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.

Stars and Stripes: "DOD official says MRAP purchases nearing an end"

Whoa. Surprising headline--scary for some.

Stars and Stripes almost engaged in a late April Fools joke. The second graph revealed that testing for MRAP II vehicles is underway. So that means that MRAP I purchases are nearing an end in the near future and not MRAP purchases overall. July's expected order of 1,600 MRAPs may be the last orders under MRAP I. BAE (offering Stewart & Stevenson's/Armor Holdings' Caiman) and Ceradyne will then duke it out for MRAP II.

Stars and Stripes also lapsed a bit into esoterica*:

The Defense Department plans to order about 1,600 MRAP vehicles in July for the Army, Young said.

Officials plan to order about 1,600 MRAP vehicles next month, meeting the Army’s near-term MRAP needs, Young said
(Stars and Stripes)

S&S scholars consider this passage as classic evidence of the dual authorship theory exhibited in this story. We find two versions of the same story, the first comes from a source scholars call the DDist and the second is called the "O" document.

*Yes, I'm kidding around by applying higher critical literary analysis to the passage in question.

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"])

*****

Force Protection's making Cheetahs

Jan. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Force Protection Inc., the largest supplier of blast-resistant trucks to the U.S. Marine Corps, plans to limit production of its new Cheetah vehicle because the model has yet to win a contract.

Force Protection plans to start production this quarter at a new plant that will reach monthly capacity of 200 Cheetahs by year end, Michael Aldrich, vice president for government relations, said in an interview today. That's a ``much longer ramp-up'' than originally planned, he said.

(Bloomberg)

Gutsy move by Force Protection. The story includes a number of interviews that compare the company's strategy to the "Field of Dreams" or the way Detroit builds cars. Make the car and worry about selling it later.

Is the Cheetah good enough right now to forestall competition and get Force Protection's foot in the door on the coveted JLTV program?

Force Protection obviously hopes so, but judging from the last two big rounds of MRAP orders the military likes what its getting from BAE Systems (the RG-33 and the Caiman) as well as Navistar (the MaxxPro).

The military's interest in the (Ceradyne) Bull may represent the military's intention to use that vehicle for specialized purposes.

The Cheetah may represent Force Protection's last-ditch effort to make itself a major player in military vehicle production over the long haul.

*****

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?

*****

Marines to revise MRAP demand sharply down

ARLINGTON, Va. — The Marine Corps has decided it needs far fewer Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles than it originally thought it would, Corps officials said.

Known as MRAPs, the vehicles have V-shaped hulls meant to deflect blasts from underneath and have proven to withstand roadside bomb blasts much better than up-armored Humvees.

The Corps initially asked for 3,700 MRAPs, but it now says it only needs 2,300 of the vehicles, Marine spokesman Maj. Jay Delarosa said in an e-mail Friday.
(Stars and Stripes)

Whoops.

This is a big hit for MRAP manufacturers. News is coming out already about Force Protection's shares dropping, and the news isn't really any better for companies like Ceradyne and Navistar that put considerable dollars into designing and preparing for the production of MRAPs.

It looks like the MRAP craze was a blip in history--an expensive blip that will end up providing quite a bit of useful information for the building of future military vehicles, but produced vehicles that may turn obsolete in just a few short years.

Those who argued that MRAPs were ill-suited to the counterinsurgency tactics of the surge will find something to bolster their view, but the willingness of the United States to produce MRAPs probably helped discourage the insurgency even if their widespread use ultimately wasn't needed to ensure victory.

As for David DeCamp's report on MRAPs that I critiqued months ago, it looks like the insurgents have run into a shortage of machine shops or something.

Instead of demonstrating America's war fighting prowess, the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle - MRAP in military parlance - illustrates how even a wealthy industrial power can struggle to wage war against a nimble and unconventional enemy.

America relies on a slow defense bureaucracy, politicians to approve spending and commercial industry to build the better MRAP. Insurgents get their hands on an explosive, go to a machine shop for changes, and trigger it with a common cell phone.

(St. Petersburg Times)

Or maybe they can't afford cell phone service?

Reducing EFP usage would thus be more complicated than simply exerting tighter border controls. Factories would have to be located, and killing or capturing enemy combatants who possess the knowledge to make the devices would certainly contribute.

Bottom line: There's no reason to despair that the insurgents can't be beaten, nor to fear that they will keep the upper hand in battlefield tactics.
(sublime bloviations)

As noted, MRAPs will probably have a very limited use in the military as the situation in Iraq continues to cool. The heavier vehicles may get modified for special functions such as mine clearing. The lightest vehicles, the Caiman 4x4s, may have a ghost of a chance of future tactical deployment--they have a reputation for reasonably good off-road performance.

The stage is set for the JLTV program to produce a mobile and protected replacement for the Humvee. Ceradyne's Bull will draw few orders if any; the whole MRAP II solicitation will likely turn into a mere modification of MRAP I, with no long term future for the program.

All is not lost for Force Protection. The Cheetah was intended from the start to replace the Humvee. It just remains to be seen who produces the best vehicle with the best support infrastructure.

*****

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

Press release: Bull headed to Aberdeen

Oshkosh Truck Corporation (NYSE:OSK), and Ceradyne, Inc. (NASDAQ:CRDN) announced today that they have delivered both a 6-person and a 10-person MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) II vehicle - known as The Bull(TM) - to the U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center for further service evaluation.

The Bull, an advanced technology survivability solution, was conceived by I-3 in 2005 and developed with Ceradyne in 2006, is intended to provide the MRAP program with an advanced armor package with the survivability, mobility and reliability that troops require. The Bull features an I-3, Ceradyne and Oshkosh jointly-developed undercarriage design with V-shaped plates that deflect, rather than absorb, Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) and mine blasts from below. The integrated design helps to protect the crew with an armor compartment proven to defeat IEDs and Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFPs), the most dangerous threats faced by marines and soldiers in Iraq.
(BusinessWire, via Live-PR)

That means we can expect some real photos of the Bull to begin appearing, and at least some information about the Bull's test performance will come out.

*****

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.

*****