Henley-Putnam University

Currently browsing entries tagged MRAP

USMC buys more, smaller MRAP vehicles

The USMC purchased 773 MRAP from General Dynamics. See a press release here. The contract is worth over $500 M. These are RG-31 MRAP designed in South Africa and will be sent to Afghanistan. The RG-31 was selected as it is smaller and lighter then other MRAP in the inventory and [...]

Comments

Tagged with: , , , , ,

The State.com wrote similar article on Force Protection

The State.com, the website for the South Carolina State newspaper, published here a similar article to the one I wrote on Seekingalpha.com here. I guess it shows that some things appeal to a variety of people.

Comments

Tagged with: ,

Struggling Force Protection wins UK contract

Force Protection announced that they had been awarded a contract to deliver 157 MRAP to the UK armed forces. See the press release here. Force Protection had been struggling as they won very little of the last US contract for MRAP vehicles. This contract will certainly tide them over for several months [...]

Comments

Tagged with: , , , , ,

BAE may expand Michigan facility

This story is about how BAE Systems possible expanded production of MRAP’s and their submission of a bid for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) contract may allow them to enlarge their Michigan facility. Right now no production is done there, but the demand for the MRAP or JLTV may lead that to be [...]

Comments

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

DoD buys bulk of MRAPs from other sources then Force Protection

Force Protection won just 1 percent of a contract for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles awarded on Friday. This is a big blow to the company, and they state they have enough current orders to keep going for 8 months. See Bloomberg.com here. This means that Force Protection, which basically arose [...]

Comments (2)

Tagged with: , , , ,

Congressional micromanageing of the Defense Budget screws up Force Protection

This article in The Charleston Post-Gazette discusses how Force Protection Inc. went through a boom period, and now seems to be heading towards a downturn. This is all due to Congress suddenly deciding that the Army and Marines need more MRAPs.

Comments

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

US Army orders vehicles from Oshkosh

The US Army ordered $272 M worth of Heavy Tactical Vehicles from Oshokosh Corporation. See the press release here. In the last few months Oshkosh had also been awarded a MRAP contract.

Comments

Tagged with:

Bad reporting leads to bad news on the MRAP

This story, along with many others over the last week, has pretty much been proven wrong. It seems the Pentagon wants to continue it though. See the work at Badgers Forward for more information. I guess it all depends on your definition of what a MRAP is. Also, the poor soldier [...]

Comments

Tagged with: ,

US Army awards BAE Systems initial Medium Mine Protected Vehicle (MMPV) contract

The US Army awarded BAE Systems a initial order of $20 M for MMPV. The total contract could have a value of $2.3 Billion. See the story here. BAE will perform most of the work at Letterkenny Army Depot. This initial order is for 9 vehicles for evaluation. This is [...]

Comments

Tagged with: ,

National Defense Magazine reports USMC souring on the MRAP

The MRAP, as previously discussed, was a knee-jerk reaction by Congress to the IED threat. Now the Marines are realizing that they really have no use for the out sized tactical vehicle in their normal operations. See this note here about how it is not meeting the needs of the USMC and the [...]

Comments

Tagged with: ,

Force Protection stock takes hit with smaller than expected MRAP order

This article from Schaeffer’s Investment Research discusses how Force Protection corporation’s stock took a hit as they received a smaller than expected order from DoD for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles. DoD awarded three companies orders for a total of 3,126. Force Protection received the smallest part of that order. On [...]

Comments

Tagged with: