All matters MRAP JLTV (merged thread)

[jcustis]

Excellent observation SF, and similar ones that i have kicked around with some compadres.

I got to enjoy a ride in and MRAP, on a paved (but not to US Hwy standards) road the other day. They are not good for much beyond either terribly low speeds on unimproved roads, or being restricted to paved roads.

It is, in my mind now, clearly not a fighting vehicle, but a force protection vehicle. I'd rather not adapt my tactics to fit the gear.

[sapperfitz82]

I offer the CH-47 line more as a throw away than anything else.

I suppose that I am worried we are travelling down a dangerous garden path when we start making force protection the primary or even a qualifying characteristic of our vehicle selection.

I am aware of a movement in the doctrine writing community of a push to have force protection seen in a more holistic light which focuses much more the arrival of the force on the objective in such a manner that it is able to accomplish its mission and perhaps be readily prepared for a follow-on than as a litmus for vehicle protection against specific threats (blast/direct fire etc.).

When we start comparing center of gravity and hull angle, I wonder if we are missing the forest for the trees. The Stryker concept goes far beyond the vehicle itself, and would not be nearly as impressive or capable if the vehicle were simply offered as a replacement for the M113/Bradley.

With the MRAP/Cougar/M1151/what-have-you, we are readily accepting a substantially different platform that does in fact change how we execute our tactics without really giving much regard to that fact. Again, I was born and raised outside a vehicle so I may be super-sensitive to this, and probably the mech side of the house is adapting a great deal better.

Short response, in your list of pros/cons, perhaps we should include "significantly alters the method of employment and will require retraining (and so is not suitable for first time use while in theatre)" or "method of employment similar enough to current platforms that no particular retraining/reorganization is needed."

[William F. Owen]

Short response, in your list of pros/cons, perhaps we should include "significantly alters the method of employment and will require retraining (and so is not suitable for first time use while in theatre)" or "method of employment similar enough to current platforms that no particular retraining/reorganization is needed."

I agree. There is a very valid argument to be had about vehicle design versus doctrine and training. IMO, the M2 is an example of failure. No one vehicle can address all needs, but we need a structure in which to discuss the compromises. Personally I would see that as a balance between security operations and combat operations.

[ODB]

Think in a tactical sense. I am a cell leader or want to make a name for myself who or what would I hit?

A: The unit traveling down the road all buttoned up, with only passive security measures.

B: The unit traveling down the road with guns pointed in all directions, people actively looking and searching for me or my devices.

Just my perspective on the debate. Uparmored vehicles have there place as do GMVs and everything in between. What we are losing is our flexiblity and allowing those Monday morning quarterbacks and disenfranchised to dictate what we do and what we use to do it.

[Uboat509]

Think in a tactical sense. I am a cell leader or want to make a name for myself who or what would I hit?

A: The unit traveling down the road all buttoned up, with only passive security measures.

B: The unit traveling down the road with guns pointed in all directions, people actively looking and searching for me or my devices.

Just my perspective on the debate. Uparmored vehicles have there place as do GMVs and everything in between. What we are losing is our flexiblity and allowing those Monday morning quarterbacks and disenfranchised to dictate what we do and what we use to do it.

I absolutely hated to see the trucks with the remote control turrets on them when I was in Iraq. Many times even on the trucks with manned turrets the gunners would be sitting so far down in the turret that all he could see would be through the the gap between the chicken plate and the sides of the turret. Great for force protection, not so great for situational awareness. One of our resident tankers correct me if I am wrong, but don't they teach that the TC should be heads up until they are actually in the fight? I know that that is how we operate. The gunner is never still. He is up and he is constantly moving, both the turret and his head. There's nothing wrong with force protection but at a certain point it becomes counter-productive.

SFC W

[Ken White]

your head down and you'll get attacked. Bulldoze around like you know what you're doing and own the place and they'll leave you alone. That applies in all combat intensities. Excess caution kills...

[Entropy]

I don't see the current crop of MRAP-type vehicles being all that useful in Afghanistan because of the lousy road network where a LOT of areas are like this. Hilux's are great there because they're are so light and nimble on those kinds of roads. They're also very dependable (part 2, part 3). It seems like the Pentagon sees the disadvantages too and is looking for a new vehicle. See also this. The special ops folks already have some of these, which look pretty cool.

So, if nothing else, this seems like a timely topic. I DO think we need more helo's in Afghanistan (especially 47's), but then again I have a bias since I supported helo ops when I was there.

[Vojnik]

I'm a bit confused. I've read the entire thread, but I would ask someone to clarify for me.

I believe that we're debating whether the MRAP has a future beyond OEF/OIF? Or are we discussing whether the MRAP should not be fielded currently?

Thanks in advance.

[Vojnik]

Excellent observation SF, and similar ones that i have kicked around with some compadres.

I got to enjoy a ride in and MRAP, on a paved (but not to US Hwy standards) road the other day. They are not good for much beyond either terribly low speeds on unimproved roads, or being restricted to paved roads.

It is, in my mind now, clearly not a fighting vehicle, but a force protection vehicle. I'd rather not adapt my tactics to fit the gear.

I believe the MRAP was fielded to address the tactics used by units in OIF.
So the idea was to fit the gear to the tactics, not vice versa.

I have not used MRAPs, nor CROWS, nor am I privy to any sort of advanced testing and acquisition process. I am simplying stating that in this case it "looks" like the Pentagon was addressing a need stated by the in-country Commanders.

[William F. Owen]

I'm a bit confused. I've read the entire thread, but I would ask someone to clarify for me.

I believe that we're debating whether the MRAP has a future beyond OEF/OIF? Or are we discussing whether the MRAP should not be fielded currently?

Thanks in advance.

As the thread starter, I will attempt to clarify. I believe that there is a good case for looking at "MRAPS" beyond the confines of what some call COIN.
Given ,

a.) good levels of protection
b.) Reasonably good mobility

then they would seem to have a role as basic infantry mobility systems. I do not consider them to be MICVs or MBTs.

A bad MRAP is a bad MRAP, so no argument there. The same basic set of argument that apply to all AFVs apply to MRAPs.

[Vojnik]

As the thread starter, I will attempt to clarify. I believe that there is a good case for looking at "MRAPS" beyond the confines of what some call COIN.
Given ,

a.) good levels of protection
b.) Reasonably good mobility

then they would seem to have a role as basic infantry mobility systems. I do not consider them to be MICVs or MBTs.

A bad MRAP is a bad MRAP, so no argument there. The same basic set of argument that apply to all AFVs apply to MRAPs.

Thank you. That's what I thought the general debate was focused on.

[ODB]

If the decision is made to use this for COIN only then the Army could always send them to DRMO to be bought by companies to use them as armored cars, just a thought.

[Bullmoose Bailey]

Have already seen many of these vehicles sunk deep in the sands of Iraq.

Its a simple question of weight distribution. That's why I prefer the M113. Holds 10 men plus the crew & weighs only about 10 tons, with the weight caried on tracks with great earth coverage & very low ground pressure. I've commanded them on all types of terrain & they've never let me down. It also swims of course.

Part of the larger issue facing our military establishment is that wheeled vehicles continue to have diminished military application due to their constriction to the roadways.

This disappoints me and the focus on motorized (wheeled) over mechanized (tracked) as the philosophical heart of Army Leaders disturbs me.

[William F. Owen]

Its a simple question of weight distribution. That's why I prefer the M113. Holds 10 men plus the crew & weighs only about 10 tons, with the weight caried on tracks with great earth coverage & very low ground pressure. I've commanded them on all types of terrain & they've never let me down. It also swims of course.

If it really is all about weight distribution (which IMO, is wrong) then surely you want a BVS-10 or STK Bronco. IRC the M113 is not amphibious once you load out beyond 11,700kg, and the IDF's up-armoured M-113s are currently tipping the scales at 18,000kg.

The new NIMDA and MTVL spec'd M113s are fine vehicles, but they also have significant limitations, in both protection and mobility.

Part of the larger issue facing our military establishment is that wheeled vehicles continue to have diminished military application due to their constriction to the roadways.

Not sure what you mean. 30,000kg ISO containers, on three-four axles move around road systems world wide, with very little trouble. Unit level road moves conducted by units in wheeled APCs, are always conducted faster than those done by tracked units. The 2001 UK plan to move an infantry Battalion from Europe to Afghanistan, was possible with a wheeled platform and impossible using tracks.

This disappoints me and the focus on motorized (wheeled) over mechanized (tracked) as the philosophical heart of Army Leaders disturbs me.

I spend a lot of time focussed on infantry mobility and W v T is simply not a debate that most of the serious minds in this area ever talk about. It's like debating fixed wing versus helicopters. You need both, and always have.

[Cavguy]

This disappoints me and the focus on motorized (wheeled) over mechanized (tracked) as the philosophical heart of Army Leaders disturbs me.

Well, FCS will be tracked ..... if it ever gets built. They rejected wheels a few years ago.

I'm with Wiif, we need all of it in the kitbag.

I also covered my experience with the M113 in the current environment here.

[SethB]

Silence, please.

The Economist.

Rattling along in the “washing-machine environment” of an armoured personnel-carrier (APC) on steel tracks can vibrate the soldiers inside to the point of exhaustion according to Dan Goure, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a think-tank in Arlington, Virginia. Meanwhile J.G. Brunbech, an APC expert at the Danish Army Material Command in Oksboel, observes that the crew’s limbs are prone to becoming prickly and numb, and their hands get tired because they must hold on tightly to the safety handles inside a vehicle’s cabin in order to try to avoid being jostled.

The vehicle itself suffers, too. The vibrations cause rapid wear and tear—not to mention outright damage, especially to its electronics. In the past, engineers have tried to reduce these vibrations by fixing rubber pads to the treads. The results, however, have not been satisfactory. The pads wear out quickly, and often rip apart or even melt. But now tough, new rubbers have come to the rescue. Moreover, these rubbers are not being used just as pads. Instead, they are crafted into enormous rubber bands that replace the steel tracks completely. As a result, the Danes are converting their entire APC fleet to rubber tracks. This means they have raised the amount of time a soldier can safely spend on board from one and a half hours to ten.

Also of note:

And although America has not sent APCs with rubber tracks into action, they form part of the Future Combat Systems, the Department of Defence’s principal modernisation programme.

[Steve Blair]

Well, FCS will be tracked ..... if it ever gets built. They rejected wheels a few years ago.

I'm with Wiif, we need all of it in the kitbag.

I also covered my experience with the M113 in the current environment here.

My MCS idea allows for either wheeled or tracked vehicles in the order of battle. For logistics purposes alone I'm not keen on a mix, but it wouldn't be difficult to do given the unit's framework.

[Ken White]

It's an idea whose time has probably come. Both the Canadians and Danes are re-doing all their M113s and others are experimenting with Soucy tracks. Other companies are also playing with the idea. Technological and chemical advances have allowed this but Snowmobiles and ATVs like the Hagglunds BV 206 which the US Army adopted as the M973 Small Unit support Vehicle LINK also use a Soucy made rubber band track and have for years.

The Caterpillar DEUCE LINK also uses a rubber band track.

The DEUCE and BV 206 / M973 are fairly recent vehicles but the rubber band track is not that new as an idea; the US M114 Recon Vehicle from the late 50s used 'em:

"...The tracks, developed by the Caterpillar Corporation, were of the "rubber band" type, providing the supposed advantages of lower costs, reduced weight and ease of maintenance in comparison with a link track system. Manufactured as a single strip with bolted in track pads and grousers, this development never lived up to expectations. In an unsupported configuration on narrow road wheels, the "rubber band" allowed for the small GM engine, this in turn saved overall space and weight for the entire vehicle. In the event of light damage from mines or direct fire, there was no plan for a crew to repair broken track strips." (emphasis added / kw)

LINK.

They do need to work out a fix for the item I placed in bold...

[SethB]

Could you just carry spare tracks to replace the broken ones with?

[Cavguy]

Could you just carry spare tracks to replace the broken ones with?

Band track isn't separateable like normal track, as I understand. So if it is lost you have to get a whole new one on, not just replace a section like current track.