You are fighting co-in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan right now; you are very likely to fight more co-in wars in the near future (regardless of withdrawal from Iraq). That means you need MRAP for all your vehicle functions outside protected bases, whether you like it or not.

Of course MRAP vehicles are not proof against all IEDs - but they massively decrease your casualties. Also, if the insurgents try to deploy bigger IEDs to combat the MRAP, it costs them heavily in resources, time, logistics and signature.

In Afghanistan, we Aussies and the Dutch use the Bushmaster - highly mine resistant, light, capable of going anywhere. And they do not intimidate the locals. The Bushmaster is a Co-in warwinner.

Posted by: MikeA at August 5, 2008 11:12 PM

"Hasn't the never-ending conflict in Israel... taught you anything about this type of war?"

Yes, it's taught that making bigger vehicles makes the opponents build bigger bombs. Technology like this will never win a guerilla war. You could have people driving around in goddamn tanks and it wouldn't help. The key to winning a guerilla war is to make it so there is no reason to fight one. Nothing you can do militarily - short of literally blowing up every town with people in it - will end the fighting.

Posted by: GE at July 24, 2008 02:23 PM

I have fought in a HMMWV (humvee, for the laymen out there). I have had RPGs launched at me, PRK fire, and have had associates die beside me. I, of all people, don't think that massive purchases of the MRAP is a good idea. It's simply a knee-jerk reaction purchase to appease the idiots who think that money grows on trees. You have to take into account maneuverability, as well as simple armor-thickness. If you are big and slow, you are an excellent target...and as Iraqis/Afghanis typically aren't great marksmen these flaws increase the likelyhood that you will be attacked. Armor is not a deterrent. GUNS are a deterrent. And ultimately, the more armor we throw on a thing, the more explosives they will add, and the more they will utilize EFPs. It's a vicious cycle. The MRAPs will be obsolete protection within months of mass implementation as far as protection from EFPs is concerned. Government, if you want to spend some money, spend it on MK-47's, mini-guns, and lots of ammo so that we can practice shooting more. Accurate, aggressive soldiers are by far a much more effective deterrent. And to the guy who is saying "who cares how much the MRAP costs? If it saves lives, it's worth it." I respect that you love your son, but that is a truly ignorant statement. This is coming from someone who has been in the shit and intends to return. When we let emotions override logic, people die. Emotions overriding logic is what is going on with this MRAP purchase. Think this shit through. Am I cruel and heartless to not think we should spend an unlimited amount of money to save a life? No. I'm a soldier myself, who could theoretically benefit from the MRAP's protection. But I'd rather cruise in a HUMVEE for non-urban missions, and I understand that MRAPS are helluva expensive and thus, shouldn't replace humvees, ESPECIALLY since they are so limited in their usefullness. No friggin way would I want one in Afghanistan. I'm simply utilizing a novel concept known as "reason" which it seems many of you have never heard of.

Posted by: JR at July 1, 2008 02:10 AM

My son is in Iraq right now and he is suppose to get a MRAP soon. Who cares if they are intimidating, MRAP's save lives. My son is worth more than $1million dollars to me and I am sure everyone that has a loved one in Iraq would agree. With all the money that is spent for this war, who cares how much money is spent on MRAP's as long as it saves lives, its worth it.

Posted by: Cindy at June 16, 2008 06:00 PM

i don't guess there was ever a piece of equipment fielded that was exactly what one hoped for. but i would say, if it gets you there in one piece what does it matter what the damn thing costs? certainly the writer made some very valid points.but lets remember regardless of the reasoning for the war, i believe all would aggree that if the damn thing had been prosecuted in the correct manner we probably wouldn't even need a mrap vehichle in the first place.so why would anyone think that the same incompetent leaders would have the forsight?? to request development of a tactical vehicle tailored to urban warfare in an ied enviroment.

Posted by: tired old soul at May 31, 2008 09:09 PM

I think what the author was saying is while the MRAP is a very capable vehicle for what is designed for its not the end all of armored vehicles. The Army & Marines only need X amount of the MRAP's, they still need humvees, bradleys etc. As for all the flamers...try reading the article & actually comprehending what is stated

Posted by: Rich at April 13, 2008 07:23 AM

Great, you go on passing soccer balls out your Hummer. What about the 12-16 guys in the 2 MRAPs yesterday that gor pounded by IEDs and walked away? I can pretty well guess 3 or more of them would be KIA and 3 or more would be seriously injured. Besides the anguish to the families, how much is it going to cost to bury 3 and provide maybe round the clock care for the others? These things are paying for themselves. As far as manueverability you have to walk befor you crawl. There should be a smaller, more agile MRAP coming out soon that would be more suitable to the marines i think. But demanding such protection if available exemplifies leadership.

Posted by: phat at April 13, 2008 12:04 AM

Mike, I am a Marine infantry officer, and I have used the MRAP in operations in Iraq. It is a piss-poor infantry fighting vehicle. After a few weeks we were glad to get a Humvee again, so we could operate off-road as necessary. Christian's article, from my perspective, is spot-on.

Posted by: Slab at April 12, 2008 04:55 PM

Having just returned from Iraq's Al Anbar province, I know first hand of the JEERVs and they are worth every penny. I have seen pictures of the vehicle after a 400 pound HME bomb blew up underneath it. Sadly, the gunner was killed from the vehicle rolling over and he was thrown out. The rest of the crew had a few bumps and bruises, but they made it. The Hummer served it's purpose in the first Gulf War, but the times have changed and the JEERV/MRAPs are the way to go.

Posted by: Eric F at April 7, 2008 09:53 AM

Rocket grenades go thru armored vehicles. Ask Israeli vets of the Sinai.

Armored vehicles are so highly strategic that they stopped the Russians from losing in Afghanistan. Right?

Posted by: meyer lansky at April 6, 2008 09:46 AM

As an Army Infantry officer, I can tell you that these vehicles are a godsend. I'm not sure what your ramblings about a "tactical vehicle" mean. Have you ever served in the infantry in combat? It sure doesn't sound like it!

Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2008 10:01 PM

I see alot of comments that the MRAP is mission specific. yes it is, and so was the Atom bomb, The Battleship, the aircraft carrier, the Tiger tank, the V2, etc. The point is that you have to adapt to the changing war enviroment, I'm sure when the French were pinned down in the trenches during WW1 they didn't say the German machine gun was a piece of crap because it was mission specific. I build these trucks for a living, and soon my be fixxing them in Iraq. They get poor gas mileage & are heavy, who cares. The USS Iowa was costing a $1,000,000 a day to operate at sea, who cares. It did it job very well and so do MRAP's.

FCC(SW) STROHM
USN RETIRED

Posted by: steve strohm at March 28, 2008 06:14 AM

As a Soldier getting ready to go back to Iraq for a 3rd time, of course I would have a "love affair" like Congress with a vehicle that might save my life. But lets look at it form a different position like some do on the fact of money and use of this vehicle afterward. I saw recent photos of an MRAP that took a 500 pounder. Had that been a HMMVW or even a Stryker or a Bradley the result would have been dead soldiers costing you dear taxpayers a half million per dead Soldier. With 6 people in the vehicle that would have been over 3 million in life insurance and death gratuity payments. How much did it cost to make it and ship it? Around a 1 million? It looks like we are money ahead even if it was destroyed. We spend another million and get another one and we still saved a million. If you add the cost of caring for severally injured the cost escalates higher. In the long run the vehicle is worth its weight in gold, not only to me but to you taxpayers as well. I don’t care who made it or if we have to throw them away when were done. I am just glad it was made. Am I using too much common sense here or missing something? If I am looking at this simple minded please let me know.

Posted by: Stacey Nass at February 29, 2008 05:17 PM

One buys the best equipment for your troops. The army itself will indicate if it feels it has enough MRAPs. The v-shaped bottom technologies can be extended to other vehicles that might face IEDs - as the development of an IED resistant / MRAP ambulance has shown.

Posted by: Wynand Meyering at February 15, 2008 09:04 PM

Dear Mr. Lowe,

The MRAP was never designed to be a tactical weapon. It isn't even suppossed to contend with the humvee. It is a troop transport, giving counter-insurgents the ability to isolate and contain areas that can contain enemy operatives.

"My last problem with the MRAP is that it’s too big and intimidating."

There are 3 forces in this conflict. The US, Iraqi's and insurgents. The Iraqi's are neutral to America's desires. They WON'T help the US in providing information about insurgency actions. Your ideal of winning the minds and hearts of the people is unrealistic and until you understand that concept, all the logic I can throw at you won't help.

The best America can do, is to capture Bin Laden, or if the war continues, use technology such as the MRAP, gain the upper hand and push for a favorable negotiated peace settlement. Hasn't the never-ending conflict in Israel... taught you anything about this type of war?

So good luck. Continue on your merry way. I repeat, you still know nothing of war.

Regards,

Wynand Meyering.

Posted by: Wynand Meyering at February 11, 2008 04:39 PM

I'm a PSYOPer in Theater right now. In discussions about getting the MRAPS, not once did fear of intimidating the Iraqis come up as a viable issue, and "Hearts and Minds" is our job through and through.

EOD likes it for their job, and PSYOP has no problem winning hearts and minds from the top of one of these...

granted....we'll have to find a new place to mount our speakers...

Posted by: Jon at January 26, 2008 02:52 PM

and then, of course, instead of actually leaving I read more responses. I may have opened my mouth a little prematurely there/maybe not everyone was insulting whatshisfuck. Anywasy....same as befores

Peace, beechiz

Posted by: JMob at January 23, 2008 01:47 AM

Ugghh.....was going to try to say something intelligent, to quote. But I think it would be wasted here. In reading all the attacks on the original article writer's person, I forgot what the main point was. Talk about fucking brainwashed. If someone can first admit to the real reason we are in Iraq, then maybe we can talk about people's intelligence and bravery. No open debate here....

I am all for A&D technology development-cool as shit. Was actually looking for a description/size of this bastard when I found this site-hadn't even heard of it until I sidetracked on some tangents and ended up here. This thing is basically a lifted duece with angular plating...i thinks. Why not work on hovercraft technology to limit/negate the footprint of the vehicle to a nearly null pressure? Would this not defeat mine technology?

Anyways I'm bored now. Gonna go watch T.V. and stop thinking for myself, like a good "American Son".

Peace, bitches.....

Posted by: JMob at January 23, 2008 01:25 AM

this message is to 'ed'. you call the hummer "uncool". what are you, 12? give it a rest. you know i think that it is really cool that you know all of those names. now how about getting a job and moving out of your mom's basement?

Posted by: nar at January 22, 2008 09:31 AM

We need to protect the guys on the ground. Humvee wasn't designed for this type of combat and the MRAP may not be perfect but it beats the hell out of the Humvee. What I want to know is why it costs so much. The South Africans were building basicly the same thing back in the 70's for a hell of alot less, even allowing for inflation. So who's getting rich!!!!

Posted by: Ponysoljer at January 16, 2008 10:30 PM

I am Iraqi-American serving in Iraq as an engineer advisor.These vehicles look beat up but they protect the occupants and save lives.To me the choice is clear,every life is precious and worth saving, but if you want to play the math/money game ,let me educate you in simple math/English. The MRAP cost $500,000, each, the airline pay from 1 million to 2 million for each life lost in an airplane crash.You do the math 4 soliders per HUMVEE at a 1 million a person, that is 4 million dollar?! a savings of 3.5 million dollars?!any questions?.

Posted by: Sarmad at December 8, 2007 02:38 AM

Im not sure whats the matter with you. What do you care more of? Lives protecting the U.S. or spending money? I dont know what you would say but id pick lives. listen here, the cougar is probably the safest thing to drive in Iraq. The M1 is even getting blown once in a while. I agree with everybody but you. The cougar is worth the money. Now i cant wait until the Golan comes out and shows everything up. this is my criteria: these are the nessesary vehicals... the M1 abrams, the Bradley APC, and once it comes out the Golan, the buffalo, the stryker-maybe,. and i think thats it. Scratch humvees form all lists.they are too unsafe.and uncool. please reply anybody.

Posted by: Ed at October 14, 2007 09:16 PM

Im not sure whats the matter with you. What do you care more of? Lives protecting the U.S. or spending money? I dont know what you would say but id pick lives. listen here, the cougar is probably the safest thing to drive in Iraq. The M1 is even getting blown once in a while. I agree with everybody but you. The cougar is worth the money. Now i cant wait until the Golan comes out and shows everything up. this is my criteria: these are the nessesary vehicals... the M1 abrams, the Bradley APC, and once it comes out the Golan, the buffalo, the stryker-maybe,. and i think thats it. Scratch humvees form all lists.they are too unsafe.and uncool. please reply anybody.

Posted by: Ed at October 14, 2007 09:15 PM

If the MRAPs cost 1/2 million to one million each
why does the defense department want 1 and 1/2 milloin in the budget for them? Wonder where that 1/2 mill or so is going? times 7,000.

Posted by: James at September 26, 2007 01:06 PM

If looking friendly was completing the mission, you would think IED attacks would stop. Apparently you have not lost a friend or loved one to an IED attack. The armor on the bottom of the HMMWV is flat and does not deflect shrapnel very well unlike the MRAP with its V shaped under armor.
Mission accomplishment first, troop welfare always. It's more imortant to keep our troops safe. The civillians will understand that we are just trying to keep the troops safe.

Posted by: Sgt Chad, USMC at September 25, 2007 08:03 PM

I am a maintenance tech for an Infantry Battalion currently stationed in Afghanistan. I would pay the $500,000 price tag myself if it could bring back just one of the soldiers my unit has lost in our short time here. We have several versions of the HMMWV and they all are a total loss after an IED strike, current value around $200,000. If my math is correct, should the MRAP survive 2 IED strikes it has paid for itself. There is too much weight on the HMMWV now, the HMMWV does not even need to hit an IED, it destroys itself due to the weight it is now carrying. One broken half-shaft will repeatedly hit the frame of the vehicle and wear a hole. Once there is a hole the entire structure of the vehicle is weakened and needs to be replaced. This happens about 1.5 times every month. MRAPs don't have half-shafts!
I personally don't want to be close to the ground, that is where the IEDs are. Where I am in Afghanistan almost all IED attacks are from directly below the vehilce. I also don't want to give off a warm and fuzzy vehicle when I drive around. I am not here to pass out soccer balls, the ANA can do that and it will increase support for them at the same time.

Posted by: Jake Stacey at September 21, 2007 12:39 PM

Hello All, working in ballistics is a tricky business. (and that applies to EOD as well), anyone skilled in the art will tell you "its about the variables!", if A happens, then it changes how B will act/react, thus C is changed from event to event.
However, bottom line, from "the bottom portion" component of these armored vehicles, I gotta say that its up to the "little inventor fella's" to come up with a way to solve the problem. The tenants of ballistics are either A)deflect (which I prefer for the most part) or B)meet force with force. (Anyone remember the "tiger tank" of the Germans? well, it was a super peice of equipment except when it pulled up to the gas station ;) everything has an "achilles heel"... I, at this moment, and Im a member of several "anti hypervelocity organizations" and must say, i may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but have devised a way to truly protect our Soldiers from side Det. IEDs, I will be making some presentations at the Joint Urban Ops Conf. on Sept 26-28, Now onto the bottom "boat hull V" like defenitely "deflects" kinetics and/or detonation waves. Its a difficult posit.
However, most incidents are not from beneath the vehicle, the come from the IED's on the sides of roads, etc..........
Well, its all about Velocity, Distance and Time. ;)

Posted by: David Woroner, Pres. SCI at September 4, 2007 12:09 PM

The U.S. military spends billions on technology that will potentially take lives. What is the problem with billions being spent to save lives?

MRAP is not a fix all and the future of the vehicle is potentially limited to this theater. But tell me of a war we have fought in which technology was not developed for the conflict at hand. MRAP is a theater specific asset. But for all of the things that MRAP is not, it is a proven life saver.

MRAP is a high visibility program and you can bet that the enemy is taking note. The advertisement of MRAP as an "indestructible" vehicle will certainly make it a target and the enemy will do his best to show he can defeat this asset.
However, he continues to forget one very important fact and that is that the American Soldiers, Sailors and Airman that will be behind the wheel of these vehicles will not be defeated.

So, for all of the nay sayers and defeatist who say MRAP is not worth the dollars we will spend, answer me this- What is the cost of one life lost in Iraq and is it greater or less than the cost of one MRAP?

Posted by: mike at September 2, 2007 02:46 PM

First, the main competitor in the MRAP competition is the International Maxxpro. its based on a proven truck chassis and can also have an uparmored underbelly added at any time.
the engine and chassis are used every day in commercial vehicles all over the country and are not some one off military pieces. this truck is serviced easily and can withstand brutal punishment. the armor plating is the best currently available.

they cost the US about $550,000. thats alot but far less than the millions a plane costs.

Id rather be in a Maxxpro than any other MRPA vehicle Ive seen.

Posted by: Thomas W at August 19, 2007 09:49 AM

So what do you suggest , intead of the MRAP??? improved humves still in the lab???or rather on the drawing table??while our troops continue to die when we know we could have saved them???
Listen christian, a man like yoou will never have the guts to serve in Iraq and im glad.stay in your shoes.

Posted by: John at July 28, 2007 05:59 PM

If you do not think the MRAP is worth the money, come take a ride with me in a HMMVW (Humvee) on some dirt roads in Iraq. Before you people talk smack about how much they cost, keep in mind that the U.S. has misplaced Billions of Dollars for Reconstruction. But no one is complaining about that anymore. If you never had an IED explode under your vehicle in Iraq or Afghanistan, then stay in your lane we will stay out of yours. No amount of money is worth a single US Soldiers Life.

Posted by: Chad at July 28, 2007 04:32 PM

There appear to be a number of issues here that unfortunately are confusing this issue and article. First, theres the issue about corporate sponsors renting politicians to apply pressure on military procurement. This particular vehicle was already ordered by the military but not in the quantities that the corporations and their stockholders wanted so they had politicians apply pressure on the military to add more vehicles to the order by playing on the fears of the American public for the safety of American service men and women. The issue here is one of Corporate greed and political pressure not one of concern for those same servicemembers.

Second, is the issue of force protection. The MRAP may well save American lives but the nature of high tech warefare is always changing for nations that can afford it. I served in Vietnam from 67-69 in UH-1C gunships as a doorgunner. UH-1C's made their debut after field modified UH-1B helicopters proved the concept. The insurgents in that war became adapt at knocking them down with small arms fire and to address this the Cobra gunship was introduced in mid 1968, unfortunately, once the enemy adapted to the speed and tactics of the Cobra small arms fire still brought these aircraft down. The MRAP may well save lives in the short term but the insurgents will always adapt to a new system and improvise tactics to counter them. It would seem that flooding the military's inventory with a system that will only be effective in the short term is like putting all your eggs in one basket. Never a good idea. What needs to be remembered is that an MRAP like the HumVee is nothing more than a target for the insurgents and something that is likely, with its capicity to hold more troops, lead to more casualties once the insurgents adapt.

I'm all for providing better protection for our troops and I'm also aware that even when we finally pull out of Iraq that our War against the Terrorists of the world will continue. As this war continues the military will field the systems in their inventory and continue to research and develop hopefully better systems. Flooding its inventory with one interim system whose price tag cuts into the procurement budget so deeply is short sighted even for a politician.

There may well be good reasons why military planners didn't flood their system with this vehicle and perhaps politicians , in this instance, should have listened to the military instead of the (Corporate) constituents.

Posted by: Jerry at July 19, 2007 11:08 PM

If you doubt the value of a MRAP my son would love to take you on a ride to Kamalaya in one of their humvees.

Posted by: Gery Cummings at July 18, 2007 09:38 PM

The MRAP is a piece of shit. Why? It cannot stand up to an EFP and we're gonna pull out of iraq before they can be sent to our troops. It's a waste of money and time.

Posted by: Joshua Strode at July 18, 2007 09:09 PM

Warfare is ever changing, morphing beyond anyones total control. Their are tens of thousands of vehicles in the motor pools that cost billions of dollars that are no longer useful in todays fighting enviroment. The perfect urban assault vehicle will never be developed, because it is the perfect target in a confined or predictable space. It can be defeated by simple low tech technology, by a very cunning and ever changing tactical foe, who is being supplied by major (Iran, Syria) supporters with very little restrictions on thier abiltiy to supply such ordanance to our enemys. MRAP's will save lives in Iraq, so this is why I think they must be deployed to our troops. They will at least drop the causualty rate for low end explosive devices that are fatal to the current Hummers. I guess this is a short term moral investment, certainly not a fiscal one. These vehicles will probably be in the motor pool after this war is over, but if they save 200 or 300 of our servicemans lives over the next two years, I say .----send em.

Posted by: S&Bpoet at July 18, 2007 07:28 AM

You fukin supremacists sure love your wars and hate the Constitution you are all traitors. Iraq was a mistake made worse by morons like chimp, chaynay and dumbsfeld.

Posted by: chimpy at July 17, 2007 02:39 PM

You fukin supremacists sure love your wars and hate the Constitution you are all traitors. Iraq was a mistake made worse by morons like chimp, chaynay and dumbsfeld.

Posted by: chimpy at July 17, 2007 02:36 PM

I was in the Marine Corps for 4 years, back in the mid seventies. The Humvee was essentially the replacement vehicle to the old jeep, so in essence its just a jeep. It may be a better jeep, I'm not sure as I've never ridden in a Humvee, but its still basically a just a JEEP. When I imagine riding around in Bagdad in a jeep I get cold chills. Jeeps or Humvees were never designed for the kinds of problems we are encountering in Iraq. What is needed is an MRAP type of vehicle that is designed from the ground up as that sort of general purpose armored vehicle. My opinion is that we replace every Humvee in Iraq and Afganistan with an MRAP, and bring all those Humvees back to the States, and never again send Humvee's into battle zones where they dont belong. I've actually seen an MRAP up close and walked around it and looked inside. Beleive me, if any of you could look at both vehicles side by side, you would choose the MRAP to go riding around in. Is it big? Yes, its about as big as a 6x6. Is it's size a problem? Not for me! One poster here said that you can't solve problems by throwing money at them - WRONG. Throwing money at problems gets problems fixed. Did I agree with invading Iraq? NO way, but that's not the issue now. We've dug a hole for ourselves and we can't simply walk away from this. What we can do is make the most out of this bad situation and give our people over there adequate protection. We have the Manufacturing power here in America to solve this problem, and that's what we are good at doing. I think it would be a real riot to have some idiot terrorist shooting at me inside an MRAP while I calmly call for close air on his soon to be vaporized ass. Imagine the joy as I'm giving him the finger and waving bye bye.

0311 - Semper Fi

Posted by: chris at July 15, 2007 03:39 PM

First off, you dont know what your talking about.
And second, I work for Protected Vehicles Inc. who is one of the companies and builds the Golan MRAP vehicle and I would put my ass in the Golan and drive through the heart of Sadr City, the triangle of death, or downtown Bagdad any day. The Golan is new, mobile, fast, and highly protected. We at PVI are taking great strides to build our vehicles so that they will save Marines and Soldiers lives. The Golan can turn full circle in about 40 ft. That is the width of a standard road. And it WILL defeat the threats (IED,EFP, and RPG) being used in Iraq. It is a simply designed vehicle that provides room for 6 troops (Cat I) and all their gear and with a 350 HP/1100+ Ft Lbs of Torque Cummins turbo diesel under the hood the Golan has the balls to get up and go anywhere, anytime. It is a multi role, universally tasked vehicle that can adapt to mission specific challenges and can do so without giving up its armored protection.
So as a former soldier and Desert Storm veteran I say to you; sit down and shut up or you can pick up a gun and take your ass to Iraq and fight for the freedom you have been granted by all of the men and women who are fighting for freedom and those who have died fighting for freedom.
The cost of one military life is worth the cost of every MRAP vehicle made no matter who the manufacturer is. HOOAH!!!

Posted by: J. Gilchrist at July 12, 2007 07:36 PM

I've lost dozens of Soldiers to IEDs in Iraq over the past 4 years. Some of them have been in Bradley's, some in M998's with "gypsy" armor, and some in M1114's.
Your article contains very little fact. I DO agree that lawmakers have a poor understanding of the needs of the military, and their interests are not always motivated by providing for the wellfare of Soldiers and Marines. However, the current Humvee's with the additional armor kits being put on are simply overtaxed and have hit their culmination point. It is definitely time for another vehicle.
Even if it is a "loggy" vehicle, American servicemen are resourceful enough to tailor it to their needs. The appearance of strength is a good thing in a war. The enemy is supposed to be afraid of you.
The major draw back to these is that they are taller and just as noisy as Humvees. Hopefully, they are less maintenance intensive and can off road just as well (before we slapped on all of the extra armor).

Posted by: Eric at July 12, 2007 01:25 AM

Umm, the problem I have with this article is that the picture at the top of the page is not a MRAP vehicle. It is in fact a BAE Systems RG-31 Mine Protected APC. Take one for a test drive with the guys in Iraq or Afghanistan, they could show you how well the vehicle performs on a day to day basis in the Iraqi/Afghani versions of Mayberry. Maybe you should take a spin through Bagdad in one of those cute Chrysler Seabring convertibles that JMD suggested for you earlier?
Putting a picture of a vehicle blown to shit and then trying to pass it off as a completely different vehicle, I mean if you couldn't find a picture of a MRAP severly damaged or one that has been blown up to the point where some one has died, well then your report is already bogus, no evidence no story...period.

P.S. Google.com is a very good search engine, used by reporters and well everyone that has access to the internet. Be a real reporter and do the research before sticking your head in your ass, if you can't get the facts right, look for a new job.

Posted by: mike at July 10, 2007 08:18 PM

With millions of hours in theater, under the wire with over a thousand attacks by IED's and NO SOLDIER or MARINE KILLED - who do you think you are to discredit a vehicle program that was DESIGNED to save lives?!?!

Ooh... the poor little ones who are imtimidated by the American's big trucks - wahhhhhhh.... We wouldn't even be there if they hadn't leveled two of America's Prized buildings and attacked the core of our Military Intelligence, killing thousands of INNOCENT Americans.

Wake up!!! It is under-educated and moronic statements like yours that if read by the wrong person, could remove funding from a Program that is saving lives - OUR Soldiers & Marines lives!!

Ooh... by the way - if you're scared of our trucks being too big - take a look at the Cheetah, for example - it is a (mini) COUGAR with the same benefits, but small enough to do inner city tactical operations.

It is soon on its way to IRAQ & Afghanistan too....

This was not written to offend only to wake some people up - we need to join together to get his thing over - not divide ourselves....

"If you are not willing to stand behind our Troops, please feel free to stand in front of them." Author Unknown

Matthew E. Drake
matthew.drake@army.com

Posted by: MilitaryLightMan at July 7, 2007 11:02 AM

I would agree with Christian that the Couger is to big and cumbersome. In that case you might aswell use the Striker. But strikers are not made for the purpose at hand and are to expensive. But you can't put the guys in a Humwee.... You nead something better to protect the solders. Also, it's got to be remembered that there should be 2 different vehicles nl. cat-I and cat-II. The cat-I is 4x4 and the cat-II 6x6. The size of the cat-II is determent by the room needed inside and is dedicated to the job at hand. The cat-I is basicly the one that will be used in the case of the Hamwee. In the cat-I's case your argument does not hold tru. The RG-33(4x4) weigh in at around 7000kg(7t) and the RG-33L(6x6)at around 11t. Now for me this option is the better one as the RG-33 has proven themselfs on numerous occasions. The slightly smaller RG-31 has been with the troops in Irak and Afgan for some time and sure is a great vehicle. To me, the Cougers are simply to big to be used in the towns and cities. I would think that both the merines and the army should buy meny more of the RG-33 series of armoured vehicles and save lifes!!!

Posted by: Paul at July 3, 2007 10:51 AM

I was in Mosul Iraq. I had the honor of riding around in the MRAPs, Strykers, M1114s & M1115s. First i would like to say this. With point detonated IEDs timing is what it is all about to the insurgent, so speed is your saving grace. Yeah more armor is great, but speed is the key. My vehicle was personally hit with 7 IEDs in country. All of which speed minimized the amount of time in kill zone and numerous other times kept us from receiving a direct hit. The MRAPs are slow, the HUMVEES little armor. WHY has no one included the Stryker in these talks? It is very tactical, holds a squad, very safe, and the speed is as fast if not faster than a humvee. Not to mention in the urban environment, sneaky, sneaky it is at night or in the day. I totally believe that we need to ramp up and give our soldiers the best, and the best is the stryker. I have seen those things take direct hits from 155s encased in 55 gallon drums full of ball bearings and they saved EVERYONE. WHY NO STRYKER RAMP UP IS BEYOND ME! They are already in the inventory on a massive scale, they can more than be utilized in a number of capacities. Much more versitility.

Posted by: 505th Eng LT at June 28, 2007 05:55 AM

My comment is simply this...If you think that the Cougar or other Counter IED Troop Transport is unnecessary, then I ask you to come to Baqubah Iraq and ride in a M1151 or..."boots on the ground and spread out." Good luck. A bradley, M2A3 was picked up and put on its lid by an IED the other day and killed the driver. I too have seen the Cougar take a hell of a blast and drive away. The only way the enemy is killing us with consistency is IEDs. we cannot prevent them from being made but we can minimize the effectiveness. so spend it.

Posted by: m smith at June 21, 2007 07:08 AM

My comment is simply this...If you think that the Cougar or other Counter IED Troop Transport is unnecessary, then I ask you to come to Baqubah Iraq and ride in a M1151 or..."boots on the ground and spread out." Good luck. A bradley, M2A3 was picked up and put on its lid by an IED the other day and killed the driver. I too have seen the Cougar take a hell of a blast and drive away. The only way the enemy is killing us with consistency is IEDs. we cannot prevent them from being made but we can minimize the effectiveness. so spend it.

Posted by: m. Smith at June 21, 2007 07:04 AM

Hey Mr. Christian....

As an Armor Lieutenant, I have to say: YOU AND YOUR LIKES MAKE ME SICK ! ! ! !

America just lost 130 fine young men in Iraq to IEDs in the month of May 2007 because people who think like you at the Pentagon won't make a decision to PLACE THE ORDER for thousands of MRAP ! ! ! It used to be that only 1 or 2 would die from an IED blast, but now the bombs are so strong that the entire Humvee get vaporized, killing all 5 soldiers at a time !

Your argument that the Cougar is not a "Tactical Vehicle" is WEAK. So what if Troops in Cougar looks imtimidating? They scare the terrorists away ! The troops just need something safe to be transported from point A to point B without or losing lives and limbs. something. It would be great if America has enough money to buy every squad an M-1 Tank to ride in.... BUT WE DONT....and the Cougar is the next cheapest alternaive ! With the Chasis of the Cougar, one can always add on Armor..... NOT SO WITH THE LITTLE HUMVEE !

What happen after the Iraq war is over and thousands of MRAP vehicles sit in the motor pools, you say?????

Are you STUPID?.... Now that the whole world knows that simple I.E.Ds can defeat the might of the American military because the Pentagon are filled with people like you who spend billions of dollars on "Hybrid Humvees and Flat Bottom vehicles" rather than make LIFE OR DEATH decisions to get MRAP to the troops !

Posted by: Jack at June 1, 2007 11:23 PM

In Australia we have the "bush ranger" imv (infantry mobility vehicle) built by British Aerospace Australia,and is similar to the mamba . it can carry 9 personell and equiptment for up to 3 days including 270L of water with a range of 1000 km and a top speed of 90km/h, and designed to withstand ieds, mines and armour piercing shells. its a great piece of kit and there are further plans in developement for more like the bush master

Posted by: jeff at May 29, 2007 06:44 AM

let the EOD troops have the MRAPs...if you want to clear the area of mudj, put the grunts back on foot, properly spread and properly supported...IEDs will become virtually useless.

Posted by: B/1/9-68 at May 23, 2007 06:37 PM

The Cougar is a specialty vehicle, it is not an urban or covert ops vehicle. I have seen an EOD cougar take three separate IED blasts in a time spread of about 3 hours while attempting to clear ASR Patty, Falujah Penninsula, and survive them all, the only reason it disengaged was too many flat tires. BUT!!, I would never want to have to ride in one during combat ops if I wasn't directly involved in IED sweeps. In a humvee, I was able to get through alleys, set up OP's in houses by simply parking the old beater in their back yard and best of all, when something did happen, everyone could be loaded up and ready to rock in seconds, usually just enough time for me to get in and start the damn thing! Speed and mobility, are a must. Everyone is concerned about protecting the lives of our boots on the ground that they are forgetting what we ourselves require to survive, intel, decisiveness, and cunning. We don't need a multimillion dollar project that we are simply gonna break in a weeks worth of romping through the desert or worse, trying to fit through forest and jungle!? I don't think anyone has even covered future operations and the Cougars versitality there. This will not always be a counter-insurgency war. We will once again fight in the jungles and forests, through mountains and on the shores of our enemies. The humvee, although outdated and beat up like none other, can survive even in the hands of Marine grunts, who throughout history have shown that nothing is infantry proof, especially gear! Lets spend our money on MRAPs that will be used against those specific problems, I'll keep my good ol high-back humvee anyday. Improve survaillance and intel and we wont have the problem of IED's anyway. Congress needs to stop listening to Mothers of American and all the "intelligent" officers in the military and pay attention to the grunts on the ground. The lowly PFC and the Lcpl, they're the ones that know what they need.

Posted by: dirty0311 at May 14, 2007 09:46 AM

The writer doesn't know what he's talking about. That Cougar is an excellent vehicle for Iraq. We aren't doing "tactical" ops in Iraq, we are playing cops and bombers. Yes, and EFP will penetrate the Cougar, it will also penetrate an M1 tank. The reality is most IED's are artillery shells that our ignorant leaders "forgot" to secure. Against these the Cougar works magnificently. How do I know this? I worked for a company in Iraq that used the South African precursor to the Cougar, the Mamba. Our clients rode in the Mambas, we usually rode in trucks. I saw what an IED will do to an "armored" pickup, the same thing it will do to a Hummer, blow it to shreds. The same IED would flip the Mamba onto its side, everyone would walk out the back hatch, shaken but otherwise unharmed. How do I know this, exactly that happened to my roomate on MSR Tampa. None of us had to be told twice to ride in the Mambas.

Posted by: Take-a-knee at May 14, 2007 09:19 AM

I am not qualified to quibble with the seaworthiness of the vehicle.

I am, however compelled to comment on the price tag paid.

Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot? Give me a handful of retired automotive workers with military service, and we'll build a right proper EOD transporter for $50K a copy. And, we'll make it pay part of its own way by selling sponsorships (a la the NASCAR vehicles.

Hard to believe that a Starred grunt from My Beloved Marine Corps would fall prey to a Sandcrab swindle.

Posted by: BacSi du Morte at May 14, 2007 04:43 AM

The author doesn't know what he's talking about. First, he should know that any armored vehicle has to be considered a 'tactical vehicle.' Next, he must have forgotten that this vehicle has a shorter turning radius than the HUMVEE, is more modular in design (easier and faster to repair), is faster, and gets better gas mileage than the HUMVEE. Also, the HUMVEE can carry only three dismountable troops (the driver and crew-serve gunner never leave the vehicle), and the MRAP carries up to 7 dismountable troops. He needs to check his facts. The HUMVEE was never meant to be up-armored and from the beginning of the war the DOD has been planning to phasing in vehicles like this one that are better suited to this type of warfare. -Steve

Posted by: Steve at May 13, 2007 01:30 PM

The author's argument is that the guerrillas will adapt to the heavier armor. I think he's right. At the same time, I believe the guerrillas' adaptations will hamper their effectiveness, because defeating the armor will require bigger bombs. And the bigger the bomb, the fewer the IED's they can make with a given shipment of explosives. Since their hit rate is what it is, fewer IED's means fewer dead GI's.

Posted by: Zhang Fei at May 11, 2007 09:01 PM

The COIN/SASO motorized truck eurofad is coming to an end.

Iraq is a war of car bombs (mobility) and landmines (counter-mobility)---its a combat engineering war where we must deny the enemy placing high explosives by ambushes, separation walls and checkpoints guarded by shooters moved unpredictably in tracked tanks---which are actually the invention of sappers. Too many light infantrymen violate their own principle: "the easy way is mined" when they don't want to be in light tracks that can go cross-country to avoid roads just because some heavy unit "mech pussies" use them. When General Gavin created the M113 it was for AIRBORNE LIGHT INFANTRY to have airdroppable, amphibious, all-terrain mobility so they'd no longer get stuck and blown up in trucks. Sadly, we are patrolling aimlessly into road/trail ambushes that wheeled trucks cannot avoid just because some refuse to use the M113 Gavin LIGHT tracks that can give them the same cross-country mobility they brag about on foot but at greater ranges and speeds with MEDIUM (really, good) armor protection against land mines and RPGs they otherwise avoid for many days of operations.

To interface with civilians in COIN/SASO you first must not be seen as weak by constantly getting blown up on roads/trails in wheeled trucks that cannot avoid them. Second, you DO NOT want to be at shoulder level where grenades and molotov cocktails can be easily tossed inside. LIGHT tracks are more compact than wheels so you can be at the optimum above shoulder height to discourage hand tossed bombs but low enough to converse from civilians, and of course YOU CAN GET OUT OF THE LIGHT TRACK easily through the rear ramp or the troop door in the rear ramp, or you can jump down from the hull.

We must choose FUNCTION over fashion and end the motorized (wheeled) infantry SASO racket for nation-building eurofad begun in the U.S. under Shinseki. The Euros themselves are turning away from wheels to tracks as seen by the LAV-III failures in Afghanistan.

VIDEO PROOFS:

Afghanistan

LAV-IIIs stuck in light rain/mere mud aborting mission (around 2:50 on time dial)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZandbBaUw_U

M113 Gavins in use by Dutch/British BV10S tracks use

www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPkugOmfn9g
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKa3tK3zi4c

Light mechanized COIN/SASO power point presentation is viewable on the www below:

www.combatreform2.com/johnpaulvann.htm

Posted by: Mike Sparks at May 11, 2007 05:18 PM

This unworthy observes there are 4 related projects underway, all designed to provide a light, urban combat worthy/assymterical warfare platform. They are the Joint Light Tactical vehicle (an Army/USMC effort with a goal of 50,000 new vehicles to replace about a quaretr of the HMMWV fleet by 2020); MRAP as discussed here (plus the additional orders for the MRAP platforms being placed with the favored vendors), Medium Mine Protected Vehicle (MMPV, following on the series of purchases of Grizzly, Cougar, Buffalo, and RG-31 made over the past two years), plus the HMMWV update effort. The objective, in every case, seems to be getting a highly capable automotive platform, with ballistic, mine, and IED protection, and the connectivity upon which our way of war depends. For this Marine's money, the four efforts need to be rationalized into a single program...and get the Warfighter what he or she needs NOW. From my OP, it seems like the Congress and Services are willy-nilly throwing money at the asymmtric threat du jour. A more rational consolidated effort would get the right gear to the field faster, and have considerable economic benefit.

Posted by: Tigereye57 at May 3, 2007 08:43 AM

From a Defense News article:

The British Ministry of Defense kickstarted a competition in late April to buy 180 Medium Protected Patrol Vehicles (MPPVs) by seeking expressions of interest from contractors able to deliver a vehicle to the Army in two years.
The purchase of this new class of patrol vehicles is part of Britain’s effort to protect troops from improvised explosive devices, which recently destroyed heavily armored Warrior infantry fighting vehicles and, for the first time, heavily damaged a Challenger 2 battle tank.
Last year, against a backdrop of rising parliamentary and media criticism over the danger of using lightly armored vehicles like the Snatch Land Rover in Iraq, the government issued several urgent operational requirements. Among other things, this led to the August purchase of 108 Cougar 6x6 protected patrol vehicles from U.S. company Force Protection. The heavily up-armored Cougars, called Mastiffs by the British, began arriving in Iraq in late December and are slated to wind up by midyear. But the 25-metric-ton Mastiff has only a limited ability to conduct urban and off-road patrolling.
An MoD spokesman said the idea behind MPPV was to procure a “smaller, more agile version of a Mastiff-like vehicle” that could handle more patrolling tasks.

...Sounds to me like the UK's having the problems that Christian is predicting for us here in the US. They've bought all these cougars (read MRAPs) and are reallizing now that they aren't well suited for the main task in iraq of patrolling urban streets.

Posted by: Greg at May 2, 2007 09:34 AM

The Force Protection Cheetah and the International Trucks Oryx suffer little in mobility, mass and size comparisons to the up-armored Humvee, but offer many, many times the protection of any Humvee to warriors inside them. They are MRAPs. You don't see orders for them, because they are extremely threatening to JLTV funds. They blow up the Army's excuse that mobility is why they don't go with the MRAP to the extent the Marines do. BETTER TO LET ANOTHER TWO, THREE OR FIVE THOUSAND GUYS DIE OR BE MAIMED, AND TO LOSE THE WAR, THAN HAVE THOUSANDS OF JLTV-THREATENING MRAP TRUCKS SITTING AROUND IN INVENTORY A FEW YEARS FROM NOW. I really almost can't believe the level of asininity evinced by such thinking. I can't get over it, even after years of exposure to it. Diseased institutional thinking at its greatest.

Posted by: Ox Cart at April 29, 2007 04:05 PM

Hey Christian, I decided you're right; the MRAPs are NOT tactical vehicles. They are STRATEGIC vehicles.

Posted by: Ox Cart at April 29, 2007 03:42 PM

If Marines don't really want MRAPs, and Congress browbeat them into this buy, then why, jackass, did the 1st Marine Expeditionary Unit order 1,169 Cougars for patrol vehicles in 2005 when they found out they were on their way back to Iraq?

@Repoman "DUMBEST ARTICLE I'VE READ THIS YEAR. NO FORESIGHT WHATSOEVER.

You and Rumsfeld should enjoy a martini together."

Amen.

This kind of inanity is one big reason why we are where we are in Iraq. Guys are getting blown right out of this world, shredded with shrapnel, charred, concussed to jelly, blown forty feet from their vehicles, and having their trucks flipped right over on top of them, and jackasses with stars on their shoulders, and journalists, and others with the Rumsfeldian mental illness, want to debate the fine points of whether a vehicle that will preserve our warriors from the majority of the bombs is "tactical" or not. I love it when Schoomaker is asked about why the Army isn't following the Marines' example, and he starts talking about the JLTV, which will be available 2012 at the earliest. Inane.

Haven't you figured out that IED casualties, and pictures and reports of them in our media, and the effect of those on our public's political will, are the enemy's only real weapon to win the war?

Money is no object. Why are we losing this war in Washington? Largely because of IED casualites, when you get down to bare bones. When you're too smart to buy $10 billion worth of trucks to win a $1 trillion (so far) war, you're stupid. When you have a practical solution to attack your enemy's only strategy, and you refuse it because it's not sexy and tactical and transformational, whatever that means, you are a fool. When bureaucratic procurement prerogatives come before a readily available and reasonably cheap solution to the vast majority of the bodily harm our guys and girls are subjected to, the biggest killer by far of our forces in a very long war, you are inhumane.

Some of the fools in the Pentagon would rather see guys blown up than have to fund buys of these big, heavy, unsexy, "un-transformational", hard to airlift, ugly trucks that don't have hybrid diesel-electric power, and don't create their own water, and don't make massive surplus eletrical current to recharge batteries and run the electronics of the future. They don't want to have to buy them, and live with them. They don't want to spend JLTV and Future Combat System money on them. The uniformed patriots of today, and the outcome of the war, can go the way of the dead as far as they are concerned. Fools.

What's good for the Iraqis is for us to not continue being blown up, and therefore be forced out, due to a public rightly intolerant of the asininity of our guys being blown up in the same streets, the same way, over and over, day after day, month after month, year after year.

Posted by: Ox Cart at April 29, 2007 03:17 PM

Once again, the best is the enemy of the good.

While I'd love it if we could field a "new version of the Humvee" that did everyone one could desire, there is a crisis in the field now. The unmodified Humvee failed at the job it was pressed into service doing in Iraq. The armored version hasn't been a great improvement at resisting IEDs.

We can't wait half a dozen years until engineers invent something better.

If this means that the Army and Marines make redundant purchases, so be it. Nobody said war was efficient. But, it is better to have to purchase two vehicles and be less efficient with their relatively small procurement budgets, than to have more dead soldiers than we must.

Posted by: ohwilleke at April 29, 2007 01:10 PM

Maybe try the Bushmaster, it's a tiny bit more friendly-looking and also a lot more usuable in non-IED situations.

And like campbell said: the more armour, the bigger the vehice, and the bigger a target. An RPG dude must really suck to miss a rig like a MRAP or Bushmaster.. they are enourmous, noisy and slow.. ideal targets.

And why is it politicans and corporations run the war? I thought it was the military that handles those things? Looks to me like lot of decicion makers are simply incompetent. They have their mouths full of partiotism and 'our warfighters needs' and all the other bla-bla... and all I see is money wasted and lives lost.

Aquisition Incompetence == Burocratic Murder

Posted by: Macaca at April 28, 2007 06:45 AM

The author is encouraged to discover the practice of research before offering such opinions. Just on the factual inaccuracies level:

"The MRAP is not a tactical vehicle. It is a specialized armored truck designed primarily for protecting EOD units and their gear from explosions while diffusing bombs or mines. The Marine Corps’ top gear buyer, Brig. Gen. Mike Brogan, admitted last month the MRAP was viewed by the Corps as a “boutique vehicle” for certain specialties. They asked for a limited quantity of these vehicles in the 2008 budget and 2007 wartime funding request based on that view."

The Marines' request for 3,700 stems from a policy decision that will have ALL of their vehicles outside the wire in Iraq being MRAP-class vehicles by 2008. That memo was circulated by the USMC Commandant in late March 2007. Under this policy up-armored Hummers would go off base in Anbar province, Iraq, only with explicit commander's waivers. THAT is what prompted the request to Congress, and the exact number of 3,700.

You will also find these kinds of vehicles being used, successfully, as tactical vehicles, by:

* The Canadians (RG-31), Dutch (Bushmater), Germans (Dingo 2), and Australians (Bushmaster), in Afghanistan. The Norwegians' emergency buy of Iveco Panther CLVs are arguably in this class as well;
* The Australians (Bushmaster), British (Mastiff, a Cougar variant), Iraqi Army (ILAV Cougar variant), and 101st Airborne (RG-31) in Iraq;
* By India (Casspir) and
* By the South Africans (wide variety of types), who invented the v-hulled design in response to mine-centric insurgent warfare, for over 30 years.

...to name just a few. There are more.

In short, a number of key claims here are testably false. I'll be surprised if this comment is ever published - let's see if the author and site have that much integrity.

As for the extra cost, yes, MRAP vehicles cost more. No, the budget is not unlimited. Yes, death benefits are $500,000 per soldier. Which means 10 soldiers = $5 million. You could spend $750,000 to put them in 3 crappy but fully equipped up-armored Hummers, whose flat bottoms and drive train channel concavity (think: blast focusing effect) make them deadly to their occupants. Or $1 million to put them in a fully equipped MRAP Category 2 vehicle that is significantly less likely to cash those death benefits (or about $1.5 million to put them in 2 MRAP Category 1s). As Senator Biden correctly points out, even the budgetary math is not as lopsided as it seems.

Posted by: Joe Katzman at April 27, 2007 10:11 PM

I'm not good at math. Is that $481,000 per vehicle???

Posted by: Jim S at April 26, 2007 07:45 PM

there is a whole lot of red mist in these comments. i think far too many of you hotheads are in an "with me or against me" mindset. in addition, you're forgetting the democratic ideals we're fighting for.

throwing money at problems has never worked. throwing bodies hasn't either. Christian isn't saying the program or purchases should be scrapped altogether. there is some worthy hesitation that needs to be undertaken by purchasing so that the billions aren't going into something that won't be versatile enough to deal with whatever new, stranger bass-ackwards conflict that same Congress gets our military into in the future. new program funding isn't a renewable resource.

better innovation and better tactics are what's really needed. having these vehicles purchased in small quantities and delivered to the units that need them (EOD, lead vehicles in convoy etc) is more reasonable in terms of cost-benefit.

yes, we need to protect soldiers and we need the right tools for the job. grabbing at the first possible thing to come along and blowing the proverbial wad on it is not the right way to go about it.

Posted by: C at April 26, 2007 04:28 PM

I believe what Christian was trying to say is our troops should be rideing in something more on the lines of this http://www.roadkill.com/~lnelson/mystuff/AP-Ivan-Sekretarev.jpg

Posted by: Mike at April 26, 2007 02:39 PM

hello? isn't there ANYBODY out there that can look at this with reality? Why is it that the opposing forces are able to wreck such havoc, while they have no armour?

BECAUSE THE ARMOUR IS THE TARGET!!

get the f**k out of the vehicles, spread your men out no closer than 15 meters, (EVER!)from each other, cover each others ass....and spend the money where it will do some good......on SURVEILLANCE!! Bad guys cant lay IEDs, if you keep a total eye on everything...and doing so from remote sensors, either ground based or air is easier and cheaper than putting all your fine fellows inside a nice fat TARGET.

damn.

Why the f**k don't we have any decent tacticians?
Or "warriors" instead of "war fighters"

DAMN this "we have to have armour" bull!

(Christian, since we have to deal a military that is unable to conceive of the idea of WALKING....your questions about the versatility of this vehicle are at least appropriate)

Posted by: campbell at April 26, 2007 02:09 PM

These larger MRAP in Iraq are not ideal, but they work, and are way better than an up-armored Hummer POS. I will take a 100K of these instead of the Hummer, anyday, any war. The casualty statistics speak for themselves. However, the insurgents are probably busy developing more effective IED's to counter 'V' hull vehicles.

The US will never fight in another theater, against any competent opponet, who do not use IED's. They are affective, and there is no current solution. The US should never field any un-armored vehicles in theater, unless there is no threat. The Hummer's weakness was revealed back in Somalia. Did anyone do anything about it? NO, after all Somalia was unique, and the US will never do that again.

The ideal vehicle: size of a Hummer, carries a crew of 4, has 12.7AP armor protection, CROWS, 4WD off-road capability, descent range, V hull capable of withstanding 30+ lbs HE center mass. Needs to weigh in at 10 tons. A tall order, which is why there is no ideal vehicle today, or anytime soon. Any MRAP vehicle in High Volume Production will be sent to Iraq.

The weight/protection vs mobility debate is as old as warfare itself. As for Iraq, US fatalities lost the war/peace, but friendly peacekeeping amongst the locals, can win the war/peace. That is one hell of a dilemma.

Posted by: BT at April 26, 2007 01:53 PM

Nomad...tell me how the MRAP fosters a positive COIN doctrine when you separate yourself even more from the very people you are trying to protect? The roads in Iraq are extremely dangerous and it's doubtful the JIEDDO will find the cure-all counter-IED device that will save soldiers' and Marines' lives. I understand that the MRAP is a quick-fix to the IED problem, but it doesn't help the local Iraqi's security and it doesn't engender us with the local population. Maybe some other options are keeping units spread out and in local towns so that they are foot-mobile; or, driving their vehicles only at night and staying with the local populace during the day (and not in the FOB). Unfortunately, we are at the point where a true COIN doctine has become politically unfeasible so now the Services and Congress need to plug the dam with a political solution and our tax-payer dollars.
The MRAP will save lives, but, as a mission-specific vehicle, it will become a logistical and costly burden to the USMC and Army in the future. I'm not an acquisition guy, but maybe there was something else out there that would save lives now and we could utilize in the future.

Posted by: Charlie Victor at April 26, 2007 01:50 PM

jesus, what's with all the flaming? as if it's totally unreasonable to imagine congress pushing a weapons platform for political purposes. and christian makes a great point with the soccer balls comment... not that "hearts and minds" is a particularly reasonable goal at this point, but on a grander scale, building larger and more isolated defenses as the situation continues to deteriorate seems like denying the inevitable. why not just build a 6-ft thick steel dome in Kurdistan and camp out there? at least everyone will be safe. I forget, what are our goals in iraq again?

Posted by: pjk at April 26, 2007 01:46 PM

Well, im not sure about it's tactical capabilities. It may protect the men, but the damn thing looks like some redneck welded the thing together in the back yard after he was drinking. At first glance, i wouldnt jump in that thing, just thinkin it might not even start. In fact, i have this old Snapper lawn mower in my grove thats gettin all rusted out. It kinda reminds me of that. :P

Posted by: Billy Big Spuds at April 26, 2007 01:31 PM

Hey lay off Christian a bit here boys (Christ, never thought I'd be saying than considering the number of times I have done it). He is making a valid point about the OVERALL usefulness of the platform and the knee-jerk reaction of Congress in grabbing them up. Can't say that I can blame the Congress though with all the bitching about humvees lack of armor and what not, gotta do something instead of nothing and this is what we get. Is it an ideal platform? Probably not. Is the the best gap filler we can get at the moment? Probably.

Posted by: Grandjester at April 26, 2007 01:28 PM

People like you should be sent to Canada to live ...You give Americans a bad rap because you are a stupid bastard..Get out of America and take all the Mexicans with you..NOMAD

Posted by: Nomad at April 26, 2007 12:58 PM

I kinda agree, the military is buying the larger Cougars, instead of the smaller RG 31s or the Cheetahs

Posted by: Peter at April 26, 2007 12:11 PM

I could not agree more with your comments, but I don't think Congress is the only group to blame. The Army and USMC have a responsibility of explaining to Congress that tax-payer's dollars are being wasted.

Posted by: Charlie Victor at April 26, 2007 11:38 AM

Christian,
Your reply has me shaking my head. Your beef with MRAP's is because Congress is dictating them and not the military? Have you been out of contact for the past couple of years? The Marine Corp spearheaded MRAP over a year ago and couldn't get funding for 1169 MRAPs. That number has been around for 2 Years. Only since Rumsfeld got canned(thank God)has anything been done to get these life-saving vehicles to the combat zone. You should check out the History Channel as they had a great show about future weapons and they highlighted a Cougar with the Crows systems installed. I believe a huge order for Crows systems was awarded months ago. I'll say it again about the Cheetah. You should really check it out and compare it to your beloved Humvee............elmo

Posted by: elmo at April 26, 2007 11:34 AM

Well, if our only concern is "bringing all of our troops home alive," then the answer to war is clear. Stop buying all this junk (MRAP, JSF, M-16s, etc etc) and simply annihliate the enemy with nuclear weapons.

Fighting an unconventional enemy with 2GW tactics will only yield a loss, a bitter pill we'll be swallowing in the next couple of years.

Posted by: dosco at April 26, 2007 11:27 AM

Elmo,

I'll believe it when I see it. They've been talking about the CROWS - and other systems like it - for years but haven't put them out there in appreciable numbers, at least on tactical vehicles like the Humvee.

Again, my main objection is that Congress is writing the requirement on this, not the military. I'll be interested to see how TTPs are modified to incorporate this MRAP thing - if at all.

Posted by: Christian at April 26, 2007 11:26 AM

What a buffoon! As an academy gaduate and former Army captain, I can tell you that the current situation in Iraq is untenable. The reason is that our brave men are at risk because of vehicles like the MRAP's that you are talking down. Up until now the up armored HUMVEE has performed painfilly poorly. No matter how many armor kits you attach the vehicle remains at risk because it was not designed to operate in this type of environment. The MRAP's will help shore up this situation. Boutique vehicle or not, If I were operating in the Iraq theater I would prefer to be in one vs. a uparmored HUMVEE.

Posted by: Jim at April 26, 2007 11:23 AM

Christian,
Thanks for responding to some of the concerns of your readers. There are a lot of concerns with your report. One thing I would like to add is this: I am shocked that you are unaware of the CROWS system being installed in Cougars and eventually Cheetahs. The CROWS system turns a Cougar into a offensive weapons carrier if need be. Now you have firepower and can safely transport your troops. The Cheetah is just a little bit bigger than a Humvee but has blast and mine protection that the Humvee lacks. I suggest you do just a bit more research on the Crows system and Cheetah and do an update. Thanks.....elmo

Posted by: elmo at April 26, 2007 11:19 AM

Again, NO FORESIGHT.

You claim none of the MRAP vehicles can serve as offensive weapons. Maybe you haven't heard about Cougars replacing Strykers down the road, or the mounting of 7.62 mm machine guns on top of Cougars to mow down insurgents.

I'll tell you what is going to sit in the motor pool in the next war. The Abrams and the Bradleys, because we will be fighting in urban envirnments.

Posted by: Repoman at April 26, 2007 11:12 AM

You truly have no idea what you are talking about. It saddens when I read something so wrong about a subject that saves the very people who protect our freedom. I think the best way for you to continue your research would be to send you over to theatre in a "tactical" vehicle and see how long you last on some of the convoy routes. Hats off on the real lack of research.

Posted by: Froman at April 26, 2007 11:05 AM

Thanks for all the responses.

First of all, I am not "insulting" the MRAP vehicles, just the rush to field thousands of them through a political rather than military requirements process.

Actually, my office chair is pretty uncomfortable. But I digress.

For all you BTDTs out there who say I don't know what I'm talking about, that's fair. But I've been to Iraq embedded with the troops for months...and I'm not talking about a couple days with the fobbits, but a month in Ramadi - among other hotspots - rolling every day through the streets in Humvees. I am well versed in the effectiveness of the MRAPS...for EOD TEAMS. That is NOT in debate. They save lives, I get you. But are they combat effective? Do they help our troops kill bad guys and win the war, or just keep them bottled up in vehicles not designed for patrols?

I'm sure PP Inc. has pleanty of testimonials of how effective the vehicle is on their site. Just take a look at their stock price trend lines since Sen. Ted Kennedy started asking Sec. Gates why the military isn't buying more MRAPs...

I have seen the effects of an IED blast on Humvees in my patrol, have witnessed their detonation and have lost a very close friend to an IED attack on a Humvee. No, they are not the best vehicle for the job by any means. But what is? IEDs can destroy an M1 tank.

I'm just trying to get some perspective on this obsession with the MRAP. There's a reason why the Army and Marine Corps didn't ask for them in the '07 sup and '08 budget...they're a specialty vehicle and not part of their counterinsurgency TTPs.

Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I'll bet these vehicles stay in the motor pool when the war in Iraq is over.

PS - And Repoman, please don't cancel your subscription.

Posted by: Christian at April 26, 2007 11:04 AM

Unreal. You sir, will never qualify for "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?"

You decided to focus on the monetary aspects, but you fail to mention the costs involved with brain injuries, rehabilitation for those that have lost limbs, etc, and most of all death.

Tell me, what price would you pay to provide our troops with battle-proven (over 2,000,000 combat hours and over 1,000 IED blasts)vehicles?

There are up to 10 Soldiers and/or Marines in each of these vehicles. Multiply that times the cost it would take to replace the dead. Multiply that by the cost we will incur to rehabilitate the wounded. The numbers are staggering, and for what? Because you don't want to spend the monies needed to provide our troops with the best equipment....Our industrial-base has risen to the challenge, and has come up with a protective vehicle that saves lives.

I hope you daughter comes to you one day and says "Daddy, what did you do to support the troops"...You can reply, "I wrote an ignorant article about why saving a couple dollars is more important than an American life."

I hope you follow-up that conversation with, "but I learned from many people who responded, that life is far more important than a couple dollars. So I went back and wrote a follow-up piece after doing the research that I should have done in the beginning and turned in to an avid advocate of the MRAP program (specifically Cougars, Buffalo and Cheetahs). Then I pledged to sponsor 2 wounded GI's who were at Walter Reed going through rehabilitation."

Zippy

Posted by: Mr. Zippy at April 26, 2007 10:52 AM

There's something else that makes it "difficult to interact with a population that you are trying to win over": Being dead

I'd rather have these men safe and able to return home to throw soccer balls with their own kids than risk their lives in an inferior vehicle.

Posted by: Jo at April 26, 2007 10:48 AM

Hmmm.. what is the matter? Did you listen to Thestreet.com and short FRPT stock at $14 per share?

DUMBEST ARTICLE I'VE READ THIS YEAR. NO FORESIGHT WHATSOEVER.

You and Rumsfeld should enjoy a martini together.

If this article wasn't free to read, I'd cancel my subscription today. Not because of your opinion, but because you possess no expertise in the field in which you report on.

Posted by: Repoman at April 26, 2007 10:30 AM

Good points in the post, Christian. It's nice to see some perspective on the limits of the MRAP's role.

Posted by: Marshall at April 26, 2007 10:29 AM

Wow, I guess the writer doesn't have a son or daughter or mother or father in Iraq or Afghanistan! These MRAP's are the ONLY safe vehicle for our troops(Abrams/Bradleys/Strykers all are susceptible to IED's)and you trash them. There are 10's of thousands of Humvees in theatre and these can do their job safely. Come off your high horse and think of the troops for once...............It's not all about money you know...................................elmo

Posted by: Elmo at April 26, 2007 10:20 AM

All of your objections to using MRAPs seem a bit secondary to giving soldiers a much more durable urban war fighting vehicle. Any general with half a political brain would realize that preventing the death of more soldiers is going to increase the odds that they will have a chance to finish their job.

If we want to make winning hearts and minds our chief priority though we could save quite a bit of money. How about a fleet of Chrysler Seabring convertibles? They are very friendly looking vehicles with wide avenues for the egress of soccer balls or the ingress of grenades and bullets, but hey the kids would love them. Our new Congress would also like to boost American jobs, help save one of our flagging flagship automakers, and galvanize public support for our withdrawal from Iraq. Its a win win for the kids in/and Congress. Who can argue against that?

Posted by: JMD at April 26, 2007 10:18 AM

Winning hearts and minds doesn't work with a vehicle. Young men tooting rifles and grenades is already scary enough... not mention that everyday these people live with bomb blasts and dogs that are trained to kill (Ref: A&E documentary Lima Company).

Canada has invested in equipment that are designed to survive bomb blasts. Or at least make the passengers survive. Especially since we've lost a political figure head in Afghanistan.... it's become more of a concern.

I think MRAPs are going to still be used POST Iraq. Mostly because the world has learned from Vietnam and Iraq.. and any war the US wages now will become a drawn out affair with no front line.

The MRAP doesn't have to be used in an Urban setting anyways. The MRAP is a solution to IED's which are more of a problem with convoy's and keeping 150,000 soldiers feed, clothed, and otherwise supplied.

In short... if other countries can win hearts and minds with their 'bulky' vehicles.. than so can the US. You will use them again.

Posted by: Foreign.Boy at April 26, 2007 10:15 AM

I tell you what you go over to Baghdad and see what you would like for protection.

There was a picture in the which one of these were
hit a road bomb . The front was damaged and the men were standing there looking at it. But they
were not hurt. How happy were they, look them up and ask them .

I bet you drive a big safe car too.

P.A. Brown pj

Posted by: patti Brown at April 26, 2007 10:11 AM

You don't know what the hell you are talking about. Do some real reasearch before you go shooting off at the mouth.

Posted by: BIG at April 26, 2007 10:09 AM

Have you read the letters from soldiers using Cougars in Iraq? There are many on Force Protection's web site. Have you looked at the statistics of KIA of WIA while in a Cougar or Buffalo compared with any other vehicle? Does the idea that we'd have maybe 1/4 of the casualties we've taken in Iraq if these MRAP vehicles were the norm rather than the exception mean anything to you?

If you not, you are ignorant of your subject. If you have seen the facts, you are just a phoney posing as an expert.

Posted by: Joeyknees at April 26, 2007 10:07 AM

This vehicle has saved countless lives including alot of my buddies that I served with. IED's are the biggest threat in theater right now and these are the best at preventing death. Enjoy your fresh food and your nice home, my boys are out there keeping you safe and letting you write this filth. On both of my combat tours (one working with an EOD team,) we had the worst armor available, these are the best things available for our troops.

Semper Fi Marines....

Posted by: Andrew at April 26, 2007 10:06 AM

"You might as well drive around the city in a Bradley fighting vehicle."

Let's face the unpleasant truth here, nobody is safe there period. A centurion driver lost his legs recently, so if they can pop MBTs these Cougars or Bradleys are the very least we should mount our guys in.

Posted by: Grandjester at April 26, 2007 10:01 AM

It seems to me the Stryker fits the bill. It has proven to be much more survivable than the humvee and is a fighting tactical vehical. And soccer balls and candy can be thrown from the top. Also, it will much more effective that the MARP's when we have to fight the Chinese.

Posted by: Wild Bill at April 26, 2007 09:57 AM

Easy for you to say sitting your cozy office chair. Why don't you ask some of the marines that are alive today solely because of the MRAP's.

Posted by: Dan at April 26, 2007 09:39 AM

What would be the ideal tactical vehicle? You said it's not the Hummer or the MRAP. What does this tactical vehicle need to be? Should it be more like M1A2 or a Segway? Don't leave us hanging.

Posted by: Anom at April 26, 2007 09:22 AM

And therein lies the reason we're going to lose the debacle in the desert - our armed forces are firmly entrenched in 2nd Generation Warfare mentality. Bravo.

Posted by: dosco at April 26, 2007 09:13 AM

I care more about our soldiers safty then the hearts and minds of a few Iraqis. I think they can still toss soccer balls out the top of it!

Posted by: Tommyboy at April 26, 2007 08:55 AM

I am an EOD tech in Baghdad right now. I can't believe you would try and insult these vehicles. I know for a fact many of us (EOD techs) would not be alive right now if we were rolling around in an up-armor. We have had wheels ripped off our JERRV, the hull bowed in, flat tires, broken axles... And it just keeps on truckin'...

Oh yeah... I am real concerned about what some 7 year old kid thinks when he watches my JERRV rolling past him. "That thing doesn't look human..." uh oh

Posted by: EOD at April 26, 2007 08:46 AM