Comments on: Vindication on MRAP

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:39:56 +0000

I see our men and women getting blown up in Humvees even now. More deaths by Humvee than probably any other single cause in this war…
Hey Christian, why don’t you make it your mission to go tell the folks of those dead soldiers and Marines that we had to keep them in Humvees so we could be “mobile”, mix with the locals, etc. I’m sure they will understand that their loved one might have survived with an MRAP, but will agree the death of their loved one was worth the sacrifice for “mobility”

By: Gordon McGilton

Gordon McGilton — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 06:06:32 +0000

Our product at Force Protection is the Gold Standard. The DOD does not like my arrogant style. So i told them what i thought about them period ! While i was at a formal party we joked about this so all my buddies shorted the stock and made millions. If i had known that this would of happened i would of shorted it also. Sorry about the Cheetah delay my buddies need to cover an awful lot of shares.

By: Joe

Joe — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:52:01 +0000

No need to apologize about the service and support troops combat capability. I served with the 1/509th at Fort Polk and worked extensively for the Echelons Above Division section.
Most of the people we engeged acted as though they were on an extended camping trip and displayed a complete lack of kill or be killed attitude. I have no complaints about the level of training the average support marine undergoes in comparision to the average army support personnel.
I always wondered why the armed services insist on using linear logistics on a non-linear battlefield. The title MSR should be banned on non-linear battlefields.

By: Pete

Pete — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:18:07 +0000

The number of MRAPs don’t bother me but what does is the fact that there are not enough replacement parts in country for even the first hundred MRAPs we gave out. Now we have alot of deadline MRAPs waiting on parts and no idea when we will get them.

By: doc75

doc75 — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:11:19 +0000

Rather than Congress or the services making this decision, the combatant commander needs to determine how many MRAPs are required. Right now, that hasn’t happened yet.
Some of the arguments being used to pare down the MRAP buy don’t hold water.
First, the Commandant of the Marines argued that MRAPs can’t go on ships. Baloney. The Marine’s MRAPs are shorter than the 7-ton trucks the Marines use and lighter than the LVSR and both of those trucks can go shipboard with the MEU. It is true that some of the Army’s MRAPs are too tall to go on amphibs, but that’s the Army!
Second, the situation in Iraq has improved so we don’t need them. How do we know that the situation won’t degrade? And if it does get worse, you can’t just ramp back up production like it’s a water faucet.
Third, who’s to say we won’t need these vehicles for the next war? That’s quite an assumption particularly with 4th Generation Warfare. It sounds some folks in the Pentagon are saying, let’s get out of counter-insurgencies and back to force-on-force because we’re better at it. Good luck with getting your adversaries to agree to that.
Fourth, off-road mobility limitations are indeed a problem — I’ll give you that. But mobility can be improved with some limited automotive upgrades. Sure, it won’t be able to go everywhere, but most tactical wheeled military vehicles can’t anyway! By the way, here’s a picture of a current MRAP on an “off-road confidence course“
http://www.blackanthem.com/News/scitechlead/Army-Looks-at-Long-term-Need-for-Mine-resistant-Vehicles12607.shtml
Fifth, here’s another kicker: it’s been said that the Commandant also likes the Force Protection Cheetah because it has superior mobility compared to the current MRAPs. Here’s the problem: how do you intend to buy Cheetah’s if you reduce the requirement to the point that you can’t buy anymore? Who’s advising the Commandant on this requirement cut anyway?
Finally, I know that the rush to buy MRAPs was an emotional decision. The reality is that insurgencies and counter-insurgencies are inherently emotional in nature. The center-of-gravity for the enemy is not America’s infrastructure or cities, it’s our national psyche. So, recognizing that adequate protection for service members is physically possible, near-term and achievable and then taking action to provide the equipment shouldn’t be looked down upon.
There might be good reasons to throttle back the rate of purchases. To turn off the faucet now might not be such a good idea.

By: Solomon

Solomon — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:30:03 +0000

Joe!
WTF! Rifle optics???? The statement “every Marine a rifleman” has to do with the mindset of all US Marines. Not to cast aspersions on the fallen but after that Private was captured, the Army did an after action and discovered that Marine support units had better combat skills than their Army counterparts. Not a knock on them at all just an illustration of differing operating models. Because the war on terror brought different factors into play, the Army corrected and lengthened combat training for non-combat arms Soldiers. As for the Seals doing Marine missions…consider that Special Ops creep. The 82nd was once tasked with seizing airfields but the Rangers took that mission. Marines once did all ship boardings and the Seals took that…no big deal it happens, its the result of justifying a Special Ops community when there is no shooting war. If you’re up on your readings then you know that the new Sea Strategy has Marines returning to those shipboard duties…it happens, there’s a war on and SpecOps is busy as hell.…but I guess it all boils down to you not being a fan of the Eagle , Globe and Anchor huh????? Oh well Hillary has P.E. too.…

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:08:56 +0000

In as much as the marines and rifle optics, they are using them now and praising them. So much for antiquated ‘back when I was in the Corps’ (or back in 2nd Bat for that matter).
My main point is that the Marine Corps wasted money on their H-1 programs. I did not question their need to have their own airforce. But with the H-1 system I believe the Navy has an improved H-60 program, and the Army as well. I think an existing modern airframe would serve Marines just as well and would have saved money.
As for agressively pursuing the enemy, you mean like in Tora Bora?
In World War Two the US Army conducted more amphibious operations, seized more territory, killed more japanese, and took fewer casualties than the Marine Corps.
Why are the SEALS performing tradition Marine missions, attacking from the sea?

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:20:59 +0000

This comment is for Joe the Ranger.
If you knew anything about history you would know that in both the gulf war and Iraqi freedom Marines were bombed and killed by our own Air Force more than once. I realize mistakes can and will be made but that is one reason Marines prefer thier own air cover. As a matter of fact when I was in Afghanistan with AH-1W’s and UH-1N’s we were the attack helicopter of choice over the AH-64.
Marine tactics teach us to agressively persue the enemy not set up camp and watch the ball game. We spend less and do more with it. Too bad other branches of the military and government don’t think that way.
The Marine Corps also leads the way in new technologies I.E. digital cammies. If the Marines wore rabbit ears on thier covers you can bet that the Army would soon follow. Mark my words, the V-22 will be in the Army inventory after it is perfected by the Marines.
By the way Marines still don’t need scopes. EVERY Marine is a rifleman. Survivability stats tell don’t lie.
Semper Fi!

By: Solomon

Solomon — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:13:59 +0000

What if…
What if Iran was still shipping IEDs and EFPs to Iraq by the truckload? Would all the MRAP naysayers still be gloating over this reduction in planned vehicle purchases?
What if 75 percent of all Marine Corps casualties were still being caused by IEDs/EFPs? Would the plans to reduce the buy of MRAPs still be in place?
The “flavor” of this war has changed. Good news for sure but don’t be lulled in to a false sense that more MRAPs might not be needed next spring. Insurgents always take the winters off, last year being the sad exception to the rule. Besides General Orde whoever said that this lull is fragile…next summer we all might be yelling at the Pentagon for not having these vehicles laid up in anticipation for the up tick in violence.

By: Rix

Rix — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 03:08:48 +0000

I always doubt procurement when it is driven by politics, not operational requirements. There is always a whiz-bang tech solution which more often than not adds complexity and cost while sucking funds ouof more deserving programs. This program is tailor made for political interference.