DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » MRAP Edge » MRAP Armor Update:

MRAP Armor Update:

FL_mrapdelay_101907.jpg

This was passed along to me from a source on the EFP retro-​​armoring for MRAPs cur­rently in Iraq. Looks as if we have some fidelity on the num­bers (and this is also posted in the com­ments sec­tion of the pre­vi­ous post, but for the ben­e­fit of those that don’t read­ily dive into pots of boil­ing oil, I cross-​​post it here).

From MSNBC:

Meanwhile, at Camp Arifjahn in Kuwait, the mil­i­tary is rein­forc­ing some of the blast-​​resistant vehi­cles with addi­tional side armor and it shipped as many as 20 of the newly upgraded vehi­cles to the bat­tle­front in April. An addi­tional 30 are to go into Iraq begin­ning this month.

Navy Lt. Cmdr. James Hadley, who is over­see­ing the upgrades in Kuwait, said not every MRAP is get­ting the addi­tional armor, which increases the vehicle’s weight by as much as 5,000 pounds. The extra pro­tec­tion, he said, is being added to vehi­cles des­tined for hot bat­tle­ground areas.

The addi­tional armor is shipped in kits to Kuwait and installed on the MRAPs, which only recently arrived at a facil­ity ded­i­cated to out­fit­ting the vehi­cles with anten­nas and equip­ment before being sent to troops.

An extra 5,000 pounds added to a vehi­cle that already weighs in at 19 tons in some cases? Ouch.

An our source tells me…

EFP pro­tec­tion is included as stan­dard equip­ment on all improved MRAP I vehi­cles built as a result of the MRAP awards announced 18 Dec 2007.

Additional improved MRAP I pro­duc­tion con­tracts issued after that date include the same EFP pro­tec­tion require­ment. For exam­ple, the BAE-​​TVS Caiman had a fur­ther award of 1024 trucks added after that Dec 16, 2007 award.

Delivery require­ments for addi­tional armor kits for ear­lier fielded MRAP vehi­cles were added at roughly the same time.

The Army and USMC are both get­ting deliv­er­ies of improved MRAP I vehi­cles between May 2008 and Dec 2008 per the con­tracts I men­tioned. The same applies to EFP pro­tec­tion upgrades for fielded MRAP vehicles.

Now we’re all spooled up. Thanks to read­ers and other sources for the gouge.

– Christian

Share |

May 12th, 2008 | MRAP Edge | 283629 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2008/05/12/mrap-armor-update/MRAP+Armor+Update%3A2008-05-12+12%3A12%3A03Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Roles and Missions Review Underway | Extensive Camouflage Dupes Experts » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Wembley says:
    May 12, 2008 at 7:46 am

    The new add-​​on will not pro­vide com­plete pro­tec­tion against all EFPs, just enhanced pro­tec­tion against the cur­rent mod­els.
    A much larger EFP will just punch right through.
    That doesn’t mean the pro­tec­tion isn’t worth hav­ing or that it won’t save lives, but we have to remem­ber there are no magic solutions.

    Reply
  2. Jim says:
    May 12, 2008 at 8:24 am

    Anyone have any idea if the Army will move for­ward with their plan to pur­chase up to 15k MRAPs?

    Reply
  3. slntax says:
    May 12, 2008 at 8:33 am

    they should switch from wheels to tracks. putting all that armor on those axles will just wear out the engine and truck. i know that the israelis use mbt’s with­out the tur­rents for troop car­ri­ers those would work bet­ter then an mrap.

    Reply
  4. Old Sailor says:
    May 12, 2008 at 9:16 am

    But wait, sin­tax, didn’t you know that Rumsfeld has decreed that tracks are out­moded and that faster and lighter to the fight is the mantra now? My, my, how quickly bad ideas are proven wrong.
    I just wish that turkey had never been Secretary of Defense. Hundreds, per­haps thou­sands of our now-​​dead heros in Iraq prob­a­bly would have been far bet­ter off (and alive).
    Both he and his men­tor Cheney have a lot to answer for. Bush, too, for being so hard-​​headed to keep him on for so long when it was clear his knuckle-​​headed poli­cies weren’t work­ing.
    McCain gets it. I wish he had won in 2000 or 2004 rather than Bush.

    Reply
  5. Roy Smith says:
    May 12, 2008 at 9:36 am

    We can take the tur­rets off of our sur­plus M60 & M48 tanks & use them like Israel does.Oh wait a minute,we don’t have any sur­plus M60 &/​or M48 tanks anymore.….anywhere.We don’t even have any old sur­plus IPM1 tanks anymore(I know,because we made them all M1A1s & M1A2s.…& sold them all to Egypt,Saudi Arabia,Kuwait,& now Australia).Way to go,now thats “vision” & fore​sight​.Do we have ANY sur­plus weapons we can fall back on or did we sell,sink,scrap,&/or blow them all up?

    Reply
  6. Roy Smith says:
    May 12, 2008 at 9:46 am

    Old Sailor,
    Now wait a minute,Donald Rumsfeld is a “genius.” After all,he took 10,000 men into Iraq,bypassing enemy troops(completely),so that he could go into Baghdad,pull down a statue,& have Pres. Bush land on an Aircraft Carrier in a flight suit & declare “Mission Accomplished.” He backed up our 10,000 troops with Blackwater USA,DynCorps,& Triple Canopy,& with KBR & Fluor to pro­vide “logis­ti­cal sup­port(?)”. I read this in the book “Fiasco.” how can you argue with such “mil­i­tary ‘genius’(especially if you are a Blackwater,DynCorps,Triple Canopy,KBR,&/or Fluor stock holder).”

    Reply
  7. Roy Smith says:
    May 12, 2008 at 9:50 am

    After all,you don’t go to war with the army you wish you had,you go with the army(& Blackwater,DynCorps,Triple Canopy,KBR,& Fluor) you have already.

    Reply
  8. slntax says:
    May 12, 2008 at 10:00 am

    is it just me or does the DOD only do half solu­tions to prob­lems? just so they can ask for more money from con­gress. like get­ting 1114 instead of maybe a heavy apc. i can think of other exam­ples but spend­ing has got­ten out of con­trol over that at dod.

    Reply
  9. Roy Smith says:
    May 12, 2008 at 10:44 am

    Seriously,what about log­i­cal upgrades like the “Urban-​​Fighter” cage con­cept for M113s? HMMWVs should be used pri­mar­ily for off-​​road duties,especially since their tires can be replaced with track sys­tems like MATTRACKS.

    Reply
  10. Charlie Seto says:
    May 12, 2008 at 11:03 am

    Thought some NG units were still using M60’s…
    The MC deployed M60’s for Desert Storm, won­der where they are now. Don’t think the gov­ern­ment would scrap them all so quickly, prob­a­bly rot­ting away in a ware­house some­where.
    If tur­rets are needed, there are LAV tur­rets. I don’t think we need 120mm can­non like on the Brazilian Cascavels, for example…

    Reply
  11. Brad says:
    May 12, 2008 at 1:58 pm

    There are some 20K tanks that are sit­ting in stor­age in the US, like the air­craft bone­yards. Still, you’d have to recon­di­tion them, unpre­serve the engines, check them up, get them out, reopen their sup­ply sys­tem, etc. Then take off their tur­rets and mod­ify their bod­ies as troop car­ri­ers. Then comes the reac­tive armor plus EFP pro­tec­tion, etc, etc.
    Plus, if the issue is weight, now we have 45 ton trans­ports ver­sus 20 ton, which are much slower and, because of tracks, more main­te­nance prone. The cost will prob­a­bly exceed the MRAP buy for some­thing with much lower util­ity (not to men­tion speed of acqui­si­tion).
    Reconditioned tanks are a red her­ring. If Roy Smith is on your side, like Twain said about being in the major­ity, you need to rethink your position.

    Reply
  12. Jeff says:
    May 12, 2008 at 2:11 pm

    I believe the Marines had great suc­cess in the Al Anbar province when they bought don­keys to haul sup­pllies and got away from the roads alltogether.

    Reply
  13. slntax says:
    May 12, 2008 at 2:31 pm

    what are you talk­ing about tracks are slower then wheels? i used to drive on the Baghdad high­ways near the green zone in a m1a2 at 60–50 mph all the time. plus with tracks REALLY GO OFF ROAD. instead of stick­ing to roads and get­ting hit by ieds less so in urban envri­oment but in places like afgan you can avoid ieds all together by not using the roads at all. putting all this armor on wheel trucks is fool­ish you are more inef­f­i­cent with fuel, more stress on engine, more stress on axles, and more likey to do a roll over. imo whats really need is a new type of tracked apc for the infantry boys the m113 armor is too weak.

    Reply
  14. Brad says:
    May 12, 2008 at 3:09 pm

    “near the green zone in a m1a2 at 60–50 mph all the time. plus with tracks REALLY GO OFF ROAD“
    In an M1A2, sin­tax, not an M60, as oth­ers sug­gested (and hope­fully, I buried). World o’ dif­fer­ence between them.
    Can’t avoid the roads in Baghdad. It’s a city.
    What is needed is not a new any­thing at all. Go back to CAPs: stick small units out in the pop­u­la­tion instead of for­ti­fied bases, with ocas­sional patrols in for­ti­fied vehi­cles. That is part of the surge strat­egy and it is work­ing.
    More armor is good, more offense, better.

    Reply
  15. pfcem says:
    May 12, 2008 at 3:58 pm

    Roy Smith,
    The “M1A2s” sold to Saudi Arabia & Kuwait were NEW BUILD tanks. The M1A1 kits sold to Egypt are/​were NEW MANUFACTURE kits assem­bled at the the Egyptian Tank Plant. Only the Austrailian M1A1s came for sur­plus US stocks. We have LOTS of Abrams (M1 & M1A1) sit­ting in fields wait­ing to become M1A1 AIM or M1A2 SEP!

    Reply
  16. Roy Smith says:
    May 12, 2008 at 5:26 pm

    Excellent exam­ples of counter-​​insurgency are the French in Algeria(before they decided to just give up & walk out of Algeria,which,if I under­stand correctly,was con­sid­ered part of France itself),the British in Northern Ireland & Malaysia,& Israel in the West Bank & Gaza.Israel build­ing a wall to sep­a­rate the Israelis from the Palestinians(another con­cept our gov­ern­ment just doesn’t get or under­stand) has helped decrease the sui­cide bombers in Israel​.As far as tracked vehi­cles in urban envi­ron­ments go,you don’t need speed ver­sus “haul­ing ass” in the coun­try­side like the “Left Hook” dur­ing Desert Storm,or the rac­ing from Kuwait to pull down the statue in Baghdad.A 152mm gun(like on the Sheridan),which was use­less in the open fields in tak­ing out enemy tanks from long distances,would work just fine in urban areas for knock­ing down build­ings hous­ing enemy insur­gent snipers.Or how about the much big­ger 165mm demo­li­tion gun to knock down enemy held build­ings? 120mm gun for the coun­try­side to knock out enemy tanks(which,the threat of has not diminished,we still have ene­mies & poten­tial ene­mies with tanks),& 152mm/​165mm gun to knock down build­ings in the city.Small dis­mounted foot patrols in “Indian Country” works also.
    Being totally para­noid & obsessively/​compulsively check­ing over,under,& inside your vehi­cle for “bugs” or trig­ger­ing devices(like the meth head “tweaker” who takes his TV,toaster,& microwave oven apart to look for lis­ten­ing devices &/​or to see who’s hid­ing inside it) before you pull out on con­voy can also save lives.

    Reply
  17. TB says:
    May 12, 2008 at 6:00 pm

    Roy,
    Its not fate or chance. Its called both sides know­ing how to take notes and make improve­ments to their TTPs.
    I wish I could explain to you how the IED-​​emplacing process works (its mostly clas­si­fied and prob­a­bly above your para­noid under­stand­ing), but put it this way, the headline-​​producing-​​abrams flip­ping events are care­fully planned and exe­cuted by smart people.

    Reply
  18. Roy Smith says:
    May 12, 2008 at 6:36 pm

    “the headline-​​producing-​​abrams flip­ping events are care­fully planned and exe­cuted by smart peo­ple“
    THAT is EXACTLY my “para­noid” point.Those very smart bombers oper­ate from knowl­edge in advance of what kind of vehi­cle is oper­at­ing both where & when.Its like steal­ing signs from the pitcher in order to know what the next pitch is or how the New England Patriots spied on their opo­nents in advance of the games they played against them. The “insur­gents” are oper­at­ing on “insider” knowledge.They most likely even know when the U.S. Commander of Forces in Iraq is leav­ing the Green Zone & in what vehicle.They could blow him up any time they wanted to,like Yamamoto was taken out in WWII.Perhaps,with the aide of “allies”,they can even plant trig­ger­ing devices on said vehi­cles to det­o­nate the IED when said vehi­cle dri­ves over it.

    Reply
  19. Roy Smith says:
    May 12, 2008 at 6:41 pm

    Maybe they are get­ting help from blond hair,blue eyed “Crypto-​​Muslims” enlisted in the mil­i­tary & who both oper­ate on & pro­vide main­te­nance for mil­i­tary vehicles.After all,our mil­i­tary lead­ers can­not even con­trol the infes­ta­tion of gang members,like the Bloods & Crips,into our military.

    Reply
  20. HumanPestControl says:
    May 12, 2008 at 11:22 pm

    [Gates said 6 per­cent of troops have been injured or killed while in the Mine Resistant Ambush Protection vehi­cles in 150 attacks, USA Today reported Tuesday. Six troops died.]
    [The military’s main ground trans­port, Humvees, have a 22 per­cent casu­alty rate, Gates said, while attacks on Abrams tanks are more likely to incur casu­al­ties than attacks on MRAPs.]
    UPI-​​May 12, 2008 at 12:55 PM
    http://​www​.upi​.com/​N​e​w​s​T​r​a​c​k​/​T​o​p​_​N​e​w​s​/​2​0​0​8​/​0​5​/​1​2​/​g​a​t​e​s​_​m​i​n​e​-​r​e​s​i​s​t​a​n​t​_​v​e​h​i​c​l​e​s​_​s​a​v​e​_​l​i​v​e​s​/​7​5​55/

    Reply
  21. pfcem says:
    May 13, 2008 at 12:58 am

    Roy Smith,
    A cou­ple other cor­rec­tions…
    Coalition forces did not pull down the Saddam statute (& there was no “mis­sion” for them to do so), IRAQI CITIZENS DID (some­thing they could not pos­si­bly have done while Saddam was in con­trol of the coun­try).
    The “mis­sion accom­plished” state­ment was in rela­tion to & addressed to the sail­ers & air­men of the USS Abraham Lincoln who’s deploy­ment was over (aka THIER mis­sion WAS accom­plished & THEY were going home). During that speach he took the oppor­tu­nity to ALSO announced the “end of major com­bat oper­a­tions in Iraq”. In hind­sight it may have been bet­ter to have announced the “end of major com­bat oper­a­tions in Iraq” is a sep­a­rate speech to avoid the con­fu­sion caused by the mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion by the main steam media.
    OF COURSE those very smart bombers oper­ate from knowl­edge in advance of what kind of vehi­cle is oper­at­ing both where & when. You HAVE to patrol cer­tain ares & travel on cert­ian roads on a reg­u­lar basis! It is not like the type of vehi­cle one may wish to attack can ONLY be attacked at ONE spe­cific loca­tion at ONE spe­cific moment…
    You actu­ally believe that the insur­gents could take out the U.S. Commander of Forces in Iraq at any time & place but have not yet done so out of the kind­ness of their hearts…

    Reply
  22. Roy Smith says:
    May 13, 2008 at 12:31 pm

    Brian
    You see victory,I see “Stalingrad.” I also see Muqtada al-​​Sadr & his mili­tia demanding,from a posi­tion of strength & post “Dien Bien Phu” type victory,that we imme­di­ately leave Iraq.….WITHOUT our equip­ment AND weaponry(just like the Eritrean gov­ern­ment is demand­ing that the UN Peacekeepers there do).

    Reply
  23. Brad says:
    May 13, 2008 at 1:02 pm

    “You see vic­tory, I see “Stalingrad.“
    Roy, you are delusional.

    Reply
  24. WR says:
    May 13, 2008 at 3:47 pm

    While due dili­gence is very good in any task, total para­noia is a strong form of insanity.

    Reply
  25. Rob N. says:
    May 15, 2008 at 11:50 pm

    I say give Iraq Their Free Country & move our mil­i­tary to bor­der regions in both Iraq and in Afghanistan. Drop all sanc­tions to boost world econ­omy when it needs it.
    We have Russia and Iran upset & Israel is more vul­ner­a­ble then ever. China & NorthKorea neu­tral all as whole on us.
    If we stay in Iraq, To The Eastern world it is no dif­fer­ent then new Isreal. A Theme Park in The GreenZone come on! It’s their land.
    I am American love this coun­try. Respect theirs!
    We rid Sadaam. Victory. If Sadr becomes top next elec­tion we in same boat.
    We killed alot of those filled with hatred for us. Victory.
    We took many losses But could have been much worse & still could be as well.
    We set Iraq some­what free. Victory. Finish it!
    Now goto phase 3. Protect them from out­siders as they need. Keep at Israel’s back. We got to Baghdad in what ~30 hours. Use American power to take get out of their right­ful place to be.
    I sup­port our troops. Job well done so far over­all. Get to bor­ders & under­ground entrances. Then come home.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Today's Hottest Topics
    Recent Comments
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part IV : …………...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part III : …………...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part II : But beam-riding isn't used by bombers...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      To the poster "Charles" : Part I :...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Good observations about drones. The real potential of laser...
      Will
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
      The most simple thing is have 2 basic issued uniforms....
      Big Daddy
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Valid observation, Charles. This is all so new that it's hard...
      Will
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part III : But, as I said in a previous comment, I...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part II : The Bushmaster's machine-cannon...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part I : Why doesn't this article, or even...
      freefallingbomb
    Recent Articles
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
    • BAE to Market Mantis UAV to North America
    • Pinnacle’s New Armor
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
    • Northrop Invests Own Money In Fire Scout
    • IMINT: French Fashion Mavens Model MultiCam
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
    • Super Cavitation and the Truth
    • Mantis Begins Search For Prey
    Recent Hot Topics
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • The Osprey has Landed
    • UPDATED: Details on Army's New Afghanistan Duds
    • Iraq Cyber Attack and the DigiSEALs
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
    • Pinnacle's New Armor
    • (Proof) The Osprey Has Landed
    • Grim Wanat Footage
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    • IMINT: French Fashion Mavens Model MultiCam
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage