Re: MRAPs and a couple of general questions.
 

Sorry to say this,,, this is a clearly photoshopped pic.
Notice it a moving picture,yet the holes in the wheels are not blurred, looks like a model,too perfect.

Re: MRAPs and a couple of general questions.
 

Bit of work to get the tyres blurred round edges etc, lot easier just to take photo of it moving.

Taken close up does not have to be going very fast for background to blur as pan.
Also note wheels have 3 holes in top picture more in bottom.
This is due to rotation speed being in synch with something just like sometimes when a vehicle slows down the wheels appear to rotate backwards for a moment.
Get the frame synch just right & you can film a helicopter flying without its rotor appearing to move for instance.

Re: MRAPs and a couple of general questions.
 

Your correct on some,but still looks too perfect.
Clearly some retouching is done.
Probaly the DOD recuiting propaganda.
Good photo's anyway FT:D

Re: MRAPs and a couple of general questions.
 

Just came across this article concerning the RANGER. For IMP, Cross or someone else from across the pond does a visit like this mean anything when a piece of equipment is several monthes into the evaluation process?
http://www.universalengineering.co.uk/news.html
Regards,
Pat

Re: MRAPs and a couple of general questions.
 

No idea would say no possibly a marketing/awarness ploy, the article does state its touring all sub-contractors as part of its trials. Probably tied in with DSEi show mentioned.
Of course he could have been there to acess the manufacturing capabilities of the company if given the contract despite having no clue in that field. Fairly typical Govt procedure esp if he was accompanied by half a dozen other "experts" in that field.
Wouldnt happen in real life obviously as it would be a terrible waste of public money, kinda like letting a Civy have the final decision on what weapon systems to purchase rather than letting the guys that are going to use it decide.

Re: MRAPs and a couple of general questions.
 

John,
Sounds like it's the same as here, just wasn't sure.
Thanks!
Regards,
Pat

Re: MRAPs and a couple of general questions.
 

SPV400 enters second round of blast testing as the competition between it and the OCELOT continues. British MOD conducting competition in the LPPV class of vehicles with the winner replacing MOD's Land Rovers.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_1714.html
Pic:
Attachment 10115
Regards,
Pat

Re: MRAPs and a couple of general questions.
 

Updates on two programs I've been tracking. First the HAWKEI makes the "AUSSIE" shortlist, see posts #29 & #31 for more background on this thread. Update as follows:
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/15513/
And next an OCELOT update, this is one of two vehicles
(SPV400 is the other.) chosen as finalists in the British MOD LPPV program. Update as follows:
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/15489/
Regards,
Pat

Re: MRAPs and a couple of general questions.
 

The US Army tends to create new units (platoons. companies, battalions, etc.) whenever they adopt a new type of equipment, such as a wheeled, light armored, light armed APC - i.e. MRAP.

My understanding is the USMC has never had any plans to create "MRAP" units. They have them, they use them, issuing them when needed to existing units (platoons and companies) as transport vehicles in place of trucks, LVT/AAV's, etc.

Re: MRAPs and a couple of general questions.
 

Actually, in this case the only service I know to have specifically created MRAP units is the USMC, which attached provisional companies of the vehicles to existing units to be doled out as needed.

I also wouldn't say the US Army creates new units every time a new piece of equipment comes along. It does modify the TOEs very often, but rarely is the unit designation changed. When the USMC creates a provisional unit they seem to apply a relatively unambiguous name, like "MRAP Company." The US Army on the other hand simply creates some magical MTOE from an existing one (or even makes an new official TOE), and then slaps something in parenthesis on the end that is decidedly more confusing. The basic unit designation doesn't change and is entirely based on the branch the unit is in.

As far as MRAPs are concerned, the only unit in the US Army that is specifically designed to use them are the Engineer Companies (Route Clearance), which were planned to be equipped with them when the vehicles were being tested prior to start of the craze in 2004. These units had been planned under the program to develop a Ground Standoff Minefield Detection System which started testing vehicles in 1999.

In 2007, the USMC had initiated a plan to replace all up-armored HMMWVs it had with MRAPs. By November 2007, the USMC had shifted its plan, reducing its buy significantly, with the balance going to services that had in the interim actually increased their buy (this was basically everyone else). The US Army has integrated these vehicles into existing units in lieu of HMMWVs for the most part, and trucks to a lesser degree. With the exception of the provisional companies already noted, this appears to have been the case in the USMC too. The new M-ATV is being similarly integrated in place of units that were to have been issued HMMWVs.