Page 9 of 18 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 355

Thread: All matters MRAP JLTV (merged thread)

  1. #161
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    "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
    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.

    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

  2. #162
    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
    Cross-country mobility is so atrocious that just about every time I had to move cross-country, I've ended the movemtn fatigued and that is not the way to go into a fight (of which we have had none here thus far).
    ...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

  3. #163
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Fair enough. It is our Cougar model.

  4. #164
    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
    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

  5. #165
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Camp Lagoon
    Posts
    53

    Default

    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

  6. #166
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default 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

  7. #167
    Council Member Kiwigrunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Auckland New Zealand
    Posts
    467

    Default

    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

  8. #168
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default 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

  9. #169
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    davidbfpo, thanks for good link. I add one more picture


  10. #170
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default 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

  11. #171
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default New Ground Combat Vehicle RFP is out

    This is extracted from a press release on the the DoD public web site.
    Quote Originally Posted by Defense.Gov
    The Army released last Thursday a request for proposal (RFP) for the technology development phase of the Infantry Fighting Vehicle being developed under the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) effort. The Army has worked extensively with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to develop this program. The GCV acquisition program will follow Department of Defense best acquisition practices and be a competitive program with up to three contract awards. The GCV development effort will consist of three phases: technology development, engineering and manufacturing design and low rate initial production. The Army anticipates awarding the first contracts for the technology development phase in the fourth-quarter of fiscal 2010.

    The technology development phase involves risk reduction, identification of technology demonstrations, competitive prototyping activities, and planned technical reviews. Industry will have 60 days to submit proposals to the Army for this development effort.

    The Ground Combat Vehicle effort is part of a holistic Army plan to modernize its combat vehicle fleet. This includes incorporating Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles into the fleet while modernizing current vehicle fleets including Stryker. The first Ground Combat Vehicle will be an Infantry Fighting Vehicle offering a highly-survivable platform for delivering a nine-man infantry squad to the battlefield. The GCV is the first vehicle that will be designed from the ground up to operate in an improvised explosive device (IED) environment. It is envisioned to have greater lethality and ballistic protection than a Bradley, greater IED and mine protection than an MRAP, and the cross country mobility of an Abrams tank. The GCV will be highly survivable, mobile and versatile, but the Army has not set specific requirements such as weight, instead allowing industry to propose the best solution to meet the requirements.
    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

  12. #172
    Council Member Infanteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    The GCV is the first vehicle that will be designed from the ground up to operate in an improvised explosive device (IED) environment.
    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.

  13. #173
    Council Member Red Leg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ft Leavenworth
    Posts
    11

    Default

    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

  14. #174
    Council Member Firn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Leg View Post
    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.
    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.

  15. #175
    Council Member TAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    115

    Default 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

  16. #176
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Put me in the Artificial Reef camp...

    Quote Originally Posted by TAH View Post
    Maybe MRAPs sit in depots/storage to await the next need.
    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...
    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.
    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.

    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...

  17. #177
    Council Member TAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    115

    Default 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

  18. #178
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    33

    Default

    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.

  19. #179
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Talking You hit the wrong button...

    Quote Originally Posted by TAH View Post
    Really think someone/branch and/or "Center of Excellence" MCoE, MANCEN, CASCOM, needs to step forward and assume responsibility for this tar baby.
    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:
    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.
    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.

    If we end up doing more FID:
    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.
    I hear and read the same thing. Shows what can happen when you buy the right tool for the job...

    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 barely
    At nearly a million buck a pop, seems like we should not let them just gather dust and rot.
    We 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.

    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...

  20. #180
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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...
    Sometimes you are just too subtle for me, Ken. Are you hinting at something?
    They mostly come at night. Mostly.


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
  •