Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicles

Share KSS on:

Welcome to Kurdistan sky scrapers forum. Hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicles; MRAP Vehicles: Overview & Categories
Topic Started: 13th January 2015 - 05:48 PM (1,461 Views)
Jim M	13th January 2015 - 05:48 PM Post #1
R. Sergeant Major Posts: 693 Group: Elite Member #536 Joined: Sep 26, 2014 Mood None	Limitations of the MRAP MRAP has acquired a well-deserved reputation as the "most survivable" vehicle, with casualty rates at a very low six-percent. However, the heavy weight and large size of the MRAP imposes limitations, including: •Poor maneuverability makes it difficult, sometimes impossible to use in an urban environment •Poor off-road performance •Prone to tipping •70% of world’s bridges can’t hold MRAPs •Too wide for many roads •High fuel consumption—approximately 3 mpg •Can only be airlifted by U.S. Air Force’s C-17 and C-5, and Russia’s AN-124 •Do not fit on the Marine’s pre-positioning ships http://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_mrap.php The limitations are not an overriding concern because at the end of the day they will bring your boys home alive.



kurdo82	15th January 2015 - 07:23 PM Post #2
Posts: 1,170 Group: Senior Members Member #441 Joined: Jul 3, 2014 Mood None	hmm, MRAPs are specialized vehicles and specifically built for a certain type of combat, the US government has bought so many of them that they dont know what to do with them, giving them to their police, a LAV type vehicle with some mine resisting capabilities would be more useful and versatile. Edited by kurdo82, 15th January 2015 - 11:55 PM.



Frenchy	15th January 2015 - 10:17 PM Post #3
Posts: 198 Group: Senior Members Member #493 Joined: Aug 21, 2014	Perhaps, but one is a mine and ambush resistant vehicle for transport while the other one is an armoured personnel carrier for fighting: they don't have the same purpose. And the average unit cost for a Cougar MRAP is $800,000 when it's $2,000,000 for a LAV III. At last, like Jim pointed out, the MRAP is the "most survivable" vehicle. When facing an insurgency (ambush, mines, etc), the MRAP is, in my opinion, a better choice than an armoured fighting vehicle.



lashgare	17th January 2015 - 07:34 AM Post #4
BANNED Posts: 767 Group: Members Member #232 Joined: Sep 6, 2013 Mood None	Frenchy 15th January 2015 - 10:17 PM Perhaps, but one is a mine and ambush resistant vehicle for transport while the other one is an armoured personnel carrier for fighting: they don't have the same purpose. And the average unit cost for a Cougar MRAP is $800,000 when it's $2,000,000 for a LAV III. At last, like Jim pointed out, the MRAP is the "most survivable" vehicle. When facing an insurgency (ambush, mines, etc), the MRAP is, in my opinion, a better choice than an armoured fighting vehicle. Vehicles don't seem to be as important in this war, more than logistics and going from A to B securely. If employed counter-insurgency and asymmetric warfare better, they'd have gotten the advantage over others.



0 users reading this topic


« Previous Topic · Kurdish Military · Next Topic »