All matters MRAP JLTV (merged thread)

[krsna]

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.

[Ken White]

...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!

[Fuchs]

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.

[krsna]

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.

[Sabre]

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.

[Cavguy]

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.

[MattC86]

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

[Ron Humphrey]

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.

[jcustis]

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.

[MattC86]

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.

I take it to be more the decision of somebody who said, "well, we need to appear to be doing something. . ."

Shifting how ever many MRAP or other vehicles to Afghanistan may not make an ounce of difference, but it plays well - all you need for proof is CNN's Pentagon correspondent glowing that the MRAPs have "played such an incredible role in drastically reducing US casualties," to know that from a political CYA perspective. . . mission accomplished! If a=b. . .

It's like McCain's speech about how he's going to "take the strategy" and apply it to Afghanistan. Never mind there's a whole host of problems with that statement; it's doing something. (I realize I'm getting way off the subject thread, and onto potentially political ground - I'll shut up soon) [/cynicism]

To try to get back ON the subject, the MRAP and vehicles like it also pose major issues that, particularly for the Marine Corps, cut to the very heart of the Corps' purpose. I recall GEN Conway lamenting last fall that the Corps was losing "its expeditionary flavor." If the Corps needs MRAPs, and MRAPs force the Corps to operate like a 2nd Army, why have the Corps? The MRAP doesn't fit well within the expeditionary concept, particularly maritime deployments; and it doesn't do much for a more deployable Army, either. Having them on hand for contingencies involving proper use - convoy, security, etc. is all well and good, but for the kind of action to be seen in Afghanistan, or in other, more expeditionary roles, forget it.

With my obvious disclaimer here being I've never been in one nor had my life saved by its armor. . .

Regards,

Matt

[Ken White]

...It's like McCain's speech about how he's going to "take the strategy" and apply it to Afghanistan. Never mind there's a whole host of problems with that statement; it's doing something. (I realize I'm getting way off the subject thread, and onto potentially political ground - I'll shut up soon) [/cynicism]

Yep, you did; you got there, no potential to it. I'd suggest that to avoid that in the future you could be equitable and say -- quite accurately -- that both candidates proposals are foolish and loaded with problems. Or perhaps an even better solution would be to not be cute and skirt the issues and just leave the politics at the door unless they're totally germane to the conversation.

That unsolicited advice from a far older and far, far more cynical dismisser of ALL politics and ALL political parties as corruption for fun and profit personified.

[William F. Owen]

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.

[krsna]

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!

[JHR]

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

[Fuchs]

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.

[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.