MaxxPro CAT I vehicle
MaxxPro Cat I vehicle (early version)
MaxxPro Concept vehicle
Hosted by Darren Baker
MRAP vehicle photo
sgtsauer
#065
Joined: March 30, 2002
KitMaker: 2,605 posts
Armorama: 1,814 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 12:11 AM UTC
I got this photo in a defense industry email this morning. I thought maybe you guys would like to see it. These are currently being procured under the MRAP program.
MaxxPro CAT I vehicle
MaxxPro Cat I vehicle (early version)
MaxxPro Concept vehicle
MaxxPro CAT I vehicle
MaxxPro Cat I vehicle (early version)
MaxxPro Concept vehicle
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 03:14 AM UTC
Brent-- is this the one they selected or is this one of the entries in the competition?
thanks
DJ
thanks
DJ
sgtsauer
#065
Joined: March 30, 2002
KitMaker: 2,605 posts
Armorama: 1,814 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 03:47 AM UTC
Here is the text from the article. I interpreted it to indicate the DoD has placed orders. I have put the text here because the link to the article is no longer valid after 24 hours.
Navistar subsidiary International Military and Government LLC (IMG) in, Warrenville, IL has now won almost $1.05 billion in contracts to date under the MRAP program. As previous DID MRAP articles have noted, CAT I MRAP-MRUV vehicles are patrol vehicles that can carry 6 passengers including the driver and front seat, as opposed to the larger CAT II MRAP-JERRV 'squad' vehicles which can carry extra cargo or fit a minimum of 10 passengers. The MRUV role is similar to a Hummer's, albeit with more carrying capacity and much more protection. That has become a staple for IMG's entry, recently dubbed the "MaxxPro" by its manufacturer. Their collaboration with an Israeli firm who provides up-armored vehicles for the Marines appears to have overcome lukewarm initial interest, and is being ordered in quantity; but even successful survivors of Aberdeen's tests may not offer enough protection against the class of land mines now seeing wider use in Iraq. Nevertheless, the MRAP program has become a production race – and Navistar is doing very well under those competitive terms, with a July 2007 order that vaults them into 1st place for number of MRAP vehicles ordered.
The July 2007 order comes hot on the heels of US Secretary of Defense Gates' request to Congress for an extra $1.2 billion in FY 2007 to fund an additional 2,650 MRAP vehicles, as manufacturers appear to be able to ramp up production faster than previously forecast. Sen. Biden [D-DE], who often heard responses re: lack of industrial capacity when he began asking why more MRAP vehicles weren't in theater, is probably feeling vindicated for his "put the money together, issue the contracts, and let's find out" approach [speech, MS Word], embodied in Amendment #739 to the FY 2007 military budget.
SecDef Gates now says that by the end of 2007, the Pentagon hopes to have delivered 3,935 vehicles. Key inputs such as steel and tires which might otherwise have become production bottlenecks are being expedited under a DX rating that gives the MRAP program priority over all other land acquisitions; MRAP Task Force Chairman John Young forecasts that with the additional funds, overall MRAP vehicle production will rise from 82 vehicles in June 2007, to 489 vehicles in October, to roughly 1,300 vehicles per month in December.
Israeli firm Plasan Sasa has been making up-armoring kits for the Marine Corps' MTVR trucks for several years now. The Kibbutz Sasa firm has also developed its own light protected vehicle called the Caracal, which has been examined by the US Marines for a different role. International chose Plasan Sasa as its partner, with the aim of developing an armored MRAP-candidate vehicle based around IMG's WorkStar 7000 truck chassis.
Unlike the HMMWV's frame, IMG's heavy-duty truck chassis would have the load capacity required to handle the weight of additional armor et. al. – without wearing out early. Their final design positions the v-shaped crew compartment on top of that chassis, using its armor and shape to dissipate blasts around the crew area and minimize damage. Extensive use of components from International's trucks, including predictive maintenance features, would ensure that their entry was both producible in large numbers and maintainable in the field.
International is used to substantial production numbers, and has a field maintenance network on the front lines. In addition to its civilian commercial line, it is producing and supporting 2,781 vehicles for the Afghan National Army, and claims 9 additional contracts with the U.S. government for more than 1,000 units. These contracts encompass include service trucks and buses that have been used in the Iraq reconstruction effort. Production facilities include Garland, TX; Springfield, OH; West Point, MS; Melrose Park, IL (diesel engines); and Tulsa, OK (buses).
In return for this positioning, IMG received a test vehicle production contract for their vehicle – and nothing more. IMG/Plasan Sasa's MPV was not featured among the early-stage orders [1st set | 2nd set] from the US military for low-risk designs, which went to rivals Force Protection (Cougar), BAE (RG-33, RG-33L), General Dynamics (RG-31), Oshkosh/PVI (Alpha CAT I), and PVI (Golan CAT II).
Navistar subsidiary International Military and Government LLC (IMG) in, Warrenville, IL has now won almost $1.05 billion in contracts to date under the MRAP program. As previous DID MRAP articles have noted, CAT I MRAP-MRUV vehicles are patrol vehicles that can carry 6 passengers including the driver and front seat, as opposed to the larger CAT II MRAP-JERRV 'squad' vehicles which can carry extra cargo or fit a minimum of 10 passengers. The MRUV role is similar to a Hummer's, albeit with more carrying capacity and much more protection. That has become a staple for IMG's entry, recently dubbed the "MaxxPro" by its manufacturer. Their collaboration with an Israeli firm who provides up-armored vehicles for the Marines appears to have overcome lukewarm initial interest, and is being ordered in quantity; but even successful survivors of Aberdeen's tests may not offer enough protection against the class of land mines now seeing wider use in Iraq. Nevertheless, the MRAP program has become a production race – and Navistar is doing very well under those competitive terms, with a July 2007 order that vaults them into 1st place for number of MRAP vehicles ordered.
The July 2007 order comes hot on the heels of US Secretary of Defense Gates' request to Congress for an extra $1.2 billion in FY 2007 to fund an additional 2,650 MRAP vehicles, as manufacturers appear to be able to ramp up production faster than previously forecast. Sen. Biden [D-DE], who often heard responses re: lack of industrial capacity when he began asking why more MRAP vehicles weren't in theater, is probably feeling vindicated for his "put the money together, issue the contracts, and let's find out" approach [speech, MS Word], embodied in Amendment #739 to the FY 2007 military budget.
SecDef Gates now says that by the end of 2007, the Pentagon hopes to have delivered 3,935 vehicles. Key inputs such as steel and tires which might otherwise have become production bottlenecks are being expedited under a DX rating that gives the MRAP program priority over all other land acquisitions; MRAP Task Force Chairman John Young forecasts that with the additional funds, overall MRAP vehicle production will rise from 82 vehicles in June 2007, to 489 vehicles in October, to roughly 1,300 vehicles per month in December.
Israeli firm Plasan Sasa has been making up-armoring kits for the Marine Corps' MTVR trucks for several years now. The Kibbutz Sasa firm has also developed its own light protected vehicle called the Caracal, which has been examined by the US Marines for a different role. International chose Plasan Sasa as its partner, with the aim of developing an armored MRAP-candidate vehicle based around IMG's WorkStar 7000 truck chassis.
Unlike the HMMWV's frame, IMG's heavy-duty truck chassis would have the load capacity required to handle the weight of additional armor et. al. – without wearing out early. Their final design positions the v-shaped crew compartment on top of that chassis, using its armor and shape to dissipate blasts around the crew area and minimize damage. Extensive use of components from International's trucks, including predictive maintenance features, would ensure that their entry was both producible in large numbers and maintainable in the field.
International is used to substantial production numbers, and has a field maintenance network on the front lines. In addition to its civilian commercial line, it is producing and supporting 2,781 vehicles for the Afghan National Army, and claims 9 additional contracts with the U.S. government for more than 1,000 units. These contracts encompass include service trucks and buses that have been used in the Iraq reconstruction effort. Production facilities include Garland, TX; Springfield, OH; West Point, MS; Melrose Park, IL (diesel engines); and Tulsa, OK (buses).
In return for this positioning, IMG received a test vehicle production contract for their vehicle – and nothing more. IMG/Plasan Sasa's MPV was not featured among the early-stage orders [1st set | 2nd set] from the US military for low-risk designs, which went to rivals Force Protection (Cougar), BAE (RG-33, RG-33L), General Dynamics (RG-31), Oshkosh/PVI (Alpha CAT I), and PVI (Golan CAT II).
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 05:22 AM UTC
Brent-- interesting.
thanks
DJ
thanks
DJ
USArmy2534
Joined: January 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,716 posts
Armorama: 1,864 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 05:27 AM UTC
Man that thing is huge. I can't image how top-heavy it is, even without armor for the gunner. Its a pretty good vehicle though and I'm glad to see it fielded.
Jeff
Jeff
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 08:08 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Man that thing is huge. I can't image how top-heavy it is, even without armor for the gunner. Its a pretty good vehicle though and I'm glad to see it fielded.
Jeff
If what I read is close, they plan on buying 7000 of them at some unbelievable amount of money. Think we are getting out of Iraq? I also believe this vehicle will usher in a whole new family of air transportable vehicles designed with a common chassis for multiple purposes. Are the days of the Abrams/Bradley numbered?
DJ
USArmy2534
Joined: January 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,716 posts
Armorama: 1,864 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 10:23 AM UTC
[quote]
If what I read is close, they plan on buying 7000 of them at some unbelievable amount of money.
Two things: air transportable in what way? Some members and I are discussing the uparmored humvees and a 502PIR veteran was mentioning that the 1114s aren't air-droppable. In all fairness, an Abrams is air-transportable, but you won't see one in the 82nd.
And if this increase in armoring vehicles tells us anything, its that heavy armor will always have a corner in warfare...just not the whole room. But we are getting a little off subject aren't we?
Jeff
If what I read is close, they plan on buying 7000 of them at some unbelievable amount of money.
Quoted Text
High demand only increases the price and spending extra money to get it heavily fielded by the end of 2008 (elections anyone?) only helps the politicians that are pushing it.
I also believe this vehicle will usher in a whole new family of air transportable vehicles designed with a common chassis for multiple purposes. Are the days of the Abrams/Bradley numbered?
DJ
Two things: air transportable in what way? Some members and I are discussing the uparmored humvees and a 502PIR veteran was mentioning that the 1114s aren't air-droppable. In all fairness, an Abrams is air-transportable, but you won't see one in the 82nd.
And if this increase in armoring vehicles tells us anything, its that heavy armor will always have a corner in warfare...just not the whole room. But we are getting a little off subject aren't we?
Jeff
sgtsauer
#065
Joined: March 30, 2002
KitMaker: 2,605 posts
Armorama: 1,814 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 01:16 PM UTC
[/quote]
Are the days of the Abrams/Bradley numbered?
DJ[/quote]
I think if anything, the current environment has reinforced the fact that heavy armor will always be needed. M1's and Bradley's have survived IED hits that would have shredded a wheeled vehicle.
I think if anything, the current conflict will render soft skinned wheeled vehicles to stateside and european use only. I think anything "forward" deployed (ie. Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, etc.) will be uparmored in one form or another.
Are the days of the Abrams/Bradley numbered?
DJ[/quote]
I think if anything, the current environment has reinforced the fact that heavy armor will always be needed. M1's and Bradley's have survived IED hits that would have shredded a wheeled vehicle.
I think if anything, the current conflict will render soft skinned wheeled vehicles to stateside and european use only. I think anything "forward" deployed (ie. Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, etc.) will be uparmored in one form or another.
sgtreef
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 01:27 PM UTC
Most impressive I will say.
f1matt
Joined: August 13, 2006
KitMaker: 1,021 posts
Armorama: 805 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 02:19 PM UTC
I'm pretty sure that this new vehicle or something just like it was in the Transformers movie. I wonder if the real thing can transform into a two-story tall robot? One can only hope.
Trisaw
Joined: December 24, 2002
KitMaker: 4,105 posts
Armorama: 2,492 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 02:25 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I think if anything, the current conflict will render soft skinned wheeled vehicles to stateside and european use only. I think anything "forward" deployed (ie. Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, etc.) will be uparmored in one form or another.
That was what the Army was thinking too because the MRAPs are too specific to that conflict...they're custom-tailored agaist mines and IEDs. I forget if I read it in a defense magazine or the newspaper, but the Army really has no idea what to do with the MRAP after the war. An Army officer was quoted as saying one won't see MRAPs in disaster relief. The 7000 or so MRAPs are a monkey's wrench in the Army inventory because after Iraq, who gets them in terms of units, soldiers, and divisions? 5 "Ws" and an "How." ---defense magazine
The Army is thinking that after Iraq, the MRAPs might be sold to foreign militaries. I guess the Army is thinking more in terms of getting money back. The USMC on the other hand probably wants to keep MRAPs since they wanted the MRAP in the first place. ---newspaper article
So in ways, this is how lessons learned are soon forgotten...
Looks cool though! Is there a reason for unarmored noses/hoods...such as a crumpling safety factor if the vehicle gets into a head-on accident? Or is an armored hood too heavy to lift up, even with pistons?
Tankleader
Joined: April 29, 2003
KitMaker: 718 posts
Armorama: 684 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 03:01 PM UTC
Beleive it or not a couple have already been destroyed by the bad guys, and some congressmen are already complaining about the need for additional armor on these. I work for one of the companies producing a variant. Hell we are already planning for a successor to the MRAP.
Tanks
Tanks
Hollowpoint
Joined: January 24, 2002
KitMaker: 2,748 posts
Armorama: 1,797 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 04:12 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Beleive it or not a couple have already been destroyed by the bad guys, and some congressmen are already complaining about the need for additional armor on these. I work for one of the companies producing a variant. Hell we are already planning for a successor to the MRAP.
Tanks
If the IED is big enough, it doesn't matter what you are riding in. The bad guys make a big enough bomb, they can blow up anything.
The MRAPs have a nice V-hull, which deflects a lot of the blast away. That saves lives better than an up-armored humvee, which basically protects against RPGs and heavy weapons fire. The Strykers in the bird cages have done pretty well. Up-armoring an MRAP will just make it too damn heavy. A big enough bomb will kill people with concussion, even inside a "bomb proof" vehicle.
About those congressmen/women -- they will say anything and everything to criticize the military operations, "end the war," and position themselves and their party for the 2008 election ... but they still "support the troops." If you criticize something, you ought to offer a solution. So far, all solutions have been further criticized with no further solutions. Do the math. "We want change" ... but they can't agree what they want to change it to. None of the presidential candidates have anything substantial to offer about the war either.
Let General Petraeus run his campaign. He may be the best hope the United States has for a reasonable solution.
I have more to say, but I already think Jim or someone will delete this because I have delved into the arena of "current events" and "political discussions." If anyone wants to converse about current events, I can be e-mailed at [email protected].
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 11:37 PM UTC
Bob-- I agree with you. The size of the buy and rush to field them concern me. Something has got to give. They only provide some much cash for operation and acquisition. It is a finite amount. What happens to the other heavy equipment (M-1 and Bradley)? There is a comment that the M-1 is air transportable. Yes and No. It will fit in the C-17. However, when placed in it and flown to a given location it greatly reduces the service life of the aircraft. Not a smart way to move heavy equipment. MRAP should be transportable by C-130. If it is not then we are not doing the correct thing. As for air dropping any vehicle, as a well-worn veteran of the 82nd Airborne, IMHO anything dropped beyone personnel and door bundles should be considered a write-off. In my day (so very long ago) we only air dropped Sheridans that were hanger queens so we could write them off afterwards. Nice concept if you are ever in Bastogne again, but it has severe tactical limitations.
DJ
DJ
SGTJKJ
#041
Joined: July 20, 2006
KitMaker: 10,069 posts
Armorama: 4,677 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 11:47 PM UTC
Very interesting pictures and subject for the email.
Expensive and rushed to the front. It will be interesting to see how they perform in country.
Thanks for sharing the information.
Expensive and rushed to the front. It will be interesting to see how they perform in country.
Thanks for sharing the information.
sgtsauer
#065
Joined: March 30, 2002
KitMaker: 2,605 posts
Armorama: 1,814 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 12:08 AM UTC
I personally think the money would have been better spent on new Bradley's or a variant there of.
You can beat a dead horse all day long about the advantages/disadvantages of wheeled vs. tracked vehicles however.
You can beat a dead horse all day long about the advantages/disadvantages of wheeled vs. tracked vehicles however.
USArmy2534
Joined: January 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,716 posts
Armorama: 1,864 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 12:34 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Looks cool though! Is there a reason for unarmored noses/hoods...such as a crumpling safety factor if the vehicle gets into a head-on accident? Or is an armored hood too heavy to lift up, even with pistons?
I couldn't tell you with any facts to back me up, and maybe Andreas would be better answering this, but I think since the emphasis is on crew protection, then engine takes second place. I would also argue that since the threat is from the ground to below ground and off to the sides (its easier to emplace and conceal an IED on the side of the road then under the road) that armor would be added to the sides and bottom before the front such as in the engine.
Devil's Advocate on the other hand says that in the event of an IED, you need the engine to get the hell out of there.
Devil's Advocate to the Devil's Advocate (does this make him the Devil's deputy advocate or God's advocate...
) may suggest that even with the engine, the transmission and gearboxs could still be knocked out, rendering you screwed. Plus even if you are stopped, in a convoy, you have overwhelming mutual protection and support.And now I'm just arguing with myself. I need some sleep...
Jeff
USArmy2534
Joined: January 28, 2004
KitMaker: 2,716 posts
Armorama: 1,864 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 12:52 AM UTC
On a separate note, and again I'm tired, but I'm curious about something. Also bear with me as I explain where I'm coming from. In the email it says that the Cat I I MRAP-MRUV (the one in the first picture) carries 6 men, including the driver and front passenger (presumably the TC and senior man in the vehicle, but that's my presumption). Ok. Now a line squad is 9 men. With humvees, two trucks fills that number out nicely with essentially one fire team per vehicle: 2 drivers, 2 TCs, 2 gunners, and 3 passengers in the back (2 in one, 1 in the other) = 9 with room for one more person like a translator, medic, Public Affairs, etc. That allows for keeping squad integrity while leaving some mission flexibility.
With this MRAP version, 6 men total doesn't allow you to fit an entire squad in one truck, but 2 means with nine men, you are manning two trucks with room for 12. With a squad of two trucks, I see no problem with having 3 extra seats between the two vehicles, because that allows you to have that translator, the medic, and still have room for a prisoner, but if a platoon is 4-6 trucks, who do you fill the seats with?
Second question, does the 6 men number include the gunner? If so that raises to 7 the number in the vehicle. That raises the number to 35 "seats" in a ~29 man platoon (3x 9 men/squad, plus Platoon Leader and Platoon Sergeant). Has anyone thought if this would result in some kind of doctrinal shift to the line squad or is this just accomodating attachments/detachments that are going down to the squad and platoon level?
Jeff
With this MRAP version, 6 men total doesn't allow you to fit an entire squad in one truck, but 2 means with nine men, you are manning two trucks with room for 12. With a squad of two trucks, I see no problem with having 3 extra seats between the two vehicles, because that allows you to have that translator, the medic, and still have room for a prisoner, but if a platoon is 4-6 trucks, who do you fill the seats with?
Second question, does the 6 men number include the gunner? If so that raises to 7 the number in the vehicle. That raises the number to 35 "seats" in a ~29 man platoon (3x 9 men/squad, plus Platoon Leader and Platoon Sergeant). Has anyone thought if this would result in some kind of doctrinal shift to the line squad or is this just accomodating attachments/detachments that are going down to the squad and platoon level?
Jeff
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 04:47 AM UTC
Quoted Text
On a separate note, and again I'm tired, but I'm curious about something. Also bear with me as I explain where I'm coming from. In the email it says that the Cat I I MRAP-MRUV (the one in the first picture) carries 6 men, including the driver and front passenger (presumably the TC and senior man in the vehicle, but that's my presumption). Ok. Now a line squad is 9 men. With humvees, two trucks fills that number out nicely with essentially one fire team per vehicle: 2 drivers, 2 TCs, 2 gunners, and 3 passengers in the back (2 in one, 1 in the other) = 9 with room for one more person like a translator, medic, Public Affairs, etc. That allows for keeping squad integrity while leaving some mission flexibility.
With this MRAP version, 6 men total doesn't allow you to fit an entire squad in one truck, but 2 means with nine men, you are manning two trucks with room for 12. With a squad of two trucks, I see no problem with having 3 extra seats between the two vehicles, because that allows you to have that translator, the medic, and still have room for a prisoner, but if a platoon is 4-6 trucks, who do you fill the seats with?
Second question, does the 6 men number include the gunner? If so that raises to 7 the number in the vehicle. That raises the number to 35 "seats" in a ~29 man platoon (3x 9 men/squad, plus Platoon Leader and Platoon Sergeant). Has anyone thought if this would result in some kind of doctrinal shift to the line squad or is this just accomodating attachments/detachments that are going down to the squad and platoon level?
Jeff
Jeff-- appreciate your concern. I think the answer lies in the fact that the MRAP will be used by all the Services. Is a USMC squad of the same size as a USA one? I do not know. How abot a SEAL or Army SF Team...final point, before the Bradley we had 11 man squad formations. We reduced them to fit into the back of the Bradley. So, it can be reduced in size again to meet vehicle configurations.
My two cents.
DJ
Trisaw
Joined: December 24, 2002
KitMaker: 4,105 posts
Armorama: 2,492 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 05:16 AM UTC
Quoted Text
On a separate note, and again I'm tired, but I'm curious about something. Also bear with me as I explain where I'm coming from. In the email it says that the Cat I I MRAP-MRUV (the one in the first picture) carries 6 men, including the driver and front passenger (presumably the TC and senior man in the vehicle, but that's my presumption). Ok. Now a line squad is 9 men. With humvees, two trucks fills that number out nicely with essentially one fire team per vehicle: 2 drivers, 2 TCs, 2 gunners, and 3 passengers in the back (2 in one, 1 in the other) = 9 with room for one more person like a translator, medic, Public Affairs, etc. That allows for keeping squad integrity while leaving some mission flexibility.
With this MRAP version, 6 men total doesn't allow you to fit an entire squad in one truck, but 2 means with nine men, you are manning two trucks with room for 12. With a squad of two trucks, I see no problem with having 3 extra seats between the two vehicles, because that allows you to have that translator, the medic, and still have room for a prisoner, but if a platoon is 4-6 trucks, who do you fill the seats with?
Second question, does the 6 men number include the gunner? If so that raises to 7 the number in the vehicle. That raises the number to 35 "seats" in a ~29 man platoon (3x 9 men/squad, plus Platoon Leader and Platoon Sergeant). Has anyone thought if this would result in some kind of doctrinal shift to the line squad or is this just accomodating attachments/detachments that are going down to the squad and platoon level?
Jeff
!!! Jeff, you hit the nail -BANG- on the head!I'm not laughing AT you, just laughing that you figured it out
!!!The Marines are running the MRAP show. From the get-go, they wanted a full-armored (well, minus the hood, I guess) vehicle with seating for six Marines and a cargo room to boot. Meaning, they want a step-above the Humvee. The Army's requirement is just the same as a Humvee, but beefier and able to carry more armor and cargo.
The 4-seater Humvee is too small for Marine's needs. A Marine rifle squad is 13 (often less because no boots to fill those slots), so the MRAP fits the USMC's requirement nicely, which is why the Marines are so adament to lead the program.
In fact, the defense magazine I reviewed last night said the Army considers the MRAP so heavy that it needs C-17 and RO/RO ships to transport to conflicts in force and numbers...and then should be put on trailers to haul to the front. Since the USMC has the Navy's ships and LCAC hovercrafts, the Marines could just shrug at the weight...not so the Army.
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 05:21 AM UTC
Pete-- while our fighting brothers in the Marines have strong interest in the vehicle, it is being tested, fielded and acquired with the Army as the accountable Service.
DJ
DJ
MacTrucks
Joined: November 12, 2006
KitMaker: 285 posts
Armorama: 228 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 07:06 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I'm pretty sure that this new vehicle or something just like it was in the Transformers movie. I wonder if the real thing can transform into a two-story tall robot? One can only hope.
The Transformer movie features a real vehicle referred to as the Buffalo already in use in Iraq. The arm on it is used in real life to clear mines (not flip cars).
Also, I would not exactly characterize the MRAP as rushed into production. International Trucks has been trying for the last few years to break into the military vehicle market. They've worked on a competitor for the Hummer as well as some other work. The armored compartment draws on years of experience with such vehicles in South Africa. Most of the rush of armor trucks are actually derived or totally based on foreign designs and experience.
Also, the intention of the vehicle is to protect the occupants. Ideally you would still be able to scoot, but the hood provides no ballistic protection at all. Most likely there is armor hidden by the hood. Just look at the armor car tooling around the states and you'll notice the hoods look normal.
While an armored truck can't replace a Bradley, especially off road, they are far cheaper to purchase and lower maintenance overall. I suspect the rush to purchase them is more likely tied to the withdrawl. As the US troops withdraw, the armor trucks will likely be turned over to the Iraqi forces. I certainly don't think they won't be used!
Finally, the lessons "learned" in Iraq were lessons that should have been known from Vietnam and Somalia. Gun trucks and wheeled armored vehicles will always have a place in modern urban guerrilla warfare. I'm just glad our forces in Iraq might be able to do their job a little safer than a Hummer provides.
210cav
Joined: February 05, 2002
KitMaker: 6,149 posts
Armorama: 4,573 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 11:23 PM UTC
Kent-- well said!
DJ
DJ
cahilj
Joined: November 30, 2006
KitMaker: 68 posts
Armorama: 63 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 02:01 AM UTC
Interesting. I haven't been following the MRAP closely (not because its not cool, but because typical procurement takes life and a day for anything in the Army....I'm still waiting on my nape kevlar for my helmet from last Nov....)
I've always seen the use of civilian based vehicles as a good plan. The parts are already out there sitting on shelves, the civilian support is already established, they are typically alot less complicated than military only designs. The Air Force uses civilian based stuff almost exclusively, and their maintanence issues are alot less than ours. In this case though, I think its too little, too fast. Congress is trying to keep the public happy, and is spending more cash than time. If it looks good, it must work, so the people will be happy. But, that delves into politics and current events, not for here
All in all, nice vehicle and it shouldn't be too difficult to scratch together, I'm sure there are some Navistar kits out there in 1/24 to work with.
I've always seen the use of civilian based vehicles as a good plan. The parts are already out there sitting on shelves, the civilian support is already established, they are typically alot less complicated than military only designs. The Air Force uses civilian based stuff almost exclusively, and their maintanence issues are alot less than ours. In this case though, I think its too little, too fast. Congress is trying to keep the public happy, and is spending more cash than time. If it looks good, it must work, so the people will be happy. But, that delves into politics and current events, not for here
All in all, nice vehicle and it shouldn't be too difficult to scratch together, I'm sure there are some Navistar kits out there in 1/24 to work with.
MacsTrucks
Joined: December 25, 2006
KitMaker: 99 posts
Armorama: 97 posts
Posted: Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 12:14 PM UTC
Unfortunately there aren't any 1/24 scale kits of the modern Internationals. DG productions does a nicely detailed toy that most truck modelers (my 'other' hobby) convert to to a detailed model. It might help with the basic hood shape, but would require extensive changes to the headlights and grille. If you don't mind unusual scales, there are a number of HO scale trucks that could be converted as well.
Personally, I'd like to build a Buffalo, which is based on a Mack chassis, but just can't bear to start another project till I finish..... oh, about a dozen that I've already started.
I will admit that I was surprised to see International get the award, while other armored trucks are being produced that have proven field use. I still think none of those will remain in US inventories as we withdraw. It will make it easier for the Iraqis to get parts than a "true" US military truck might.
Personally, I'd like to build a Buffalo, which is based on a Mack chassis, but just can't bear to start another project till I finish..... oh, about a dozen that I've already started.
I will admit that I was surprised to see International get the award, while other armored trucks are being produced that have proven field use. I still think none of those will remain in US inventories as we withdraw. It will make it easier for the Iraqis to get parts than a "true" US military truck might.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.