Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 355

Thread: All matters MRAP JLTV (merged thread)

  1. #81
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    I reject your assertion. My military thought is bounded by the core functions, so I adhere to,

    a. Not being found
    Large vehicles can be silent, but are difficult to hide.
    b. If found do not be fixed (loss of movement, comms, fires and observation)
    I admit I'd opt for 4x4 light truck, but 4x4 is not optimal as the loss of one wheel is a mobility kill. AT mines destroy a wheel easily, although they keep going on with some bullet holes.
    c. If fixed do not be Struck (the action that creates harm)
    Big size and probably poor agility (hp/ton and high center of gravity) aren't helpful.
    d. If struck do not be exploited. Suffer catastrophic loss from the harm.

    I am pretty familiar with this area. Transport by "disguised" civilian vehicles was commonly done in Northern Ireland. (I know at least one platoon was regularly carried in a grain lorry)

    None of this helps me, if I need to move 650 men, 500km in one night, and sustain them once they are on task.

    If you move that far you'll be out of reach of almost all opponents most of the time anyway. That might be different in COIN, but an unpredictable movement at night along secondary roads bypassing traffic nodes even offroad should provide a lot of security even in such an environment. 500km is hardly a routine infantry movement in COIN, after all.

    Actually the UK has looked at this before with AT-105 The problem with Saxon ( and I know it well) was it was a junk vehicle. - but I am now beginning to think elements of the concept were sound.

    A concerns Sierra Leone, when I was there, if you wanted to travel the "upline" roads, you went in MAN 4x4 Commercial trucks. They go all over Sierra Leone. In fact most the world relies on pretty simple 4 x 4 commercial lorries. When I used to drive across the Sahara, I regularly encountered commercial lorries ripping along the "piste" with no problem
    [b]MAN 4x4 gl trucks hit about 14 tons if fully loaded, but five tons of this is payload. So most often such trucks will weigh rather 10-11 tons as most payload densities hit the volume limitation much earlier than the weight limitation.

    Wilf; we agree that MRAP has a niche in a mission like Iraq. You thought about the other possible other missions.

    I remember that the GTK/Boxer monster is in part such a monster because one of the requirements was a bomblet protection. The implied assertion is that APCs are under threat by artillery.

    But there's likely no harassing fire on roads if the force densities would be like assumed in exercises and doctrine. Modern brigades shall cover frontages larger than the frontage of an overstretched WW2 division. The force density is necessarily low.
    The result is that the artillery needs much better recce to hit.
    The artillery would in fact need to find, identify, prioritize and fire at individual companies due to the dense road network that enables a brigade to disperse its marching columns on different roads.

    Lots of artillery systems could still penetrate MRAPs or destroy less protected vehicles that march nearby.
    Last edited by Fuchs; 07-09-2008 at 06:31 PM.

  2. #82
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Wilf, those rules are a good script for reconnaissance operations. I am stealing it for its simplicity and ease of retention.

    Back to the subject though. Wildcat posts comparable numbers, but it cannot traverse the same terrain (berne ,gaps etc.) as a 6 or 8-wheeled vehicle. Having said that, Stryker is more complex from a maintenance perspective, but probably among only certain variants.

    Wildcat will fit a role as a lightweight APC, but other variants will gain weight from the basic model. Looking at its arrangement, however, it doesn't seem to have fighting characteristics. It looks great for self defense, but Stryker compares differently because it has sensors to allow it to "fight for information", which is a big role within certain formations it finds itself in.

    And Wildcat looks too damn high for chrissakes. I know it's a function of mine resistance, but what will have to be done to reduce that signature from a short halt?

    The Marine Corps was looking at the LAV (logistics variant type-ish) as a MPC candidate, but that died for good reasons which would have otherwise negatively impacted the LAR community.

    The balance to be struck is difficult to achieve, and no matter how fair the selection criteria are supposed to be, one "best value" consideration can leave us with a platform that does'nt fill the best niches. If we have to write new doctrine to account for MPC's the USMC is screwed.
    Last edited by jcustis; 07-09-2008 at 06:50 PM.

  3. #83
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    Wilf, those rules are a good script for reconnaissance operations. I am stealing it for its simplicity and ease of retention.
    You don't have to steal them. They are the core functions. They are how you defeat and avoid defeat in any environment against any enemy. First written down by Ferdinand Foch in 1903

    Back to the subject though. Wildcat posts comparable numbers, but it cannot traverse the same terrain (berne ,gaps etc.) as a 6 or 8-wheeled vehicle. Having said that, Stryker is more complex from a maintenance perspective, but probably among only certain variants.
    Agreed. Wildcat is a cheaper, simpler, 80% solution.
    Wildcat will fit a role as a lightweight APC, but other variants will gain weight from the basic model. Looking at its arrangement, however, it doesn't seem to have fighting characteristics. It looks great for self defense, but Stryker compares differently because it has sensors to allow it to "fight for information", which is a big role within certain formations it finds itself in.
    Agreed. It's just an APC/MRAP.
    And Wildcat looks too damn high for chrissakes. I know it's a function of mine resistance, but what will have to be done to reduce that signature from a short halt?
    Agreed. According to the figures it is two centimetres higher than the Stryker
    The Marine Corps was looking at the LAV (logistics variant type-ish) as a MPC candidate, but that died for good reasons which would have otherwise negatively impacted the LAR community.

    The balance to be struck is difficult to achieve, and no matter how fair the selection criteria are supposed to be, one "best value" consideration can leave us with a platform that does'nt fill the best niches. If we have to write new doctrine to account for MPC's the USMC is screwed.
    More screwed than with CV-22 and AAAV?
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  4. #84
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    AUT+RUS
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Boxer is one crazy monster. With protection "ueber alles".

    Your 1000 men force: If you can speed across country like that, you seem to be unopposed. Guess then you could as well hire a local bus company.
    Coffee on Red Square in the morning anyone?

    Another thought: How many bombs can the bad guys plant along a hard to predict route (different from the easy to predict patrol routines in Iraqi towns)? Seems like there'd be more danger from RPGs. And these neither the MRAP nor the APC can withstand without reactive armor.

    The running costs: Guess if you use an APC like a road-bound MRAP, your running costs - which are dominantly automotive then - shouldn't be too different.

    Of course, if you have a vehicle designed for a narrow usage profile (road-use only), then it will be overall cheaper and better suited for that single task than a vehicle with a wider usage profile. But ok, let's not turn this into MRAP vs APC.

    As a vehicle to move troops from one square to another, I think trucks (with aramid mats) are equally suited; plus they provide more cargo space, and better rough-terrain capability.
    You could put a mortar into an MRAP, and NETFIRES, and ATGM and MANPADS launcher, and cut down the rear cabin and put an autocannon instead. But you will still remain road/piste-bound, which limits your mobility.
    And: All these above jobs a truck can also do. Which is basically what Caesar, Bereg, Pantsir, &c do.

    I just don't see much space for the MRAP between trucks and APCs.

    Btw, the Wildcat was designed for the MPC competition. One of the more interesting MRAPs is the Rafael Golan. But it's still a riot-control vehicle.


    PS: NOTHING is more screwed than V-22 and EFV!

  5. #85
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Just read a story on MSNBC.com about the IRAM 107mm rocket propelled bomb/flying explosive-packed propane tank. I wonder how well an MRAP, Stryker, or an M113 for that matter would survive getting hit by one of these overhead strike devices. Of course the probability of a direct hit is probably about the same as a direct hit from almost any projectile following a purely ballistic trajectory--maybe even less due to the no-doubt oddly shaped warhead. But if they are fired as an MRL spread (an apparent TTP) perhaps the odds go up.

    Of course the bomblets from DPICM rounds could be pretty destructive to an MRAP convoy(do we still use them?). Alternatively, the US once was working on a funny submunition--the SADARM projectile--specifically designed to attack the thin-skinned top of engine compartments of armored fighting vehicles. That might be a pretty significant countermeasure for MRAPs too.
    Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
    The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. Sydney J. Harris

  6. #86
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    I can think of dozens of improvised and quantity-produced weapons and munitions that could destroy/pierce MRAPs.
    DPICM bomblets are still in use (and will remain so in many countries), sensor-fuzed submunitions like Sadarm are in many countries' inventories (USA, France, Germany, Russia have own designs).

    MRAPs are really "blast-protected trucks with self-defence weapon".

    I would agree that it's a good general APC, if

    (for heavy brigades: ) it had an off-road capability closer to that of tanks

    (for light brigades: ) I would trust the official assertion that troops need passive artillery protection even though they shall dismount out of sight of the enemy



    The wheeled armoured vehicle design has really evolved in the past few years. Previously we saw very few armoured vehicles with large bulletproof windows (some wheeled APC like Fuchs and a Patria type had some windows).
    I remember some Land Rover conversions, the Mamba and the South African designs.

    Now we see large bulletproof windows as standard; the panoramic mirror was obviously not satisfactory for daily road movements in multiple multi-month deployments. Crash prevention was obviously not prioritized enough in Cold War APCs.

    Another advance was the finally universal application of V-shaped hulls, resulting in the necessarily big height. Complicated suspensions and engines like in-wheel electric engines and hydro-pneumatic suspension don't fit well into an underbelly blast protection concept. These technologies lost momentum although they were high on wish lists ten years ago.

    One lesson of MRAPs was the importance of size and turning radius in urban environments; maybe that the next designs will attempt to avoid very large designs in order to remain agile in urban environments. All axles steerable as in recce light AFV designs would help, of course.

    The usage of MRAPs in other environments than Iraq/AFG would certainly lead to additional design changes and add-ons.

    I' sure that the counter-blast armour developments of the past five years will enable much better APC designs in the future. I don't think that any real new APCs in the 12-18 ton range will have less than three axles, though. Almost everyone wants to be able to cross irrigation trenches and drainage channels without the time-consuming use of dedicated equipment.
    Last edited by Fuchs; 07-10-2008 at 12:25 PM.

  7. #87
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Distiller View Post
    One of the more interesting MRAPs is the Rafael Golan. But it's still a riot-control vehicle.
    Cancelled six months ago, due to "commercial" problems, with the US partner company. Since riots do not include folks with RPGs, I can't quite see how an RPG protected vehicle counts as a riot-control vehicle. ...but AT-105 was directly descended from an "internal security vehicle" and Golan was, like all MRAPs was biased more to Security Operations than Combat Operations.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  8. #88
    Council Member krsna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    21

    Default MRAP JLTV Concept

    Hi Guys,
    Nice to be back. Best comments on the issue are of the guy who was in one such contraption. For others out of it and no hope or desire to get into one such machine there are some threads to hang on to:
    1. The future is counter terrorism. Call it LIC or HIC, terrorists care a damn. Organized wars are over.
    2. What is our role then? Hunters or Stabilizers? Each option has has its own dimensions.
    3. If terrorist is to be beaten in Urban ops, it is the matter of locating him and pre-empting him first. Else he shall have the initiative always and every time. This is matter of intelligence. Stability ops in the city need more safety and some speed to maintain monopoly. This is where enemy can gain psychological advantage by IED attacks. Nothing is safe here. They blew a T- 72 of IPKF in SriLanka into pieces with just the right amount of RDX.
    4. If we are looking at Complex or Off town ops we need to get there faster, quieter and safer. MRAP seems to foot the bill to some extent less the speed. Any armor and monocoque design with heavy suspension will cause that to happen. MPV of South Africa that we use is a monster but we swear by its reasonable invincibility despite its heavy and high frame and some what limited maneuvrability.
    5. Strykers are good, but for another dimension of ops. MRAP seems to be filling the gap of light armored vehicle (hull protected) for on road tactical mobility and off road transportation to some extent. Similar protection on Stryker will make it slower too.
    6. In conclusion, options must be weighed for the role than as a contest of inter-vehicle capabilities.
    Last edited by krsna; 07-10-2008 at 03:47 PM.
    KRSNA

  9. #89
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Welcome back.

    Quote Originally Posted by krsna View Post
    ...1. The future is counter terrorism. Call it LIC or HIC, terrorists care a damn. Organized wars are over.
    For a while -- never say never...

    Agree with the rest but most particularly with this:
    6. In conclusion, options must be weighed for the role than as a contest of inter-vehicle capabilities.
    Hmm -- that has to mean, as always in equipment selection, that the factors of METT-TC must apply.

    I knew that!

  10. #90
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krsna View Post
    Hi Guys,
    1. The future is counter terrorism. Call it LIC or HIC, terrorists care a damn. Organized wars are over.
    Complete disagreement.
    You sounds very much like a stock trader talking about ever-lasting hausse.

    I recently read a 1988 magazine, one article was about the then-new Bundeswehr structure "2000". Think about that.

  11. #91
    Council Member krsna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    21

    Default Mrap jltv

    Fuchs,
    Send the link for my knowledge to comment any further . Stock traders and soldiers have one thing in common though - risk taking ability that leads to entrepreneurship. risk taking has a thin edge though between foolhardiness and courage. every single aspect of share market has unique parallel with battle space. profit goals and war goals are same sides of the coin. it is the coin that is different though. If the soldiers put in even a quarter of percentage of the amount of research that the stock analyst puts in the world shall be a safer place. It is all about fundamentals (or basics) if you take the Warren Buffet line and all about short term market opportunity if you take the average stock broker line. It is the role that you see for yourself in the end.
    KRSNA

  12. #92
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by krsna View Post
    Hi Guys,
    1. The future is counter terrorism. Call it LIC or HIC, terrorists care a damn. Organized wars are over.
    Constancy-bias is big mistake.
    How ironic, often those that are so quick to, for example, damn the military for the hide-bound thinking that low-intensity conflict in Vietnam was an aberration and that nation-state conventional warfare was the only possibile future, then proceed to make the exact same mistake, only in the opposite direction.

    Let's not forget that the U.S. had to stage a good ole' fashioned conventional invasion to get into Iraq in 2003... and did the same thing back in 1991...

    Saying "never" is a sure way to be wrong...

    As long as there are consistuted nation-states in the world, and there still are a few, the possibility for conflict exists. Alliances can shift dramatically in only a mere decade.

    Back to topic:
    I really don't think that, starting from a blank (design) slate, a MRAP would have inherently better armor than a tracked-APC. Holding everything else constant, the only way to have better armor for the same mass is to have less surface area to armor - MRAP's tend to have greater surface area, and wheeled drivetrains require more volume (not much, but perhaps 10% more), and the V-shaped hull requires more still, driving up surface area to be armored (unless that is to be unprotected).

    While the MRAP may have better protection from IED's, I don't see how an MRAP vehicle with the exact same mass as a tracked APC can have thicker armor to protect from other threats (i.e., direct-fire).

    If I am sending an entire battalion on a road march for 1,000 km, why can't I just have a few MRAP's at the front of the column to hit any mines, and trucks for the rest of the column? (Yes, some particularly well-disciplined insurgent could wait to trigger a command-detonated mine, but those odds are much lower). Of course, this brings to mind the fate of Groupement Mobile 100, but then again, if you are facing a resistance organized into entire regiments... (You could also airlift that battalion, and worry about mines not at all.)

    I would say that there is much more to be gained from incorporating MRAP features into the design of the next standard truck, since a supply truck that will not face a high threat of direct fire contact can afford to be fairly high, and not have wonderous off-road mobility.

  13. #93
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sabre View Post
    Back to topic:
    I really don't think that, starting from a blank (design) slate, a MRAP would have inherently better armor than a tracked-APC. Holding everything else constant, the only way to have better armor for the same mass is to have less surface area to armor - MRAP's tend to have greater surface area, and wheeled drivetrains require more volume (not much, but perhaps 10% more), and the V-shaped hull requires more still, driving up surface area to be armored (unless that is to be unprotected).
    Good post, only observation from my COIN expierences is that tracked vehicles are far more damaging to the urban environment than wheeled -the tracks shred curbs and water mains relatively easily. I know even my M113's had a negative effect on the infrastructure. As a result, I changed ops in "safe" areas where only wheeled vehicles were allowed to preserve infrastructure and not piss off the locals by tearing up the roads with tracks.

    No debate on the necessity of tracked, armored combat vehicles for QRF/assault duty.
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

  14. #94
    Council Member MattC86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    REMFing it up in DC
    Posts
    250

    Default

    Perhaps some of this will be put to the test? CNN and others have reported some 1,000 MRAPs are being audibled to Afghanistan. Unless they are going to use that many MRAPs for the few roads, I would suggest they're going to get a lot of off-road time. Most people here have said the MRAP has far less utility off-road. Thoughts?

    Regards,

    Matt
    "Give a good leader very little and he will succeed. Give a mediocrity a great deal and he will fail." - General George C. Marshall

  15. #95
    Council Member Ron Humphrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,099

    Question Could be interesting

    Quote Originally Posted by MattC86 View Post
    Perhaps some of this will be put to the test? CNN and others have reported some 1,000 MRAPs are being audibled to Afghanistan. Unless they are going to use that many MRAPs for the few roads, I would suggest they're going to get a lot of off-road time. Most people here have said the MRAP has far less utility off-road. Thoughts?

    Regards,

    Matt
    Then again five of those filled to the hilt with ammo could make a fairly hefty temp COP.
    Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours

    Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur

  16. #96
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MattC86 View Post
    Perhaps some of this will be put to the test? CNN and others have reported some 1,000 MRAPs are being audibled to Afghanistan. Unless they are going to use that many MRAPs for the few roads, I would suggest they're going to get a lot of off-road time. Most people here have said the MRAP has far less utility off-road. Thoughts?

    Regards,

    Matt
    It likely means that CNN is reporting a decision made by someone with absolutely no experience with MRAPs, or any exposure to feedback reports on just what they are capable of doing (performance-wise). Decisions like this are made all the time in the military, and we wonder why they happen, without ever being able to pinpoint who the Einstein was.

  17. #97
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MattC86 View Post
    Unless they are going to use that many MRAPs for the few roads, I would suggest they're going to get a lot of off-road time. Most people here have said the MRAP has far less utility off-road. Thoughts?

    Regards,

    Matt
    I have to admit, that according to folks I talk to, the UK MRAP, (Mastiff) seems to seek out soft ground and dive into it. It is apparently grossly overloaded with armour and other impedimenta.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  18. #98
    Council Member krsna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    21

    Default

    That's what matters! The view of the guy who has been in one such contarption!! The others are the Defence Contractors and Armchair procurement guys duly prodded on by some staffers of more Armchair Generals and the Voter savvy politicians as the ultimate arbiters of the things that will be. They would never get into one such machine ever. The only option for the boots on ground is-the proverbial 'MS Windows of opportunity'-get in and get out. Trust your feet for safer trip home. When the chips are down, no Infantarian ever felt safer in any tank. Cheers!
    KRSNA

  19. #99
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    It's really a function of (maximum) ground pressure, the number of axles and ground softness.

    A good gearbox, electronics and CTIS can only help so far - at some point it's simply impossible to trick physics anymore.

    A rule of thumb is that more than 8 tons on 4x4 becomes troublesome.
    The choice of terrains that can be crossed without significant probability of troubles narrows down the higher the ground pressure becomes till drivers don't want to leave roads anymore.

    6x6 is an indispensable minimum for crossing of serious obstacles (trenches mostly; irrigation channels for example).
    6x6, normal military truck tires (pretty wide run-flat ones, connected with CTIS) = 11-13 tons acceptable weight as a rule of thumb.
    And that's still not the x country capability that's needed to accompany MBTs.

    The present 4-wheel MRAPs have no third axle to save weight and to better allow the overpressure of a buried mine explosion to escape sidewards. They were designed for roads (paved and unpaved ones), not as general armoured infantry trucks.

    Btw, I was impressed by the small-size Force protection Cheetah
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah_MMPV
    It looks like a good vehicle for many support units (engineers, MP, HQs, EW) and as security vehicle for air forces.

  20. #100
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Redwood City, CA
    Posts
    30

    Default

    A friend of mine whose father was retired Gen. McNinney (USMC) told me his father told him, "a moving foxhole attracts attention".

Similar Threads

  1. Matters Blackwater (Merged thread)
    By SWJED in forum PMCs and Entrepreneurs
    Replies: 318
    Last Post: 04-06-2018, 11:32 AM
  2. Colombia, FARC & insurgency (merged thread)
    By Wildcat in forum Americas
    Replies: 174
    Last Post: 02-09-2017, 03:49 PM
  3. Terrorism in the USA:threat & response
    By SWJED in forum Law Enforcement
    Replies: 486
    Last Post: 11-27-2016, 02:35 PM
  4. The David Kilcullen Collection (merged thread)
    By Fabius Maximus in forum Doctrine & TTPs
    Replies: 451
    Last Post: 03-31-2016, 03:23 PM
  5. Replies: 69
    Last Post: 05-23-2012, 11:51 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •