House committee seeks info on Stryker 30 mm program

By Ethan Sterenfeld / June 24, 2022 at 10:47 AM

The House Armed Services Committee wants the Army to explain the requirements process that preceded a $942 million program to add 30 mm cannons to Stryker combat vehicles.

“Questions have been raised about the Army’s requirements for the system related to lethality and survivability during the acquisition process,” states a provision that the committee added to its annual defense policy bill during a June 22 mark up.

The provision directs the Government Accountability Office to complete a report by April 2023 on the 30 mm cannon program, which is known as the Medium Caliber Weapon System. Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX) filed the amendment that includes the provision.

Oshkosh Defense beat General Dynamics Land Systems, the Stryker’s original equipment manufacturer, in a competition last year to supply the cannon to up to six Stryker brigades. General Dynamics had previously integrated one brigade’s worth of cannons for the Europe-based 2nd Cavalry Regiment.

The report would include “an assessment of the requirements determination and acquisition process throughout technology research, development, testing, and procurement of the MCWS,” according to the provision. It would look at the requests from operational units that would have created the requirements, as well as the cost of the program compared to similar capabilities.

Involvement of an Army Futures Command cross-functional team in the “requirements determination and acquisition process” should be included in the report, according to the provision.

It should also include “an assessment of lessons learned, if any, by acquisition program and Cross Functional Team officials,” according to the provision.

Jackson’s office did not respond to a question from Inside Defense seeking clarification on what actions by a cross-functional team this refers to, as the 30 mm cannon program has not previously been named as part of any team’s portfolio. The cross-functional teams do not typically have a role in defining requirements for programs that are outside their portfolio.