• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

MRAP Vehicles proving worth in Iraq

CougarKing

Army.ca Fixture
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
360
The million-dollar Mine-Resistant, Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicles of the US Marine Corps and US Army are proving their worth in Iraq. Not your typical APCs? Is it just me or aren't there also RG-31 Nyalas (called "Cougar" in US service) being used by the USMC? ( http://www.defense-update.com/products/r/RG-31.htm )

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,133917,00.html

Armored Vehicles for Iraq Delayed
Associated Press  |  April 29, 2007
CAMP FALLUJAH, Iraq - The armored carrier has a grim black slash across its side, burn marks on the door and a web of cracks along the window.

Like most of the Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles in Anbar province, this one has been hit as many as three times by enemy fire and bomb blasts. Yet, to date, no American troops have died while riding in one.
But efforts to buy thousands more carriers - each costing about $1 million - could be delayed if the White House and Congress do not resolve their deadlock over a $124.2 billion war spending bill.

About $3 billion for the vehicles is tied up in the legislation. The spending plan has stalled because of a dispute over provisions that would set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

At a hearing last month, lawmakers urged the Army to get more of the carriers to the battlefront as quickly as possible. The vehicles, with their unique V-shaped hull that deflects blasts outward and away from passengers, are considered lifesavers against the No. 1 killer in Iraq - roadside bombs.
Military leaders say the carriers have reduced roadside bomb casualties in Iraq by as much as two-thirds. But they are not effective against the enemy's latest weapon - explosively formed penetrators, which hurl a fist-sized lump of molten copper capable of piercing armored vehicles.

Right now, there are at least 1,100 of the armored carriers on the battlefront in Iraq, including the 100 or so that rumble through Anbar province carrying troops and clearing roads of explosives.

The Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force and Special Operations forces want thousands more. The goal is more than 7,700, at a cost of about $8.4 billion.

The Army wants 2,500, at a cost of about $2.7 billion. The Marines are planning to buy 3,700 and would send about 3,000 to Iraq. There will be 525 in the country by the end of the year, said Brig. Gen. Mark Gurganus, ground combat commander for U.S. forces in western Iraq.

As the Pentagon scrapes to find the money to run the war in the midst of the budget impasse, the Pentagon says there is not enough cash to buy as many as commanders say they need.

"We can build what we can get the funds to build. It's strictly an issue of money," Gen. Peter Schoomaker, former Army chief of staff, told a Senate committee last month.

At the time, he said the Army had an unfunded requirement of about $2 billion. Lawmakers added some additional money to the bill, so that number would now be about $1.5 billion.

He said the Army believes "that not only do we need the MRAP immediately to give us better protection, but that we need to stay on a path to get an even better vehicle than the MRAP for the long haul, because the enemy is going to continue to adapt."

Senators pressed for more. "We're buying far too few of them," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. "If we have that capability, why would we not do everything to mobilize, to move as many of them into the field as is possible?

In January, the military approved contracts to buy 4,100 of the armored carriers, using nine different companies to fill the order. Although the Pentagon is shifting money around to cover war costs until the spending bill is signed, the Army said dollars already approved and in the pipeline for the vehicles will not be affected.

Additional orders cannot be placed until the disagreement over the war spending legislation is settled. That bill would give the Army ($1.2 billion), the Marines ($1.25 billion), the Navy ($154 million), the Air Force ($139 million) and special operations forces ($259 million) money to buy their own versions of the carriers, according to Bill Johnson-Miles, spokesman for the Marine Corps Systems Command.

The Defense Department has requested about $4.4 billion in the 2008 budget to buy more of the vehicles.

Out on the dusty roads in Anbar province, Marines say the carriers have proved their worth.

This month, Marine Staff Sgt. Tim Kessler said, Marines were riding in one and took a hit from a small roadside bomb. The blast blew a tire, and it took them more than 90 minutes to limp back to base, but no one was hurt. Days earlier, a carrier with six Marines was hit by two blasts; two Marines had broken bones, but they all survived.

"It's an extremely survivable vehicle. I guarantee it saves lives," said Kessler. Pointing to the scars on the side of the MRAP, he added that had they been riding in a Humvee or something else, "they would all be dead."
 
CougarShark said:
aren't there also RG-31 Nyalas (called "Cougar" in US service) being used by the USMC? ( http://www.defense-update.com/products/r/RG-31.htm )
The Cougar is not an RG-31.  Another page on the same web site you've linked shows a correct picture of the Cougar:  http://www.defense-update.com/products/c/cougar.htm

COUGAR6x6.jpg

http://www.forceprotection.net/models/cougar/

The US Army does use RG-31.  I don't know about the USMC.  The US Army also uses Buffalo (from the same company as Cougar): http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/35310.0.html
 
AGH! Its so frustrating to read this stuff! At a time like this, when yank blokes are getting chopped all the time, what do congress they do? They force sanctions on money that can save lives. All the left want to do is sit back, wave their white flag and say "I told you so" over and over again. Its pathetic.
The way i see it there are two great threats to our world, Global warming and Islamic terrorism. The Left is supporting one and denying the other, the right is doing the same except in reverse. It really frustrates me though to think that people are so short sighted that they think that it's us who are the problem in the Middle East. Just because we leave Iraq, mad bastards with bombs strapped to them aren't going to retire back to the dirt farm. They're going to move on to something else that looks flammable and is filled with people.

How do you negotiate with someone who's only language is a barking AK47 and a hate for all things Western/Christian? You cant.
The Yanks need that money, and if what that article says about the reduction of IED related deaths is true, its almost manslaughter to hold it back from them. Putting conditions on money for the soldiers is disgusting and I'm going to go off now to choke back the bile.
 
Don't even get me started.

This is all about politics, war spending and defense contracts.  DoD has contracts already for shitty vehicles that are already paid for and ordered; and thus balk at ordering new better vehicles from other companies cuz of it.  So they just let army soldiers die and vehicles to expire before they order new ones to replace them.  Same politics with body armor.

Disgusting.

(I think the marines did order some new kickass vehicles tho.  But they won't be ready for almost a year.)

r
 
Some pic's of a USMC Cougar that was struck by a large IED. No one was killed or seriously injured.

Cougar+wreck+001.jpg


Cougar+wreck+002.jpg


Cougar+wreck+009.jpg


Cougar+wreck+010.jpg
 
WOW!
Great pics T6 = thanks for posting em

If these aren't pure gold as advertising for the value of the product, I don't know what is.

 
Your joking arent you when you say no one was killed? Excuse me but F##KING WOW!
Thats unreal! The car is fucked up and you say no one got the chop. Thats unbelievable.
Awesome pics. Thanks.
 
yep.  those MRAP's are doing a great job protecting those contractors - while soldiers get crappy 10 y/o hummers with silk armor to drive around in.

r
 
razorguns said:
yep.  those MRAP's are doing a great job protecting those contractors - while soldiers get crappy 10 y/o hummers with silk armor to drive around in.
But your not bitter at all...Tell us what you really think... ;D
 
This was a military vehicle as were the rest in the picture. The plan I think is to have 1500 MRAP's in Iraq by years end with another 2000 more to follow. The manufacturers just cannot make enough to meet the demand.
 
that's cuz the first orders went to blackwater first.  they outbid the marine corps and army, so they got them all first.

r
 
Wrong again. Blackwater actually manufactures a MRAP. For use by their personnel they acquired Mastiffs from the UK, why the UK isnt using their own Mastiff's in theater one can only speculate.
 
whatever the name of the contracting company is.  i don't keep track.

here's a good article about just that :

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20478293/site/newsweek/

r
 
There was an atrticle in the paper today that indicates that Canada will be taking posession of a small fleet of the three types of vehicles (Cougar, Husky, Grizz).  This is a side deal with the US Army to get +/- 50 MRAPs into Afghanistan.
 
A little update: a US Army General says they will need less MRAP vehicles. Apparently they have some flaws, such as their inability to cross a few bridges in Iraq since they are "unwieldy" vehicles.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,157978,00.html

General: Army Will Need Fewer MRAPs
Stars and Stripes | Jeff Schogol | December 11, 2007

ARLINGTON, Va. -- U.S. soldiers in Iraq will need fewer Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles as troop levels drop next year, said Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, head of Multi-National Corps-Iraq.

The Army has been allocated 10,000 of the vehicles, known as MRAPs, which have V-shaped hulls to deflect blasts from underneath and have proven to withstand blasts much better than up-armored Humvees.

But the vehicles are also unwieldy and cannot operate off-road, in confined spaces, and they cannot cross many bridges.
On Monday, USA Today first reported that Odierno said the Army likely would not need as many MRAPs as originally thought.
"The number of brigades will reduce in the coming months and that reduces the need for the original higher number," Odierno said in a statement e-mailed to Stars and Stripes on Monday.

Related Article: Marines Urge Caution on MRAP Fielding

While Odierno did not provide a specific number of how many MRAPs are needed in Iraq, he said the Army will need more than the 1,500 vehicles expected to be in the U.S. Central Command theater of operations by the end of the year.

Odierno said he has asked brigade and battalion commanders for feedback to determine how many MRAPs are needed in Iraq and how the vehicles should be used.

"But we are now just receiving them and it will take a few months to determine the appropriate concept of operations and the appropriate number," he said.

He also said U.S. troops will continue to conduct dismounted patrols to interact with local Iraqis.

"We will secure the population where they sleep, earn their trust and confidence and continue to integrate Civilian and Military Efforts to improve security and stability," Odierno said.

MNC-I originally requested more than 17,000 MRAPs to replace up-armored Humvees; Defense officials later decided to allocate the Army 10,000 of the vehicles.
OdiernoÂ’s reassessment comes after Marine Corps officials said last month that the Corps was reducing its request for MRAPs from 3,700 to 2,300 due to the vehiclesÂ’ limitations and the improved security situation in Iraq.
And last week, Bloomberg.com reported that the head of the Defense DepartmentÂ’s MRAP task force planned to purchase about 3,200 MRAPs this month, or about half the number of vehicles the Defense Department was expected to order.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman had no further information on the matter Monday.

"The facts are, until we place an order, an order is not placed," Whitman said. "I wouldnÂ’t start counting those numbers until we do."

Despite the Army and Marine CorpsÂ’ reassessment of their MRAP needs, commanders still want the vehicles, a senior military official said on Monday.

"Though it would have been great to have had them a year ago, that doesnÂ’t mean theyÂ’re not still critically needed," the official said.

 
CougarDaddy said:
He also said U.S. troops will continue to conduct dismounted patrols to interact with local Iraqis.

"We will secure the population where they sleep, earn their trust and confidence and continue to integrate Civilian and Military Efforts to improve security and stability," Odierno said.

Fascinating.....

 
razorguns said:
that's cuz the first orders went to blackwater first.  they outbid the marine corps and army, so they got them all first.

r

BW doesn't have any MRAPs in Iraq. They do have thier own vehicles made in thier own factory however (Grizzly?). They also have the usual surplus Saxon, Mambas, etc that many companies have.

The article doesn't mention that the MRAPs also tear down the powerlines of the streets they drive down.  Some units that recieved the MRAP have not been able to use them due to their size.
 
Spent some time looking for the article and can't find it but one that I saw recently touting the Mastiffs/Cougars/MRAPs in British service in Afghanistan seemed to be saying that they were being operated by Combat Service Support personnel (RLC?).  That would suggest they were being used more as armoured buses and as convoy escorts??
 
Back
Top