Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
MRAP. There's a front page article in today's USA Today about the Pentagon's decision to convert to the MRAP, or Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle, as a replacement for the Humvee. The MRAP, it is argued, "provide twice as much protection against improvised explosive devices (IEDs), which cause 70 percent of all U.S. casualties in Iraq." The record of the MRAP with the Marine Corps in Iraq has thus far been fairly sound, although a couple of soldiers died in an IED attack in an MRAP two weeks ago.
Jason Sigger of Armchair Generalist isn't so sure about the MRAP. The design in moving to production and deployment without sufficient testing, which could have negative consequences:
We're talking about making a multi-billion dollar procurement deal on a system that hasn't been run through any operational tests, to replace a system that cost about a fifth of the armored vehicle, and the military wants to rush production of "low rate initial production" vehicles through five contractors to meet the demand.Now I know why the politicians will vote for this, because they've got a knee-jerk reaction to any issue that includes the term "protection from IEDs" in the title. But you have to ask, what the hell are the military leaders thinking by rushing these vehicles to the field? "These MVAPs have to work, because... because... if they don't, it's our asses." There's no excuse to short-cutting the operational testing of this vehicle, not when the consequences of failure are so high. My frustration with these kind of decisions is in part fueled by the continued demands by the military leadership to continue modernizing their aging equipment simultaneous with funding the high optempo requirements of the war, while the training and repair infrastructure in the United States continues to crumble.
The cost is certainly a concern. It's easy to say "we'll spend whatever we need to protect our troops", but that obviously isn't true, and every new expense takes away from something else. There's also the problem of innovation. Insurgents in Iraq (and, really, everywhere else) have demonstrated a powerful capacity for tactical and technological innovation in the face of new threats. Indeed, a war characterized by small, atomistic, and often competing insurgent cells may be ideal for such innovation. Building a procurement program around a specific enemy weapon, and particularly an enemy weapon that's susceptible to disguise and modification, is a recipe for disaster. It's simply not the case that the new vehicles are going to stop IED attacks in Iraq; the MRAP may reduce casualties, but insurgents are going to come up with new methods of attack, and those attacks are going to destroy these extraordinarily expensive new vehicles. Thus, the futility of trying to fight a counter-insurgency conflict through reliance on hi-tech innovation.
--Robert Farley
COMMENTS (11)
Don't you think it would have been wise to review the comments thread to his ridiculous blog before you quoted Jason?
Even your words are ridiculous, "The record of the MRAP with the Marine Corps in Iraq has thus far been fairly sound, although a couple of soldiers died in an IED attack in an MRAP two weeks ago."
Fairly sound, you've got to be kidding me. Although the vehicle was an RG-31, it has been associated with MRAP's, I'll give you that...But the "gold standard" for MRAP's are the Cougars and Buffalo built by Force Protection, Inc. The Cougars have encountered over 2,000 IED's and have logged over 2,000,000 combat hours and not a single fatality !!!! I certainly wouldn't call that "fairly sound".
If you are going to take the time to Blog and if you want others to feel you're creditable, do a little research. There are 1,000's of sources you can draw from on the MRAP's, you certainly don't need to depend on another blogger who has no idea.
Mr. Zippy
Posted by: Mr. Zippy | May 10, 2007 2:33 PM
I don't know where to get hard statistics, but I know I've seen media reports of Bradley's getting knocked out by IEDs, and this thing doesn't look as well armored as a Bradley. I know something is better than nothing, but you do have to wonder if all this will result in is insurgents resorting to bigger bombs or better bombs (EFPs, etc).
Posted by: Patrick | May 10, 2007 3:23 PM
My greater concern with the MVAPs wasn't the cost or its technical maturity as much as the fact that it hasn't gone through operational testing yet, and we're already sending out the "BUY" orders. Remember the challenge V-22 Osprey had to get through operational testing? There's a reason why this testing is needed. One quick point - these vehicles are designed to diffuse a blast from the bottom. What about side blasts?
I love the Cougars and Buffalos for IED removal and VIP movement. Not sure creating a general purpose armored vehicle at $1M a pop is a good idea when you're potentially buying tens of thousands of them.
Posted by: J. | May 10, 2007 3:46 PM
Re: angry Mr. Zippy
First deaths in the Cougar/Buffalo/South African RG-31 family were in June 2006 (3). There have been others, as noted above. They are not perfect vehicles, so I wouldn't get my underwear in a bunch over the word "fairly".
I am mighty glad these have cut down on fatalities. I would like to find data on the number of injuries tho, but I expect that to be less as well. They have that Warlock jamming system and and some interesting x-ray detection stuff which help a lot as well.
That said, I totally agree with Mr. Farly on "the futility of trying to fight a counter-insurgency conflict through reliance on hi-tech innovation." These vehicles cost more, cost more to maintain, cost more to run, to ship, and to repair. I am glad we may be bleeding blood less, but these vehicles will certainly bleed our money more. Welcome to higher taxes, higher deficits, and probably more long term care for soldiers wounded in these things (or not, since the Bush Admin loves spending money on equipment, and not troops). We need to leave, because even with better vehicles, we're not gonna cut down on any violence there.
Remember, humans adapt. Look for changes in insurgent tactics as these vehicles become more common.
Posted by: Thucydides Junior | May 11, 2007 11:08 AM
I take issue with the last paragraph. Are you saying we shouldn't try to adapt because the insurgents will just adapt in turn?
That's like never showering because you'll just get dirty again.
Posted by: Adam Herman | May 11, 2007 12:35 PM
Great. Now I'm going to have to compete in the mall parking lot with those?
Posted by: dbomp | May 11, 2007 12:58 PM
shearing delighted,prestige wedged bumps coverlets uncomfortably
Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 10:43 PM
As a military intelligence analyst I'm appalled at this statement. We should be trying to eliminate the source of IEDs instead of protecting our troops? Well, that just ingenious! Why didn't we think of that?? Oh wait! Eliminating the insurgency has been the goal OF EVERY COMBAT OPERATION EVER CONDUCTED IN IRAQ.
Maybe you would understand the importance of protection if you had ever been in the line of fire. How can you even suggest not having the best protection available for our troops? If you ever had to scrape out the inside of an armored vehicle, placing what little remains you could find into black plastic bags, just so the family back home would have something of their loved ones to bury, maybe you would understand why the troops on the ground need these vehicles.
Almost 5 years into this war we still conduct combat operations in Humvees. This vehicle was not designed for combat. Bradleys and Tanks were designed for combat, but can't get enough troops out onto the battlefield to do anything but kill. You can't win a war against insurgents if you don't dismount and search the populace. The Stryker is the only vehicle the army has that provides armor, firepower and the ability to get troops on the ground. But even this vehicle has its draw backs. The lack of a "boat bottom" has been criticized time and again. The MRAP is the answer to all of these problems. Armor, firepower, speed, and survivability. With it units can not only bring the fight to the enemy, but survive the trip there.
The article shows a picture of an MRAP with a list of casualties associated with the incident. Had that been a humvee the list of casualties would be far shorter. 5 US KIA.
Posted by: MOS96B | May 28, 2007 9:46 AM
incrgu jwgsa jrba hrosb cmdv noklpxq qupvbexc
Posted by: zagrixnds ytqh | June 3, 2007 10:59 PM
fdwyp yqpgji xrjof qbrna ejyiqvlo shbgwceu efacgjkr http://www.pmio.xhkzbsv.com
Posted by: viozftynl vwptqej | June 3, 2007 11:00 PM
These vehicles cost more, cost more to maintain, cost more to run, to ship, and to repair. I am glad we may be bleeding blood less, but these vehicles will certainly bleed our money more. Welcome to higher taxes, higher deficits, and probably more long term care for soldiers wounded in these things.
Posted by: tower defense | April 25, 2009 3:11 AM