GHQ Models Forums

No, this isn't another story about the Brits using large mammals to scare the Iraqis!

This week USA Today ran a long article about MRAPs. I had already ordered the Buffalo from GHQ but didn't notice any Cougar MRAPs in the catalog. Does anything like this exist in the GHQ line? If not, any plans for them?

According to the article in June "Pentagon officials approved an Army strategy for buying as many as 17,700 MRAPs, allowing a one-for-one swap for its armored Humvees."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2 ... htm?csp=34

(The online version of the article is missing a very nice graphic that shows the different versions of the MRAP including the Buffalo).

I'm just about done with my reinforced Stryker battalion. It looks like for those of us trying to field very near-future American forces the Cougar MRAPs (both the 4x4 and 6x6 versions) will be very important for our collections.

BTW...according to the article the Cougar MRAPs also go by the names Golan, RG-31/33 (4x4), RG-33L (6x6), and RG-31 Extended (6x6).

A cougar 4x4 model should be available in a few months, its on the list I think.

...and the MRAP program is composed of many different vehicle kinds. The rg31 and 33 are not the same as the force protection cougar/buffalo series

You're right Shawno, found it on the list. Thanks!!!

OCTOBER 2007
N517 Cougar 4 x 4 APC

The USA Today article conflated the various MRAPs in their presentation. Any more details available for US forces that you're aware of? Who wil be fielding the other types mentioned?

Crying shame! Cool vehicles though!

Sean

Timothy OConnor wrote:You're right Shawno, found it on the list. Thanks!!!

OCTOBER 2007
N517 Cougar 4 x 4 APC

The USA Today article conflated the various MRAPs in their presentation. Any more details available for US forces that you're aware of? Who wil be fielding the other types mentioned?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP_(armored_vehicle)

Try there for US purchases. There seem to be a wide array of platforms being adopted, which is odd from a logistical point...I also hope that these fleets are sustainable, and do not simply become orphan fleets once the Iraq conflict ceases.

As for Canadians, they are currently using the RG 31 in afghanistan, and have ordered cougar/buffalo for EOD and route proving.

I think that we will see that these will be replacing the HUMMV here within the next 10 years. Personal opinion is that somebody droped the ball.

Granted the High Command folks didn't think that we would still be in Iraq so thought we wouldn't need them.

Only problem with that train of thought there will be this type of "threat" in every theater of operations the US goes to from here on out. Not too many nations can go toe to toe with the military might of the US so this "gurella"/"terroist" (depending what side your on) action will become the norm I believe.

Heck the cougar even has longer "legs" than the HUMMV, 600 miles as opposed to the 300 of the HUMMV between refueling. (Granted this might be overstated like in the Stryker, instead of getting the 5 - 6 mpg as stated it was getting 2 -3 mpg on average.)

Even taking what the original article posted as half factual that is alot of troops that didn't need to die. Not to even mention the number wounded in some way. (Seeing more and more up here in Alaska from that. Granted there is a higher per capital of vets up here than most states so it is possible to just see it more.) Scroll through the list of casulties and you'll see most of them are killed by IED's.

There is no reason to be fielding troops in vunerable vehicles when there is a off the shelf capabilty out there.

To a lighter note...I had some incredable trouble putting the brass laders onto the Buffalo's I just got. Any one else have the same issues?

Sean

That new truck looks derived from the South African Buffel. Is it planned or coincidence that ours is a 'Buffalo'?

http://www.warwheels.net/Buffel1APCindex.html