Comments on: MRAP and JLTV vs. Reality

By: Jim Ray

Jim Ray — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 03:03:39 +0000

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

By: John

John — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:41:05 +0000

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

By: David Woroner

David Woroner — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 23:19:33 +0000

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?

By: Dave Woroner

Dave Woroner — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:26:08 +0000

BTW, Dave Woroner, suggest you ignore criticisms and definitely don’t threaten or abuse your reader!!
^ 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 to post part two here.
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

By: David R.

David R. — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 01:34:45 +0000

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.

By: Vstress

Vstress — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:24:24 +0000

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.

By: David Woroner

David Woroner — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:48:40 +0000

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

By: David Woroner

David Woroner — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:48:06 +0000

By: Vstress

Vstress — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:57:17 +0000

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!

By: David Woroner

David Woroner — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:50:54 +0000

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!)