Wanted: Next-Gen Armored Vehicles With Less Armor

MRAPThe Pentagon wants next-generation armored vehicles that are more mobile, maneuverable and survivable, but without more armor.

In September, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency will host a proposer’s day to give potential contractors a more clear idea of what the Defense Department wants in its Ground X-Vehicle Technologies program.

“GXV-T’s goal is not just to improve or replace one particular vehicle— it’s about breaking the ‘more armor’ paradigm and revolutionizing protection for all armored fighting vehicles,” Kevin Massey, DARPA program manager, said in an Aug. 18 press release.

Historically, militaries and industry have responded to improved or more lethal attacks on its armored vehicles by adding more armor. But armor piercing weapons technology has pretty much taken the day in that competition, advancing faster than industry’s ability to come up with armor to withstand penetration, Massey said.

The more heavily armored vehicles do increase the chances of crew survivability. The Congressional Research Service, citing DoD figures in 2009, said the casualty rate for troops in an MRAP is 6 percent. For the M-1 Abrams, it’s about 15 percent and for the up-armored HMMWV – the Humvee – it’s 22 percent.

But the additional armor and weight – some MRAPs will weigh up to 24 tons – has meant significant increases in vehicle mass and cost. And that increased mass has meant sacrificing maneuverability on the battlefield, where threat environments change. Larger vehicles are limited to roads, demand more logistical support and are more expensive to design, develop, field and replace, the DARPA release said.

As a result, the U.S. military is looking for so-called “disruptive” innovations – technologies that change everything – to ensure survivability of crew and vehicle in the next generation of armored fighting vehicles, DARPA says.

The agency is looking for technologies that could be developed in 24 months and incorporated into a broad range of ground, tactical and support vehicles following the successful completion of the program.

Massey said the GXV-T program was inspired by X-plane programs that have been instrumental in improving aircraft capabilities over the past six decades.

“We plan to pursue groundbreaking fundamental research and development to help make future armored fighting vehicles significantly more mobile, effective, safe and affordable,” Massey said.

The proposer’s day, which is being held in advance of the official call for project proposals, will be at the DARPA Conference Center in Arlington, Virginia, on Sept. 5, from 9 am to 3 pm. More information is available here.

About the Author

Bryant Jordan
Bryant Jordan is an associate editor and White House correspondent for Military.com. Bryant covers all corners of the military arena, is an expert on "Don't Ask Don't Tell" issues, religious proselytizing and other ongoing military policy issues. He has covered Air Force support missions during the Kosovo War and in 2006 the aero-medical evacuation mission out of Balad Air Base, Iraq. A journalist since 1979, Jordan also covered stories in Lebanon, Gaza and Morocco. During the Vietnam War he was assigned to 15th Admin. Co., 1st Cavalry Division, Bien Hoa Army Base. Before joining Military.com Jordan was a staff writer and deputy news editor for Military Timesnewspapers in Springfield, Va.

39 Comments on "Wanted: Next-Gen Armored Vehicles With Less Armor"

  1. A dream never realized, and might never be.

    Speed only matters during the offense. Most of the time you are on patrol, waiting to get ambushed, or you are static, waiting to get ambushed. Unless your plan is to runaway, all that matters is armor protection. And despite all the armor progress, mass is your friend, at least 25 tons.

    It would be nice to break the cycle, but without active protection systems and better armor recipes, you are stuck with the weight.

  2. But the units will be easier on America roads , after being passed on, when they get replaced later on with Newer next generation ones….

  3. One has to be careful with the casualty rates cited in an "MRAP" specific study. First, how did they get them? Are they counting casualties or incidents where casualties resulted? MRAPs tend to carry more troops Are they counting TBI's? Second, the study seems pretty specific to Iraq where IED's were the enemy's weapon of choice. Against a better armed enemy, MRAPs would litter the battlefield.

    Then there's the impact of numbers. I bet the stats don't hold for Afghanistan where we've deployed all of 14 M1's.

  4. Maneuverability means less weight. Less weight means less armour. Less armour
    means more injuries. It's the laws od physics.

  5. Joe_the_Nipper | August 25, 2014 at 5:46 am | Reply

    one way to tackle this might be to invest more R&D into active protection systems. to make them more reliable, durable and efficient. this might save a great deal of weight in heavy armour plates.

  6. Jackie Fisher tried tried this with Battlecruisers in WW1 with catastrophic results

  7. Driving faster isn't going to stop IED's. Speed and maneuverability on the ground isn't going to save you from modern weaponry either. Speed will help you get to the target sooner and evacuate faster, but once you have to hold a position or respond to road blocks and ambushes, then that speed is no longer an option.

    Regardless, I hope that this is more than just pipe dreaming and that they are using real combat experiences to shape these decisions.

  8. Obviously nobody here has read the spec. These are not designed to survive combat they are designed to avoid contact completely.

    Like the F-35 and LCS these are designed to run away from combat.

  9. Whenever I hear a military-industrial spokesperson mention "breaking a paradigm" and "revolutionizing" something across the board, I know the spokesperson is describing a contractor's boondoggle. The only thing that will come from this "proposers day" will be industry behemoths getting more taxpayer loot in exchange for endless developmental programs that fail to turn into end products. It’s corporate wellfare.

    Frankly, this stinks of the Ground Combat Vehicle fiasco. That sought to change “paradigms” and be “revolutionary”. The result was a stinking mess of detritus, the likes of which sanitation workers fear to encounter.

  10. When they knew the MRAP's were in the vicinity the enemy just increased the amount of explosives and more of them. There were a lot of MRAP's that survived an IED but the personnel manning them were not able to return to full or partial duty after a substantial hit. TBI's were numerous. I saw several MRAP's that were so heavily damaged they were taken to the motor pool and just sat there. It also is one of the problem with the tanks, with enough explosive a track came off or people inside had some problems. There, at this time, is really no answer so troops are stuck with the hefty critters. So iron is nicer than urn, urn does not weigh all that much but I prefer the iron.

  11. Answer to IEDs is less ground vehicles and more helicopters. Helicopter operations would be safer and faster. The problem is it costs more and of course when it comes to washington it all comes down to the money.

  12. Lighter vehicles could go offroad to make it more difficult for the enemy to plan where to place the IEDs.

  13. MRAP design precludes speed due to the high profile, and in conjunction with the V shaped design makes it top heavy and has limited applications vs humvees which if up armored strain the chassis and the engine. Compromise always means it won't work on either mission well! You'll need to,have,both! Use the LAV-25 for what it was intended, recon, cavalry type missions. The Stryker has more,troops, less,firepower vs the LAV-25, the canon version is,a bad,compromise.,the best seems to be the medic vehicle that should replace the ancient M113/577 series antiques on the battle field!

  14. I am increasingly coming around to the view that the DOD should set forth very vague RFPs and simply ask contractors to make proposals for "what can you do for $X" per unit with a buy of Y units by Z delivery date, rather than trying to micromanage requirements in ways that are frequently not technologically possible.

    The notion that every single project needs to accomplish the impossible wildly drives up costs and delays projects, when incremental development within the range of the possible that isn't necessary COTS technology either could be much more economical, and give troops something better than the status quo in the meantime while contractors work on coming up with impossible superweapons.

    Also, the RFP is the creative phase of the overall enterprise and it makes sense that design engineers trained to build things rather than Pentagon bureaucrats are better suited to that function.

  15. Terrorists will use more explosives to destroy heavier armoured vehicles. In a conventional fight MBT conversions with 360 deg defence systems may be the way to go.

  16. You can bet that those wanting this criteria, won't be riding in them.

  17. Sounds like a watered down version of FCS.

    We all know how well that turned out…


  18. Old Guy Thoughts | August 26, 2014 at 12:46 am | Reply

    Since they grounded the A-10's, why take the titanium tubs out of them and repurpose them and put them in the crew compartments to protect individual crew members in these vehicles?

  19. What is needed is a type of hard foam or something that dissipates the energy.a hard shell underneath of course maybe made of ceramics also small drones overhead with sensors linked to the vehicle maybe even with wire like the tank missiles have so you cant hack em the silhouette of the vehicle will be larger of course so a better cammo will be needed.what is needed is a combo of things working together.and the most important thing is a better foreign policy making high tech war much less likely.thats horrible writing butt love my country and wanted to add my 2 cent

  20. Make the armored vehicles more stealthy instead of more armored. For instance, MBDA has a new camouflage system which reduces significantly the visual and IR signatures:

    Add to that an ADS system.

    The vehicle can have an additional armor kit for urban warfare.

  21. Well then you need a force field are stand off armor or deflecting armor. granted speed is essential. but you can get in to trouble by beening to fast. pressure and determination is a must in combat. but also safety consciousness are a must too. no man likes putting his self in harms way if he does not have a bonified way of surviving . unless he is an idiot. and I've seen some generals that think that their men are strong unstoppable idiots . are at least he hopes they are so he can look good.

  22. With all that armour airco is a must..Makes the Gun trucks we had in nam look like nothing..

  23. I thought this was what the JLTV program was for.

  24. Anyone remember the "rat patrols" of the desert wars. They had a jeep, a machine gun, some hand grenades and a few mines and raised proverbial hell with the enemy. Not an armoured amrap in the entire bunch. Sometimes simple is best and more effective.

  25. The only new revolution in military affairs is the concept of a faster, lighter, and more survivable vehicle. I will get excited when I see the technology.

  26. Slow is smooth and smooth is fast.

  27. It's an aim worth investigating but the military always seems to want one magic thing to be both a fillet knife and an axe. Elements of this thinking in the f-35, and the next gen rotorcraft is heading down an even worse path.

    There have been advances in materials and manufacturing but there must be heavy and light vehicles for different roles for the foreseeable future, and FFS don't try and make them variations on one platform trying to pretend this will be cheaper.

  28. Here we go again same old same old. As soon as the shooting stops (or in this case lets up) the gizmo guys and head shed weenies want to lighten up the vehicles. Then when the shooting starts again and the body parts start coming home we have up armor everything.
    The worst part is the bean counters want a one size fits all vehicle that can do every thing. One size fit all means one size fits none.
    Any craftsman will tell you use the right tool for the right job.

  29. chobham armor, ERA, V-hulls, slat armor are all examples of enhanced armor without significant added weight.

    Are these the only ideas to achieve that? Who knows if you don't stimulate the bright people to come up with ideas, exactly as DARPA does here.

    Regarding the active armor systems I have significant doubts about how a system that makes the vehicle more easily detectable (by the radar emissions) can enhance the survivability of the vehicle. The radar emissions can be used as a beacon to guide low cost munitions for a saturation attack on the vehicle. I don't think that active armor is really worth the money.

  30. The center of gravity is top heavy. It will look like a grasshopper.

  31. Take out the crew and you don't need as much armor. (Check with US auto companies as they are working on cars that can drive themselves.) This will work in most aps except troop transport. So, DARPA, start thinking outside the box. BTW, pilot-less aircraft also are less expensive, better performing (no soft stuff inside), and are willing to do suicide missions, like taking out rogue nuclear refining facilities. Lots of potential there.

  32. Just crapped my shorts. A internet comment thread that is interesting, intelligent, and respectful. Thank you.

  33. It is incumbent upon us to prepare for the next war with new technology, doctrine, training, and tactics. I am perfectly fine with that, as long as I understand that they are pushing and developing a concept that will improve what we have now. However, the concept is based on technology that is not invented yet. The worst thing they can do is create some half baked piece of sh-t to replace our Abrams. I was a tank officer, what made the M1 good is its low center of gravity, a suspension to die for which protected the crew from rough terrain and allowed it to go fast on relatively flat terrain, the accuracy of its main gun, and the armor to protect the crew. The concept vehicle has a high center of gravity so it will tip over easily. If they add a great suspension to it, it will bounce around like a grasshopper. They should not treat the M1 like the A-10. The F-35 is not ready to fight yet.

  34. I would say develop the platform for the mission. Is it to be deployed in a military combat environment with all manner of weapons systems arrayed against it – tanks, aircraft, artillery, etc., or a more benign environment of small arms, incendiaries, and possibly low explosives? Is the mission recon, transport, or fighting.

    You don't deploy a transport aircraft for air-to-air, you deploy a fast aircraft that can reach out and touch someone.

    I can see this project developing Bradley Syndrome/mission creep quite easily. HMMWV's were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan as IFV's, a role to which they were not designed or intended to fulfill. The result was a fugly Frankenstein combat vehicle which severely reduced the crew's line of sight, ingress and egress, and from reports I have heard, relative comfort(let's not forget that), while only guarding against a limited threat vector(RPGs and to a lesser extent, IEDs). Even the notoriously vaunted MRAP is a prototype rushed into production, and is even now being de-mil'd and sold to civilians.

    What I'm trying to say is, if you want an IFV, design an IFV. If you want a recon truck, develop a recon truck. If you want a patrol vehicle, develop a patrol vehicle. If you want a utility/transport, design a utility/transport.

    No vehicle is going to be the magical fit for all of those roles. Trying to make it do everything will make it mediocre at anything. That is a bureaucratic fantasy pushed by desk drivers train in the martial art of logistics, not combat.

    Case in point: F-35. A mediocre air-to-air platform, a mediocre strike platform, a mediocre CAS platform… but hey! We can source the parts from the same suppliers across all services and eliminate TONS of paperwork! Who cares if it costs twice as much as estimated and won't be online for years after it was scheduled… and rescheduled… again. We got that cool tilt-rotor transport after 30 years of development. Let's sell it to Congress!

  35. I completely, 100% agree.

  36. These designs are reaaly just pocket money for the contractors and nothing to do with reality. When it comes down to it despite 80 years of afv design in the next war most Amercian troops will still die in lightly armored trucks.

  37. Does the US not look at what Israel has already developed often with US funding? The US still relies on the ineffective Patriot for missile defense while Israel has Iron Dome, the Arrow and other very effective anti-missile defense systems recently tested in a real world conflict.
    Not long ago the US Defense Dept requested bids for a system to combat anti-armor weapons such as RPG's and Saggars. Israeli companies were not asked to bid even though they had already developed their Trophy System which, again, has a proven track record of success at defending their armored vehicles against these types of weapons. Why not buy these existing and proven systems? US puts US defense contractors ahead of US military personnel. Our soldiers lives aren't as important as the cozy relationship between Pentagon desk jockeys and the defense industry where they may have a future job waiting for them. Stupid, criminal and disgusting waste of money and human lives.

  38. Space-X rockets! They could fly the troops around the battle field!

  39. How about new weapons with more fire effect for these lighter combat vehicles, they are going to need some way of surviving…..

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.