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.

*****

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.


*****

The MRAP lawsuit

The news isn't exactly fresh, but I've been interested in the Golan MRAP produced by Protected Vehicles, Inc. as well as other developments in military hardware and MRAPs in particular.

The head of Protected Vehicles was the former chief guy at Force Protection, so it's fairly easily to imagine how the ball got rolling on this one, regardless of the facts alleged in the case.

I stopped by PVI's Web site looking for Golan news and found the company's response to the lawsuit.

North Charleston, SC- Protected Vehicles, Inc. has been sued by Force Protection Industries, Inc. We consider the lawsuit frivolous and have hired the Hood Law Firm to defend this litigation. We deny any wrongdoing or misconduct and we look forward to vigorously defending the case and pursuing any claims that we may have against Force Protection and its management on account of their efforts to stifle lawful competition, vital to the war against terrorism.
(Protected Vehicles)

You've got to love the little dig at the end, where PVI suggests that the lawsuit is, in essence, unpatriotic.
I've got no dog in this fight (maybe that expression should be retired, what with the publicity that Michael Vick has received), but I find the arguments of lawyers fascinating. Despite whatever education they receive in logic, they tend to use whatever argument they think will help their case--even if it involves utilizing a logical fallacy.

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