Additional DVH Strykers

General Dynamics Awarded $243 Million to Produce 115 More Double-V Hull Stryker Vehicles

This is on top of a previous contract for 350 (about one brigade’s worth) of the upgraded Strykers.

There are currently no plans for DVH models of the Mobile Gun System for NBC Recon variants. I wouldn’t be surprised if the MGS simply cannot support the additional weight of uparmoed hull.


  1. So much for the promise that only 3117 would be procured — much like the original plan, which promised the procurement of exactly 2003 vehicles!

    It’s also interesting that no one in the corporate media seems to remember that the underlying justification for the Stryker Project was that the US Army would be buying “Commercial Off-The-Shelf” vehicle (i.e., an existing model with no invasive re-designing).
    There doesn’t seem to be any mention that the Army was told for over 10 years that the Stryker’s suspension can’t handle even as much as the vehicle’s empty weight in the long run. All the better for the involved (Br)asshats and their future employers (i.e., current owners) in GDLS to conceal their misconduct.

    Lastly, $243 Million for 115 vehicles may seem like a bargain, but that’s not how much Strykers cost. Divide the $45 Billion Project Cost by the number of Strykers it has produced so far (about 3000), and you end up with a Unit Cost of over $10 Million.
    (for 3117 Strykers, it amounts to about $11.4 Million)
    The $2-4 Million Marginal Cost (the expense of building each vehicle) always stated by GDLS is a *smokescreen*, because the Marginal Cost of a product is only relevant to a project that the customer buys from a vendor — the ENTIRE Stryker Project, on the other hand, is paid-for by the public, so they’re spending more than twice as much on these heaps as for any other vehicle in their class.
    In short, they say $2-4 Million, YOU pay $10 Million+.

  2. No. THESE Strykers cost $2.1M each. That is what marginal cost is all about. The additional $8M you claim they cost is an accounting phantom, simply an average cost per unit. The development costs have already been spent as have the procurement costs for every previous unit. They are “sunk” costs. While unit cost is an important factor during development (when the program can be cancelled if the costs are getting too high), it only gets “better” as you increase the number of units purchased due to spreading out the sunk development costs over more units.

    As for the MGS, I would go so far as to reverse Murdoc’s statement and say that I WOULD be surprised if it CAN support the additional weight of uparmored hull.

    1. “No. THESE Strykers cost $2.1M each. That is what marginal cost is all about. The additional $8M you claim they cost is an accounting phantom, simply an average cost per unit.”
      On the Contrary, Unit Cost is the division of the Project Cost by the units delivered by that project, reflecting the amount of money paid for the end result. $45 Billion / 3117 vehicles = $11.4 Million/vehicle.

      Marginal Cost applies ONLY if the Project Cost is funded solely by the manufacturer (privately), as is usually the case in the sale of automobiles, or if the profits made have matched or exceeded the Project Cost. Thing is, private and public projects aren’t the same thing. In a public project, only ONE unit is bought by the taxpayers — that unit being the project itself.

      Or, to put it another way, the only way to pay-off the entire Project Cost of the Stryker Program is to sell a number of them that each are sold at the Marginal Cost… and $45 Billion / $2.1 Million = 21479 vehicles — more than will EVER be built!
      On the other hand, multiply the 4000 Strykers now officially planned by $2.1 Million, and you get $8.4 Billion. That’s an awfully small return for the US taxpayer, given their $45 Billion investment. If $45 Billion had been spent importing (for example) the $5 Million Patria AMV, the US Army would have eventually acquired up to 9000 of them (more than enough to replace it’s 6000 remaining M113A3s).

      Wondering where the other $36.6 Billion ALREADY SPENT on the Stryker Project went? Straight into the pockets of GDLS and it’s immediate business partners, who only gave back the equivalent of 1/5th of what they were given.

      It’s remarkably similar to the infamous “Pigeon Drop Scam”;

Comments are closed