...but which MRAP and what level of protection? Some Armoured Vehicles have very high level of both mobility and protection.Originally Posted by jcustis
Okay, I was prematurely vocal about my take on the MRAP, but I am wrapping up this current deployment, and have spent enough time in the back of both 4x4 and 6x6 models to make the following statement...they suck, and are a detriment to our combat capability. Sure, they can keep a guy ensconced in a blanket, but they are only effective as a mobility platform on hard-surfaced roads. Even then, the errant pothole could leave a axle in ruins if it is hit at the right speed and angle."There is no failsafe measure that can prevent all loss of life and limb on this or any other battlefield. That is the brutal reality of war. But vehicles like MRAP, combined with the right tactics, techniques, and procedures, provide the best protection available against these attacks."'
Secretary Gates, Jan 18, 2008
Cross-country mobility is so atrocious that just about every time I had to move cross-country, I've ended the movemnt fatigued and that is not the way to go into a fight (of which we have had none here thus far).
When our task force first arrived at its current operating location, we put these vehicles through paces that probably haven't been attempted before, and the maintenance status told the tale of a vehicle that simple could not withstand the slightest bit of rough terrain without crawling at 0-5 mph, and had to be gingerly maneuvered through chokepoint after chokepoint in order to get anywhere. We learned over time and stopped destroying them, but that time occured in a relatively benign environment. Secretary Gates is right on the notion of utilizing the appropriate TTPs, but the problem that we face, at least in the Corps, is that you don't get TTPs added in when drivers go to get their license and road time. We tried to employ them like other wheeled assets, and just simply failed. It's better now, but only because we have to baby the vehicles to excess.
I am hearing that the Corp's is looking for money to upgrade the suspension systems from a solid-axle so that these vehs can be made to operate in a wider range of environments. I hope that is possible, because the platform has a ton of potential, but until that suspension gets unscrewed, it won't be capable across the range that we need.
Last edited by davidbfpo; 02-26-2009 at 12:23 PM. Reason: Spelling corrections for a man in the field
...but which MRAP and what level of protection? Some Armoured Vehicles have very high level of both mobility and protection.
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
Fair enough. It is our Cougar model.
Understood. Cougar seems to have less than stellar potential here in the UK as well. The operational people seem to have favoured RG-31/32, so it's by no means clear where the error crept in, even if indeed it did. You may want to look at the STK- ATTC Warthog as the UK's new APC for A'Stan.
This may also amuse.
http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets...nAFV_Feb09.pdf
Additionally, it seems now useless to talk of "MRAPS" - we need to get back to talking about armoured vehicles.
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
Sir,
Couldn't agree more. MRAPs are the exact opposite of where we need to be going with our mobility. I wrote a review on OPFOR after my last deployment, which pretty much echoes what you are saying.
MRAP Review
Touches on MRAP
The discussion of the UK policy on patrol vehicles policy, in Afghanistan now, has re-appeared, albeit with little public or political resonance. The link refers to MRAP and other vehicles: http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/ and a former UK Army officer's view: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debat.../#comment-4731
This seemed the best place to add this!
davidbfpo
Here's a newish MRAP from SA that looks kinda interesting. Appears to adhere to the KISS principle and looks like its been designed from the ground up to be exactly what it is, as opposed to some others that are based on existing civilian trucks. Armour protection looks a bit meagre though.
On a different note, the Dutch seem to be quite happy with the Bushmaster, orders now totalling 72. May have something to do with the fact that the Dutch and the Ozzies work and live together in A-stan?
Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)
All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
ONWARD
Rhodesia era vehicles
Via a BSAP website this Russian website has a vast selection of photos and text in Russian of course: http://www.armourbook.com/forum/main...ny/page/1.html
davidbfpo
davidbfpo, thanks for good link. I add one more picture
Testimonial for MRAP
Testimony to the MRAP concept, a Pathfinder vehicle in Afghanistan after a 500 pound IED went off: http://cryptome.org/MRAPINCIDENT.pps
Appears to be a US Army Unclassified product. I note the engine has left the vehicle.
davidbfpo
New Ground Combat Vehicle RFP is out
This is extracted from a press release on the the DoD public web site.
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
A political statement if I've ever seen one. What kind of environment is that? Designed to withstand mines and booby-traps doesn't sound like anything new or groundbreaking. Also, what defines an "IED Environment"? An EFP is far different than 2 jugs of HME which are both different than a DFFC.
Whole heartedly agree with Infanteer; IED's come in just as many varieties as any other munition type on the battle field. The MRAP was great at providing crew survivability (not vehicle survivability) against mine strikes, much better than Strykers or Bradleys, but it was just as vulnerable to EFPs and HEAT grenades. However, the government was so concerned with purchasing huge numbers, which plays well in the media, there was never an adequate number of spare parts or qualified mechanics to keep the fleet combat capable. My unit had 13 MRAPs assigned, of 5 different variants made by 5 different companies, and it was everything we could do to keep 9 combat capable. For the loggies out there, that is a 69% OR rate, which would get the SPO fired in most situations, and our OR rate was above the theater average.
"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple"
- Oscar Wilde
Doesn't sound so good. The performance of some of those vehicles in deep mud and snow must also be truly atrocious. Has there been any testing in this regard? I'm pretty sure that they were wise enough not to try.
Mud, mud, mud.
In the end it is always about resources, local conditions and hard and wise choices.
Firn
P.S: BTW the BV 206S is truly a fantastic piece of machinery under said conditions, but certainly the vehicle of choice for braving IEDs.
Last edited by Firn; 03-29-2010 at 08:08 PM.
Back from the Dead
How about taking this discussion in a slightly different direction.
What is the potential use of all the "already bought and paid for MRAPs" for use in the Line-of-Communications/MSR security role?
Currently US Army Combat Support MP platoon are mounted in a combination of up-armored HMWWVS and ASVs (a 8x6 HMWWV to ASV mix). Could the MRAPs replace some/all of the HMWWVs?
What about as squad/team carriers for engineers in a Route Clearance Company? Same type of situation as above, combination of HMWWV and MRAPs now. Go all MRAP?
We have/are resourcing the Comvoy Escort/MSR Security mission/role/task with National Guard BCT that get re-equipped and re-trained before they deploy. Maybe MRAPs sit in depots/storage to await the next need.
I have heard that some folks are in favor of either handing over all of MRAPs to the locals as we leave and/or creating more "artifical reefs" with them once we get rid of all the toxic stuff. Both options seem poor choices to me.
I feel there is a tactical niche for a vehicle like at MRAP in the convoy escort and route/MSR security role. We just need a proponent (branch) to step forward and say, I got this one.
Thoughts?
TAH
Put me in the Artificial Reef camp...
Been my observation that machinery which sits tends to develop all sorts of expensive restorations to place back in service. Amazing how fast tubing, tires and track pads dry rot. Plus oxidation oxidizes...Niche is correct. Won't work at all in MCO and there are better solutions in FID. The MRAP was a political answer to a political problem-- the American way, unfortunately -- and while they worked marginally well for the purpose, they are definitely one trick ponies. Overly complex, overly expensive, too many varieties cluttering up the supply system. poor x-country cape, poor mileage yet underpowered -- and a single piddly 85mm round, much less a Sagger, would ruin someone's day.I feel there is a tactical niche for a vehicle like at MRAP in the convoy escort and route/MSR security role. We just need a proponent (branch) to step forward and say, I got this one.
Armor is handy. It also can become a cocoon and folks can become reluctant to leave their cocoons. Armor stops hostile objects -- but you can only armor so much ; agility is better...
I'd note the last time the last time we had proponents step forward, Cavalry got the Bradley instead of the needed scout vehicle and the M8 got cancelled...
The Branch system and 'propency' needs to go. It's a relic of the 19th Century. We need to develop unit and service loyalty, branches interfere with that. I can recall one smart organizational move that was killed because implementing it would've meant the loss of an Armor Colonel space -- no matter it would have improved the Armor School's day to day ops and throughput. Wait and see what that branch proponency wrangle does to Information Ops...
Sorry to dispense rain -- but you asked for thoughts...
Rear-Area and MSR Security
Ken:
The rain helps...
Really think someone/branch and/or "Center of Excellence" MCoE, MANCEN, CASCOM, needs to step forward and assume responsibility for this tar baby.
My thoughts are that it belongs over at MANCEN. They "own" MPs and the Maneuver Enhanved Brigades (MEBs). Don't know about the AC, but the RC MEBs are all including either an Infantry Bn, a Combined Arms Bn, or a Cav Sqdrn as their own organic Tatical Combat Force (TCF).
I think that TCF Bn is were MRAPs and their ilk belong. Lots of MSR patroling and convoy escorting. Some base/FOB defense tasks and only limited need to maneuver x-country extensively.
Talking to my son's Battle-buddy from BCT/AIT who deployed to Iraq last year as part of a "Theater Security Force BCT", he states that teh ASVs are sweet in this role.
At nearly a million buck a pop, seems like we should not let them just gather dust and rot.
TAH
Does anyone have experience with the various up-armor kits for MTVRs and FMTVs? How do they compare with dedicated MRAPs in terms of protection and mobility? The MTVR APK was supposed to handle detonations of 12lbs of Comp B (threshold), 16lbs (objective) and 7.62mm all around. I imagine this could be taken further with a custom cab and cargo bed designed to accept armor kits.
It seems like, if you have the option to up-armor your standard trucks to near MRAP protection, while retaining a significant degree of off-road performance, you can buy one vehicle and tailor your protection level to meet the METT-TC.
You hit the wrong button...
However, I'll spare you my stock rant about the smarmy and dipwad "Centers of Excellence" BS terminology. That irritates me almost as much as this 'warrior' and 'hero' gar-bahge...
And Branches in general do. Moving right along:We can disagree on that. I think that would be preparing for this war and not the future. I really question the long term viability of road convoys and if we end up in a vaguely linear major war, the armor wouldn't be needed in the rear and in any event doesn't provide any real protection against likley weapons in such a conflict.I think that TCF Bn is were MRAPs and their ilk belong. Lots of MSR patroling and convoy escorting. Some base/FOB defense tasks and only limited need to maneuver x-country extensively.
If we end up doing more FID:I hear and read the same thing. Shows what can happen when you buy the right tool for the job...Talking to my son's Battle-buddy from BCT/AIT who deployed to Iraq last year as part of a "Theater Security Force BCT", he states that teh ASVs are sweet in this role.
The MRAP has a job (sort of...) today but it is / was really just a quick fix for a political problem that was necessitated by an Army and a series of Congresses that did not adapt to known and obvious equipment requirements due to ineptitude in high places in the Army and to political expediency in Congress during the 1990s. Militarily, tactically, it is a bullet magnet which can be defeated by the right weapon. It is large, slow, not agile, too heavy for the load it can carry (and for many roads and bridges...) and fills no real tactical need. It breeds tactical ineptitude and a vehicle bound mentality.
That's for MRAPs, the M-ATV and the JLTV are not MRAPs and are acceptable IMO. But only barelyWe waste a lot of money on more -- and less -- important stuff. Still, I agree, no sense in letting 'em sit somewhere. We can give them to the Iraqis and the Afghans (and other nations with similar problems). Let them deal with a solution bought for their conditions and that is not really tactically viable for most all US purposes.At nearly a million buck a pop, seems like we should not let them just gather dust and rot.
I have visions of an MRAP trying to move down a jungle trail -- or in the mud at Ft. Campbell, Germany, Korea or some such place. Even better, in the snow of the high latitudes. Even worse, in a convoy somewhere, anywhere that is suddenly hit with dozens of ATGMs from an ambush two or three clicks off the road and that didn't get spotted by the patrolling Ravens...
Sometimes you are just too subtle for me, Ken. Are you hinting at something?However, I'll spare you my stock rant about the smarmy and dipwad "Centers of Excellence" BS terminology. That irritates me almost as much as this 'warrior' and 'hero' gar-bahge...
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
- university webpage: McGill University
- conflict simulations webpage: PaxSims
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks