aug. 10.

“I will say this a healthy competition,” Venable said. “We’re going to present a variety of choices to the source-selection authority to evaluate.”

“I know that one of the vendors chose to drop out because it wasn’t on a good technical glide path to achieve the requirements of the solicitation ― and the other one was affordability,” Venable added. “They didn’t think the investment required was going to result in a good chance to win.”

Leonardo DRS, the developer of the IM-SHORAD system, is among the original competitors for MCWS, along with General Dynamics Land Systems, Kollsman Inc., Raytheon, Pratt & Miller Engineering, and Fabrication Inc. The competitors were each given a Stryker and an XM813 cannon, but they must provide their own turret and fire control system.

The next stage for MCWS involves a series of tests, including a live-fire test and an armor test, with results due to an evaluation board in January."

That of course being 2021 if it stays on track.
https://www.armytimes.com/congress/2...ouse-proposal/

And again with the most updated timetable from Post #498
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...b-43d052efe123

I really don't know what more I can do or give you at this point.

But I have a long evening ahead of me later today and I'm tired so, GOOD Night or Morning where ever you are.

Regards,
Pat