MRAPs

Floyd · Unread post by **Floyd** » December 17th, 2007, 4:08 pm

Just read a really good article in USA Today.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2 ... MRAP_N.htm

Floyd

mrdibbles · Unread post by **mrdibbles** » December 17th, 2007, 5:07 pm

Thanks for posting this Floyd. I like the idea of the MRAP for sure. Anything that can save lives is well worth consideration. It seems like the right short term solution to the problem we face today but long term I wonder. Technology will change and so will tactics to defeat them. At the current price tag for these awesome vehicles I wonder if money and resources can't be better spent? I personally like the idea of unmanned drones monitoring the battlefield. We use them today but can that technology become more developed to be more proactive? To me it seems more valuable to kill the terrorist placing the IED than "absorbing" the blast of a terrorist's IED. MRAPs save lives, I can't argue that, but should every soldier in Iraq have one? If money were no option I'd say yes but I am not sure it's possible.

In this condition this MRAP ain't going to be easy to put back into action. All of the occupants of this MRAP survived this blast which sent the block hurtling over a hundred yards from the blast area.

Then again here is an excerpt from http://www.globalsecurity.org where it discusses the miltary's $$ value of replacing soldiers killed by IEDs:

"The cost of acquiring a MRAP vehicle fleet will be significant. However, it is militarily and financially less expensive to acquire MRAP vehicles than to continue to suffer casualties in excess of Vietnam's historical loss rates. Protecting people is cheaper than replacing them in an all-volunteer service. Research by the Math and Statistics branch of the Naval Safety Center incicates that the financial costs associated to casualties should be adjusted upward no less than 250% from its current 1988 baseline to account for the real dollar costs of care and replacement. Adjusted enlisted casualties average $500,000 dollars while officers, depending upon their military occupation range from one to two million dollars each. This means the average light tactical vehicle with one officer and four enlisted personnel is protecting 2.5 million dollars of the DOD's budget. This $2.5 million is real O&M dollars. The argument that "we can't afford armored vehicles" is specious. The opposite is true, at 2.5 million dollars of precious cargo each, the Corps cannot afford UN-armored vehicles."

moose53 · Unread post by **moose53** » December 17th, 2007, 5:30 pm

more mraps, smaller version

HMMMV replacement:

uparmored nexgen HMMMV:

Jim

Cobra5 · Unread post by **Cobra5** » December 17th, 2007, 5:45 pm

Looks like they already defeated it. Sure all the occupants were unharmed but all the terrorists have to do now is plant IED's in pairs. When the initial blast takes out the vehicle a secondary IED can take out the guys as they depart the wreckage. The best way to defeat the IED's is training, i.e. learn from the past, maintain situational awareness at all times, and don't trust anyone over there.

Floyd · Unread post by **Floyd** » December 18th, 2007, 5:53 pm

Matt: Good group of photos you posted. When you think thatâ€™s a million bucks every time one of those gets dusted you have to wonder about the cost. Iâ€™m shocked that the armor and the glass come from Israel. I guess we no longer have the ability to produce those things. We are in short supply in country but flying them over at $100,000 plus a pop, WOW!

We could get the cost down and mass produce them, but I think the aim of the administration is to get the casualty list down. That V- Hull technology is not new and I agree with you. We need more â€œPREDATORSâ€.

Floyd