More on MRAPs vs. EFPs

Via Strategypage:

You set EFPs off with the detonator, either via wire, or wireless, connection. When the C4 explodes, it forms the copper cap into a blob of molten copper, moving faster than a speeding bullet (about 1,500 meters a second). The blob stays intact, and lethal, for a few hundred meters, traveling pretty much in a straight line. However, the EFP is still difficult to aim. The user has to place it so that, when it goes off, it will hit a vehicle sitting in a position the user has already figured out. For this reason, EFPs are usually set up at places where vehicles have to stop.

When the EFP hits an armored vehicle, it burns and punches its way through the armor. Once inside the vehicle, it injures or kills whoever it hits, as well as igniting combustible material and generally scaring the hell out of everyone. The increased use of MRAP vehicles however, has meant that, while EFP attacks are up over a third this year, casualties from those weapons is down 17 percent.

Good story. Well worth the visit to read the entirety.

As is usual in war, both sides are trying to win some advantage. The (shrinking number of) insurgents are trying to use EFPs in innovative ways to maximize their impact. The coalition forces take note of what the insurgents attempt, underline what works, and attempt modifications in armor or tactics to neutralize the enemy strategy.

MRAPs have proved an important technological advance that has significantly assisted military operations in Iraq--not a "Tool of war trumped."

MRAPs vs. EFPs: A tool of war trumped?

A news item concerning MRAPs caught my eye today.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. military is reinforcing the sides of its topline mine-resistant vehicles to shore up what could be weak points as troops see a spike in armor-piercing roadside bombings across Iraq, The Associated Press has learned.

The surge in attacks is putting the mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles (MRAPs) to the test, and so far they are largely passing. Statistics reviewed by the AP show that while bombings involving the deadly penetrating explosives have jumped by about 40 percent in the past three months, deaths in such bombings have dropped by as much as 17 percent.

(Associated Press)

The story relates the increased use in Iraq of explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, and the manner in which troop casualties have decreased largely because of the use of protected vehicles. The story reminded me of a news story that I subjected to criticism last year, "A tool of war trumped" by St. Petersburg Times writer David DeCamp.

DeCamp's story portrayed the EFP as an ad hoc modification of the roadside bomb, and further implied that the explosive devices would serve to nullify the strategic use of the MRAP in the Iraq War.

Over time, my criticism of DeCamp has been borne out.

The MRAP has been used effectively. EFP production has been hampered by destroying factories and interrupting the supply of the parts requiring substantial engineering. And, as I predicted, technology designed to thwart EPPs in turn is reaching the front lines in time to aid our troops against the threat of EFPs (armor and detection technologies, that is).

IEDs in the news

Agence France-Presse came through with a pretty good story on the armor-vs.-ied arms race, albeit with more emphasis on the latter than the former.

PARIS (AFP) — On the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan and southern Lebanon no weapon poses as big a threat to Western armies' armoured convoys as the simple roadside bomb.

For more than half a decade US and European forces have been locked in an arms race with insurgent engineers, who try to build ever more sophisticated booby-traps to defeat ever stronger armour and defensive tactics.

(AFP)

For me, the thing that sets this story above much that I see is the emphasis on the precision required to design a working EFP. Last year my local paper published a piece that made it sound as easy as running to a machine shop and spending a few minutes modifying an existing bomb with a screwdriver.

*****

More than one way to foil IEDs, EFPs

The St. Petersburg Times my have kept the technological advances in MRAP armoring technology a secret, but here's at least some evidence that the picture they paint isn't entirely gloom and doom for Iraq:

Marines patrolling for roadside bombs in Iraq will soon have a new detection device, developed by a company in Sarasota.

In late May, Gyrocam Systems LLC won a $43-million contract to provide the military's Counter-IED improvised explosive device project with 67 of its triple-sensor cameras. Twenty-seven of the units will be in Iraq by the end of summer.

Gyrocam's cameras will be mounted on telescoping masts on armored vehicles. The cameras have 360-degree coverage and transmit images in high-resolution color, heat-sensitive infrared and night-vision.

(St. Petersburg Times)

I'll keep looking for a story that reflects the existence of composite armor technology that diffuses the slug of an EFP.

*****

MRAPS to get EFP-defying armor kits

QUANTICO, Va. — The Marine general in charge of the program to send new armored vehicles to Iraq says the Pentagon has developed "a solution" to protect the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected trucks from the deadliest type of armor-piercing roadside bomb, called explosively formed projectiles, or EFPs.

The Pentagon's method for combating EFPs involves adding armor to the sides of MRAPs, Brig. Gen. Michael Brogan said in an interview with USA TODAY. The armor is a modified version of what the military calls Frag Kit 6, Brogan said. "I have a solution for EFPs, and I'm going to put it on the trucks I've already bought," Brogan said.

(USA Today)

Read about Frag Kit 6 at Defense Review.

It was within the last four months that the St. Petersburg Times published a story bemoaning the supposed fact that MRAPs were already obsolete because of the use of explosively formed penetrators in Iraq.

The current story supports the criticism I leveled at David DeCamp's "Tool of war trumped."

*****

The bottom of the (inverted) pyramid

I was updating myself on MRAP news today and ran across a USA-Today story on manufacturers' efforts to develop armor protections against Explosively Formed Penetrators, the type of IED most lethal to U.S. vehicles.

Most of story was no surprise, as it stayed line with the narrative that MRAPs are unprotected against EFPs. Near the bottom of the story, where the traditional print-media story form stuffs the less-interesting and least-critical detail, I discovered something I didn't know.

"We have a solution that is made up of standard and new materials in a configuration that will defeat a number of the EFP devices," said Jim Tuten, director of research development and armor programs at Protected Vehicles, which is based in North Charleston, S.C. "We have tested it against a number of them at several different government facilities successfully."

Force Protection, a major Pentagon MRAP contractor, has anti-EFP armor in a vehicle called the Mastiff, which it has sold the British military.

(USA Today)

One of my favorite blogs, the delightful across-the-pond EU Referendum, had criticized the Mastiff version of the Force Protection Cougar because it lacked windows with which soldiers could make themselves aware of their surroundings before disembarking at the rear of the vehicle. Apparently, the EFP protections designed by Force Protection resulted in the elimination of the windows.

Linking back to EU Referendum helped me stumble across a blog entry from 2006 that I had missed, on IEDs, EFPs, and military vehicles. Pay them a visit.

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.

"In the Know" regarding MRAPs (Updated)

"In the Know" refers to the St. Petersburg Times' advertising jingle.

In blogging over the past several months I've spent some time looking into Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles.
What would I know about MRAPs if I were relying on the St. Petersburg Times?

TOOL OF WAR TRUMPED

With roadside bombs claiming troops at an alarming rate, a general urgently requests an armored replacement of the Humvee. Two years later, the vehicles are arriving in droves, but the enemy is already prepared.

U.S. soldiers in Iraq will soon see shipments of specially armored trucks designed to withstand the roadside bombs that have killed more service members there than any other single cause.

This should be good news, but the truck's troubled path has tempered optimism for it.

(St. Petersburg Times)

Well, well, well.

As nifty as MRAPs are, and as much as the troops like them, the enemy has trumped them already as a tool of war. The futility of using MRAPs is conveyed in the title ("Tool of war trumped") and the nut graf ("the enemy is already prepared").

Thus, writer David DeCamp tells us, the optimism regarding MRAPs is "tempered."

Sorry, Mr. DeCamp. Your story looks like journalistic malpractice.

1. Is the enemy "already prepared"?
Iraqi insurgents probably do not have the capability of self-producing the "explosively formed penetrators" that might take out the first generation of MRAP vehicles. DeCamp supposes that insurgents just "go to a machine shop for changes" in order to cook up an EFP. British and U.S. intelligence services, however, report that Iran provided the technology and parts for the EFP. In other words, the theme of DeCamp's narrative--that the loosely-organized insurgency gives it the flexibility to stymie the bureaucratically handicapped United States, doesn't apply in this case. In addition, DeCamp ignored the Golan MRAP, which reportedly has EFP protections. Sixty Golans had already been ordered in February, while the advanced vehicle that DeCamp mentioned, the Bull, remains in development. I should emphasize that 60 Golans were ordered before Mr. DeCamp's story went to press.

2. Is optimism for MRAPs tempered?
DeCamp says the optimism is tempered. But what part of his story supports that assertion?

• DeCamp quotes Brigadier General Dennis Hejlik indicating casualties will continue at their current rate without MRAPs.
• DeCamp notes that the secretary of defense has place the MRAP program as its highest priority.
• DeCamp quotes Senator Joe Biden calling for more rapid implementation of the MRAP program

But what accounts for the "tempered optimism"? Apparently, it is DeCamp's optimism that is tempered. The last portion of his story has a title: No problem for foes.

A version of the MRAP has been on patrol in Iraq in small numbers almost from the beginning, but not for routine patrols. The insurgent bombs that penetrate the armor, called "explosively formed projectiles," began appearing in 2005.

American military leaders have blamed Iran for pushing the penetrating bombs into use.

The military reports that enemies are expected to employ them more frequently - just as MRAPs are expected to arrive in Iraq by the thousands.

DeCamp evidently figures that the MRAP program is a waste of money. By the time we get the vehicles over there, the insurgents will be routinely using EFPs to blow up our troops and their expensive new toys. After all, MRAPs are "no problem for foes."

That just doesn't follow, or else DeCamp would easily be able to quote a relevant source expressing tempered optimism.

As noted above, MRAPs are already incorporating measures to deal with EFPs. On top of that, the fact that Iran is probably supplying the technology and materials that allow the insurgents to use EFPs in turn allows the possibility that their use can be curtailed through improved border security. Production of an EFP is not, as DeCamp earlier appeared to suggest, a matter of running to the machine shop and tweaking the bomb components a bit.

My opinion? DeCamp was engaged in agenda journalism. He put an amazingly sour spin on what will probably turn out to be another victory of U.S. and allied technology--if the Democrats don't succeed in declaring defeat first. And DeCamp's story was a little bugle toot calling for retreat.
***

Update: EFPs are easier to make than I thought.
They've been around for some time, and it primarily just takes know-how to make one rather than specialized parts or equipment. On the other hand, the criticism of DeCamp's story remains: it wasn't the flexibility of the insurgents that implemented EFPs, it was assistance from nations that possessed the technology.
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.

I sent my critique to the writer, and he responded (partly accounting for this update). I hope to post a follow-up entry within a few days.