MRAP/APV Article in USA Today

[BigWave]

All,

This cover story in the USA Today provides some solid insight into the MRAP/Armored vehicle issues that our military faces. A friend of mine was interviewed in the article. I am interested in your comments/thoughts.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2007-07-15-ied-cover_N.htm

[Pete]

Only one of which I will go into.

When this first got started years back the call was on to build up armored vehicles for the troops to ride in. Others said that the IEDs would just get bigger.

We now have more armor and larger IEDs.

Wang on anything long enough and you can open it up. A mobility kill changes you from a moving target to a sitting target.

[7624U]

Also look at the wt. MRAP is 38,000lbs Hummv is 12,500lbs
How bout we just change our tactic's, stop driving these huge convoy's during the day, issue better NVG's to everyone instead and have a radio and FBCB2 on every truck the army and marines have.
how is the MRAP agaist shoulder fired weapons ? looks to me like its actualy a larger and slower target.

I am also a fan of the CROWS system ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CROWS ) that would keep most the gunner deaths down.

[Buffalobob]

Something wrong with walking?

[The Reaper]

Something wrong with walking?


You mean other than the fact that it is hundreds of miles, that they need to secure MSRs, that the convoys are frequently escorting hundreds of tons of cargo, or that unarmored troops fare even worse against IEDs?

TR

[Ret10Echo]

Another addition.....

In other MRAP news, DT received a release from BAE Systems yesterday describing a product they’ve developed for the Army and Marine Corps MRAP fleet called the Lightweight RPG Protection Kit, or LROD. I’ll leave DT readers to draw their own conclusions on this, but it seems interesting that a vehicle that is supposed to protect troops against powerful roadside bombs needs to wear a cage around it for RPG protection. But then again, so does the Stryker, which is a highly protective vehicle in its own right.

The BAE release follows:

LROD is a lightweight, modular bar-armor system composed of an aluminium alloy that provides protection against RPGs without compromising the operational capabilities of the vehicle. Weighing less than half of comparable steel designs, LROD bolts onto the vehicle without welding or cutting, and can be repaired in the field.

The Army will procure 12 additional LROD kits for delivery this year to operational units in response to an Army Operational Need Statement. The Army has expressed interest in procuring additional kits for the entire RG31 and RG31A1 fleet. The RG31 was developed by BAE Systems in South Africa.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003606.html

[7624U]

Looks Like the RedNeck Wagon From hell, all it needs now is a Aircon Unit. liquid nailed into a window and we can put it into the RedNeck Eng. Thread.:D

[RTK]

I still think the MRAP looks like one of those safari cruisers you see on Wild Kingdom.

I'm wondering how the cage affects visibility. IIRC the Stryker doesn't have a cage that impedes the driver's vision. Nor does the M113.

[Surgicalcric]

I still think the MRAP looks like one of those safari cruisers you see on Wild Kingdom...


Bone Crusher from Transformers is what I thought of when I saw the MRAP.

Yes I saw the movie. :munchin

Crip

[Pete]

....Yes I saw the movie. :munchin

Crip

Yeah, but where is the long arm with the car shovel/rake thingy?

Yes, I saw the movie with Thing One and Thing two also:D

pete

[blue02hd]

I wanted to add my .02 on this topic. Been mulling this around for a few days, and I keep coming back to it.

Where and when did the 100% casualty free standard of prosecuting warfare become doctrine?

I am all about safety, and have actually had my 4th point of contact saved thanks to a blast shield wielded to a humvee. My gunner is also alive due to the upgraded armor. I have seen friends fall to IEDS, and still contact others that have been maimed and wounded on the job from IED's. War sucks, but I think I am preaching to the choir on that point. I know the risks, as do the other QP's I had had the privilege to serve in Iraq and Afghan with.

I am concerned with the ever increasing view that we need to walk around like Robocops in milion dollar vehicles with eye, ear, nose, arm, groin, knee, and finger protection in order to stay safe. Forgive me, but what about the mission? Our military has been conducting missions long before kevlar was an issued item. Sometimes we need to remember that the soldier is what makes the difference between life and death, not CIF.

When it takes me 5 minutes of unbuckling, unstrapping, and unrigging just so I can sit down and have a cup a chai with a local cop, governor, or milita head that has no more than a turban and an AK, there is a mixed signal. At the end of the day, we need to be able to step out of the way and allow the host nations step in and take security operations for themsleves. If we continue to increase the standard of technology, armor, expensive "mandatory" items just to leave the front gates, how can we ever expect the Iraqi's or Afghans to respond in kind. How can we motivate them to stand up and take the risks if we make it clear we can't patrol unless we have equipment redundancy, armored troop carriers, the Texas Air National Guard, and the USS Missouri ready to call in fire?

I won't mention the added perception of FEAR that constant increases of armor and layed protection communicate.

The new armored troop carriers may have a place on the battlefield, but from point of view that my leather troop carriers offer, it is not here and now. Take those MILLIONS of dollars and invest it in ammo for troops to train with, radios that won't burn out, or any other number of items that will allow us to close with and kill the enemy, or allows us to train the host nation forces to do the same.

I feel there is a balance that we need to consider with respect to accomplishing our mission, and providing safety for our troops. I truly believe there comes a point where we have to accept that the only REAL way to stop losing soldiers to IED's is to defeat the INSURGENT, and not the blast from their devices.

[jatx]

LROD is a lightweight, modular bar-armor system composed of an aluminium alloy that provides protection against RPGs without compromising the operational capabilities of the vehicle.

This looks like a disaster waiting to happen! What happens when a vehicle is flipped or turned over by an IED, the cage is bent, and our troops are trying to crawl away from the burning wreckage? Doesn't anyone remember speed and violence of action?

[Ret10Echo]

More "stuff" on the MRAP. The last line is interesting

" as roadside bombs have grown more powerful



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/washington/19military.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1184872758-SDPGVsIgDZXgdW2f16V1rQ

[x SF med]

It looks like an armored Range Rover in a chicken coop. Army Mobile Farm Unit?(AMFU) make what you will of the acronym.

[Ret10Echo]

It looks like an armored Range Rover in a chicken coop. Army Mobile Farm Unit?(AMFU) make what you will of the acronym.

Or the Army Farm Unit, Mobile......AFU-M

[Ret10Echo]

'Herculean Work' Drives MRAP Production, Procurement
WASHINGTON, July 20, 2007 –The Defense Department is marshalling all resources possible to speed up the delivery of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles to deployed troops as quickly as possible, defense officials told Congress yesterday.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates established the MRAP task force to push his highest-priority program and is overseeing its work closely, John Young, task force chairman, told a joint hearing of the House Armed Services Committee’s Seapower and Expeditionary and Air and Land Forces subcommittees.

http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/2007/mrap/

[Ret10Echo]

MRAP II Deadline Passes

By KRIS OSBORN


The deadline has come and gone for makers of mine resistant ambush-protected vehicles (MRAPs) to submit their offerings as the Pentagon surges ahead with its MRAP II competition, an effort to develop and quickly field better-protected MRAPs.
The close of business Oct. 1 marked the deadline for MRAP-makers to submit proposals and vehicles for the competition, said U.S. Marine Corps Systems Command spokeswoman 1st Lt. Geraldine Carey. A government solicitation to industry was posted July 31, giving vendors 60 days to submit vehicles for blast and road testing.
Driven by an urgent need to counter enemy tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan, the new MRAPs must move faster and also offer better protection against explosively formed penetrators (EFPs), a particularly deadly type of roadside bomb, said a senior Marine Corps official.
“Any changes are designed to provide the most effective protection for the warfighter given the current threat environment,” said Carey.
A number of prominent vehicle and MRAP makers have submitted proposals. Oshkosh Truck has teamed up with Ceradyne and Ideal Innovations, Inc (I-3) and is offering the Bull vehicle, designed with a cutting-edge armor able to thwart EFP attacks, Ceradyne officials said.
“The Bull advanced technology armored solution, conceived by I-3 in 2005 and developed with Ceradyne in 2006, has been tested by the Army Test Center, Aberdeen, Md., and demonstrated to be capable of protecting vehicle occupants against IED, EFP and mine blast threats,” said a Oshkosh press release.
General Dynamics has two different MRAPs in the competition, one through Force Dynamics — their partnership with Force Protection — and one through General Dynamics Land Systems–Canada.
“We submitted a proposal which indicated how our existing vehicles could be upgraded to meet the MRAP II requirements,” said General Dynamics spokesman Rob Doolittle. The Force Dynamics MRAP II is offering a reinforced Cougar vehicle equipped with EFP-stopping armor. The GDLS Canada MRAP II is an upgraded RG-31.
Protected Vehicles (PV), based in North Charleston, S.C., delivered its MRAP II offering to Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Md. on Oct.1. Called the MRAP II version of their Golan vehicle, the ambush protected design is built to be more survivable than MRAP I. PV spokesman Drew Felty said “there are many differences, such as side doors and different armor.”
Also entering the competition is Navistar International, maker of the MaxxPro MRAP vehicle. Navistar has submitted a proposal for the MRAP II, according to Navistar officials.
Thus far, more than 1,900 MaxxPro MRAPs have been ordered by the Pentagon for roughly $1 billion.
Like the first round of MRAP contracts, the MRAP II contracts will be Indefinite Quantity/Indefinite Delivery, so the Defense Department can buy large quantities as needed depending upon wartime needs.
So far, the military has placed orders for 6,415 MRAPs and spent $5.6 billion on the program. Overall, 15,374 MRAPs have been approved for purchase by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council as of late September. In total, DoD officials estimate the 15,374 MRAPs to cost $11.3 billion.
In July, Senior Marine Corps officials said the MRAP II vehicles could be delivered by October or November, however the delivery timeline now will depend upon the pace and success of blast-testing, a Marine Corps official said.

[hoot72]

Another addition.....

In other MRAP news, DT received a release from BAE Systems yesterday describing a product they’ve developed for the Army and Marine Corps MRAP fleet called the Lightweight RPG Protection Kit, or LROD. I’ll leave DT readers to draw their own conclusions on this, but it seems interesting that a vehicle that is supposed to protect troops against powerful roadside bombs needs to wear a cage around it for RPG protection. But then again, so does the Stryker, which is a highly protective vehicle in its own right.

The BAE release follows:

LROD is a lightweight, modular bar-armor system composed of an aluminium alloy that provides protection against RPGs without compromising the operational capabilities of the vehicle. Weighing less than half of comparable steel designs, LROD bolts onto the vehicle without welding or cutting, and can be repaired in the field.

The Army will procure 12 additional LROD kits for delivery this year to operational units in response to an Army Operational Need Statement. The Army has expressed interest in procuring additional kits for the entire RG31 and RG31A1 fleet. The RG31 was developed by BAE Systems in South Africa.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003606.html


Its looks alot like the battle wagons the south african armed forces used back in the 80's minus the updated/'upgraded armour...

[AxeMan]

Today, I finished a two day driving course run by Tier 1 Offroad for the RG-31. We worked on pavement and offroad, to include some pretty descent obstacles. By looking at the thing when I first saw it, I would never have thought that it would even come close to handling the things that we did with those trucks. I don't think that we came close to maxing the vehicles out. I was very impressed. We are not losing the GMV's, we are just getting another tool to use. By the way, the AC in it rocks!
My .02

..........MDW

[Razor]

But does it have dubs and ground effects lights?

[Ret10Echo]

Not sure about the ground-effects kit, but they are getting an upgrade to the armor (bolt-on kit?) to manage the more elaborate IED issues.

[Leozinho]

Today, I finished a two day driving course run by Tier 1 Offroad for the RG-31. We worked on pavement and offroad, to include some pretty descent obstacles. By looking at the thing when I first saw it, I would never have thought that it would even come close to handling the things that we did with those trucks. I don't think that we came close to maxing the vehicles out. I was very impressed. We are not losing the GMV's, we are just getting another tool to use. By the way, the AC in it rocks!
My .02

..........MDW

I was in that class, too. (MDW, I rode with you on the last run of the day.)

My thoughts are the same. There a lot of preconceived notions about the RG-31 from folks that have never seen a picture of it, much less driven it. I was guilty of that as well. It is more capable off road than it looks.

[Ret10Echo]

From DefenseTech.org

Full Article: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003805.html

A Primer in MRAP Variants

MRAP is an unusual program that involves rolling purchases of a wide range of vehicle types, all meeting the same basic mobility and protection requirements.

The requirements do not specify how a vehicle should meet them, so manufacturers take different approaches, with some embracing a monocoque style that combines the hull and chassis in a single piece, and others bolting an armored hull to a separate chassis, perhaps with a "belly plate" to protect the drive train. All hull designs are V-shaped, though some are flatter than others to maximize interior space.

The manufacturers give their vehicles model names like "Cougar" and "Alpha," but the MRAP program office tends to refer to them only by category. The three categories in the program each describe a different weight class and size and are intended for different missions. The roughly 7,800 vehicles ordered as of August are split between the four main military services and Special Operations Command.

The following is a summary of the categories, vehicle types, key performance specifications, design strengths and weaknesses, and mission information for the MRAP vehicles procured by the Pentagon.

Category I: approximately 7-15 tons; at least 4 passengers, plus 2 crew; urban transport.

Category II: approximately 15-25 tons; up to 8 passengers, plus 2 crew; road escort, ambulance and bomb-disposal missions.

Category III: approximately 25 tons; at least 4 passengers, plus 2 crew; bomb disposal.


Category I

Cougar H 4 X 4: Force Protection Industries Inc. (Ladson, S.C.). Weight: 16 tons. Passengers: 4 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 785 + several for testing. Cost: $475,000. Features: Monocoque, flattened V-shaped hull extended to engine compartment; 330-hp. engine; dual air conditioners; rear door.

RG-33 4 X 4: BAE Systems North America (Rockville, Md.). Weight: 14 tons. Passengers: 4 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 201 + several for testing. Cost: approximately $300,000. Features: Monocoque, flattened V-shaped hull that stops short of engine compartment; rear door.

MaxxPro 4 X 4: International Military and Government LLC (Warrenville, Ill.). Weight: 16 tons. Passengers: 4 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 1,955 + several for testing. Cost: $548,000. Features: Commercial truck chassis with a bolt-on V-shaped armored hull; 330-hp. engine; rear door.

Caiman 4 X 4: Armor Holdings LLC (Jacksonville, Fla.). Weight: 14 tons. Passengers: 4 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 1,154 + several for testing. Cost: $443,000. Features: Family of medium tactical vehicle (FMTV) chassis with a V-shaped armored hull; rear door.

Alpha 4 X 4: Oshkosh Truck (Oshkosh, Wis.). Weight: 13 tons. Passengers: 6 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 100 + several for testing. Cost: $306,000. Features: Monocoque layout with V-shaped armored hull; rear door.

RG-31 Mk 5 4 X 4: General Dynamics Land Systems Canada (London, Ont.). Weight: 9 tons. Passengers: 10 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 10 + several for testing. Cost: approximately $300,000. Features: Monocoque, flattened V-shaped hull that stops short of engine compartment; rear door.

M1117 4 X 4: Textron (Providence, R.I.). Weight: 12 tons. Passengers: 8 + 3 crew. MRAP I orders: 4 for testing. Features: Flattened V-shaped hull; side door; 260-hp. engine. Cost: $690,000.


Category II

Cougar HE 6 X 6: Force Protection Industries Inc. (Ladson, S.C.). Weight: 24 tons. Passengers: 10 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 920 + several for testing. Cost: $644,000. Features: Monocoque, flattened V-shaped hull extended to engine compartment; dual air conditioners; rear door.

RG-33L 6 X 6: BAE Systems North America (Rockville, Md.). Weight: 22 tons. Passengers: 12 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 330 + several for testing. Cost: approximately $630,000. Features: Monocoque, flattened V-shaped hull that stops short of engine compartment; rear door, exportable power; robotic claw arm.

RG-31E 6 X 6: General Dynamics Land Systems Canada (London, Ont.). Weight: approximately 20 tons. Passengers: at least 10 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 610 + several for testing. Cost: $559,000. Features: Monocoque, flattened V-shaped hull that stops short of engine compartment; rear door.

MaxxPro XL 4 X 4: International Military and Government LLC (Warrenville, Ill.). Weight: 18 tons. Passengers: 10 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 16 + several for testing. Cost: $540,000. Features: Commercial truck chassis with a bolt-on V-shaped armored hull; rear door.

Golan 4 X 4: Protected Vehicles Inc. (North Charleston, S.C.). Weight: 15 tons. Passengers: 10 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 60 + several for testing. Cost: $623,000. Features: Monocoque, V-shaped armored hull; rear door.

Caiman 6 X 6: Armor Holdings LLC (Jacksonville, Fla.). Weight: 24 tons. Passengers: approximately 10 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 16 + several for testing. Cost: approximately $600,000. Features: FMTV chassis with a V-shaped armored hull; rear door.


Category III

Buffalo 6 X 6: Force Protection Industries Inc. (Ladson, S.C.). Weight: 25 tons. Passengers: 4 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 58 + several for testing. Cost: $856,000. Features: Monocoque, flattened V-shaped hull extended to engine compartment; 400-hp. engine; rear door; robotic claw arm.

[Intel_Airman]

As long as the MRAP can stop those EFP's (as it said it can) it has my vote. A lot of our guys have driven them the past few weeks during their driving courses. I haven't driven one yet, but should get the chance later this week. I'll post my thoughts if I get behind the wheel.

[Intel_Airman]

Just got in from driving tonight. I was able to drive a Cougar 6X6. I was impressed with ride for as big as it is, but it's top heaviness scares me. I was driving about 30mph which was about the average speed, but one of our guys was screaming around the course at 45. I really thought he was gonna roll it.

It's a lot of vehicle, but isn't really designed for anyone that is above average height. With all my gear on I had a hell of a time moving from the back to the driver seat. I'm 6'3", so I had to sit between the front seats and slide my legs under the steering wheel to fit in.

For urban movement with troops I think this is a great a way to keep guys safe. I would be scared doing any off road stuff on uneven ground near water though. The vehicle has ample room for equipment, personnel, and anything else you wanna hall (detainees). Hell, it even had 4 point Corbeau racing harnesses in the back for personnel, lol.

[Ret10Echo]

Just got in from driving tonight. I was able to drive a Cougar 6X6. I was impressed with ride for as big as it is, but it's top heaviness scares me. I was driving about 30mph which was about the average speed, but one of our guys was screaming around the course at 45. I really thought he was gonna roll it.

It's a lot of vehicle, but isn't really designed for anyone that is above average height. With all my gear on I had a hell of a time moving from the back to the driver seat. I'm 6'3", so I had to sit between the front seats and slide my legs under the steering wheel to fit in.

For urban movement with troops I think this is a great a way to keep guys safe. I would be scared doing any off road stuff on uneven ground near water though. The vehicle has ample room for equipment, personnel, and anything else you wanna hall (detainees). Hell, it even had 4 point Corbeau racing harnesses in the back for personnel, lol.


How fast do you think you could dismount with full kit on?

If someone could design a driving position for a vehicle specifically for a soldier in full kit that would be a great thing.

The standard, Seat, Pedals, Steering Wheel and shifter don't get it. Standard positioning of the driver's door also sucks.

[Intel_Airman]

Dismounting out the driver door, I think I could be on the ground in 3 seconds. However, if I had to move out the passenger side or through the back... it would be slow, very slow. When I moved from the back seats to the front to drive. I literally had to sit down and slide into the seat like I was wearing the vehicle.

That's why I said I would be scared to drive it near water. With a full kit on underwater or in fire, I don't think I would be able to maneuver out of anything but the driver side.

[mark46th]

I would like to hear about our efforts to stop the bad guys from planting IED's. We know what routes will be used, how about unmanned aerial recon? Foot patrols on roads where IED's are commonly used? Ambush/Sniper set ups on likely IED locations? How are the IED's triggered? Cell phones? Radio signals? Pressure sensitive triggers? Does SF use different tactics than the regular Army/Marines? I hope we are taking some hard proactive steps to to stop the placement of IED's...

[Pete S]

I would like to hear about our efforts to stop the bad guys from planting IED's. We know what routes will be used, how about unmanned aerial recon? Foot patrols on roads where IED's are commonly used? Ambush/Sniper set ups on likely IED locations? How are the IED's triggered? Cell phones? Radio signals? Pressure sensitive triggers? Does SF use different tactics than the regular Army/Marines? I hope we are taking some hard proactive steps to to stop the placement of IED's...

You're talking about dependable (and actionable) intel.
In conventional forces it is difficult, at times, to get the apropriate assets that will be able to take advantage of the situation. IE every patrol/convoy can't have Radio Recon working their magic, or have UAV's running route and area recon.

The MRAP apears to be a great vehicle, but it is more of a temporary solution.
I really don't like the fact that they are already looking at armor upgrades for it.
The money would be better spent developing new tactics or more training.

[FearMonkey]

I would like to hear about our efforts to stop the bad guys from planting IED's. We know what routes will be used, how about unmanned aerial recon? Foot patrols on roads where IED's are commonly used? Ambush/Sniper set ups on likely IED locations? How are the IED's triggered? Cell phones? Radio signals? Pressure sensitive triggers? Does SF use different tactics than the regular Army/Marines? I hope we are taking some hard proactive steps to to stop the placement of IED's...

Let's NOT violate OPSEC, and just say we did.

[Intel_Airman]

Let's NOT violate OPSEC, and just say we did.

I was going to say the same thing.

[mark46th]

Good point. Mea Culpa. Just a little frustrated...

[lath_hoy]

I agree with blue02hd post, impressions as well as presentations are inherently everything. During the oversight committee’s hearing concerning security/contractors & corporations, Waxman as well as a few others couldn’t comprehend the fact that the military is not comfortable in providing the service that these business provide. I believe the Rep (R) from North Carolina, painted a clear picture to his fellow members when mentioning how it is simply not feasible for the above to take place. A diplomat is not going to arrive in an armored military convoy, to meet with local sheiks, clansmen or what have you, because of the message that is conveyed to the populous. Secondly, in the article it mentions that “Shiites who hated the U.S. occupiers and foreigners aligned with al-Qaeda — often managed to stay one step ahead of JIEDDO. They changed the kind of explosives they planted and varied the locations of the devices and the way they detonated them.” Hypothetically, if I’m Mr. Ihateamericans, I wouldn’t be good at being a bad guy if I didn’t evolve in hopes to counter western efforts, resulting in a gross abundance of high definition explosives applied to targets.

[blacksmoke]

[QUOTE=Intel_Airman;186873]As long as the MRAP can stop those EFP's (as it said it can) it has my vote. QUOTE]
:(