MRAP v Superbombs (Updated)
- 1:24 am |
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.
The challenge – as always with armor – is to come up with protection that is strong enough to stop the threat but light enough for a vehicle to carry. Steel plate one inch thick weighs almost forty pounds per square foot; multiply that by the number of hundreds of square feet you need to project and you can see why Hummers are struggling with the weight of add-on armor. And an inch is not that much – this EFP went through two inches of aluminium side armor on a Bradley.
"The Battelle breakthrough material is a uniquely tailored composite that includes ceramics, reinforcing, and patented binders. Battelle and Protected Vehicles, Inc. collaborated to create the PVI armor system trademarked as "ShieldAllTM."
At less than 37 percent the weight of steel armor, the Battelle material alone is capable of stopping multiple armor piercing projectiles exceeding a 7.62mm threat as a stand-alone component. When combined with Protected Vehicles, Inc. armoring methodologies, the complete system is capable of stopping threats from 50-caliber armor-piercing shells without the weight associated with conventional metal or ceramic armor."
Meanwhile Oshkosh Truck, Ceradyne and Ideal Innovations are teaming up to produce Bull, which " is designed to meet current IED threats, and is intended to withstand the increasingly prevalent and higher EFP threats now faced by the U.S. military." Again details are understandably lacking, but this appears to based on a form of composite armor.
The composite approach is a familiar one, which typically involves using hard layers which will shatter or disrupt the incoming projectile (for example, causing it to tumble) and tough resilient layers to absorb the debris. Spaces between the layers may also improve protection. Even if this does not stop the EFP completely it can greatly reduce the effectiveness, making the difference between a few light injuries (as in the Bradley EFP above) and fatalities.
At present EFPs only constitute a small percentage of IEDs in Iraq, and it is estimated that MRAP could reduce the casualties from this sort of attack by 80%. But EFPs are on the rise and MRAP II will be needed sooner rather than later.
UPDATE: But as commenters have noted, PVI is facing a legal challenge from a competitor who claims that the company took advantage of their access to company secrets:
Force Protection charges that Protected Vehicles relied on that information to “unfairly compete with the armored vehicles produced by Force Protection, in particular, the Buffalo, Cougar, and the Cheetah.”
Perhaps this is not surprising considering the multi-billion-dollar business that MRAP has become, but it’s not pretty.
* Bomb-Fighting Vehicles Bite the Dust
* Bomb-Resistant Vehicles’ Long Road to Acceptance
* Picture This: MRAP Menagerie
* Armor-Makers "Risked Soldiers’ Lives," Says Pentagon I.G.
* Manufacturers Can’t Fill Bomb-Proof Vehicle Demand
* Which Ride Takes Bomb-Blasts Best?
* Military Dragged Feet on Bomb-Proof Vehicles
* Bomb-Proof Vehicles: Why the Delay?
* Army Junking Future for New Rides?