Comments on: Cooler Heads on MRAP

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:58:19 +0000

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.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:43:49 +0000

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!!!

By: Bob C

Bob C — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:54:38 +0000

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.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 07:09:35 +0000

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

By: irtusk

irtusk — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 00:33:52 +0000

> 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

By: Aussie expat

Aussie expat — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:06:53 +0000

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.

By: David Campbell

David Campbell — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:15:16 +0000

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.

By: Mark L

Mark L — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 12:46:28 +0000

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.

By: Terry

Terry — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:28:59 +0000

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.

By: elizzar

elizzar — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 09:31:35 +0000

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