ArmyTimes: No MRAP II orders?

Via Army Times and writers Kris Osborn and Rob Curtis:

When the Pentagon places its final orders for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, it will buy first-generation 14- to 24-ton MRAPs with extra armor, not the 30-ton MRAP IIs, DoD and Marine Corps officials said.

The story does not identify the officials who made the statements, so the story amounts to a rumor with potentially excellent substantiation.

While I've written that I would not be surprised to see small orders come out of the MRAP II program, with the idea of obtaining highly blast-resistant vehicles for specialized tasks, I can imagine a rationale for letting MRAP II die on the vine. It comes down to the same type of justification for the JLTV program. The JLTV vehicles are likely to end up with less armor than MRAPs simply because of the weight required for heavy/advanced armor. The strategic emloyment of the JLTV will forbid carrying around that much weight. In like manner, the DoD may see the existing MRAP vehicles as more suited to the mission than the proposed MRAP II vehicles despite the protections the DoD requested for MRAP II.

I can imagine this sort of news--even before it is absolutely confirmed--would bitterly disappoint companies that have poured big bucks into R&D and prototypes based on the hope of a profitable contract further down the line. I guess you just have to be willing to play the game that way.

***

The story also confirmed that Blackwater's Grizzly was ruled out of the MRAP II competition because of a problem with the armor in the forward part of the vehicle. This aspect of the story is puzzling to some degree. If the DoD doesn't intend to order any vehicles from the MRAP II competition then Blackwater should be content to cut its losses with the early exit. But the story states that Blackwater is considering protesting their ouster because the front end armor had passed earlier requirements and testing.

Another Stars and Stripes MRAP eulogy

Beyond that, the department would need additional supplemental money to buy more of the vehicles because the program is funded to meet the Army’s near-term need of roughly 12,000 MRAP vehicles, Young said.

Asked if the MRAP program has a future beyond filling the Army’s requirement, Young said, "If we meet the MRAP requirement, yeah, we’ll stop buying MRAPs."
(Stars and Stripes)

I still don't take it that the government has no intention of purchasing new MRAP vehicles even if the full MRAP order is filled this summer. The opening of the above story even mentions the testing underway for MRAP II vehicles. That said, MRAPs figure to have a limited usefulness with the impending deployment of the JLTV. MRAPs will retain their value in mine-clearing operations long-term, but as a tactical vehicle the MRAP figures to be obsolete in just a few years.

Strategy Page: "No more MRAPs wanted"

June 5, 2008: The U.S. Department of Defense has ordered 14,200 MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicles, and about 43 percent have been delivered. No more orders are expected. MRAPs are basically heavy trucks (7-12 tons) with lots of armor. They are expensive to operate, mainly because of the ever-increasing cost of oil.
(Stategy Page)

Though Strategy Page typically offers reliable reporting, in my experience, I am not taking this one at face value. The piece offers no definitive source, though the reasoning behind the conclusion is plausible throughout. Certainly this news would prove disappointing to the developers of the Bull MRAP, which made it to the final stage of the MRAP II competition--a competition that, if this report is accurate--will result in no additional vehicle orders.

The doors of the Bull MRAP

I've posted a few times regarding what I see as a small mystery respecting the Ideal/Ceradyne/Oshkosh Bull MRAP.

As documented here, MRAP II includes a requirement for side doors.

And, as noted in the post linked just above, the available photos of the Bull show no evidence of side doors as such. Defense-related literature notes the deliberate intent of the Bull designers to omit the presence of doors in order to help ensure a more secure cabin space. As well, it has been pointed out that the windows of the Bull may be hinged to serve as escape hatches.

Perhaps hinged windows represent the Bull's attempt to meet the MRAP II requirement for side doors. I don't count that as settled fact.

From time to time, my amateur musings about MRAPs and JLTVs get linked from discussion boards dealing with investment, my questions regarding the Bull included. In one such thread I found the following, posted by "Amanda" (amandabreczinski):

This is going back to the original documents related to the process of procuring vehicles for MRAP II testing, specifically the DOD Q&A session with industry as stated below;

Q. 23
Reference: Performance Specification

Survivability is enhanced by the uniform application of armor across the side body of the crew compartment. An interruption of that uniformity may create a ballistic weak point in the armor.

Are the driver’s and co-driver’s doors required to be on the side of the vehicle?

If so, is the classified requirement for side protection also applicable for driver’s side door and seams?

A.23
Yes

Q.23a
Are the terms “door” and “hatch” interchangeable?

A.23a
Yes

The information, though valuable (and not readily available over the Internet prior to Amanda posting it from what I can tell), is not particularly surprising, but it does not entirely resolve small mystery regarding the Bull's side doors.

Obviously the DOD finds the Bull an attractive option since the vehicle has made it to the last stages of competition. That is simply part of the mystery, since the mere fact that the Bull has made it this far does not give the vehicle side doors. It simply means that DOD finds much to like with the vehicle--perhaps enough to overlook part of the MRAP II requirement.

The mystery here is not concern the presence or lack of side doors/hatches or however they are termed. The MRAP II requirement calls for ingress/egress from "doors," and if "door" and "hatch" are interchangeable then MRAP II expressly calls for ingress/egress from the vehicle doors.

That is where the apparent problem comes in. An escape hatch is not necessarily a point of ingress. In the case of the Bull, it is difficult to imagine routine ingress by the driver or co-driver through any of the side window "hatches" ("doors").

From the list of MRAP II requirements:

Vehicle doors shall enable the 5^th percentile female to 95 percentile male in full combat gear to rapidly ingress and egress the vehicle in response to tactical needs in full combat gear. (T) Full combat gear includes helmet, Body Armor, weapons, and all body borne equipment.

The list of requirements does not appear to unequivocally demand that the side doors must be used to accommodate additional requirements for rapid egress (for tactical purposes) of the vehicle crew, nor the requirement reproduced just above. But it seems obvious that more doors makes rapid loading and unloading of the crew easier to achieve in general.

So, in sum, a minor mystery remains in the question of how the Bull as it currently appears meets those sets of requirements, even if window hatches meet the technical requirement for side doors.

If you climb out that window, it looks like a pretty long drop to the ground to me.

clipped from www.idealinnovations.com

*****

In search of Bull doors

No luck finding an image of a Bull with side doors so far, but I found a brochure about the MRAP II Bull from Ceradyne.

MRAP II carries certain requirements for ingress and egress that available images of the vehicle leave in doubt.

clipped from www.ceradyne.com

*****

A minor mystery for MRAP II

When photos of the Bull MRAP came to view, some of us wondered about its apparent lack of side doors--a supposed requirement for the MRAP II program.

Based on a lone photo I was reluctant to conclude that the vehicle had no side doors at all.

clipped from www.defensenews.com

This photo, unless it has been flipped in the editing room, appears to confirm that the Bull lacks side doors on the right side of the vehicle (whereas the earlier photo appears to provide similar confirmation for the left side of the vehicle).

And if that's not evidence enough, the same source that gave us the above photo states:

The Bull, made by Arlington, Va.-based Ideal Innovations, Oshkosh Truck and Ceradyne, has no side doors, just a hatch on top, so there is uninterrupted armor all the way back to the crew cab.

If MRAP II requires side doors, why did Ideal/Oshkosh/Ceradyne get a pass for the Bull?

Ingress/Egress

All passengers shall be able to exit the vehicle (in full body armor) within the following time limits:

1-2 personnel (driver & truck commander or passenger)

4-6 personnel

9-10 personnel (troop transport)

1-2 personnel (driver & truck commander or passenger)

4-6 personnel (4 pax & gunner)

9-10 personnel (troop transport)

Additionally:

Vehicle doors shall enable the 5^th percentile female to 95 percentile male in full combat gear to rapidly ingress and egress the vehicle in response to tactical needs in full combat gear. (T) Full combat gear includes helmet, Body Armor, weapons, and all body borne equipment.

Finally:

The MRAP shall be equipped with a minimum of a driver and co-driver door (T), a rear door (T), and one (1) ingress/egress point on the roof for personnel. (T) Tow access/egress points on the roof. (O)

Hatch and door dimensions shall accommodate the 95th percentile male, with full body armor, to easily ingress/egress. (T)

(source [word file--see "attachment 2"])

*****

Ares/Blackwater armor passes Aberbeen tests

During recent tests at the Aberdeen Test Center, Army engineers fired government standard Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFP) at EXO Scale armor coupons and representative vehicle base armor. The armor coupons conclusively passed the live fire test, proving the viability of EXO Scale for MRAP II vehicles and as an upgrade to earlier generation MRAP I vehicles.

"EXO Scale clearly provides better protection for our deployed soldiers," said Maj. Gen. Buff Blount (U.S. Army, ret.), ARES chief executive officer. "EXO Scale weighs approximately 30 percent less than the government's current appliqué armor design. That translates to extended vehicle life, lower operations (fuel) costs and lower maintenance costs due to less wear and tear on the vehicle."

(Marketwire.com)

Blackwater's Grizzly created no particular stir during the MRAP II competition so far as I am able to discern. Perhaps the Grizzly's armor will fare better than the vehicle.

Somebody captured a Discovery Channel program with a segment on the Grizzly and posted it to YouTube.

*****

Surprise contender for MRAP II: The Caiman

OK, so maybe I'm the only one surprised. The Caiman had not warranted mention in any of the stories I had seen about the MRAP II competition, though it was clear enough that parent company BAE Systems (parent of Armor Holdings, Inc., maker of the Caiman) was competing.

As one of only two contractors chosen, BAE Systems will produce Category I MRAP II test vehicles based on the company’s Caiman 6x6 design and Category II MRAP II test vehicles based on the company’s RG33 6x6 vehicle. Six Category I MRAP II vehicles, along with improved armor solutions, will be provided to the customer in March 2008 for testing under the contract’s initial delivery order.

“The RG33 and Caiman vehicles have the right balance of payload capability, automotive performance, and blast protection, and have proven extremely capable of handling the significantly increased requirements of MRAP-II,” said Matt Riddle, vice president of Wheeled Vehicle Programs. “Our designs offer mobility upgrades that significantly increase payload capacity and enable the integration of superior survivability enhancements across the threat spectrum.”

(Businesswire.com)

Based on the media reports of the early MRAP II competition, I had mused that the 1,000 or so Caimans (almost all of the Cat. I variety) ordered as part of MRAP I represented the total number the military would possess. Apparently the vehicles have performed well under test conditions.

I certainly would not have predicted that the Caiman would square off with the (Ceradyne) Bull to secure a win in the MRAP II competition. The RG-33 ... maybe.

*****

Initial MRAP II contracts to BAE Systems and Ideal/Oshkosh/Ceradyne co-op

Part of the U.S. Military's defense contract announcement from Dec. 19 escaped my notice until a few minutes ago. The contract listing contains two announcements of MRAP II contracts, one going to BAE Systems and the other to Ideal Innovations/Oshkosh Truck/Ceradyne. The contracts call for the delivery of MRAP II vehicles for further testing at Aberdeen.

Despite its lack of side doors, apparently the (Ceradyne) Bull performed well enough to warrant a second look.

This may represent an early narrowing of the field for MRAP II. The BAE order catches me by surprise, for it had not been obvious to me that the company competed for MRAP II.

*****

Oshkosh/Ideal/Ceradyne "Bull" MRAP gets MRAP II nibble from Marines

OSHKOSH, Wis., Dec. 21 (UPI) -- The U.S. Marine Corps announced it has contracted Oshkosh Truck with Ideal Innovations and Ceradyne for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected II test vehicles.

Under the $18.1 million deal by the U.S. Marine Corps Joint MRAP program office, the three companies' joint project will be expected to deliver six of their MRAP vehicles in the beginning of 2008 for further government testing of their explosively formed penetrator resistant capabilities.
(UPI)

That's way better than rejection if you're part of that cooperative effort.

I wonder if the six vehicles delivered for additional testing will need to have side doors as stipulated in the MRAP II solicitation?

*****

DefenseNews.com: U.S. to order 3,000 additional MRAPs in December

The Pentagon plans to order about 3,000 more Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles the week of Dec. 17, marking the largest MRAP order to date, Pentagon officials said.

The 3,000 will be split up among the three main MRAP vendors chosen by the U.S. Defense Department during the down-select process in October: Force Protection, Navistar International and BAE Systems.
(DefenseNews.com)

The three vendors identified match the three who won contracts last time contracts were announced, which continues to leave PVI and Ceradyne out in the cold. I have no evidence that this order reflects the outcome of the MRAP II testing program.

This from an earlier story by DefenseNews.com's Kris Osborn:

Although MRAP II is a separate procurement effort, technological improvement and survivability improvements will be added to MRAPs as they are produced, the senior official said.
(DefenseNews.com)

Also check out Kris Osborn's story on the other military vehicle programs learning from the Iraq experience and the MRAP program. Plans are in the works to suspect seats from the ceiling of the vehicle to prevent certain types of shock wave injuries.

*****

MRAP I, MRAP II and the recent orders

The MRAP program has been criticized because of the lack of a common design, which presents a wartime logistical challenge, its inability to withstand EFP attacks and the relatively few number of units that have been delivered to Iraq and Afghanistan, despite large orders. This selection of the three winners for MRAP I is distinct from the ongoing MRAP II competition, in which more than six different MRAP makers submitted either proposals, vehicles or both to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., by the Oct. 1 deadline.

In the MRAP II competition, DoD asked industry to improve upon MRAP I survivability. MRAP II vehicles are required to defend against deadly explosively formed penetrator (EFP) weapons attacking U.S. forces in Iraq. MRAP II contracts are expected to be awarded in the coming months.

(rfdesign.com)

This story helps further confirm that I jumped the gun in seeing the recent orders as an outcome of the MRAP II competition.

On the other hand, given concerns about "lack of common design," a manufacturer producing large numbers of vehicles for MRAP I would have to be considered a favorite in MRAP II. Ordering 4,000 Golan vehicles under MRAP II, for example, does nothing but perpetuate the logistical difficulties of servicing incompatible vehicle designs in the theater.

Companies like PVI and Ceradyne will likely need to produce a substantially better product in order to turn into a big winner in the MRAP II competition.

*****

Winnowing the field of MRAP producers

The U.S. military has reached the point where it can begin to move closer to its customary methods of equipment acquisition. The need to get as many MRAPs as possible to the theater of war in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in an unusually high number of companies producing vehicles for the armed services. The MRAP II evaluations (apparently) helped the military narrow the field to three manufacturers.

While the Pentagon has yet to officially announce its decision, only three vendors will receive follow-on orders expected by early December 2007. According to Pentagon officials, the three vendors that already received the current orders will continue to get future business as they could sustain 1,200 vehicles per month. These vendors include International Military & Government (IMG) company and Force protection International (FPI) will both become exclusive providers for Category I (4x4) vehicles, while FPI and BAE Systems will continue to deliver the heavier Category II (mostly 6x6) vehicles. BAE Systems' Category II (RG-33) vehicles were recently selected through a mini MRAP competition as the preferred design for 400 ambulance variants which the department is now purchasing. Sofar the Pentagon accelerated orders of Category I vehicles but since these vehicles will be more difficult to receive armor upgrades, the current preference is leaning toward heavier Category II platforms.
(Defense Update)

The story's chock full of information, so stopping by Defense Update to read the whole of it is recommended.

The news is bad, of course, for Ceradyne and PVI.

*****

Early winners in MRAP II (Updated/corrected)

Pentagon officials have awarded three companies with contracts to build Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, a Defense Department official said on Thursday.

The firms are Navistar International, BAE Systems and Force Protection, chosen from a field of at least five vendors, industry sources said.

(Marine Times)

For those keeping track at home, these prompt orders reflect success fom the MaxxPro, RG-30-something and probably the Cougar from Force Protection.

It is worth noting that the lighter MRAP from Armor Holdings, the Caiman, did not compete for MRAP II, no doubt because of its purchase this past summer by BAE systems.

The early results suggest that Mr. Zippy's analysis (the Zipster may be connected directly to Force Protection, the maker of the Cougar) was essentially accurate.

Update:
The DOD Web site makes clear that the new round of orders represents an expansion on existing contracts. That places doubt on my conclusion that these recent orders are associated with the MRAP II program. It seems significant that Navistar will fill 1,000 of the 2,400 vehicle order.


*****

Ceradyne's Bull MRAP: My how you've changed!

The prototype Bull MRAP submitted by Ceradyne/Oshkosh bears only a passing resemblance to the earlier representations (which invariably appeared suspiciously non-photographic to begin with).

If MRAP II requires side door(s) then it must be on the other side.

clipped from www.defencetalk.com

MRAP II deadline passes (Updated)

clipped from news.google.com MRAP II Deadline Passes DefenseNews.com (subscription) - Oct 1, 2007 By KRIS OSBORN The deadline has come and gone for makers of mine resistant ambush-protected vehicles (MRAPs) to submit their offerings as the Pentagon ...

Now we wait to see who does well and who does not so well. Protected Vehicles has quite a bit riding on this competition, it would seem. If PVI doesn't secure additional contracts through MRAPII, then the company will be handcuffed compared to rival Force Protection when it comes to development of a more maneuverable vehicle to replace the Humvee.

A different Google peek at DefenseNews.com's MRAPII deadline story appears to confirm that PVI's Golan vehicle was submitted (as expected) for MRAPII.

Update:
Subscription or not, I seem to have found a link to the Kris Osborn story for DefenseNews.com.

Force Protection did seem to get short shrift in the story, relegated to paragraph seven and presented as the subordinate partner to General Dynamics. From the story, one would judge that the Bull, Cougar, RG-31 and the Golan were the only vehicles competing in MRAP II.


*****

USA Today: Army wants more MRAPS

WASHINGTON — The Army has decided to ask for 10,000 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected armored vehicles to counter the threat of makeshift bombs in Iraq, according to one of the program's top congressional supporters.

The new request is nearly four times the 2,700 vehicles, known as MRAPs, that the Army had sought. That's still not enough, said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., who was briefed on the change by the Defense Department. Biden cited a request this year for 17,770 of the vehicles for the Army by Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the No. 2 military commander in Iraq.

"Until every soldier and Marine has the best protection we can give them, we must keep pushing," Biden said.
(USA Today)

Credit to Democrat senator Joe Biden for advocating for the troops. Biden might be the most serious Senate Democrat on defense issues now that Joe Lieberman is an independent.

The news is good for at least one manufacturer of MRAPs. Ceradyne is in a good position to push its "Bull" MRAP, but the winners in MRAP I can point to past success to bolster their chances of scoring some fat contracts on this one.

One caveat, however. These MRAPs do not replace Humvees in the tactical sense. It seems that vehicles like Force Protection's Cheetah or Protected Vehicles' Protector will be needed to provide the kind of mobility that Donald Rumsfeld hoped to make a hallmark of the US armed forces. Whatever you think of his handling of post-Saddam Iraq operations, his vision of the application of U.S. military might represents an important transformation.

*****

MRAP testing at Aberbeen

There's no information about how the vehicles performed during testing, which is no surprise.

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, Md., Aug. 24, 2007 - A team of test operators and mechanics here gave members of the media and other visitors a firsthand look at the mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicle, or MRAP, which is currently being tested on its automotive quality and ability to protect servicemembers' lives.

The Marine Corps has awarded contracts for 6,415 MRAPs to date. The vehicles have raised, V-shaped underbellies, that deflect the force of improvised explosive devices and other blasts from below better than other vehicles in use. But before each armored vehicle transports troops in the field, it undergoes two phases of testing conducted here or at Yuma Proving Grounds in Yuma, Ariz., to gauge how well each MRAP model drives, steers and handles, and whether it can withstand explosions.
(read more at Military.com)

The story includes a report that the current crop of vehicles offers "significantly" better protection than earlier ones.

MRAPS vs. EFPs

Have Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles been trumped by the Explosively-Formed Projective type of improvised explosive device?

David DeCamp, writing for the St. Petersburg Times, suggested as much, and defended his position when challenged

A new story by David Hambling seems to treat the issue more comprehensively and responsibly.

Are Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles the answer to Explosively Formed Penetrators, the armor-piercing bombs that are becoming increasingly common in Iraq?

The vast majority of IEDs cause damage by blast and shrapnel. Vehicles can be hardened to withstand these by a combination of measures such as a curved, strengthened hull which deflects blast rather than absorbing it, and increased ground clearance. But EFPs are different, as they spit out a high-velocity kinetic projectile more like a bullet that can go through steel.

(Danger Room)

Hambling notes that the first generation of "basic" MRAPs (MRAP I) is not designed to deal with EFPs, thus the call for a better MRAP with the MRAP II competition. Hambling's story focuses on the latter competition, and unfortunately doesn't delve into the add-on kits that may give existing MRAPs substantial protection against EFPs.
*****

The same story by Hambling has a footer that notes a story I spotted just a few minutes before reading Hambling's.

Force Protection is suing PVI for filching company secrets.

Force Protection makes the Cougar (Britain's Mastiff) and Buffalo MRAPs. Protected Vehicles manufacturs the Golan and Alpha. The Alpha, a cooperative effort with Oshkosh, received an initial order for 100 vehicles but that order was later canceled. The U.S. has ordered 60 of the Golan under MRAP I, and has reportedly welcomed the Golan to the MRAP II competition.

Bushmaster rejected for MRAP I

clipped from www.defenseindustrydaily.com It has been one of the most puzzling features of the MRAP competition to date. Thales Australia's Bushmaster vehicle was one of the first mine-resistant vehicles on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, where it has served successfully with Australian and Dutch forces. Yet it reaped none of the "low risk deployment" orders issued at the competition's inception, and has received none since. Now Thales Australia makes it official: with over 80% of allotted vehicles ordered, the Bushmaster Category II JERRV vehicle is out of the race for MRAP-I competition orders.

The Bushmaster joins Oshkosh's Alpha vehicle on the rejection list. The Alpha was a partnership between Oshkosh and PVI. PVI remains in the running with its Golan vehicle, which received 60 orders through the MRAP I program and remains in the running for MRAP II.

clipped from www.defenseindustrydaily.com