Its cool for a July day in the nations capital, so Im ready to do a few laps in a pot of boiling oil!
Inside Washington Publishers which publishes the best-known defense newsletters dubbed colloquially The Insides has been following the development of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle and the explosion of interest in this lifesaver since it erupted with the new congress in January.
For the record, as our readers will certainly remember, Defense Tech has voiced skepticism over the utility of the MRAP vehicles and the wisdom of procuring tens of thousands of these vehicles instead of using the resources to build a future Humvee with innovations in armor, power, armament, communications and crew comfort/protection that will last as long as the current one (remember the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle Program?).
Well, The Insides have been tracking each iteration of the MRAP program very closely and have published some interesting findings recently that shows the services may be backing away from the rush to procure so many of the vehicles that will have only limited utility as Americas involvement in Iraq draws down as the 2008 approaches.
From Inside Defense:
A high-level Pentagon panel avoided locking the Army into a long-term, and very expensive, commitment to acquire all of the entire 17,700 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles sought by commanders in Baghdad, opting instead to back aggressive near-term acquisition strategy coupled with periodic reviews of the situation in Iraq to curtail purchases as conditions permit.
In what participants described an unorthodox approach, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council — headed by the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the four service vice chiefs — on June 28 endorsed in principle the Army’s need for more than 2,500 MRAP vehicles acknowledging that the service may eventually need enough of the blast-resistant vehicles to equip 20 brigades.
However, participants in the meeting said the requirements panel did not formally recalibrate the MRAP requirement, which currently is 7,774, to the possible 23,044 vehicles, had the Army’s entire requirement been adopted.
“They are still working toward what the right number is,” said Lt. Col. Gary Tallman, a Joint Staff spokesman.
And earlier, outgoing vice chief of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. Edmund Giambastiani, downplayed the MRAPs ability to resist the most lethal threats in Iraq, Inside Defense reports.
One of the U.S. military’s most senior officers is concerned that the intense focus on acquiring a new fleet of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles designed to protect against the blast effects of roadside bombs has created an unrealistic expectation that everyone who rides in one will be protected from a catastrophic hit.
Adm. Edmund Giambastiani, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who was a regular passenger in MRAP-like vehicles on recent trips to Iraq, aimed in an interview to lower public expectations for the ability of the new vehicles with v-shaped chassis to protect all troops from insurgent attacks.
“No matter how much armor you put out there, all of this stuff at one point or another can be defeated,” said Giambastiani, who is retiring this summer, in a June 5 interview with InsideDefense.com. “What we don’t want to do is make the expectation out there that we’re going to save every single individual that we put in one of these vehicles because we’re putting a cocoon around them. You simply can’t do it. There are weapons and techniques that can be used to defeat literally everything, including M1 tanks, Bradleys and the rest of it. So that’s the bottom line.“
Defense Tech as been in touch with various MRAP sources whove provided more information that indicate the program may need to slow down and take a more deliberate approach to finding a solution that will save lives over the long term. Stay tuned in the coming days and weeks for more gouge on MRAP development and procurement.
(Photo: Adm. Giambastiani with MRAP vehicle at Aberdeen Proving Grounds)
I guess you miss the most important thing the MRAP’s do versus the HUMVEE. That is they save the lives of our boys. Not one life lost in a Force Protection Cougar. Put a price tag on that fellow!!!
Semper FI
You say: “Well, The Insides have been tracking each iteration of the MRAP program very closely and have published some interesting findings recently that shows the services may be backing away from the rush to procure so many of the vehicles that will have only limited utility as America
going to disagree with other comments a bit and go with the article, in that doesn’t it make enough sense to procure sufficient of these vehicles for the immediate need in iraq (and afghanistan?) immediately (like, right now!), with spares of course, so that all the troops in these two theatres are completely equipped, whilst looking more critically at the larger and more long-term supply to the various armed forces. are these vehicles going to be as relevant in 10–20 years time (i don’t know the answer), or is some other design going to be prevalent for fast troops transport / supply / command etc. of course the best way to save the lives of coalition troops would be to remove them all from harm’s way, but i guess that view is not necessarily one everyone would agree with!
cheerio
Well, let me see.……yep, i am pretty well versed in this. I am running up and down the roads right now. No I don’t mean the roads of the good ole’ USA where all the politicians are riding. Nope, these roads have things that go boom in the night. I recently got a cougar, and man what a difference. I know it isn’t invincible, not by any means. But comparitevly, it’s like going from beetle bug to a tank. I’d bet if you put a few politicians butts in a hummer, they’d get off the stick.
MRAP is good, I’m sure, for its designed purpose. It is good for the current mission and if we need more for Iraq, fine. However, it is NOT expeditionary. It’s heavy. It doesn’t fit on most ships the Marines or even the Army will ever use. It’s utility in most other theaters in future wars is questionable (can you imagine trying to drive it in the mountains?). There will always be a need for a very large number of HMMWVs/JLTVs as the main body of the tactical vehicle fleet.
Regardless of whether our military has an ongoing need for these vehicles, we owe it to the Iraqui government to leave them a lot of these when we ultimately pull out.
FYI — UD DoD to close to procuring ADF Bushranger
U.S. Army to Buy Australian-Made Armored Vehicles
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, SYDNEY
29.6.2007
An Australian company is close to signing a multimillion-dollar deal to supply the U.S. Army with armored vehicles, a report said June 29.
Defense manufacturer Thales Australia is expected to announce it will provide 1,500 Bushmaster armored personnel carriers to the U.S. within days, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation said without citing sources.
Bushmasters are specially built to withstand the impact of land mines and improvised explosive devices and are currently used by the Australian and Dutch armies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The executive director of the Australian Defence Association Neil James said the U.S. had been impressed with the performance of the Bushmaster.
> using the resources to build a future Humvee with innovations in armor, power, armament, communications and crew comfort/protection
you know what a humvee is going to like after you add sufficient protection?
that’s right, an MRAP
> Defense Tech has voiced skepticism over the utility of the MRAP vehicles
i guess i missed the part about MRAPs having less utility than the current Humvee
Have a look here: ttp://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_1075291806.html
Yup — an order has gone out for (drum roll please) 441 MRAPs. I don’t think anyone would accuse the US DoD procurement office of rushing into things.
Mark L
“MRAP is good, I’m sure, for its designed purpose. It is good for the current mission and if we need more for Iraq, fine. However, it is NOT expeditionary. It’s heavy. It doesn’t fit on most ships the Marines or even the Army will ever use. It’s utility in most other theaters in future wars is questionable (can you imagine trying to drive it in the mountains?). There will always be a need for a very large number of HMMWVs/JLTVs as the main body of the tactical vehicle fleet.“
For fast moving, ‘hot’ operations in bad terrain, I’m not going to argue the point about future utility — but in terms of counter-insurgency and peacekeeping patrols in urban and near-urban environments…well…most battlefields that any western military has been fighting on in recent years fall into that category to a large degree.
With improvised mines being a battle-proven way for guerillas to hurt a regular army (I’m no historian; what proportion of Vietnam casualties/lost vehicles were from Viet Cong mines compared to rpg attacks?), surely being able to issue mine-resistant vehicles from the inventory on a large scale if deploying to an area for long periods (which peacekeeping/CI missions generally require) is a good thing — even if they can’t be shipped out quickly as part of a rapid reaction force
The MRAP is going to make more problems than it solves. It is not backwards compatible with the HMMWV so any system curretnly HMMWV based would have to be re-engineered or moved onto a different platform. Shelters don’t fit, power connections aren’t compatible, towing? What’s it’s tow rating. Vehicle is BIG, can it be sling loaded? If so, under what? Can it be put on a C-130J??
If the services want to buy this as an additional armor or transport system that would work, to use it as a replacement for the HMMWV is just not logical, or feasible.
We’ve gone from a truck designed to replace the M151 to an armored patrol vehicle. We keep expecting the HMMWV to do more and more and none of it was the original intended purpose.
Myself and several friends of mine are alive today because of the engineering prowess of Force Protection Ind. As an EOD tech in Iraq i rode around in the 6x6 Cougar (JERRV) and it was awesome. We were able to directly cross load all of the equipment out of our M1116 U/A turd, carry more radio/crew/blue force tracker equipment with more maneuverability in the vehicle. Our vehicle also served as our convoy casualty collection point. In one instance we were able to load injured soldiers and tow their humvee after a serious ied strike that had flattened two of our tires. Humvees suck in a combat environment!!!
I’m sure the MRAPs do serve a purpose and save lives as do the HMMWVs. The point is the application of each vehicle. There is a use and need for both as pointed out by a few your enlightened readers. What everyone needs to remember is that each vehicle can save lives and cost lives depending on the specific situation that presents itself.