RE: Competing with Alcoa?This appears to be the result of a gap in the JLTV program (future vechicle) and the need to replace some existing armored HMMWV vechicles that are about to be retired as end-of-life. The HMMWV ECV request is listed as a unfunded USMC FY 2009 requirement (1060 qty), so appears they tried to avoid this and probably want lower quantities. I don't believe we are talking heavy duty armor requirement for these type of vechicles and special requirements. Hard to tell whether these are the complete armor kits (A, B) or just the backbone of the 4 armor kit components as the NR states (looks like the 4 doors). AM General produces the HMMWV variants, this has nothing to do with General Dynamics (which produces the Stryker).
Question I would have is what about the underside/floor of the HMMWV, it seems more vulnerable if Ihit by IEDs, this NR does not address this issue but sides have better protection than exists today.
I believe the key for us is the JLTV (Future platform designs), up-armor/retofit of the Stryker (V-Hull, etc), and other vechicles, and perhaps retofit/up-armor of the HMMWV hull/floor if gov't funding is in place. The Stryker is a huge workhorse with the USMC and large quanties so hopefully we are aligned for retro-fit and new vechicle programs like the JLTV. The US Gov't has huge funding requirements to keep the Stryker program in place whereas they are in the process of phasing out the HMMWV with more survivable and mobile vechicles.
https://www.myaoc.org/EWEB/images/aoc_library/Government_Affairs/2009_Defense_Budget/USMC_UFR_FY09.pdf