MRAPs can't stop newest weapon-Vehicles need extra armor, military says

[babylonsister]

Recall MRAPs were going to be the new troop saviors, and was one of the major reasons the latest funding was approved.


http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070531/1a_lede31_dom.art.htm

MRAPs can't stop newest weapon
Vehicles need extra armor, military says

By Tom Vanden Brook
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — New military vehicles that are supposed to better protect troops from roadside explosions in Iraq aren't strong enough to withstand the latest type of bombs used by insurgents, according to Pentagon documents and military officials.

As a result, the vehicles need more armor added to them, according to a January Marine Corps document provided to USA TODAY. The Pentagon faced the same problem with its Humvees at the beginning of the war.

The military plans to spend as much as $25 billion for up to 22,000 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles by 2009. Last month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared that buying the new vehicles should be the Pentagon's top procurement priority.

But the armor on those vehicles cannot stop the newest bomb to emerge, known as an explosively formed penetrator (EFP). The Pentagon plans to replace virtually all Humvees with MRAPs to provide better protection against roadside bombs, responsible for most casualties in Iraq.

more...

[wakeme2008]

1. IMHO this is more BS because the Pentagon did not invent the

truck.

Would this save hundreds of lives, YES, can you protect against everything NO. How many lives would be lost waiting for the Pentagon to design the Super MRAPs,,, hundreds...

[Solly Mack]

2. EFP's were around in 2003/2004 when my husband was in Iraq

that's how long government has NOT had a solution

[Selatius]

5. EFPs are some nasty devices. They're low-tech but extremely effective against lightly armed vehicles

You would need a tank or an APC to defend against an EFP, not a humvee:





This one was captured in Iraq. As you can see, it's made from simple pipe work.

[Solly Mack]

6. I'm well versed in them thanks to my husband

[maine_raptor]

3. Just a question here.

Because the link won't load w/o causing an error, but WHO says the armor can't stop the EFP's. Has there ever been an independent test run with public results?

[babylonsister]

4. The military says so, and I guess they've seen it happen. From the article:

The document, dated Jan. 13, is called an urgent universal need statement. The statements are written by field commanders in all services, who want commercially available solutions to battlefield problems.

Since MRAPs are so much safer against traditional roadside bombs, the document says, Iraqi insurgents' use of EFPs "can be expected to increase significantly."

As a result, the Marine commanders in Iraq who wrote the statement asked for more armor to be added to the new vehicles.

"Ricocheting hull fragments, equipment debris and the penetrating slugs themselves shred vulnerable vehicle occupants who are in their path," said the document, which asks for 3,400 sets of add-on armor.

The Army has tested armor that appears to protect MRAPs from the explosives, said Brig. Gen. Michael Brogan, who confirmed the document's authenticity. Brogan leads Marine Corps Systems Command, the lead agency for the MRAP program.

snip//

EFPs are explosives capped by a metal disk. The blast turns the disk into a high-speed slug that can penetrate armor.

The Army's solution, Brogan said, involves armor that can fracture the slug.

[maine_raptor]

7. Thanks, babylonsister

:hi:

Yea, this is kinda what I thought. Marines vs Army.

BTW: That statement: "can be expected to increase significantly." is no surprise. Battle of Offense vs Defense - see knights in shinning armor vs. matchlocks.

Interesting that they are worried about interior spalling. I had heard that a layer of Kevlar on the inside had been added to reduce that effect. Perhaps this is what they are talking about.

This also reminds me of the "debate" over Dragonskin body armor.