A roadside bomb in Afghanistan that recently tore through the hull of an armored Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle, killing six American soldiers, has been called "considerably larger" than bombs previously seen in the country, leading some defense analysts to worry about the potential beginning of a trend toward bigger and deadlier improvised explosive devices/.../
Eric Lindsey, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments who studies military vehicle issues, asserted that larger IEDs pose a real dilemma for armored vehicle makers.
"We've already spent over $40 billion procuring vehicles like the one that was just destroyed, and procuring a new, better-protected generation would cost billions more," he wrote in a July 11 email. "Early reports would seem to suggest that the weapon used in the latest Afghanistan incident was simply bigger, not better. Of course, bigger weapons are harder to emplace and harder to conceal, but even for an adversary with extremely limited means like the Afghan Taliban, there's no real limit on how lethal they can be."
Lindsey was skeptical, however, as to whether or not larger IEDs would become the norm.
"Will the threat of super-IEDs drive the ground forces to procure even better-protected tactical wheeled vehicles? I don't think so," he wrote. "I think there's a recognition that out beyond the current [MRAP] level of protection, the marginal costs of additional armor in terms of price and mobility outweigh the marginal benefit. I think that recognition is evident in the JLTV program, which is seeking to improve vehicle mobility and improve vehicle price, while maintaining current levels of protection/.../"