Evaluating MRAPs

You may not get much news about the fielded Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles in the mainstream news or official defense releases, but Richard at "Defence of the Realm" has some recent photos and information.

So writes one of our readers who has sent us a remarkable sequence of photographs (see also more here) of a USMC Cougar mine resistant and ambush protected (MRAP) vehicle after it had been hit by a very substantial IED in Iraq. The crew escaped with only minor injuries and no one was killed, even though the blast ripped the engine from its armoured bay and hurled it over 100 yards (see below).

Sadly, we do not need to imagine what would have happened if the soldiers had been riding in a Land Rover. Today, the Daily Mail records the horrific injuries sustained by Lance Bombadier Ben Parkinson. He was riding in a Land Rover - not a "Snatch", but an even more vulnerable "WIMIK" - in Afghanistan when it was blown up by a landmine in September last year near Musa Qaleh in Helmand Province, while serving with the 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery.

In this incident, it appears that no one was killed, although it was only through heroic medical intervention that Lance Bombadier Parkinson's life was saved. Nevertheless, he lost both his legs and sustained grievous damage to his spine, skull, pelvis, hands, spleen and ribcage, leaving him in a coma for months. But, with no death, the incident was not reported by the MoD. All we know from MoD Sources is that, in that month, ten soldiers were seriously injured, of which seven came into the "very serious" category.
---------------
In Afghanistan, we have twice spotted the US deployment of Cougar vehicles (here and here), demonstrating their utility in theatre but, while other coalition forces continue to equip their forces with protected vehicles, only the British seem to believe that riding around in lightly armoured Land Rovers is a good idea.

I understand where Richard is coming from, but I don't agree that MRAPs are the answer (surprise, surpise). Good news up front - MRAPs work to protect US personnel from really big blasts - once. Bad news - our troops aren't being killed only by IEDs and EFPs, and the violence isn't going down. No matter how many MRAPs get into theater, we're still going to lose 60-90 soldiers and Marines a month as long as the Iraqis are fighting each other and us. Thus, although buying a few thousand MRAPs makes sense, buying 17,000 MRAPs into 2010 does not.

I would suggest to Richard that the British army figured this out a long time ago, and substituted COIN tactics and working with the populace (as best they could) instead of buying multi-million dollar armored vehicles, maybe being less targets than the US military seems to be. That might account for their losing only 169 troops over four years to our 3,781 losses. While the Brits make up less than 10 percent of the coalition forces, they make up less than five percent of those killed in action. 

Comments

[NVH]

Not sure the tactic of blading yourself to the target is taught at Boot these days, and not that it would matter when facing an EFP, but hey, it might help, but people are going to die, one way or the other, MRAP or no. So yeah J. you're right a few goes a long way, otherwise drive carefully.

[Jez]

The Daily Mail always distorts the truth..

The British Army have a Medium build WMIK (based on a supacat) going out to Afghanistan soon (may already be in place) [see http://www.supacat.com/supacat_products_hmt400.htm], and some commentators have moaned about the lack of protection. However, Brits do NOT want to be locked up not seeing nothing. They want all round vision and firepower. Its a trade off they are willing to make..

Most transport in Afghanistan in by heli anyway.

[Richard North]

You perhaps need to remove your rose-tinted googles. The British Army has hunkered down in its last remaining base at Basra Air Station and only ventures out in force. It is not doing the routine patrolling or fighting that US troops are doing, which makes comparisons between respective casualty rates difficult.

As regards MRAPs, this effectively is a reversion to previous practice and nothing new in concept. Look at the roles conducted by humvees and the British Land Rovers and you will see that they currently carry out the functions that in WWII and Korea were carried out by armoured cars, armoured trucks (look at the C15TA) armoured half-tracks and the rest.

It is only in recent doctrine that there has been a reliance on unarmoured vehicles to perform as fighting vehicles - a doctrine that emerged from the availability of small-unit stand-off weapons and better C4.

In COIN, however - where there is no defined front line or specified "battle area" - the enemy is able to close by deception (Hey! they don't wear uniforms and have shiny, green-painted "toys") so negating the techological advantages. Thus we revert to armour as the last line of defence (a doctrine which has been understood since before the Roman Empire).

Using MRAP vehicles, therefore, simply updates a tried and tested concept, incorporating design principles to deal with the specific threat. They do not replace the other military tools - mobility, speed, manoeuvre, etc. They augment them.

[J.]

Richard, we have some differences of opinion. Maybe the US military should have tried more stabilizing efforts and less aggressive combat missions if protecting the troops was sincerely a top priority. In regards to MRAP, I really doubt that these vehicles "augment" mobility, speed, or manuever, given their weight, limited visibility, massive size, and cost. They are a tool, yes, but not one that needs to replace all HMMWVs and Land Rovers.

[NVH]

The fact still holds, buying 17,000 MRAPs by 2010 does not make sense. One thing the Dems might do in office is cut the MRAP program, since they are SO strong on defense, so you might be saved J., BUT get ready to buy more MREs for the war torn Bosnians and Somalians, and Darfurians, and Moroccans, and Ethiopians, and Eritreans, and....and troops to deliver them, courtesy of the Bush Admin augments to force

[Jonathan Baum]

Even given the traditional American fixation with pace, I suprised that you can't see the utility of these vehicles today, J. For sure, I'm not an unbiased observer but if my son were serving in Iraq, I'd want him riding in an MRAP.
The fact remains that 2/3 of US casualties have been caused by IEDs. If this is how the enemy is going to fight you than you'd better be prepared to oblige him! You seem to think that counter-insurgency consists of swift motorized or airborne maneuver, followed by long dismounted activities. My own experiences in the Occupied Territories and Lebanon teach me otherwise, but to each his own. Even though American casualties have been relatively light over the course of the conflict, the number that they have seem to greatly affect morale at home. One would think that better armored vehicles are indicated. It's just to bad that they weren't ordered 2-3 years ago.
At the risk of seeming crude, I will repeat what I said on an earlier post here. I think that what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan today is the model of what future warfare will look like. As the technological gap between Western and Non-Western armies grows, it is increasingly likely that wars will consist of a rapid conquest and then a long, drawn-out counter-insurgency. I think that US and NATO soldiers will be seeing many more 3rd world shit holes in the years to come. The various MRAP models are designed for this sort of conflict. Believe me, they won't be sitting out in the desert at some depot. You will certainly get your money's worth from these trucks!
For what it's worth, and again I admit to being a biased observer, I think the Brits are making a terrible mistake in buying a vehicle like the MWMIK for their patrols. They're going to loose a lot of good men before they realize their error.

[Jonathan Baum]

By the way, if one is serious about following the MRAP procurement story, the place to do so is the Defense NewsStand:
http://defense.iwpnewsstand.com/

The articles are pay-per-view, but it's a good source of information if US defense policy is an interest of yours. I'm sure J. will agree.

[Grandjester]

JB,

"As the technological gap between Western and Non-Western armies grows, it is increasingly likely that wars will consist of a rapid conquest and then a long, drawn-out counter-insurgency. I think that US and NATO soldiers will be seeing many more 3rd world shit holes in the years to come."

Might have been a bit more prescient had you written this in 1949.

[NVH]

Jesus, nobody is saying we don't need them, we just don't need 17,000 of them. As for your thoughts on the future JB, I don't see us being drawn back into the fight like we are now. We'll have a lot better tactics and ideas to use, expectations, etc.. before we do it this way again. Lessons learned my friend, lessons learned.

[J.]

JB, I'll have to check your numbers - according to icasualties.org, only about 1/3 of the casualties have been attributed to IEDs. Maybe you're talking about within the last year. I've read the COIN doctrine, read the historical accounts, and from my point of view, Israel's been successful in holding down the insurgency through some pretty harsh methods, but certainly you can't claim "victory" in any sense of the word. If anything, I would hope that we could avoid a multi-decade occupation of Iraq, and I'm pretty sure that we can, but not under this administration.

No doubt that we are in line with more 4th gen warfare and less nation-vs-nation warfare, but we ought not believe that Iraq is the model. Its culture, its history, and its xenophobia about occupation forces gives it a pretty unique case study. And if/when we are fighting in those future urban centers, sure, there'll be a few MRAPs running around, but I'm betting that the smart (operationally, financially) approach is going to be more like an up-armored HMMWV than a hulking tank-like MRAP.

MRAPs will have too many issues - cost, sustainability, deployability, perception to a native population, etc - and as soon as this conflict is over, we can perhaps get back to serious defense analyses. Emotional chest-beating about "protecting the troops" and then signing off on a decade more of "staying the course" occupation is counter-intuitive.

And always nice to see NVH and I agree on something...

[Jonathan Baum]

Well, J., I agree that chest-beating isn't the answer but all the indications, no matter who gets to be President next year, are that you guys are going to be in Iraq for quite a while. Even the doves who are running are talking about a year or two, at least. You have to take it seriously and not indulge in wishful thinking. If that means special training and equipment for dealing with your own Intifada than that's what you have to do and, indeed, have already been doing.
Why in the world do you think that discussing the war in Iraq isn't "serious defense analyses?" I would think that trying to come up with a successful conclusion to this whole business would be the most important defense topic of the day.

[J.]

"Why in the world do you think that discussing the war in Iraq isn't "serious defense analyses?" I would think that trying to come up with a successful conclusion to this whole business would be the most important defense topic of the day."

Yes, and that's more the shame when we have to put up with ridiculous neocon theories from AEI and the Brookings Institute. As you say, wishing that their theory was actually executable is a poor substitute for real life. There have been many serious defense discussions about the future of Iraq, but none that have held the attention of this White House, who would prefer to hide behind rhetoric like "I listen to my generals" and "return on success."

The DOD acquisition practices have little to no relationship to the current military operations in Iraq. Trying to field 17,000 MRAPs while still entertaining FCS, EFV, JTRV, F22, F35, etc etc and continuously putting in for $100-150 billion defense supplementals every year is insane.

Before you say it, yes, obviously Congress does have a role in this also, shame on them. And woe to the Dem candidate who wins the presidency and then doesn't start ramping down forces in Iraq, for they will be the loser in the following national political race two years later.

[elizzar]

a lot of the posts here seem to be focusing on the us/uk experience in iraq, rather than the current uk experience in afghanistan, which is where the land rover wimiks are being used most. i believe that in and around basra the warrior afv and land rover snatch are the main vehicles of choice? in afghanistan you have the highly mobile, heavily armed wimik (but no armour) and the viking (light armour), mostly, in the british forces. for the majority of the terrain in the south (some large open areas, rising into mountains) visibility and firepower are needed, with the lack of the urban warfare conditions found in basra/baghdad. hopefully the arrival of the new supacat mwimik will help. as for the vast quantities of mraps being bought by the 'coalition' forces, can't help but think it is too much and too late ... should have had plans in place for limited numbers of such vehicles for straight after the war fighting, whilst order was being maintained / restored. such is the benefit of hindsight (or good planning ...)

[Joe Knight]

The British sustained the the fewest casualties because the worked the safest areas. It was the US that went into the worst areas and and cleared them out. I welcome the UK's help but they have not carried the load that the US has. With the surge and the new MRAPs we will prevail.

[Barry]

NVH: "BUT get ready to buy more MREs for the war torn Bosnians...."

Yes, the Army is taking soooooo many casualties in Bosnia. What it is up to? Any?