Jane's and the MRAP

The hunt for MRAP news today revealed a story for Jane's, the premiere publisher of military hardware reference works. I found two paragraphs particularly notable.

Such is the global profile of the MRAP programme that it has understandably received extensive coverage across the media. That coverage has seldom been as accurate, informed or as impartial as it could and perhaps should have been.

I'll take my hit for uninformed comment! But somehow I doubt they had me in mind. On the other hand, I've been reasonably impartial. I can also think of some stories in mainstream sources that either had an odd focus or a corrupting bias.

The other paragraph consisted of a new tidbit of information on the subject of PVI's Alpha and Golan vehicles:

The following vehicles were eliminated from the competition: the Textron M1117 Armored Security Vehicle (ASV), the Oshkosh-offered Thales Bushmaster, the GPV offering, and following small low-rate initial production (LRIP) orders: the PVI-offered Rafael Golan and Oshkosh (PVI-designed) Alpha, would all be eliminated from the competition. The bulk of the 60 Golans and 100 Alphas ordered have since been declared excess property by the marines and will be employed by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

The CBP could certainly use some armored vehicles if the phenomenon noted a few posts ago continues to creep over our southern border.

Protected Vehicles, Inc. in dire straits

Protected Vehicles, Inc., the company started up in the shadow of Force Protection, has apparently found itself bogged down with financial woes. The company did secure an order for 60 of its Golan vehicle and another 100 Alpha vehicles with the latter order getting canceled after performance testing.

The company has not been able to deliver the Golan vehicles at the required pace.

The North Charleston-based manufacturer, which abruptly closed its doors and ceased operations earlier this month, received a $37.45 million order from the federal government on Feb. 23 for 60 of its Golan mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles.

Under the terms of the order, production was to be completed by July. But as of Dec. 26, Protected Vehicles had delivered just 10 vehicles, Defense Department spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said in an e-mailed statement.

Efforts were made to help the company fulfill its order, Irwin said, but "these efforts were not successful."

(The Post and Courier, Charleston)

The Pentagon has moved to cancel the remainder of the order.

PVI has filed for protection from creditors and failed on occasion to meet payroll obligations, according to the story, but also has plans to continue developing plans for its "Beast" and "Ridgeback" vehicles after laying off non-essential personnel.

*****

Cougar, Badger ... what's the difference?

April 15, 2007: The Iraqi army has received its first batch of 40 Badger Armored Vehicles. There is some confusion over what the Badger is. It's basically a variant of the popular Cougar armored truck, widely used by bomb disposal teams. The Iraq army is buying 378 Badger armored trucks. Originally called the Iraqi Light Armored Vehicles (ILAV), the Badgers will cost about $432,000 each. The ILAV is based on the four wheel Cougar, which can carry ten passengers. If the Badger proves popular, the contract makes provision for a total of 1,050 vehicles to be delivered by 2009.
(strategypage)

So add the Badger to Force Protection's Cougar-type lineup, next to the UK's Mastiff version.

clipped from www.blackanthem.com

An Iraqi soldier climbs into a Badger for the drive to Baghdad from Taji Army Base in support of Operation Fardh Al-Qanoon March 31. A total of 398 Badgers are to be delivered this year as part of Iraqi military's modernization program. (Photo by U.S. Navy MC2 Elisandro Diaz)

From the same Strategy Page story:

But with as many as 20,000 MRAPs on hand, keeping them in storage may not be an option. As a result, the U.S. Department of Defense has halted work on designing the hummer replacement (the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle or JLTV).

The JLTV, I believe, is the class of vehicle including Force Protection's Cheetah and Protected Vehicles' Protector (not to exhaust the list; I just don't know what other companies are offering, though I know that Lockheed is working on something). Given that both vehicles are designed to resist IEDs while permitting the type of speech and mobility the military had with the Hummer, I find this decision difficult to fathom. The JLTVs have largely been developed already, from what I can tell.

*****

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

Golan promo video

While looking for additional background on Protected Vehicles' Golan MRAP, I ran across a promotional video.

Vehicles never get stuck in a promo, of course, but at least you get to see how the thing moves, and you can get a sense of its capabilities.



"Mr. Zippy" suggested that the armed forces aren't showing much interest in the Golan vehicle (appearing to suggest that the order for the Golan had been canceled as was the order for the PVI/Oshkosh Alpha. I have yet to see news of cancellation of the order for 60 Golans, and if I interpreted the contract announcement correctly, the vehicles should have been delivered by now. Mr. Zippy made the point that the Golan could not have performed very well if additional orders had not been made. That's possible, but it doesn't necessarily follow. The Alpha was offered through a partnership with Oshkosh, and no such partnership was formed for the production of the Golan, as far as I can tell, anyway.

The Golan is costs more than other MRAP models, and it's quite possible that production considerations have played a part in the fact that the vehicle is thus far a fringe player in the MRAP program.

The Alpha, certainly, failed some aspects of the test program, but the somewhat cryptic comments that accompanied its rejection could reflect vulnerabilities other than a failure to resist IED attacks.

It's too early to draw a conclusion about the Golan without more data, in other words.

I have read that the Golan was welcomed for the MRAP II program. Given that the MRAP II program carries higher specifications than the MRAP I program, it seems unlikely that the Golan is being shunned because of its IED protections.

Second-generation MRAPs

To contrast with the MRAP-bashing story by David DeCamp that I finished critiquing in my previous post, I'll return to a USA Today story that I referenced earlier.

In this case, USA Today blows the door off of the St. Petersburg Times when it comes to properly informing its readership.

In Iraq, the IED threat continues to evolve. Insurgents increasingly use new devices that fire molten slugs, known as explosively formed projectiles, or EFPs, that can penetrate not only MRAPs but even heavily armored tanks.

When the Pentagon invited manufacturers this week to design a second generation of MRAPs, it specified that the new vehicles must offer more protection against EFPs. The challenge facing Force Protection and other MRAP makers is how quickly and effectively they can upgrade their vehicles to better repel the deadly devices.

Force Protection already has developed an add-on armor kit for the Cougar that it touts as being able to withstand EFP blasts. Aldrich says the kit also can be used on non-MRAP vehicles in the U.S. military fleet, and it's relatively light — an advantage in keeping vehicles maneuverable.

(USA Today)

DeCamp offered nothing about the Golan vehicle with its EFP protections and advanced armor, and nothing about the add-on armor developed by Force Protection.

Alpha MRAP rejected by Pentagon? (Updated)

The Alpha vehicle produced through a partnership between Oshkosh and Protected Vehicles Inc. reportly performed poorly during testing.

The USMC's letter allegedly said that explosives testing of the Alpha had "caused concern regarding overall vehicle survivability,'' and unspecified "automotive'' and "human factors'' also "preclude safe vehicle operation.'' These issues were, said the letter "borne out'' by a limited troop evaluation and the military "is convinced that remediation of this issue would require significant redesign…. The result would be an unacceptable delay to future production orders.''

In plain English: rejected.
(Defense Industry Daily)

The cancellation of the order would seem to free up the amount specified in the contract for the purchase of other MRAPS ($30.6 million for 100 vehicles).

At $306,000 each, the Alpha was easily the least expensive MRAP model I've run across so far.

Though losing this contract hurts PVI (not to mention Oshkosh), the armor developed by PVI has performed well in testing with Explosively Formed Projectiles.

clipped from www.defense-update.com

Update 12-22-07:
Here's a .pdf brochure on the Alpha, hosted by Oshkosh Truck. I haven't heard of any interest in the vehicle since the Pentagon canceled its initial order, so I find it interesting that Oshkosh continues to proudly display it at the Web site.