All matters MRAP JLTV (merged thread)

[William F. Owen]

In short:
MRAP/JLTV look fine as LIC survivable mobility tools if the fuel supply is guaranteed (fuel consumption could be much lower without tons of armour).
I don't trust light armour as stand-alone survivability solution in higher intensity warfare.

So what's the solution to giving all infantry formations sustainable and viable protected mobility? What do you suggest?

[VMI_Marine]

So what's the solution to giving all infantry formations sustainable and viable protected mobility? What do you suggest?

Leather cadillacs and e-tools?

I had an MRAP for two months on my last tour. Fantastic vehicle for convoy ops - it's like having a Tactical Escalade compared to the Humvee. Useless offroad, though. We couldn't travel more than 10-15 kph offroad, and even then you had better be strapped in tight. I operated with an M113 briefly, until my CoC told me to cease and desist from operating Army vehicles, and in retrospect I loved the mobility it provided me over the MRAP. I think tracked vehicles are going to continue to be a better solution for all-around mobility. If we rely on MRAP-type vehicles, we've done part of the enemy commander's job for him by canalizing ourselves on existing roads.

[William F. Owen]

I think tracked vehicles are going to continue to be a better solution for all-around mobility. If we rely on MRAP-type vehicles, we've done part of the enemy commander's job for him by canalizing ourselves on existing roads.

I think that long fast road moves are going to become increasingly important. That means putting tracked APCs on low-loaders and that takes a lot of time and then you are road bound anyway.

I perceive protected road mobility as extremely important, in all conflict. The security of paved surface for wheeled traffic has been pretty inherent to conflict for the past 80 or so years. The world is becoming more and not less paved.

It's worth just taking a look at this,
http://www.defense-update.com/products/w/wildcat.htm

It costs about 1/3rd of what Stryker does, and to my mind is more capable, in that given a choice, I would select this over Stryker.

[Fuchs]

I perceive protected road mobility as extremely important, in all conflict. The security of paved surface for wheeled traffic has been pretty inherent to conflict for the past 80 or so years. The world is becoming more and not less paved.

Mostly correct.
But consider this; how much would the infantry travel on roads? Let's assume a road speed of only 50 km/h. A five-hour move would certainly be an exception for infantry, happening only once in some weeks. The average truck might be moving less than one or two hours per day (logistics vehicles would move much more).
That's 22-23 hours per day without movement (albeit possibly waiting on or next to a road). Do you want a huge protected but difficult-to-conceal truck (an invitation to concentrate the squad in the vehicle especially in cold climate) or a smaller, easily concealed vehicle?

Concealed vehicles wouldn't need to be guarded as much and the lower weight and fuel consumption reduce maintenance and logistical requirements.
Some off-road capability is required for many tasks. Engineering vehicles for earthworks and lower echelon supply vehicles as well as vehicles for ATGM or mortar crews need to be off-road capable.

Furthermore; the armour employed in MRAPs is not quantity production material. Even if they used simple RHA we would still have a supply shortage in the event of a major war that requires ten thousands, not only about 2,000 vehicles per year. What's our equipment good for if you cannot produce it in wartime quantities, if you cannot equip your mobilized army?


Israel is a special case. It has rather high force densities in the event of a war, hard ground surfaces in many areas, many hilly terrains (Negev, Sinai, Lebanon, Golan) that don't permit much off-road activity anyway and its possible opponents cannot expect to achieve much with their reconnaissance or artillery.

[Surferbeetle]

I enjoyed using the HMMWV before all the armor hit. The stryker looks interesting but I have never been in one during a combat tour so I can't say.

What have/do our allies use(d)?

From Wikipedia the Dingo

The Daimler Scout Car, known in service as the "Dingo" (after the Australian wild dogs), was a British light fast 4WD reconnaissance vehicle also used in the liaison role during the Second World War.

From Defesanet the Dingo 2

The DINGO 2 is a consistent upgrade of the DINGO 1 all-protected carrier vehicle transport vehicle introduced into service in the year 2000 and proven in many foreign missions. For as many as eight crew, it currently affords the highest level of protection against modern hand-held weapons, artillery fragments, anti-personnel and anti-tank mines as well as against NBC combat agents. With its highly mobile off-road chassis, it reaches maximum speeds of more than 90 kph and a radius of action of approximately 1,000 km. Moreover, the DINGO 2 is air-transportable on C160-Transall, C130 Hercules and the future A400M aircraft.

[Fuchs]

Try this one for Dingo 1 / ATF:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_Dingo
The protection levels are not fully known, of course. I remember that it's small arms and single or even double stacked blast AT mine resistant.

Dingos are armored Unimogs (light standard 4x4 truck).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unimog

This is another German 4x4 (partially) armoured vehicle, designed to fit into CH-53G, IIRC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mungo_ESK

The Bundeswehr also uses different armoured cabs for medium and heavy trucks and a 4x4 armoured observation vehicle (Fennek). Boxer/GTK, a huge wheeled APC, is another program.

A new program for a new vehicle generation is underway. This includes the Grizzly (and other vehicles)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KMW_Grizzly
http://193.158.125.14/images/91_KMW-GFF4.jpg

A design from a blank sheet on is the GeFaS. It's modular and again huge.
http://www.rheinmetall.de/index.php?lang=2&fid=1698

We have I think about six to eight different Mercedes G class jeep versions with armour protection. The protection escalated as the anticipated missions evolved from MP vehicle to Afghanistan road patrols.
I've recently heard that no lesser protected vehicles than Dingo 1 are used for Afghanistan patrols and convoys anymore our contingent had luck some months ago when mines did much less damage and caused less severe casualties than possible.
Sometime early in the ISAF mission we had lots of KIA when a bus (a bus!!!) got hit.
The first patrols in Kabul were done with sandbagged open Unimogs mostly (with the appropriate spin about barrett-wearing friendly soldiers and intentionally no intimidating armour...but in the background they were hastily buying more armoured Dingos ASAP).



I dislike the Bundeswehr's apparently uncoordinated procurement of many different wheeled armoured vehicles in the past ten years. I believe it exposes a poor planning capability and a lack of clear understanding of one's own requirements.
The end result is far away from the successful Family of vehicles" maintenance- and logistics-friendly approaches like our old 2nd medium/light truck generation and the French ACMAT VLRA had.

[Surferbeetle]

Fuchs,

Thanks for the references. Here is one that might be of interest with regards to South African designs.

Regards,

Steve

[Fuchs]

So what's the solution to giving all infantry formations sustainable and viable protected mobility? What do you suggest?

I see no all-round solution. I doubt that infantry that's properly embedded in the population really needs armoured trucks for road travels in COIN.
I'd integrate local militiamen into community-embedded platoons/companies anyway; the locals would create a safe environment and warn of dangers more thoroughly with some of them on every "foreign" vehicle anyway.
Soldiers could also use local transport vehicles on raids and intelligence missions.


For higher intensity conflict I'd suggest light trucks (a new category of light trucks!)

- partially fragmentation protected (up to level I (~ 9x19mm ball short barrel, a bit more protection than old kevlar flak vests), also the tarpaulin, windshield and door windows)
- minimized ground clearance when parking (hydropneumatic suspension)
- low height (folding windshield, fragmentation protection panels and roll-over bar)
- probably small enough for civilian car garages (folding mirrors, cabin accessible through folded windshield, bumpers all-round)
- prepared for quick camouflage and de-camouflaging with nets (also capable to fake urban objects with different camouflage materials)
- very low noise level
- self-recovery winch on 50% of vehicles
- several large fuel tanks, several small fresh water tanks, high mpg
- capable to cross irrigation trenches, fences, wet grassland
- driver sits in center, left and right sit gunners with good automatic firepower (pintle mounts)

Such a truck would survive indirect HE fires less well, but it would be much less likely under such and other fires. The small signature to enemy reconnaissance would increase the uncertainty for the enemy.
Imagine an infantry company occupies a community close to a major city to block an important road nearby. It's no rural community, so there's no barn. MRAPs cold be parked under gas stations , but most of them only in the open.
An enemy 5 lbs drone makes a fly-over and the enemy knows almost all truck positions and the defender strength. 320mm MRL and 142mm SPH flatten the community with HE, a mech company approaches combat-like and clears the ruins.
Imagine a company occupying the community with my light truck design; you could send much better recon assets, even drive through with some recon AFVs and would still not become aware of the occupation.

In high intensity warfare you need to defeat their sensors, not their munitions for survivability.
Some people believe that "stealth" doesn't work on the ground. They think too much of Arab deserts imho.