There’s so much Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected armored truck money being thrown around — up to $20 billion in the next four years — that every truck maker under the sun wants a slice. What was once a niche market dominated by mom-and-pop firms such as Force Protection Inc. in South Carolina in now contested by defense industry giants BAE Systems and General Dynamics and commercial auto makers Oshkosh and International Trucks. That’s not surprising. But what is surprising is who has won big orders, and who hasn’t.
Force Protection, a leader in the field for years, unsurprisingly has nabbed a huge chunk of the MRAP orders: roughly 2,000 so far. And BAE Systems has scored 600 thanks in part to its acquisition of Armor Holdings, which designs and builds — what else — armor, including the kind you might wrap around an MRAP. These company’s successes are no-brainers.
But consider International Trucks, which has never built a true combat vehicle but is now an MRAP favorite, with orders for 2,000 of its MaxxPro design. International manager Bob Walsh chalks up the firms’ recent successes to its long experience building commercial trucks and to its rigorous testing.
Now consider the losers. Despite being the fourth-largest U.S. defense contractor, General Dynamics has scored only 50 orders for its RG-31 MRAP design, pictured, which is broadly similar to BAE’s model. When I called GD for comment, their spokesman just sort of verbally shrugged. Could the lack of an Armor Holdings-esque partner be undermining their chances?
Then there was Textron. After selling 400 M-1117 Armored Security Vehicles (normally used by military police) as MRAPS, the firm was informed that it would not be asked to compete for further orders. Why? Defense Industry Daily speculates that the M-1117′s lighter weight compared to other MRAP designs — 12 tons versus 17 for a Force Protection Cougar — means it can’t withstand larger roadside bombs. DID also points out that Textron’s armored vehicle plant was badly damaged by Hurricane Katrina, potentially limiting its ability to produce vehicles on time. Textron, for its part, isn’t saying much other than they haven’t heard anything about new orders, so we’re asking any readers who have M-1117 experience to speak up. And don’t worry, we’ll keep your identities secret. Is the M-1117 tough enough to survive IEDs? Testify in the comments section or email us at david_axe-at-hotmail.com.
Related:
MRAP photos!
Force Protection ramps up
Aussie MRAPs get the nod
Afghans get MRAPs, too
Related posts:
What about Oshkosh getting kicked to the curb? I see where Bloomberg was quoted as saying the CAT I Alpha has been rejected by the Military and the PM of Australia has been quoted as saying the Bushmaster is out of the running as a CAT II.
Here’s the link to the Bloomberg article – http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&refer=conews&tkr=FRPT:US&sid=aDiwYoF0mTdM
and here’s the link to the Prime Minister speaking about the Bushmaster with the Program Manager saying they don’t have the capacity needed by the US military – http://ninemsn.video.msn.com/v/en-au/v.htm?f=39&g=b808bc16-43d5-4f10-a70f-6f4db38c2dab&p=aunews_ausunday&t=s29&mediaid=105269
Zippy
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties_mar07.htm
You will have to cut & paste the link.
It is yet to be seen how the Navistar MRAP will perform in actual combat. With no protection for the drive train will the troops become trapped? Will they be able to drive away? Or will the vehicle just be abandoned?
A quick comment about Textrons future in MRAP…
If the troops get their choice of vehicles they will get what they themselves have coined as the “Gold Standard of MRAP’s”, Time tested in theater & proven where it counts in battle, Force Protection vehicles could be built in excess of 1000 per month by spring of 08 satisfying all long term MRAP 1 & MRAP 2 needs.
As reported in the Star Tribune last month Textron may become a key sub-contractor for Force Protection, Inc. building Cougars & possibly Cheetahs.
http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1301468.html
We have built hundreds of these vehicles [and] we are in partnerships with General Dynamics, Armor Holdings and Textron that will allow us to get up to deliveries of 1,000 a month as of the spring of 2008,” said Michael Aldrich, vice president of Force Protection’s marketing and government relations. “It’s a rather steep ramp-up that we are creating. That will make a significant difference in how the enemy treats us.”
General Dynamics gets half of the FP contracts under the Force Dynamics partnership, and already has orders delivered or on the books for 425 RG-31s. Those vehicles are produced in conjunction with BAE OMC of South Africa and GD Canada. The 101st has been using them for several years, in a rare burst of sense within the Army.
Hard to say whether the RG-31 MRAP slowdown (ask if the vehicles have been sent for testing at Aberdeen, and if so when) may be a quiet quid pro quo to FP. Either way, however, GD needs to do something about its long term absence from the field because Force Dynamics is currently only for the Cougar and only for MRAP.
RE: Textron… none of the M1117 vehicles were bought under MRAP. They were bought primarily as MP vehicles, and further orders have been placed (see recent DID article) on that basis. All Textron ever delivered under MRAP are the test vehicles.
Still puzzled/surprised re: the Bushmaster’s absence. With vehicles having served in Iraq and Afghanistan for years with the Australians and Dutch, you’d think it would have fit the “low risk” profile that resulted in orders for RG-33s, Alphas, Cougars, and even 20 RG-31s in advance of testing. The numbers were low, and it would have made gauging production capacity easy. But that never happened, and to this day I do not understand why not.
[...] Related: MRAP losers keep mum MRAP photos! Force Protection ramps up Aussie MRAPs get the nod Afghans get MRAPs, too No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong> [...]
[...] Related: MRAP contenders whittled down How to build a bazillion MRAPs MRAP losers keep mum Force Protection ramps up Afghans get MRAPs, too No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong> [...]
I would like to clear up some boasting errors in the articles referring to ”mraps” – 1st of all – they are actually called APC’s and always have been – they ”mraps” have been used by the South African military for over the last 30 or so years (research angolan war – or SADF – or border war) they have been using exactly the same vehicles / designs that only seem only to be noted now – force protection was never the leader in this field as they have just merely stolen the design concept and modified it to make it look like they have come up with their own stuff – if you look at the south african designs such as RG31 – RG32, Mamba – you will see the extreme similarities.
BAE OMC is a South African company (previously reumech OMC) that was sold to BAE and still operates form the old REUMECH OMC factory in South Africa.
And general Dynamics ”RG-31 design” whats that – it looks lika a 100% exact replica of the RG-31 of Reumech OMC – I cant beleive they even named it the same as well – arent any of these american companies embarrased by the fact that they can’t come up with their own designs? – they seem to be trying to cover up the history of armoured APC’s and trying to show the world they have a new revolutionary product to offer!!