[NOTE: Here’s another contribution from our friends at Breach Bang Clear. The author is a friend of mine, David Woroner of Survival Consultants International. He’s a ballistics expert, former PSD contractor and all-around mad scientist who’s come up with a novel new armor for newly built vehicles. This is part one of a multi-part series on new solutions for ballistic defeat.]
If it has a new gen armor system attached to it, then Im in favor of the JLTV over the MRAP. Why? Well, a number of reasons.
The MRAP has some things going for it, and its saved some lives, no question. But its not the end-all be-all, ultimate solution to whats going on in Iraq and Afghanistanand its not going to be the solution in future wars that may be fought differentlyand certainly will be fought in different terrain.
Lets face it, the MRAP is a bank vault tipped on its side with wheels and a motor. A million dollar bank vault tipped on its side with wheels and a motor. Consider some of its weaknesses, and the financial burden to fix or repair. Were talking about a serious chunk of change just in the case of blowing the undercarriage out. My opinion on this shouldnt be misconstrued as some reticence on my part to help out the troops. Anyone that knows me or has served with me knows I am STAUNCHLY behind the protection of our troops. It can be done with the technology at hand, and it can be done more efficiently.
Consider the cost, operational relevance and troop transportation capability of the MRAP (and the coming MRAPII) vs. something like the JLTV. Were in a war, and in a war, particularly conducted with blitzkrieg type operations, its always going to be better to put fewer men and less equipment into less expensive vehicles. Put simply, Id rather attack anything with a million ants than a pair of elephants. When it comes to those vehicles, protection doesnt have to be expensive, the vehicles can be more efficient to operate in a disparate variety of terrains, and lets dont forget the cost of fuel.
Let me explain further.
The concepts of blitzkrieg were known in other countries, albeit poorly developed (the British army had partially implemented it), by the end of the First World War, but the Germans had worked out the complexities of breaking through a front with highly concentrated resources. This technique failed the Germans in their offensives of March 1918, largely because the breakthrough elements were on foot and could not sustain the impetus of the initial attack. The deployment of motorized infantry was the key to sustaining a breakthrough, but this would have to wait until the 1930s to be realized.
Superimpose the realities of modern war and we can see that the Humvee has proven itself to be a woefully inadequate method of safely transporting troops into battle, even with all the so-called hillbilly armor, up-armor packages, etc. We should have done it right the first time, or not done it at all. We should still be doing things right the first time or not doing it at all…
Lets scroll back a hundred years to see the appearance of the first true British/American tanks worthy of the name. These hunks of steel, bristling with machine guns and small guns, were long enough to accomplish what they were originally designed forto bridge the gaps of trenches. In those days, this was perhaps a good idea. Review the realities of today again. Everything has changed. Virtually every fundamental tenet of modern warfare is different than it was in WWI. So why do we persist in reverting to brawn over brains?
In those days, all we had were metals and a cubic mentality. Today we understand there are lightweight materials perfectly suitable for making lighter and more maneuverable vehicles of war without sacrificing the protection necessary to make them worthy of deployment. Yet our powers that be have built and fielded a 21ST century version of the WWI tank.
Why?
There are some laws and rules that must be applied to the discussion. Obviously we know that our modern vehicles must be lightened. We have a multitude of materials now that werent dreamed of then. Most vehicles in this discussion use some type of composite armor, meaning a hybrid of several materials much stronger as an admixture than by themselves. To fully understand my contention, however, one must understand some basic Laws of Physics and Materials.
First of all we have Spectra, Dyneema and other lightweight soft material that can take up some of the weight.
But there are two laws that must be obeyed:
First, any projectile (or spall) traveling over 2,000fps will liquefy and penetrate just about any type of material. Imagine if you will a 22.250 cartridge. Its velocity is in the 4,000fps range. Now envision an M249 or Minimi type weapon putting out that sort of high velocity projectile at an incredible rate of fire and you begin to see some of the problem.
The second rule pertains to the shape of the armor. If it has a poor deflection angle, the round will penetrate rather than deflect. Take a lesson from our stealth aircraft. Its angles do the same thing, only with radar instead of hostile fire. The same principle applies to ballistic trajectory impact.
The reason boron carbide is so widely used is that it is a ceramic, which is essentially a glass. The majority of heavy duty anti-penetration materials in hard armor utilize this form of material. There are alternatives in play, such as pressing with an applied resin on top of soft armor until it hardens, then sandwiching it between some hard armor. One thing that has always taken me aback, though, is the lack of geometry used in armor design. Why was it such a surprise that we eventually put v-shaped boat hulls on armored vehicles? Did our modern designers just completely disregard the successful work of their Rhodesian forebears? V-shaped hulls were part of the way they tamed the landmines employed against them to such good effect by SWAPO, ZIPRA, ZANU and assorted other acronym-happy Communist-backed insurgents.
If youve ever seen the holes an 88 would punch into a Sherman tank in WWII, it is pretty apparent that they were cold-rolling (to the best of the contemporary technology) the armor. Then came Chobham, which basically utilizes a mixture of ceramics and different metallurgy. However, a balance of materials, placement, spaced methodology and geometry is the key to a true winning formula.
When discussing armor, one would be remiss not to bring up the subject of conventional Reactive Armor. These devices are nothing more than high speed reactive chemical bombs designed to detonate upon the impact of a hypervelocity shell. It is really meant to defeat copper jet penetrating charges, be they from an RPG or another tanks main gun round.
Although not specifically part of the subject matter at hand, its worth pointing out that anyone who appreciates what may become future armor will appreciate Electro-Magnetic Armor. EMA uses electricity to defeat shaped charge warheads such as those from RPGs. Repetitive live fire testing has proven not only the theoretical properties of EMA but the actual, demonstrated ability to defeat shaped charges.
I wont digress further by discussing other intelligent but somewhat whacky ideas such as Shear Thickening Fluids. From my understanding, development along these lines has been abjectly taken out with the garbage.
There are some good principles starting to come about that I believe originated with two or three different groups at once. These have to do with spacing, which in the light seem to make good ole fashioned sense.
Since weve all heard about how much Mine Resistant Vehicles weigh, its no wonder that scientists and material engineers continue to search for the elusive mixture of this and that necessary to reduce weight and retain the capacity to stop a hypervelocity round.
The offensive and defensive races for a defense-to-offense weapon is often elusive. This is NOT because the offensive weapon cannot be defeated. It is because nobody has grasped the necessary concepts or been given the green light to go ahead in reference to the consternating weapon.
Even if the JLTV is FCS compatible (which would be a big plus), the lightweight armor will still be of concern. The DoD is even now handing out massive contracts to the JLTV producers they feel best suited to construct them, but the armor problem has yet to really be solved.
There are a couple of things that must be brought into the overall picture:
1. The weight of the MRAP has already resulted in the stranding with personnel inside until reinforcements or flyboys arrive to bail them out. Still on the weight issue, youd better have a nice paved road for the beast, otherwise you WILL be stuck in the mud or sand. These cost a MILLION USD apiece? Its worth spending money to save troops, hell yes, but can we not do better? Could we design one that would crawl over rough terrain without tipping over?
2. Whatever the incarnation of the JLTV turns out to be, it will require the real and true next-gen armor. There are better answers than what is being considered now. They must eventually come into play because the majority of WIA and KIA suffered has been, horribly, due to a lack of thinking like good ole Heinz. Far better to put them into play now.
Look, military improvisation to deal with tactical problems isn’t new to American war-making. Think about all they did when they hit the hedgerows in ’44, or take a look at the pictures of sandbags held by chicken wire to the front glacis of Sherman tanks. My point here is that we should design our JLTVs, and whatever else we’re going to go to besides the MRAPs, and make sure our troopers aren’t having to improvise in some other faraway place to keep themselves whole.
Remember, do it right the first time…
To be continued…
The catch in using these lightweight, high performance ceramics and fibers is that they are very expensive. There needs to be a balance b/w cost and performance.
I’m sorry, but this article is mostly incoherent, and often incorrect or just downright wrong.
Firstly, lets scroll back hundred years and see what America had to contribute to the development of tanks. from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/tank-history1.htm “The American-produced heavy tank was the 43.5-ton Mark VIII, patterned after a British model.” … “The American-built 6
Calm down, dm.
Breathe!
Here’s a good link to some saucy info on Kinetic Energy Penetrators:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2001armaments/magness.pdf
Btw. to those disucssing shear thickening fluids… a big big problem with this is also survivability of repeat hits!
Problems:
What liquid do you know stays in it’s original vessel when you pierce it? (surface tension can only work on very small holes and low pressures)
What shear-thickening liquid at room temperature also has low temperature and high temperature properties that are all acceptable to stop a bullet?
Angled armour is only effective if you know the enemy will put a directly upwards strike. This is the same reasoning the top-attack strike was invented on the hellfire, javelin, etc. You strike the armour you know you will be tangential with and the area least likely covered with ERA.
Everyone knows the MRAP is only good in the scenario it is fighting in at the moment. Immobilise the vehicle and unless the troops have fire and mobility support (as they do in the current conflicts) then the vehicle is also useless as the soldiers can’t exactly stay in the vehicle forever! It is just a stop-gap solution that is using existing and cheap (to develop) technology.
Also… I agree with dm… and I would like to add that this article (unlike the stuff usually posted on this site) is very sub-standard.
This sort of article was to my knowledge what the mainstream media writes!
Hello All,
so that you will have more to drop on me and believe me, I respect all your opinions.
I was mostly sure that this article (and please, be so kind as to wait for second component [part deux
This is Veterans Day, stand to for a moment, even if your in you pjs’ and say the POA.
I love all you guys, really. I brought this subject up, because when you see ‘part two’, youll get a better idea, it is a bit disconcerting when things are cut in half.
You guys aren’t saying Im wrong about tires or a bank vault tipped on its side? How come? What about why this vehicle (MRAP X 2000 units X 1 million dollars] wheres the beef on that?
I got one pogue whom deserves special attention.
You want me to read physics books to you? I’d be happy to tuck you in for your nappy homedog : ) do it with a smile on, k?
Qoute)“You say “any projectile (or spall) traveling over 2,000fps will liquefy and penetrate just about any type of material.” This is downright wrong. Probably worthwhile doing some reading on basic physics, followed by some reading on basic projectile mechanics. Just to give you a hint as to how complex this subject is, go read up on how depleted uranium penetrators actually work.“
Well Sir, yes, your correct, a DUH round will do doom on many things player, btw, what is the fps on that du round? If its coming out of a Abrahms, youre the one that needs reading glasses cause it sure is way above 2ooo fps. Brother, I work on satellite protection, and creating nanotechnology that works with plants and you wanna read me nitey nites? no sir, you scare me boogy man.…
hehe, have a nice day duh round.…. “rounds out, rounds out.…..!!! Dave ( I shut em down, I shut em down.)
Guess I’m running against the consensus in that I liked the article and look forward to the next one. Keep in mind that nobody raised a stink when another earlier article by another reporter cited the payload as the vehicle weight…which seems a more egregious error than anything Mr. Woerner has said.
I’m not an engineer let alone an armor one, but to the casual observer I think some of us may intuitively grasp the advantage of angled armor to deflect a blast. But it sounds like we are forgetting the added inches of armor created by that very angle.
If the bottom of a passenger compartment was 54″ wide x 100″ long and had armor 1.5″ thick, it would be 8100 square inches in armor section size and weight.
If the bottom of the same width and length passenger compartment had armor at a 30 degree angle from the door edge to a vehicle centerline point 1.3′ deep, it would have two equal size sections 2.6′ x 100″ with armor 1.3″ thick that totalled 4056 sq inches each for a total of 8102 square inches…nearly identical to the flat floor example above.
If you note that the angled armor has just 1.3″ thick armor compared to the 1.5″ of the flat floor, that’s because the angled floor has an effective thickness of 1.5″ to a bottom blast due to its angle. It also still benefits from the blast deflection advantage versus a flat floor.
You could also theoretically add sandbags or armor kits to the angled section under the compartment floor for added protection.
The same sort of math applies to angled doors. A 4′ tall flat door section substituted with armor running at 60 degrees from the roofline edge and 30 degrees from the floorline edge meeting at a 90 degree angle, would weigh about the same when you factor in that 1.3″ of angled armor thickness would be equivalent to 1.5″ in a side shot, and 2.6″ in thickness to a bottom blast. So you would need 1.5″ armor thickness for a flat door to match the thickness of the angled door…and it would never match the upward blast protection of 2.6″ armor thickness. And you could add ssndbags in the door section as well or have a open area for a gun port for shooting while moving.
Am I wrong, all you real engineers?
Sirs,
You know what I just read? That sloped armor takes up more space than flat armor? Okay, so what? I don’t care about the “trig”.. If its the best we got, use it, but the point of the article was to say “is using v hulls offa boat bottoms the best we got?” Why not go study boat hull dynamics further?
Pacer X, you are a “pentagon man” aren’t you
Worry not my friend, I still have the utmost respect for all of you, please know that.
Sometimes you gotta stir the pot, take the licks and man up. But Our TROOPS deserve me stirring the pot. And, just so you know, I won’t stop.
Hell, I may get black listed yet from the DoD, but that doesnt mean I will be from private concerns and heck they pay better anyways, right?
Best, Dave (have a good and safe day all!)
I think it’s simple to see that there are several engineers (myself being an Aircraft Structures Engineer — also with a personal interest in ballistics), who all think this article isn’t accurate.
I ask, nay, wish that if we wish, I am willing to discuss all the pro’s and con’s on this subject — going into the proper mathematics!
Those that disagree… please do show us the mathematics behind this being wrong — show me how you make a ceramic plate liquify, etc. Or how you can contain a shear thickening fluid in a container after several hits.
Or how you plan to prevent tip-overs of MRAP’s, when you keep attempting to make them lighter — yet better protected — which in turn drives the explosive power the enemy uses to a greater amount — hence the thing will tip over even faster!
I suggest you swing your jarhead over to http://www.breachbangclear.com and read part two.
There you can read about the physiology of
detonations, and how it plays a role in the
WIA/KIA that none of the CRAP you so called
engineers think you know. And Believe it or not
I have more patents stickin in my hand, and
have PLACED MORE REAL DEAL THINGS IN LIFE SAVERS
HANDS than all your “schoolin” will ever make up
for (Warming suit for overboard, I can stop a forty five round with some marbles and glue, < oh thats gotta hurt eh? New helmet? eh? how about a self sufficient cooling unit for it as well? that not only DECREASES the weight of current helmets, its lighter than a DELTA helmet, sorry sir, your outta your depth.) Prove what youve made? You ever make and patent a tacrail? hmmm, Berettas been around for 500 years, they seem to think its fantastic, (look for it in the upcoming catalog), gee, I must know something they didnt teach you in school, its called “common sense”.…
Ill leave the rest of your spew on the greasy floor where it belongs, wasting my time Jarhead? No MARINE calls themselves a jarhead, your suspect at best. DW
I suggest you swing your jarhead over to http://www.breachbangclear.com and read part two.
There you can read about the physiology of
detonations, and how it plays a role in the
WIA/KIA that none of the CRAP you so called
engineers think you know. And Believe it or not
I have more patents stickin in my hand, and
have PLACED MORE REAL DEAL THINGS IN LIFE SAVERS
HANDS than all your “schoolin” will ever make up
for (Warming suit for overboard, I can stop a forty five round with some marbles and glue, < oh thats gotta hurt eh? New helmet? eh? how about a self sufficient cooling unit for it as well? that not only DECREASES the weight of current helmets, its lighter than a DELTA helmet, sorry sir, your outta your depth.) Prove what youve made? You ever make and patent a tacrail? hmmm, Berettas been around for 500 years, they seem to think its fantastic, (look for it in the upcoming catalog), gee, I must know something they didnt teach you in school, its called “common sense”.…
Ill leave the rest of your spew on the greasy floor where it belongs, wasting my time Jarhead? No MARINE calls themselves a jarhead, your suspect at best. DW
I’ve worked on a UAV that will be going into service in a short period of time… is that sufficient? (it has undergone preliminary trials, but not with production models)
I have also worked on a number of other aircraft (not during initial design– but in-service work).
Patent for a tac-rail… well, I have been involved directly with people who deal with patents to do with consultancy work I do (in my own time) for wind-turbine applications.
Patenting involves a huge amount of paper-work and at the end of the day it’s ABOUT PROVING the fact you were the one who made up the idea.
A patent has NO bearing on whether it’s a good idea or not. A patent DOES NOT prove it works.
Please note that this is not a statement that your tac-rail doesn’t work (I am pretty sure it does — it isn’t exactly solving how to stop flutter now is it, lol). I am merely stating that the patent has no bearing on this argument.
I’m not an engineer. The whole trig thing to me is as foreign as cross-dressing and harder to understand. But after reading the second half of the article, I don’t think arguing about the physics of the armor is addressing the entirety of the article’s message. Whether you agree with the armor statements or not (and I’m not qualified to comment), the part about “doing it right the first time” is spot on! We start building something for ‘this’ mission downrange, and it’s used for ‘that’ mission instead, sent to do so by people that should know better.
I think the MRAP and its descendants are awesome, and they do a great job. However, they aren’t by any means really suited for some of what they are now called upon to do, and it’s almost guaranteed that they’ll be even less suitable for missions they’ll called upon to do in the future.
I have to also wonder about the time it took to get them in service compared when taken in conjunction with the stop-gap measures that were available when it became obvious we needed something to deal with the IEDs. Going back to what the Rhodesians and South Africans were and still are using, couldn’t some of the money have been spent on buying used or surplus Buffels and Casspirs and whatever else and putting them in the field? Maybe there were logistical issues that forbade that, I don’t know. Their designs were sound and had a proven track record, though, did we wind up “reinventing the wheel”? If we did, was it because we thought we could take their designs and make them better, or because some major player in the industry wanted to increase its profit margin?
I hate to ascribe nefarious designs to people I don’t know, but anyone that doesn’t think it happens (and frequently) just isn’t facing reality. I’ve seen it in person, up close, and I know that it does.
This isn’t just about MRAPs, though, or about humvees or JLTVs or any other vehicle/weapon system. It’s also about a development, contracting and procurement system in which combat effectiveness is only sometimes a concern when dollars start getting thrown at it.
There are a couple of statements from previous posts that I think bear looking at from the context of “doing it right the first time”, which was the author’s final statement:
”…you think those trade-offs haven’t been optimized by the vehicle designers based on vast databases of hits, angles, velocities and projectiles from past encounters with the enemy?“
My personal response to that would be, I’m sure that sort of information IS available, and may even have been consulted, but experience has proven that what works best or most efficiently is by no means always what’s chosen! There are many reasons for this, but money and back-scratching often factors in. So the fact that such information is available, and undoubtedly useful, is in NO way a guarantee that it was used or given more than lip service in the design. I’m not saying that’s the case in the MRAPs, I’m just saying it has happened before so we can’t just assume it’s being done now.
”..What the troops “deserve” from industry is intelligent, thoughtful, diligent engineering work, done to specifications that make sense, to provide them with the best equipment practicable — which then allows them to effectively enforce the will of this nation should it be necessary to do so…“
Amen brother! That may be the best and most accurate statement in this whole back and forth series of diatribes. Unfortunately, this also is not always what happens. We can look back at many appropriations and awarded contracts to see that the appropriate or most financial responsible industry is NOT always “rewarded” with the contracts. Many times something is built because it was in someone’s fiscal best interest to do so, not the troops’ or the mission’s.
I guess in the end I don’t care one way or the other about the armor argument ‘cuz I don’t know f-all about it. I DO agree with his stance on figuring out the right way to do something and having the right people do it so we can minimize any subsequent or later “Oh shits” that we have to fix. The simple fact of the matter is that some of our boys and girls have been hurt or killed under conditions that could have been prevented had the combination of military higher brass and industrial leadership had used common sense and/or self-serving priorities out of the mix and put mission effectiveness first, followed immediately by troop welfare. There’s no denying that, and it’s not just a shame. It’s criminal, and in a perfect world would be rewarded appropriately.
BTW, Dave Woroner, suggest you ignore criticisms and definitely don’t threaten or abuse your reader!!
to post part two here.
^ I can admit when Im wrong. I apologize to anyone I have offended, it was uncalled for, so please accept my apologies. (unqualified apology).
I understand everyones math, and I understand where you folks are coming from.
I understand that the TacRail has no bearing here, you can see it work, in a video on the front page of survivalconsultants.com < it works quite fine and is currently serving overseas. And public versions are available for purchase if you’d like to “verify my design workings in the real world.“
That being said, and with hat in hand, I urge you to either read part two on breachbangclear dot com or wait for the “editor” (bow hunting
Also, as soon as I can, believe me, I will within security protocols show how it works. The editor “knows.” I suppose, he has the understanding and faith in my abilities. The armor addon I created, does work to alleviate, and deal with, enough so that the occupants will survive the “shearing wave< commonly called a “blast wave,” the severe follow on overpressure, and then the severe underpressure that follows that.….. Thats what maims, creates limb removal, and KIA’s. The remainder does damage to the human being such as is seen in “TBI” and in other ways that won’t “show up” on any medical testing for along time, < unless the medical field starts checking for “Scuba Diving Injuries” < recommend a degree in physiology. There are many facets to this, I do not claim to have all the answers, just some of them.
I still say there a better way to deal with the “hard and soft armoring” as well as the deflection of both incoming EFPS, Wave Events, and small arms fire. (Is a boat hull the best we can do?)
Another reader suggests no treads, ok, ill go along with that, as long as some methodology is put forth to get us out of a situation like “SE Asia” type rice paddys?
Thats all for now, again my apologies. Best, David
Hey there VStress,
Now that my bp has returned to a normal state (guys I had a reeeally bad day, again, my apologies.) I find that thing with the flutter really funny. Absolutly a thousand times correct man… I love what you said.
Its one of those things that I’d love a shot at, you know? The only thing I can think of off the bat is “balance”.…… balance is the key to any “off kilter” issue. Am I wrong? Im more than willing to learn. I said I aint got all the answers, I know that. But Im always willing to lend a hand. No matter what, especially when it goes to our men and women serving. I’ve been so bleary eyed and “intarded” as one of my kids used to say, that I thought of good answers and to my amazement had written them down for “posterity” so to speak.…. hehe, Vtech, Ill bet you know what I mean! You go back like two days later and go WAIT!! if I tweak this like that, it’ll work!
maybe.… : )
But heck, its worth a shot, right?
I would love a crack at something like that. Just cause.… Hell, somebody I know pretty good in this forum “ahem” LOL, knows I live for something that can’t be figured out, then come up with the mooooooost retarded < oops , sorry. “Intarded” methodology of fixing it..then have to go through about another 100/1,000 steps to get where I really wanna be! Best, Dave W.
(I always hate when Im dumb enough to say things like “2000 is the majic gumdrop” < thats stupid, it doesnt’ work in “space.” ) < see what I mean?
I don’t know who the author and his friend are. Having worked in the field for a rather long time, I can state that, excepting the obvious observation that the MRAP has mobility problems because of its weight, they have everything else so completely wrong that neither of them can possibly have any experience in weapon system design. A couple of the more stunning errors:
1. “…any projectile (or spall) traveling over 2,000fps will liquefy and penetrate just about any type of material.” No. Not in this reality. And it will cost you about $40 to find out for your self.
2. “First of all we have Spectra, Dyneema and other lightweight
Trying to achieve what has not yet been accomplished is the soul of american inginuity. It’s just a shame that during peace time the urgency to achieve the development of armor that actually works is not pursued as hard as that is now placed on the lives of our brave troops that die daily in the rash acts of numbers and media pursasion to accept what a one time was unacceptable and has to be proven at the expense of our friends and relatives that make the ultimate sacrifice to field test an unworthy product. That’s why I do what I do. your experience and feedback could be the insight we need for a break through. http://www.aquadefensetechnologies.com