You will find this YouTube Movie useful.

Abrams-in-Iraq

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EP3G2bHs6Ys

Posted by: mickey at May 27, 2008 12:41 PM

Waaiiiiiiit a Minuuute.

YOU DIDNT ANSWER MY QUESTION. No where in that old rag of a study did it mention Max V ?
So, How do you come off saying "Although I fail to see how that matters to the discussion at hand." It has EVERYTHING to do with it..
WOW! Im going back to my hole to "make something that works" rather than listen to a job protection diatribe. Answer that question or don't bug me anymore my friend.
Q: What is the Max V of any explosive? (not including Atomic/Nuclear) How can you possibly say anything to me if you don't know the most basic things? What are the the "three key ingredients to defeating an oncoming wave"? I bet you don't know that either....and without the answers to those two things, you in fact have no chance of devising a methodology of effectively overcoming the entire IED/EFP problem, all you can do is test and write and measure and expound.

You gotta know the basics to know how to fix something.... am i the only person catching the drift here?

Later, Dave

Posted by: David Woroner, Pres. SCI at May 16, 2008 05:41 PM

Hahaha.... Man I could see you spittin' n drooolin right through your screen...musta been pounding on that keyboard.

Chief, Weapons Systems Division? < protecting ones "position" somewhere? Please, that was 14 years ago..

okay, Ill give you that finally....because you finally showed me you had a clue. Ok? I accept you know what your talking about.

There is no need to attack over simple phraseology. I don't disagree either that sometimes I confuse elements. ie(a comes before b), guilty :) ...

Let me ask you a question... What happens to the sandwiched plates that were retrofitted to the hummer when they are struck. ( I'll go along with you and say the actual projectile may or may not be stopped, depending on many factors.) However arent you leaving what really matters out??

What happens to Over/Under Waves? they go right through that tacked on glass my friend and you know what else they go through? (its not 1996 anymore) Seperating the human being into its basic structure. Perhaps then youll see that in certain circumstances, thats what absorbs the wave like an airbag with water in it.

If you don't get me, its alright man. I believe your doing something important somehow. ok? Believe me when I tell you, there is something better. And its coming............And I have the data to prove that as well.

Be well and lets have a beer at the "outback" shall we? Dave

Posted by: David Woroner at May 16, 2008 05:30 PM

David Woroner,

What questions?

I was addressing your inaccurate/false statements.

What is the max V of a Detonation?
http://dspace.dsto.defence.gov.au/dspace/bitstream/1947/4134/1/DSTO-TR-0400%20PR.pdf
Although I fail to see how that matters to the discussion at hand.

Who cares if a .45 ACP round can or can not penetrate two levels of children's glass marbles? A .45 ACP round IS NOT EVEN CLOSE to the type of threats Chobham Armor was/is intended to protect against and in NO WAY supports your inaccurate/false statements of the superiority of ALL glass to Chobham Armor.

You didn't say you could use a shaped charge to turn a penny into an EFP, you said you "could put a penny through an inch of stainless at 3700fps". Your statement implies that you could "fire a penny out of a gun" & at 3700fps penetrate an inch of stainless.

Glasses & ceramics perform better against shaped-charge warheads than metals? WOW, you learn something new every day...LOL But wait, you said glasses are superior to ceramics! I wonder why so many modern armors utilize ceramics rather than glass. ;) By the way, the US Army did experiment with Silaceous Cored Armor (layers of Ensolite [composite nitrile rubber/PVC foam] & silica glass sandwiched between inner & outer hull plates) with the XM-60 but it was never adopted & AFAIK not even concidered for the XM-1 (due to the MUCH superior ceramic-based Chobham Armor).

NO I did not say glass and ceramics are the same. I was correcting your false statement that ceramics "are in fact glass". While it COULD be said that technically glasses are a type of ceramic, ceramics are most definatle NOT a form of glass.

I have already made my position concerning MRAP vehicles clear in other threads so feel no need to repeat myself here.

Posted by: pfcem at May 11, 2008 07:11 PM

David Woroner,

I bet you find you are defending yourself a lot since you make such incorrect & false statements.

Really? Then why didn't you answer one of my questions??? What is the max V of a Detonation???
You should at least pay the courtesy of answering that, right?

Chobham Armor is NOT vastly inferior to ANY glass! There MAY be some "glasses" which are superioir to Chobham Armor in some specific respects against some specific threats but overall Chobham Armor is superior vs the types of threats (APFSDS & HEAT warheads) MBTs currently face (& have faced in the past).

I have proof that I will gladly show you of a .45 ACP round failing to penetrate two levels of childrens glass marbles...???? Is your assertion that if you put a SC (ie RPG, etc) into glass vs. Chobham, the chobham will come out ahead? In fact, "the armor" you speak of contains ceramic/glass :)
Tell ya what, I don't mind learning, ok? keep an open mind. I have done live fire tests on many many materials, you'd be surprised what holds up better.....
BTW- Failure to answer second comment I made; It would appear that the mfg's of the Mrap would have thought of this "needed upgrade" before they put it in the field? So, lets see...hmm? Thats smart on their part? Either put it out "less than what it should be" OR "didn't take EFP's into account..... either way that is messed up, period.

I doubt you can put a penny through an inch of stainless at 3700fps. You can probably put a mass equivalent to a penny (but of a different shape) through an inch of stainless at 3700fps BUT the ballistic shape of a penny simply will not "fly" long/far enough at 3700fps.

Im sorry, I have to correct you.... an EFP is a round flat disk that (leave this part out for obvious reasons, grant me that much out of security.)let us simply say it is formed in "flight"

Ceramics are NOT glass. Technically glass is a type of ceramic but not the other way around. ;)

Okay, I'll roll with that one... :) Glass and Ceramics are "in the same family, one having higher GPM, and .....well, I'll address the rest below. :) no arguments.....Arent we here to trade ideas? I'd like that to be friendly.

Glass does not "melt" so to speak because technically glass IS a liquid but you sure as hell can heat glass to a point where its viscosity "breaks down" & it takes on much more liquid-like properties than in its "normal" state. How do you think glass objects are made/molded? ;)

Brother Man....... so, it is (How do you think glass objects are made/molded? ;)) <Your words...
is not melted? Of course it is. I agree that glass is a "liquid" in a static state. However when you have a SC head, I can guarantee you the metal alloys will fail when the glass/ceramic will hold far superior. Thats part of the whole equation of why its so resistant... So I partly agree with you, and, well, lets just say its "open to some intellectual interpretation?" Fair enough?

As to the heat (not HEAT) resistance of "glasses" vs "ceramic" (note that "glasses" & "ceramics" are general terms for a wide range of materials with a wide range of propoeries - just like "metals"), why are the heat shields for spacecraft (such as the Space Shuttle) made of ceramics rather than glass?

Didn't you just say glass and ceramics are the same? To wit, boron carbide is a ceramic, and i suppose from your point of view, so is glass and I'll go along with that. The reason the shuttle doesnt use more of a "glass" (to be clear, glass and ceramics are "same family" AND different Metal Alloys can be said to be in their own seperate "family" ) rather than the ceramic utilized is that this ceramic is very specialized to absorb and dissapate heat quickly. Glass (as we are discussing) cannot do that per se. If you've ever held a tile, you would see it is almost pourous, a beautiful peice of science/engineering. You can heat (as in get hot :) the tile up to 3000 deg. and within 10 seconds hold it in your bare hand... So that aint glass, agreed... its a specially designed ceramic, but it would not stand up to ANY ballistic interface (ie-EFPs). It would crumble like ash.

I enjoy a conversation. This is how we "learn" (me included!) and I have no ego going into this. I am enjoying hearing your knowledge, and I take your comments in and sift them.
All I try to do is make systems, products and devices to save/protect those that go in harms way. I do it everyday as it is my lifes calling.
Bring home ONE male or female soldier (leo) to their family after an event and my life will have been worth living.

I think a certain "editor" will tell you thats "me." Thats what I do everything for. People say "oh your full of it, your just trying to turn a buck." My way of doing things is simple: Focus on the way I want to save and protect and money is just a "byproduct" of that noble cause...... simple. Be well.

Best Wishes, David
www.survivalconsultants.com
www.berettatactical.com
Coming Soon- Gear4Ops

Posted by: David Woroner : ) at May 11, 2008 10:11 AM

David Woroner,

I bet you find you are defending yourself a lot since you make such incorrect & false statements.

Chobham Armor is NOT vastly inferior to ANY glass! There MAY be some "glasses" which are superioir to Chobham Armor in some specific respects against some specific threats but overall Chobham Armor is superior vs the types of threats (APFSDS & HEAT warheads) MBTs currently face (& have faced in the past).

I doubt you can put a penny through an inch of stainless at 3700fps. You can probably put a mass equivalent to a penny (but of a different shape) through an inch of stainless at 3700fps BUT the ballistic shape of a penny simply will not "fly" long/far enough at 3700fps.

Ceramics are NOT glass. Technically glass is a type of ceramic but not the other way around. ;)

Glass does not "melt" so to speak because technically glass IS a liquid but you sure as hell can heat glass to a point where its viscosity "breaks down" & it takes on much more liquid-like properties than in its "normal" state. How do you think glass objects are made/molded? ;)

As to the heat (not HEAT) resistance of "glasses" vs "ceramic" (note that "glasses" & "ceramics" are general terms for a wide range of materials with a wide range of propoeries - just like "metals"), why are the heat shields for spacecraft (such as the Space Shuttle) made of ceramics rather than glass?

Posted by: pfcem at May 10, 2008 11:24 PM

"Defending Myself" in the blogosphere is something I have ceased to normally do anymore. Usually, your being called to task by somebody whom only does have access to "google." (or perhaps wiki?) In any event, I did not make any contention that the "clunker" did not save lives. I simply pointed out the facts of studying EO for many a year. (Ask yourself this: Do I know the highest FPS of a detontion?[non nuclear]) If you can't answer that in your sleep, please save your jabs.
Do you disagree with my order of what is more effective at blast/detonation/ballistics protection? Do you disagree with the fact that the "rolling safe" costs almost a million dollars? [equating to roughly a 5 BILLION $$ Contract] How much does the "upgrade" being shipped all the way around the world [Avgas?] after being made by whom,[The same folks whom made it in the first place?] Can you say "built in follow up business?" What are the fuel costs to drive the "monster?" At some point, folks will realize that the MRAP, while well intentioned (and I am all for the intent)is just plain ridiculous...
Sometimes I just gotta issue a "snap out of it pal" alert... I say that lightly, so don't get twisted up on me... :)
Thanks for the amusement. When you have studied specifically energetic materials/the materials to defeat said energetics as long (or half as long) as I have, let me know.... ;)
Have a beer and watch the game....Best, Dave

Posted by: David Woroner at May 10, 2008 03:18 PM

David Woroner,

Your contentions are not supported by the facts on the ground in Iraq.

MRAPs save lives and in their role as troop transport thay are superior protection than anything else on the battlefields there -- up to and including a 63 ton Abrams -- in protecting them from the IED threat.

In addition, the usefulness of glass laminate in stoping high explosive shapred charges and EFPs have been proved on Iraqi battlefields multiple times.

The following are links to photos of battlefield damaged Abrams, Humvees, MRAPs and a glass laminate armor protected D-9 bulldozer.

1. The picture at this link shows a 63 ton Abrams tank destroyed by a large IED in Iraq.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1602087/posts?page=9#9

2. The picture at this link shows a 63 ton Abrams takn destroyed by an "IED Daisy Chaign" of 152mm artillery shells:

[REMOVED BECAUSE LONG LINK CAUSED FORMATTING ISSUES: Editor]

3. The pictures at this link show an armored Humvee hit by a large IED and a RG-31 MRAP hit my a similar sized IED:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1602087/posts?page=1#1

4. This link is to a series of pictures of the glass laminate armor of a D-9 Bulldozer struck by a RPG high explosive shaped charge warhead. Similar results have been noted on glass laminate armor by EFP hits:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5ea323d564&to_friend=1

This is the text that went with that photo:

>D9 CAT Takes RPG Hit and Lives
>In early 2003, the U.S. bought nine 62 ton D9
>armored Caterpillar bulldozers into Kuwait for
>the Iraq campaign. The D9s, and their Israeli
>made armor kit, were purchased because of the
>Israeli success with the dozer in urban warfare
>against Palestinian terrorists. America had used
>the D9 during the 1960s in Vietnam, but after
>that only used the smaller (35 ton, with armor
>kit) D7. The D9 was not needed for urban fighting
> in Iraq during 2003, but was found very useful
>(much more so than the smaller D7) for combat
>engineering tasks. The D9 quickly cleared
>highways of debris and built temporary roads for
>combat vehicles. One D9 was thought to be as
>useful as four D7s, and there is a lot of
>enthusiasm among combat engineers to keep the
>D9s, and get more of them. In 2004, the D9s were
>used for combat operations in places like
>Fallujah.
>Photos by LTC Norm Root

5. The photos at this link shows a US Marine 6x6 Cougar MRAP struck by a 200-300lb IED in western Iraq. None of the crew was killed in this attack:

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/08/imagine-this-was-snatch.html

Your contentions about MRAPs and the protective properties of glass laminate armor are not supported by the facts anyone can find using a google search engine.

Posted by: Trent Telenko at May 10, 2008 12:07 PM

FYI from MSNBC, the cut in of improved armor variant MRAPs is being reported on from Kuwait:

>Upgrades readied for battle
>
>Meanwhile, at Camp Arifjahn in Kuwait, the
>military is reinforcing some of the
>blast-resistant with additional side armor — and
>it shipped as many as 20 of the newly upgraded
>vehicles to the battlefront in April. An
>additional 30 are to go into Iraq beginning this
>month.
>
>Navy Lt. Cmdr. James Hadley, who is overseeing
>the upgrades in Kuwait, said not every MRAP is
>getting the additional armor, which increases the
>vehicle's weight by as much as 5,000 pounds. The
>extra protection, he said, is being added to
>vehicles destined for hot battleground areas.
>
>The additional armor is shipped in kits to Kuwait
>and installed on the MRAPs, which only recently
>arrived at a facility dedicated to outfitting the
>vehicles with antennas and equipment before
>being sent to troops.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24545735/

Posted by: Trent Telenko at May 10, 2008 11:01 AM

Once again I am disgusted with our "technology folks," DARPA, ONR, etc. Bah!
Lets keep this simple. Chobham Armor quite frankly is vastly inferior to ANY glass.
The reason is the difference between hi velocity and hyper velocity. The "break point" is 2000fps.
I can put a penny through an inch of stainless at 3700fps.
I don't want to "teach tango's" jack.... But be aware that the "ladder of armor" is quite simple.
In last place, Metals
In 2nd place, Ceramics (which are in fact glass.)
In 1st place, Glass.... Glass does not "melt" so to speak like the last and second places. Anything over the Hyper, you need glass.
When I was "trained many moons ago," we were taught to use manhole covers. yep, thats right, whats gonna stop that? hmmm? why do you think the SS Welds them shut when there is a motorcade?
Anyways, I have already Patented two hand in hand systems to defeat not only detonation shearing forces, but over and underpressures. The second one specifically deals with efps.
**Note- If you mount 3 inches thick laminate glass to that beast (which I truly, truly hate!) I'd be surprised if it even moved! How much cost in fuel alone (not to mention the "sticker price") is gonna just get chucked out there?
The Mrap is stupid, plain and simple. Ive been saying it for a long time, and now were gonna mount about what? 25K Pounds of Glass on it as well? What the heck are we thinking? No wonder were not "quite" the super power we used to be.
Between fuel, cost for glass, etc, etc..... why not build something that just WORKS!
Best, David

Posted by: David Woroner, Pres/CEO Survival Consultants Int'l llc. at May 9, 2008 09:02 PM

Trent,

That looks like the article that I read. Thanks for finding that.

Posted by: Jeff at May 9, 2008 02:28 PM

This is one way to defeat EFP attacks found by troops in Iraq:

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200761622568.asp

Accidental Discovery Aids In EFP Protection
by James Dunnigan
June 16, 2007

Everyone knows explosively forged projectiles (EFPs) are an effective weapon against vehicles in Iraq. However, troops in the field have noticed that although EFPs go through metal armor, often glass laminate armor (aka glass ballistic laminate armor) will stop them. Troops report that the EFPs would not go through the bullet proof windows, which are made of glass laminate. However, the glass laminate only works once. When an EFP strikes the glass, the glass "spiderwebs" (shatters laterally and vertically) but it stops the penetrator. Of course it only needs to work once—troops lives are saved and the stuff can be replaced. At least one unit is experimenting with mounting field improvised brackets outside the doors of vehicles to hold the three-inch thick glass laminate armor.

Apparently the glass laminate armor is destabilizing the explosively forged projectile penetrator and redirecting its kinetic energy laterally along the glass armor laminations. This is the principle behind the M-1 tanks chobham armor (a sandwich of metal and ceramic laminates). The ceramic armor is held in a metal armor matrix. As heavy metal "long rod" penetrator or high explosive shaped charge debris streams enter these armor matrixes, they are destabilized. The kinetic energy is diverted laterally from the initial penatrator direction of attack as the ceramics shatter. A plus here is that the chobham ceramics are jostled by the penetrator's or shaped charge stream's passage and keep abrading until the attack runs out of energy. Apparently no one has, officially, tested EFP versus glass laminate ballistic armor, so no one knows, officially, if it can do the same thing.

(snip)

Posted by: Trent Telenko at May 9, 2008 12:15 PM

HEAT/HEAP warhead, a shaped charge warhead focused by a copper or some other metal liner, forming the accellerated superheated gas (plasma) to a focal point. Most warheads of this type have to be an exact distance for maximum effectiveness against armor. This is why TOW missles have the long probe out front, and the warhead of the RPG-7 is actually in the back of the "head" (forward conical part of the RPG-7 is mostly hollow with a pizoelectric detonator in the very tip: Dirt cheap/simple standoff device for a shaped charge). Slat armor either catches or causes premature detonation away from the hull of the vehicle, placing that focal point of the plasma somewhere away from optimal position. THere is a dual charge RPG that is supposed to cause reactive armor to spend itself or blow a hole in slat armor allowing the main warhead to reach optimal position.

An EFP or explosively formed projectile is almost the reverse. Yes it has a minimum effective distance, but slat armor will not protect because the hyper velocity slug will either miss the slats, or blast right through them (not to mention that if it comes from underneath, there IS no slat armor). Instead of having a cone of material helping shape the blast to a point, the material is in front of the shaped charge. WHen the charge detonates the concave disk of metal is shoved forward by the pressure and heat, forging it into a teardrop shape which then continues on at an extremely high velocity (not all that stable, but it doesn't need to be at the ranges that they are employed). This hot, instantly heat treated, forged projectile cuts through the armor like the old KTW solid copper, teflon coated bullets used to. Its not as effective as a sabot round out of a 120mm smooth bore, but it defeats armor better than HEAP warheads and suffers fewer of the standoff impact issues.
It CAN be defeated, but just like with armor vs. small arms, its a trade off and an arms race. Any armor can be defeated with a big enough gun (battle ship cannon vs. battleship anyone?) and any projectile CAN be defeated given enough armor (ignoring practical applications...Cheyanne Mountain can be considered "Nuke resistant armor" but it certainly isn't mobile). It all depends on armor tech vs. gun tech, and right now the gun tech has a bit of an edge.

Posted by: coolhand77 at May 9, 2008 11:22 AM

Roy,

You're almost there, the only way to defeat IED/EFP is to patrol on foot, as the COIN manual suggests. I certainly don't see how strapping any more armor on these already bloated pigs is the answer.

Posted by: Grandjester at May 9, 2008 09:39 AM

I covered the water-as-add-on-armor story here -

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/06/urban_legend_ar.html

But an EFP is a kinetic projectile. You can make it more powerful just by scaling it up. Current insurgent EFPs are the size of coffee cans, but they are epxerimenting with much bigger ones. There is no simple answer.

Posted by: David Hambling at May 9, 2008 08:37 AM

"Brad, you damn idiot! Keep your mouth shut if you don't want soldiers to risk their life for your mouth.

Oops. I meant Jeff. Keep your mouth shut."

I seriously doubt that this one comment posted on this blog would cause direct harm to soliders in the theater. If I found something online in my casual reading I'm sure any insurgent who wanted to find it would have found way more substantial info than "I thought bullet resistant glass works".

I would not post something I thought were going to cause harm to American Soldiers.

Posted by: Jeff at May 9, 2008 07:51 AM

Maybe the design is a bunch of recycled water bottles, empty of course. In its basic essence, an EFP is nothing more than a larger version of a shaped charge warhead similar to a HEAT round or an AT version of the RPG-7. If they do similar to the Stryker, with a slat armor, it would effective to a point, but others mention the weight factor. Yes the weight does make a difference, but then again these MRAPs were designed for more weight than the HMMWV is.

All you need to do with an EFP is increase the time to contact with the main hull. Just about anything can help with that. Perhaps something the likes of putting a plastic trash can over the vehicle would do wonders. If it can slow down and dissipate the stream of molten copper, it will minimize the damge and it would be cheap enough to take off and replace rather quickly.

Posted by: Ed at May 9, 2008 07:31 AM

I'm sure strapping several tons of tempered glass to each MRAP is going to do wonders for their handling and acceleration.

Posted by: CSI at May 9, 2008 06:05 AM

Oops. I meant Jeff. Keep your mouth shut.

Posted by: pedestrian at May 9, 2008 12:44 AM

>"I thought I saw somewhere that some form of bullet resistant glass was an effect design
>against EFP threats."

Brad, you damn idiot! Keep your mouth shut if you don't want soldiers to risk their life for your mouth.

Posted by: pedestrian at May 9, 2008 12:42 AM

Jeff,

You are correct, bullet resistant glass can be used to counter EFPs but as TB indicated, it is impractical for regular use (you basically have to cover all sides, INCLUDING the bottom).

I know of developements of "electric armor" as part of the Future Combat Systems that distrupts the formation of HEAT jets (very sci-fi, think "deflector shields"), I wonder how well it would work vs EFPs...

Posted by: pfcem at May 8, 2008 11:27 PM

This may sound like a stupid idea,but it seems like the best way to avoid EFP IEDs is to stay off of the streets.If maybe when our troops were in the countryside,if they would go off road,& try to avoid the same paths,vary their travels,it could work against the terrorists planting these bombs.Put some MATTRACKS on HMMWVs,& maybe they could operate better off road like our tracked vehicles.Having to use same country roads over & over again just invites IEDs(I understand that it is impossible to go "off-road" in urban areas).

Posted by: Roy Smith at May 8, 2008 10:52 PM

Mark, you'll note that I left the option "professional weapons" in there, which covers the ATGMs and manpads.

And if they go that route, knowing about this armor (at least in generalities, not a diagram of weaknesses like the press put out about the Interceptor armor) probably won't hurt.

Also, though better weapons will make combat more lethal, it will also allow us to strike the sponsor states (unless Obama wins it, then we walk) which could rapidly close off the war by cutting the supply routes to the insurgents/Mahdi/al Qaeda.

Posted by: Brad at May 8, 2008 10:30 PM

Brad there is definitely room for greater ante, as you put it. There are Iranian manufactured ATGMs, MANPADS and more. Basically, the arsenal of Hezbollah could be found in Iraq, should for instance a hot war take place between the US/Israel and Iran.

Posted by: Mark Pyruz at May 8, 2008 09:41 PM

Joe, besides importing professional military hardware, I don't think there is another ante for the insurgents/Iranians.

I'm not sure if knowing this information would help the enemy (although there is always the possibility).

Posted by: Brad at May 8, 2008 08:34 PM

Maybe we might not want to speculate too much. Do the hooah's a favor, yeah?

Posted by: Joe at May 8, 2008 07:49 PM

Roy,

I've seen pictures of the prototypes for the new trucks you mentioned. They are being developed along the same lines as the JLTV. They are long haul cargo trucks, fuelers, FMTVs, and troop carriers.

If the army truly has an armor kit they think can stop an EFP, great. The briefing I got in Iraq late last year suggested the only known ways to stop them were impractical for regular use (they involved water, sand, and glass).

Posted by: TB at May 8, 2008 05:50 PM

Educational material.

http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-3-07/mrap_counter_ap06.htm

http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/shieldall.htm

http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0207/news/010207_efp.htm

http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-3-04/feature-light-armor.htm

Posted by: HumanPestControl at May 8, 2008 05:23 PM

I've read this on Space Wars.com.

"BAE Systems has been awarded a $43.6 million contract by the U.S. Army to manufacture 730 Long Term Armor Strategy (LTAS) cargo vehicles. This contract is part of the Army's Long Term Armor Strategy initiative to equip all tactical vehicles with the ability to be armored when necessary. It provides the initial production and full scale ramp up of the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) LTAS variant.

BAE Systems' LTAS is system-designed for the FMTV comprised of a different cab and vehicle elements allowing for significant increases in weight. The "A-Kit" modifies the FMTV to allow the addition of armor including a new cab. The "B Kit" is the armor itself.

Initial production calls for 730 LTAS A-Kit configured vehicles. A follow-on modification includes an additional 103 A-Kit configured vehicles resulting in a total of 833 A-Kit vehicles. A follow-on order for B-Kits is expected later this month.

'The LTAS marks a significant advancement to the FMTV arguably making it the most effective, adaptable tactical military vehicle in the world today. We are proud to have worked so effectively with the Program Office to bring this joint development to the Armed Services,' said Chris Chambers, vice president of Medium/Heavy Vehicles for BAE Systems."

I was curious about this because they showed a Caiman MRAP in the photo with this article,which I'm sure is not what this up-graded FMTV is supposed to look like.
Speaking of Caimans,has anybody heard about the Marines testing 6x6 Caiman MRAPs & the Ceradyne Bull to be these new EFP resistant MRAPs?

Posted by: Roy Smith at May 8, 2008 05:06 PM

"I thought I saw somewhere that some form of bullet resistant glass was an effect design against EFP threats."

That's interesting.

I remember reading about 'metallic glass' which had interesting properties, but I don't think that was ready for primetime quite yet. Glass has an interesting structure, basically like an infinitely-slow moving fluid.

A glass or glass composite might be a better alternative than my idea. Bravo, sir! :)

Posted by: Brad at May 8, 2008 03:58 PM

Actually, I like that idea (water as armor). Here's why: In the last thread, Christian put out the possibility of slat armor to spall the EFP, but slat armor leaves too much open space the EFP can exploit, even if it could destroy the projectile (which is dubious).

However, there are several projects in the works for concentrated water jets to destroy IEDs: explosions focus a pool of water into a stream which instantly destroys the entire bomb set up, flinging away charges, etc.

Also, because EFPs are copper projectiles, they are relatively weak metal and going extremely high speed. Modern bullets, such as NATO standard, will spall within inches of entering water. An add-on armor could (possibly) break the EFP between a layer of fluid and two ceramic plates: EFP goes right through first layer, slows, hits incompressible fluid, disintegrates, fragments impact second ceramic layer and maybe penetrates with less energy, bottoming out on the actual armor.

It could be a reverse water jet charge, taking in the force instead of thrusting it out.

Or maybe another type of reactive armor, similiar to the waterjet or even a DIME bomb (Dense Inert Metal Explosive, a type of explosive that uses metal dust instead of full shrapnel), where the explosive reaction generates a tremendous outward blast to destroy the projectile.

Posted by: Brad at May 8, 2008 03:46 PM

I thought I saw somewhere that some form of bullet resistant glass was an effect design against EFP threats. Not sure of anything else but I remember reading about it somewhere.

Posted by: Jeff at May 8, 2008 03:42 PM

EFP armor? That's a hypervelocity copper slug formed by an explosion.

Well, the front armor of the M1 is Chobham composite with dense Depleted Uranium - a mix of layers of metals and ceramics - and that can take a full hit from a tank round. But the weight of that package would be prohibitive.

What about water? Water is notoriously incompressible; a low-weight composite network filled in with water (or some other fluid in some manner) might take the shot and dissipate the energy throughout a long panel.

Imagine kicking a jug of water, where much of the energy is dispersed through water exiting the container.

All I can think of.

Posted by: Brad at May 8, 2008 03:26 PM