Has the Explosive Device Impacted US Ability to Develop a Reasonably Priced Tactical Vehicle - Report Example

Has the Improved Explosive Device Impacted US Ability to Develop a Reasonably Priced Tactical Vehicle? Introduction The improvised explosive devices(roadside bomb), is usually a homemade bomb constructed and deployed by other means other than the conventional action of the military. IEDs were extensively used against the coalition forces by the guerrillas in Iraq and Afghanistan. By the end of 2007 almost 60% of the coalition deaths in Iraq and 70% in Afghanistan were as a result of IEDs1. The IEDs common sites include carcasses, boxes and soft drink cans placed on the ground. The aim of selecting these sites is for them to explode underneath or beside a vehicle causing maximum damage2. The improvement of the vehicle armor on the military vehicle has made the insurgents to place IEDs on raised positions like utility poles, road signs or trees so as to be able to hit the less protected areas. In Afghanistan, it was reported by military experts in January 2010 that Taliban fighters had already developed a new, almost undetectable generation of the IEDs. This new generation has no metallic or electronic parts compared to the previous IEDs that were triggered by two blades of hack-saw separated by a spacer. The most recent and lethal means of exploding the IEDs is the trigger mechanism which incorporates either the use of the radio, cell phone, is victim-operated or infrared device which makes it difficult to detect or disarm them. Impacts of Improved Explosive Devices (IEDs) in Iraq and Afghanistan on US Army’s Ability to Develop a Reasonably Priced Tactical Vehicle Due to the new inventions and improvements in the use of IEDs, law enforcement and military forces personnel have come up with several RSP (render safe procedures) to curb the threat of IEDs. These RSP may be developed from direct experience with the devices or research applied which is designed to counter the threat. Among countermeasures put in place include the application of the underbelly armor appliqué’ on the EFV (Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle) as it comes ashore and before their encounter with the IEDs following the June 2007 letter from the Subcommittee of House Armed Services on Expeditionary Forces and Sea Power to the marine corps commandant3. The January and February 2010 tests at the centre of Aberdeen showed that the EFV offers protection on blast equal to 2nd category protected vehicle of the mine resistant ambush, including two IEDs which are simulated on its tracks and under its belly4. Improved explosive devices (IEDs) in Iraq and Afghanistan have also impacted the US army’s ability to develop a reasonably priced tactical vehicle. This is because it has since helped in the development of improvised vehicle armor. This is an armor that is added or centrally planned in the field, which was originally part of the design. In the recent US-Iraq and US-Afghanistan wars, US troops armored their Humvees in their war against Iraq. Their transport vehicles were also armored with scrap materials. The Americans came to know this as “hillbilly armor or hajji armor” when Iraqi contractors installed it5. In Afghanistan, the US troops lined their vehicles’ floor with sandbags to provide them with extra protection against improvised explosive devices. Sometimes, US tanks had tracks of spare strips welded on the hulls6. However, this was to provide them short lived protection, as the Iraqis and Afghanistan’s learnt about it and devised the devices in a way that they could destroy them by use of new trigger mechanisms. This was a loss to the US army because despite the investment, the impact was not to last for long, and they had to find another means of dealing with the trigger mechanism. When Baghdad was captured by US troops, vehicles of military police were fully installed with required machinery. However, road side bombs, snipers, RPG teams and small alarms were deployed by insurgent forces to attack US military vehicles on known routes and supply conveys. American troops protected themselves from such threats by reinforcing their LMTVs, Humvees and all the other vehicles with anything that was readily available like vests, Kevlar blankets, and scrap metals7. This improved the ability of US troops to develop a reasonably priced tactical vehicle. Unfortunately, they in some instances used the Iraqis to help them in such efforts. This reduced their security level since these same Iraqis reported what the American troops were doing to their army, who worked for counterproductive ways to these efforts. In 2003, US army deployed “up-armor” kits to protect military vehicles much better. They implemented three “up-armor” levels (Irish, 2004). Level one consisted of a fully integrated armor which was installed during the production of the vehicle. The second level involved the application of an add-on armor while the third level consisted of a locally fabricated armor which included plywood, scrap metal, blankets made of Kevlar, vests and worn out ballistic glasses. Recently, in 2006, the US army welded additional armor onto Humvee that was already armored with 5-ton MTV and variant M1114 in Iraq. This is more improvised and has ensured them much more protection in their war against Iraqis and Afghanistan’s. Improvised armor reinforcing of US military vehicles came to be well known after the questioning of US soldiers by defense secretary of US about the importance of salvaging armor using scrap materials in Kuwait. However, it was said that 95% of the 300 vehicles in the unit had no appropriate armor, due to equipping of the National Guard with double standards as opposed to active duty forces8. Shortage of vehicles that were armored among US troops made Meehan describe the situation of their army in Iraq as a center of gravity that was dangerously exposed. He also described their insurgent tactics like deployment of improvised explosive devices as unpreparedness and a characteristic of irrational rushed war. Although described as such by Meehan, the use of VBIED (vehicle borne IED) which uses the car fuel as additional incendiary weapon has proven to be a challenge especially because it is mostly used by suicide bombers. Also the employment of the HBEID (House borne IED) by insurgents has proven to be quite a hard nut to crack. A market research conducted by the Department of Homeland Security (USA) indicated an increase in the use of IEDs in Afghanistan by 400% from 2007 with a 400% rise in the number of law enforcers killed by them and 700% in those wounded9. IEDs have been reported as the main cause of death of NATO troops. This has led to the use of sniffer dogs which one brigade commander stated as the most effective method of detecting IEDs having achieved great results. The development of EFV, from AAAV (Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle), which was slower and low in fire power, was an expensive venture (Cost $15 billion). However it offered more protection against attacks including those from IEDs and is lighter in weight. James Amos who was the 35th marine corps commandant argued that although the EFV’s amphibious ability and fighting capability, the costs of procuring, operating and maintaining it were exorbitant hence exceeding the considered criteria of reasonable affordability with others stating that the funding from the cancelled EFV project to be used to develop other ground vehicles which are more tactical although these might mean injecting more finance from the budget. Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) is a development of AAAV, fitted with mine blast protection composite armor, a nuclear, chemical and biological defense system. This project was very costly to the US government though it offered secure and more improvised protection against Iraqi and Afghanistan soldiers. On the other hand, it has negatively affected the US economy, since such funds could be used to fund development projects. Many of the US soldiers have also been dying as the Iraqi and Afghanistan army were very tactical in applying their defense mechanisms. Conclusion Use of improvised explosive devices by Iraqi and Afghanistan soldiers has triggered the ability of American troops to develop reasonably priced tactical vehicles to enhance their protection. This has however had both positive and negative effects on the US troops. Use of low priced and readily available materials like scrap metals has been very successful. Unfortunately, the Iraqis and Afghanistans have been very tactful in developing counterproductive measures like the use of trigger mechanisms which incorporate the radio, infrared and other normally undetectable devices. Another factor that has made it hard for US army to develop reasonably priced tactical vehicles is that the US army had to armor every military vehicle. Contrary to this, the insurgent groups have developed weapons for mass destruction, using locally available materials. This has made it very easy for them to continue with mass destruction using improvised explosive devices. However, the US army has been very successful in armoring their vehicles as a means to curb mass destruction. \ Works Cited Gates Robert. Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. Accessed 21st April, 2011 http://www.marcorsyscom.usmc.mil/peolandsystems/efv.aspx Hirsh Michael, John Barry & Babak Dehghanpisheh. Hillbilly Armor: Defense Sees Its Fallen Short in securing the Troops. The Grunts Already Knew. Chicago. Chicago University Press. 2004. Lamothe. Dan. EFV has MRAP-Level Protection, Conway Says. 2010. Accessed 21st April, 2011 http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/03/marine_efv_030110w/ Loren Thompson. 2010. A Vision of Future Amphibious Warfare that will not Work. Defence.Professionals GmbH. Accessed 21st April 2011http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/a-vision-of-future-amphibious-warfare-that-will-not-work1?a=1&c=1171 Moran Michael. 2004. Frantically, the Army Tries to Armor Humvees: Soft-Skinned Workhorses Turning into Death Traps. Accessed 21st April, 2011 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4731185/ns/world_news-brave_new_world/ Read More