on the Stryker variant and how many parts need to be replaced.


“Te Stryker exchange program is a prime example of how the Army can work with industry


to find mutually beneficial


solutions to common challenges faced in this austere fiscal environment,” said Scott Davis, Program Executive Officer Ground Combat Systems. “Innovative partnerships


between the Army KEEPING THEM RELIABLE


The DVH exchange process includes reusing common parts and MEPs from existing FBHs, refurbishing them and reusing the parts in the new DVH structure. The Army is tracking exchanged Strykers by their serial numbers and will evaluate them over time to see if there are equipment failures and, if so, whether there are commonalities among the failures. Here, a Soldier performs maintenance on a Stryker June 5, 2012, at Fort Irwin, CA, in preparation for a two-week exercise leading up to deployment to Afghanistan. (Photo by SSG Antwaun Parrish, 5th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment)


associated costs, as well as the future need for vehicles.


RELIABILITY OF EXCHANGED VEHICLES When the idea of the exchange vehicle program first arose, one of the big ques- tions was whether the reliability of the exchanged vehicles would be comparable to that of new vehicles. Te program has answered that question, according to Frutchey. “An exchanged DVH is as capable and reliable as a brand-new DVH,” he said.


“In fact,” he continued, “the Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evalu- ation concurs with this assessment and has agreed that no additional testing will be required for a DVH exchange vehicle above what is required for the standard production DVH.”


Tat reliability comes down to experience, Frutchey added. “Te exchange process is modeled after our battle damage repair process. We have extensive experience


28 Army AL&T Magazine April–June 2013


over the past 10 years in combining new hull


sections MEPs. We have


and parts with existing seen no


difference


between the reliability of the battle- damage-repaired Strykers and those that haven’t been damaged. We expect same results in this program.”


the


However, to ensure that they prove this premise, PM SBCT says that exchanged Strykers will be tracked by their serial numbers and evaluated over time to see if there are equipment failures and, if so, whether there are commonalities among the failures. If this tracking process turns up a common deficiency among exchanged Strykers,


that information


will then be used to improve the repair and overhaul process.


CONCLUSION Te cost of an exchanged DVH was calculated at $620,000 less than a newly constructed DVH. For the 13 pilot Stryker DVH exchange vehicles, cost savings and schedule have been on target. Te exact savings vary from vehicle to vehicle, based


and


industry remain crucial as we move forward, looking for ways to modernize the Army’s Stryker fleet to get the best vehicles in the hands of our Soldiers while trying to minimize costs to the taxpayer.”


Te largest portion of the savings for the exchanged vehicles comes from reusing the MEPS from the FBH vehicle. Tere are currently 10 Stryker variants in the fleet, each with a different MEP. Since some


packages are more expensive


than others, each Stryker will realize a different amount of savings. One thing is clear, however: Significant money will be saved on each vehicle.


For more information on the Stryker DVH Exchange Program and other PEO GCS initiatives, follow PEO GCS on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/peogcs) and Twitter (http://www.twitter.com/peogcs), or go to www.peogcs.army.mil.


MR. MICHAEL DUNNE is the deputy product manager for Stryker fleet management under PM SBCT. He holds a B.A. in justice administration from Hawaii Pacific University.


MR. BILL GOOD is a public affairs specialist for PEO GCS. He holds a bachelor’s degree in broadcasting from Siena Heights University, and an M.A. in public relations and organizational communication from Wayne State University.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168