Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Force Protection, Inc.

Force Protection, Inc. was a South Carolina-based manufacturer specializing in blast- and ballistic-protected military vehicles, particularly mine-resistant ambush-protected () platforms designed to mitigate threats from improvised explosive devices and fire. Founded in , the company shifted its focus to armored vehicle production following the acquisition of Technical Solutions Group, Inc., and rapidly expanded during the and conflicts by delivering over 3,000 vehicles, including the and models, under U.S. military contracts that emphasized rapid deployment to counter roadside bomb casualties. Its vehicles' designs were credited with enhancing troop survivability in high-threat environments, though the firm encountered significant operational challenges, including production delays and issues that drew scrutiny from military overseers. Force Protection faced multiple controversies, such as a $24 million class-action settlement over alleged , disputes with its founder involving claims of theft, and a $1.8 million payment to resolve U.S. government claims of inadequate subcontractor payments delaying vehicle production. Ultimately acquired by in 2011 for $360 million, the company's assets integrated into larger defense production lines, marking the end of its independent operations amid fluctuating defense demands.

Founding and Early Development

Origins as Sonic Jet and Transition to Armored Vehicles

Force Protection, Inc. originated from Sonic Jet Performance, Inc., a California-based manufacturer of high-performance recreational and jet skis established in the late 1990s. The company initially focused on producing speed for civilian markets, but faced financial difficulties amid declining demand in the recreational marine sector. In , Sonic Jet Performance was acquired by a blank check corporation, which integrated its operations but continued struggling with the core boat business. The pivotal shift occurred in 2002 when Sonic Jet acquired Technical Solutions Group (TSG), a firm specializing in blast- and mine-resistant vehicle prototypes. TSG had been developing armored platforms, including early versions of V-hulled designs intended to deflect explosive forces, drawing on engineering principles for countering improvised explosive devices (IEDs). This acquisition provided Sonic Jet with entry into the defense sector, as TSG's technologies aligned with emerging military needs for protected mobility in conflict zones. The boat division was de-emphasized, with resources redirected toward adapting TSG's vehicle innovations for production scalability. By 2003, Sonic Jet Performance, Inc. rebranded to Force Protection, Inc. (FPI) and relocated its primary operations to Ladson, , fully transitioning away from marine products to armored vehicle manufacturing. This reorientation capitalized on defense priorities, particularly the U.S. military's urgent demand for vehicles resistant to roadside bombs following the 2003 invasion. FPI leveraged TSG's prototypes, such as the , to secure initial contracts, marking the company's establishment as a dedicated provider of mine-resistant ambush-protected () vehicles. The transition involved significant investment in engineering and testing to certify designs against ballistic and blast threats, abandoning the unprofitable Sonic Jet legacy entirely.

Initial Innovations in Vehicle Design

The , Force Protection Inc.'s inaugural mine-resistant ambush protected () vehicle, was designed in 2004 by a small British-led team at the company's facilities, marking the first such blast-resistant platform manufactured domestically . This 4x4 vehicle prioritized crew survivability through a V-shaped hull that channeled explosive forces downward and outward, minimizing underbelly penetration and cabin disruption—a configuration adapted from South African mine-protected designs proven in regional conflicts. The armored crew capsule, constructed from high-hardness steel with integrated ballistic glass, offered protection against 7.62mm small-arms fire and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) equivalent to 6-8 kg of , while maintaining a capacity of up to 5,000 pounds for operational flexibility. Complementing the , the —a 6x6 route-clearance variant—incorporated similar blast-mitigation principles, including an elevated cab on a V-hulled derived from the South African , with a 17-foot length to deflect waves and reduce crew exposure in high-threat clearance roles. This design achieved a ground clearance exceeding 16 inches, enabling traversal of rough terrain while the 's geometry directed over 70% of vertical energy laterally, as validated in subsequent live-fire testing protocols. Early prototypes emphasized modular armor kits for rapid upgrades, allowing field adaptability to evolving threats like shaped-charge warheads, though initial builds relied on licensed welding techniques to accelerate from concept to deployment in under six months. These innovations shifted from conventional flat-bottomed military trucks to purpose-built platforms optimized for , where IEDs accounted for over 50% of U.S. casualties in by 2004, by integrating ergonomic crew positioning above the blast radius and for mobility retention post-detonation. Force Protection's approach avoided over-reliance on add-on armor, instead embedding protection into the core chassis geometry, which empirical South African field data had demonstrated could increase survivability rates by factors of 5-10 against mines compared to legacy HMMWVs.

Expansion During Conflicts

Response to IED Threats in Iraq and Afghanistan

Force Protection, Inc. addressed the escalating threats in and by developing and deploying blast-resistant armored vehicles, including the and models, which featured V-hulled designs to deflect explosive forces outward and away from occupants. s accounted for roughly 75% of casualties in these theaters, with roadside and under-vehicle blasts exploiting the vulnerabilities of lighter vehicles like up-armored Humvees, which had survivability rates far below those of purpose-built mine-resistant platforms. The company's vehicles, introduced in limited numbers as early as 2003, demonstrated resilience by withstanding thousands of mine and detonations without corresponding high fatality rates among U.S. forces. As attacks intensified—contributing to 1,790 troop deaths in and 828 in between 2001 and 2019—the U.S. Department of Defense accelerated procurement of mine-resistant ambush-protected () vehicles to counter the threat. secured its first significant MRAP-related contracts in the mid-2000s, including a $45 million order in 2006 for vehicles bound for , explicitly cited by military leaders as superior for IED protection compared to existing options. By April 2007, the company won a $490 million U.S. Marine Corps contract for 1,000 MRAP vehicles (300 Category I 4x4 and 700 Category II 6x6 variants), with deliveries targeted for completion by May 2008. Further contracts followed rapidly amid urgent operational needs, such as a June 2007 award for 455 additional Cougar vehicles valued at $221.6 million and an earlier commitment for 800 Cougars (553 4x4 and 247 6x6) to be delivered by April 2008. These platforms, operated primarily by U.S. and allied forces in convoy escort, route clearance, and patrol roles, correlated with markedly lower IED fatality rates; across MRAPs including Force Protection models, troops were approximately 14 times more likely to survive blasts than in Humvees, with only four U.S. deaths recorded in such vehicles by early 2008, three in pre-MRAP iterations. The company's production scaling enabled fielding of over 2,000 units by late 2007, directly mitigating the IED threat that had previously overwhelmed softer-skinned alternatives.

Major Contracts and Production Scaling

Force Protection, Inc. secured several significant contracts under the U.S. Department of Defense's Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) program, primarily with the U.S. Marine Corps, beginning in late 2006. In November 2006, the company received a sole-source MRAP contract valued at approximately $200 million for 200 Category II Cougar vehicles and 89 Category III Buffalo vehicles. This was followed in August 2006 by a subcontract through BAE Systems for up to 1,602 Cougar Interim Light Armored Vehicles (ILAVs) for the Iraqi National Army, valued at about $62 million as of July 2008, with Force Protection responsible for 50% of production and full life-cycle support. The most substantial award came in January 2007 via an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) MRAP competitive contract, administered as a subcontract with General Dynamics Land Systems, enabling production of up to 4,100 Cougar vehicles annually and accumulating approximately $1.8 billion in value by July 2008. Internationally, an August 2006 Foreign Military Sales (FMS) contract with the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, modified multiple times through 2008, totaled around $280 million for 288 Mastiff (6x6 Cougar variants) and 151 Ridgback (4x4 Cougar variants) vehicles. These contracts drove rapid production scaling, with vehicle deliveries increasing from 285 units in fiscal year 2006 to 1,657 in 2007 and 1,394 in the first half of 2008 alone. To meet demand, expanded its workforce from around 1,300 employees in late 2007 to approximately 1,400 by mid-2008, supplemented by 600 contract personnel, and leveraged scalable manufacturing processes including partnerships with subcontractors like . capacity targeted over 400 vehicles per month by the end of 2007, a marked increase from earlier rates of about 50 per month, supported by facility acquisitions such as a 543,000-square-foot plant in Ladson, , for and assembly. This expansion correlated with growth from $196 million in 2006 to $890.7 million in 2007, though it faced challenges including supplier dependencies for specialized materials, excess risks amid fluctuating orders, and internal strains on management and financial controls. By 2008, the company had grown from a 200-worker operation in 2004 generating $10 million in to over 2,000 employees supporting $1.3 billion in annual output.

Products and Technical Features

Primary Vehicle Models

Force Protection, Inc.'s primary vehicle models centered on mine-resistant ambush-protected () designs, with the and series forming the core of its production for countering () threats in . These vehicles emphasized V-shaped hulls to deflect blasts, elevated chassis for ground clearance, and modular armoring for adaptability in route clearance, , and ordnance disposal () roles. The company produced approximately 600 units and hundreds of Cougars under U.S. Department of Defense contracts starting in , prioritizing empirical over speed or . The Buffalo H, introduced in 2004 and derived from South African Casspir technology, served as the heaviest model in Force Protection's lineup at around 45,000 pounds (22.7 tons) in a 6x6 wheeled configuration. It utilized a Mack ASET AI-400 inline-six generating 450 horsepower, paired with an Allison HD-4560P , enabling a top speed of 65 mph and a 300-mile range. Dimensions measured 26.9 feet long, 8.5 feet wide, and 13 feet high, accommodating 2 crew members and up to 4 passengers, with features like thick armored gun ports and rollover resilience enhancing protection against mines and small-arms fire. Often fitted with a front-mounted robotic manipulator arm, the excelled in and route clearance, seeing deployment by U.S., Canadian, French, , Pakistani, and forces; an upgraded Buffalo A2 variant debuted in 2009 with a larger C-13 engine for improved capacity. The complemented the as a medium-weight , offered in Category I (4x4, ~16 tons) and Category II (6x6) variants for urban patrol, , and . Powered by a C-7 producing 330 horsepower and 1,166 Nm of , it achieved 65 top speeds and a 420-mile range, with a structure deflecting underbody blasts. The 4x4 version carried 5 personnel plus a gunner, while the 6x6 accommodated 9 plus gunner, supporting missions in confined environments against IEDs and ambushes. Initial U.S. Marine Corps orders began in 2004, followed by a $50 million contract in May 2006 for 79 Joint Rapid Response Vehicles (JERRVs) and additional awards through 2007-2008, including UK purchases of 86 units in August 2006; operators included U.S., Canadian, Hungarian, Iraqi, Italian, Polish, and UK militaries. A lighter model, the Ocelot (later UK-designated Foxhound), targeted protected requirements at 7.5 tons gross with a 4x4 and 2-ton payload capacity. It featured a V-hull for IED resistance, a 3.2-liter six-cylinder yielding 272 horsepower, six-speed , and independent suspension for 70 mph speeds over varied terrain. Developed to meet light protected vehicle (LPPV) needs, it prioritized mobility and blast attenuation for and urban operations, with UK orders exceeding 200 units by 2010.

Blast-Resistant Design Principles

Force Protection, Inc.'s blast-resistant designs for vehicles like the and emphasized deflection and dissipation of explosive through a V-shaped hull, which channels underbody forces outward and downward, minimizing transmission to the occupant compartment. This hull configuration, constructed from multi-layered materials including lightweight composites, ceramics, and high-strength , provided resistance to while allowing the structure to deform controllably under loads, thereby absorbing without catastrophic failure. Crew survivability was enhanced by integrating energy-absorbing seats with multi-point harnesses—such as five-point belts in the and four-point racing-style harnesses in the —that isolated occupants from floor-transmitted impulses, reducing the risk of injury from shock waves and debris. These vehicles demonstrated capability against specific threats, with the rated to survive a double TM-57 mine-equivalent blast under any wheel or a single blast under the center, and the enduring up to 30-pound undercarriage explosives or 45-pound wheel impacts. Additional principles included elevated ground clearance for increased standoff from ground-zero detonations and compartmentalization separating the from the area to prevent secondary effects like fuel fires or fragment propagation. Ballistic-resistant glazing and optional add-ons, such as deployable rollers for pre-detonation of buried in the , further supported blast mitigation by addressing ambush-integrated threats. These features collectively prioritized causal energy redirection over rigid containment, aligning with empirical testing outcomes from mine and IED simulations.

Operational Impact and Achievements

Deployment and Field Performance

Force Protection vehicles, primarily the Cougar and Buffalo models, were first deployed by U.S. forces in during Fall 2004, with the U.S. Marine Corps procuring an initial batch of approximately 27 vehicles to enhance and protection against improvised devices (IEDs). The , designed for route clearance and ordnance disposal (), followed in subsequent deployments, supporting engineering tasks in IED-heavy environments by using its extendable to probe and neutralize threats from a protected position. By 2007, variants, including joint rapid response vehicles (JERRVs), were delivered to U.S. Seabees in , totaling around 60 units for construction and clearance operations. These deployments expanded into , where the vehicles' V-hulled design proved adaptable to urban patrols, escort, and forward observation roles in confined areas. In field operations, and vehicles demonstrated superior blast resistance, with the surviving multiple detonations under its hull—rated to withstand up to 15-30 pounds of depending on placement—while maintaining crew compartment integrity. A U.S. review highlighted instances in , , where occupants emerged unharmed from strikes that would have been lethal in lighter vehicles, earning praise from personnel for enabling safer threat neutralization. units, weighing over 26 tons, routinely withstood secondary explosions during inspections, where devices detonated in about 10% of cases, yet the vehicle's armored cab and elevated position minimized injuries to operators. Overall, MRAP-class vehicles like those from contributed to a reported 6% casualty rate (killed or wounded) in engagements in and , compared to 22% for up-armored Humvees, based on Department of Defense data through 2011. Performance metrics underscored the vehicles' role in , with empirical field data showing deflection reducing underbody effects by directing energy outward, though high ground clearance (up to 15 inches for ) occasionally limited agility in rugged terrain. Troops reported effective small-arms and resistance during patrols, but noted operational trade-offs like reduced speed (maximum 65 mph) and in prolonged missions. Deployment logs from 2004-2011 indicated thousands of successful IED encounters without crew fatalities in many documented incidents, validating the design's causal emphasis on mitigation over traditional armor.

Empirical Evidence of Survivability Benefits

U.S. Department of Defense assessments of vehicles, including models produced by Force Protection, Inc., such as the and , reported a casualty rate of 6% across incidents, substantially lower than the 22% rate for up-armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs) and 15% for M-1 Abrams tanks. This disparity stemmed from designs' V-shaped hulls and elevated , which deflected forces from improvised devices (IEDs) more effectively than HMMWV configurations, reducing occupant injuries in underbelly detonations common in and . Field data from over 150 documented attacks on MRAPs in theater resulted in only 7 fatalities, underscoring the platforms' blast-mitigation efficacy despite exposure to high-threat environments where IEDs accounted for up to 72% of hostile deaths between March 2007 and August 2007. Operational analyses further indicated that personnel in MRAPs were 4 to 5 times less likely to suffer fatal or severe injuries from IED strikes compared to those in up-armored HMMWVs, a benefit realized through widespread deployment of over 5,500 MRAPs in Iraq by June 2008. Specific to Force Protection's Buffalo vehicles, introduced in Iraq and Afghanistan as early as 2003, no occupant fatalities were recorded through 2007 despite repeated engagements, attributed to the vehicle's capacity to withstand up to 45-pound mines under a wheel or 30-pound equivalents under the centerline. U.S. incident reports corroborated this, noting 12 attacks on Buffalo and similar platforms since mid-2007 with zero deaths, highlighting the empirical survivability edge in route clearance and operations. The Cougar MRAP, another Force Protection offering selected for U.S. Marine Corps requirements, exhibited comparable field resilience, with blast-protected hulls enabling crew survival in multiple high-explosive encounters, though aggregate casualty metrics were aggregated within broader MRAP statistics due to program-level reporting. These outcomes validated the vehicles' role in mitigating the IED threat, which caused approximately 65% of U.S. hostile deaths from January 2005 to August 2007 prior to scaled MRAP fielding.

Challenges and Criticisms

Production Delays and Quality Control Issues

Force Protection Industries encountered significant production delays during the early phases of its contracts, particularly with the vehicle, as the company transitioned from limited manufacturing capacity to fulfilling urgent military demands. Initially producing around 25 vehicles per month, the firm struggled to scale operations amid component shortages and constraints inherent to the rapid program rollout. These challenges culminated in late deliveries, for which the U.S. Marine Corps imposed a fine exceeding $1.5 million on . Quality control issues further compounded production hurdles, with reports of manufacturing inconsistencies in early vehicle batches linked to the company's rapid expansion from a small workforce of fewer than a dozen employees in 2002–2005 to handling multimillion-dollar defense orders. Broader MRAP program assessments highlighted systemic problems such as materiel limitations and system integration defects across vendors, including Force Protection, which affected vehicle readiness and required iterative fixes during low-rate initial production. In the field, these manifested in reliability shortfalls for variants like the (branded as for the ), where overheating led to frequent breakdowns in high-temperature environments such as . Soldiers reported vehicles failing approximately once a week in Afghanistan's heat, raising concerns over operational dependability despite design intentions for blast protection. The UK Ministry of Defence acknowledged cooling system vulnerabilities but maintained the platform met core requirements after modifications, though persistent field complaints underscored underlying quality gaps in thermal management and build consistency.

Legal Disputes and Management Turmoil

In 2007, , Inc. encountered a from Protected Vehicles Inc., a former affiliate, which alleged that the company had misappropriated proprietary designs and technology for its armored vehicles; denied the claims and countersued, asserting the suit was an attempt to interfere with its government contracts. The dispute highlighted tensions from the company's rapid expansion and reliance on outsourced components, though it did not result in a published final impacting operations. Management faced significant upheaval in late 2007 when the company disclosed substantial accounting errors during its year-end financial review, prompting the abrupt of two senior executives, including the . These errors involved overstated revenues and inadequate internal controls amid aggressive production scaling for contracts, contributing to stock volatility and investor scrutiny; the company restated its financials, revealing weaknesses in oversight during a period of explosive growth from near-insolvency to over $1 billion in annual revenue potential. Shareholder discontent escalated into multiple lawsuits alleging mismanagement and securities violations. In March 2008, three shareholders filed a against current and former executives, claiming breaches of duty through inadequate oversight of production quality, contract fulfillment, and financial reporting, which allegedly led to inflated stock prices followed by sharp declines. A related class-action securities , initiated on behalf of investors who purchased shares between January 18, 2007, and March 14, 2008, accused and its officers of issuing false statements about capabilities, backlogs, and internal controls, resulting in a $24 million cash settlement in 2011 without admission of wrongdoing. These actions reflected broader challenges in during wartime demand surges, where rapid scaling outpaced managerial and quality controls, though proponents of the leadership argued the issues stemmed from external pressures like disruptions rather than intentional misconduct. Additionally, external probes touched on ethical lapses; in 2008, Spartan Motors, a , settled False Claims Act allegations for $1.7 million related to paying a Force Protection employee approximately $100,000 to influence contract awards, underscoring vulnerabilities in processes amid competitive bidding for MRAP production. Such incidents, while not directly implicating top management, amplified perceptions of turmoil and contributed to the company's eventual acquisition by in 2011 as a means to stabilize operations.

Broader MRAP Program Critiques

The program incurred costs exceeding $45 billion for the acquisition and fielding of approximately 27,000 vehicles, prompting critiques that the expenditure failed to deliver casualty reductions commensurate with the investment, as empirical data indicated no significant superiority over cheaper medium-armored alternatives like Humvees with add-on armor. Economists Chris Rohlfs and Ryan Sullivan analyzed operational data from and , finding that MRAPs did not outperform existing vehicles in mitigating fatalities despite unit prices around $600,000, with declining IED incidents more attributable to tactical shifts such as the 2007 Iraq surge and improved intelligence than vehicle deployment. This assessment challenged Department of Defense claims of averting up to 40,000 casualties, highlighting potential overestimation in attributions of benefits. Logistical and tactical drawbacks amplified program inefficiencies, as MRAPs' emphasis on mine resistance via elevated V-hulls and structures resulted in weights of 14 to 30 tons, severely constraining , off-road , and airlift compatibility in theaters like Afghanistan's rugged terrain. High fuel demands—often triple those of lighter vehicles—strained supply chains, while design variations across 10 vehicle categories complicated maintenance and , necessitating extensive post-fielding fixes for reliability and safety issues stemming from the program's abbreviated testing under urgent operational pressures. These factors reduced overall force agility in operations, where rapid maneuver and dismounted integration proved more decisive against adaptive threats than static blast protection. Post-2014 drawdowns exposed strategic shortfalls, with over half of procured MRAPs directed to long-term storage, dismantlement, or foreign transfer, yielding an estimated $7 billion in depreciated assets incompatible with high-intensity peer conflicts or even domestic utility due to size and maintenance burdens. Defense analysts critiqued the program's threat-specific focus on IEDs as fostering a reactive acquisition paradigm that prioritized volume over versatility, diverting funds from investments in lighter, multi-domain platforms better aligned with evolving irregular and conventional warfare demands. Such outcomes underscored opportunity costs, including deferred modernization in areas like unmanned systems and precision munitions, where empirical returns on investment might have exceeded those of a fleet rapidly obsolesced by shifting adversary tactics.

Acquisition and Legacy

Merger with General Dynamics

In November 2011, announced a definitive agreement to acquire Force Protection, Inc., for $5.52 per share in cash, valuing the transaction at approximately $360 million. The deal represented a 31% premium over Force Protection's closing stock price prior to the announcement, aimed at maximizing shareholder value amid the company's challenges with production scaling and market shifts post-Iraq and drawdowns. Negotiations had begun in the summer of 2010, reflecting ' strategic interest in bolstering its wheeled tactical vehicle portfolio with Force Protection's specialized mine-resistant ambush-protected () designs, such as the and . The acquisition was completed on December 20, 2011, after shareholder and regulatory approvals, integrating Force Protection as a wholly owned subsidiary within General Dynamics Land Systems, based in Sterling Heights, Michigan. This move expanded General Dynamics' capabilities in blast-resistant vehicle production, combining Force Protection's V-hull and monocoque expertise with General Dynamics' established manufacturing scale for tracked systems like the Abrams tank. Post-acquisition, Force Protection's Summerville, South Carolina, facility continued operations, focusing on sustainment and upgrades for existing MRAP fleets rather than new vehicle development, as U.S. military demand for such platforms waned with operational tempo reductions. The merger addressed Force Protection's vulnerabilities, including prior production delays and financial pressures from volatile defense contracts, by leveraging ' broader resources for long-term viability. It also positioned to compete more effectively in international markets for protected mobility solutions, though the core program faced critiques for high costs relative to evolving threats like urban and unmanned systems. No significant antitrust issues arose, given the complementary rather than overlapping product lines.

Integration and Long-Term Influence on Defense Technology

Following its acquisition by General Dynamics on December 20, 2011, for approximately $360 million, Force Protection's operations and vehicle designs were integrated into General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS), enhancing the latter's capabilities in blast- and ballistic-protected wheeled vehicles. Force Protection's key platforms, including the Buffalo mine-protected vehicle and Cougar MRAP, were incorporated into GDLS's portfolio, allowing for continued production and sustainment under a unified structure. This merger expanded GDLS's offerings in mine-resistant technologies, with Force Protection's Summerville, South Carolina, facility supporting ongoing manufacturing and upgrades. Post-integration, GDLS leveraged Force Protection's expertise in rapid vehicle adaptations, as evidenced by contracts such as the $36.3 million award in 2013 for 24 additional light protected patrol vehicles produced through GDLS-Force Protection Europe. The and designs, featuring to deflect blast energy outward and protect occupants, were sustained for route clearance and operations, with GDLS applying these principles to and incremental improvements in mobility and payload capacity. This integration facilitated in parts commonality, reducing logistical burdens compared to pre-merger standalone . The long-term influence of Force Protection's contributions, particularly through the MRAP program, reshaped defense technology by prioritizing empirical blast mitigation over traditional flat-bottom hulls, influencing subsequent U.S. and allied vehicle designs. geometries, refined in vehicles like the and to redirect explosive forces, became a standard for underbody protection, informing upgrades in platforms such as the double-V hull variant introduced for enhanced mine resistance without fully sacrificing mobility. The emphasis on survivability—demonstrated by over 3,000 attacks on and vehicles with minimal fatalities—drove doctrinal shifts toward layered force protection in asymmetric threats, though it highlighted trade-offs in weight and agility that spurred lighter successors like the (JLTV). Additionally, the program's rapid acquisition model, accelerated by threats in and , provided a template for wartime prototyping, as noted in analyses advocating its replication for industrial base mobilization. These elements persist in modern ground systems, balancing protection with operational demands in .

References

  1. [1]
    General Dynamics Completes Acquisition of Force Protection
    Dec 20, 2011 · General Dynamics (NYSE: GD) yesterday completed its acquisition of Force Protection, Inc., a provider of blast- and ballistic-protected platforms.Missing: history | Show results with:history
  2. [2]
    General Dynamics Buys Force Protection | Defense Media Network
    Nov 11, 2011 · General Dynamics has agreed to acquire Force Protection, known for its combat vehicles enhanced to survive the impact of mines and roadside bombs.Missing: Inc | Show results with:Inc<|control11|><|separator|>
  3. [3]
    force protection, inc. - SEC.gov
    The acquisition of Technical Solutions Group, Inc. shifted our principal focus from our then existing watercraft business to the production of mine clearing and ...
  4. [4]
    Saving our soldiers: Force Protection founder Garth Barrett is out ...
    This is Force Protection's primary product, a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle with its key design feature the V-shaped hull. In the shadowy ...
  5. [5]
    Force Protection settles class-action lawsuit for $24M
    Thousands of investors who are part of a class-action lawsuit against armored vehicle maker Force Protection Inc. will share a $24 million settlement ...Missing: achievements | Show results with:achievements
  6. [6]
    CEO's Outside Ties Choke Force Protection - TheStreet
    Nov 15, 2007 · Force Protection's original founder and its former CFO filed the lawsuit after Force Protection sued them for allegedly stealing company secrets ...Missing: Inc achievements
  7. [7]
    US Attorney Lloyd: Force Protection settles with $1.8 million payment
    Aug 30, 2006 · The suit claimed Force Protection Incorporated of Ladson failed to advance payments to speed production of armored vehicles for the US military.Missing: controversies achievements
  8. [8]
    General Dynamics to buy Force Protection | Reuters
    Nov 7, 2011 · The Force Protection deal would be General Dynamics' second-biggest buy this year, after the $960 million acquisition of healthcare information ...
  9. [9]
    Force Protection's Road to Riches - TheStreet
    then known as Sonic Jet Performance — was boasting about its international reach after landing a deal to sell ...Missing: Inc origins
  10. [10]
    [PDF] Procurement Policy for Armored Vehicles - DoD
    Jun 27, 2007 · In 2003, Sonic Jet Performance, Inc., changed its name to FPI. FPI reincorporated on January 1, 2005, and changed the name of its wholly ...Missing: founded | Show results with:founded
  11. [11]
    Archive: How Force Protection soared, slumped amid wars - The State
    May 29, 2008 · Force Protection also is the subject of a class-action lawsuit, alleging securities fraud. And last fall, it underwent a shake-up in its senior ...Missing: achievements | Show results with:achievements
  12. [12]
    Cougar H American 4x4 Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP)
    Aug 7, 2024 · Force Protection, Inc. was formed in 2002 when Sonic Jet purchased Technical Solutions Group, using the name Sonic Jet until 2004. Technical ...
  13. [13]
    How The MRAP Was Built To Survive Massive Explosions - SlashGear
    Aug 5, 2023 · In 2004, Force Protection, Inc. unveiled its first MRAP based on similar designs that used a V-shaped belly named the COUGAR. V is for ...
  14. [14]
    Cougar – Mine Protected Armored Patrol Vehicle - Defense Update
    Jun 12, 2007 · The design uses a monocoque, bulletproof and blast-proof capsule fitted with transparent armored glass, which protects the driver and crew from ...
  15. [15]
    Force Protection Buffalo H Mine Resistant Ambush ... - Military Factory
    The American "Buffalo" MRAP is based on the South African "Casspir", a high-profile vehicle seating up to twelve with life-saving features built into the design ...Missing: Inc | Show results with:Inc
  16. [16]
    MRAP: Origins, Requirements, Future - European Security & Defence
    Feb 7, 2021 · San Diego based Force Protection, Inc. (FPI, acquired by General Dynamics Land Systems or GDLS in 2011) presented the first MRAP design, dubbed ...
  17. [17]
    The MRAP Story: Learning from History - Asian Military Review
    Oct 30, 2018 · Force Protection Industries provided the first mine protected vehicles manufactured by US industry in its Cougar. The US Marines introduced it ...
  18. [18]
    Vehicles to serve as reminder of MRAP legacy | Article - Army.mil
    May 15, 2013 · "We started a program in late 2005 called the Comprehensive Force Protection Initiative, with the first priority being mounted protection," Tom ...Missing: Inc transition
  19. [19]
    Rapid Acquisition of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles
    About 75 percent of casualties in current combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are attributed to improvised explosive devices (IED). To mitigate the threat ...
  20. [20]
    Force Protection receives $214 million contract for vehicles in global ...
    Force Protection, Inc. has signed a U.S. Marine Corps contract for approximately 200 Cougar Joint EOD Rapid Response vehicles, 80 Buffalo mine-protected ...Missing: founding Sonic Jet transition armored
  21. [21]
    A decade of global IED harm reviewed - AOAV
    Oct 15, 2020 · In total, 1,790 troops died from IEDs in Iraq and 828 Afghanistan. This means that 48.7% of total military deaths between the 9th September, ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  22. [22]
    Force Protection, Inc. wins $45 million contract for armored vehicles ...
    “This joint order clearly reflects the recognition by both military and government leaders that our vehicles provide a better solution to the threat of IEDs, ...
  23. [23]
    Force Protection Receives $490 Mln MRAP Contract From Marine ...
    Force Protection (FRPT) announced that it has received a $490 million contract award to produce 1,000 vehicles for the U.S. Marine Corps' Mine Resistant ...
  24. [24]
    Force protection to Produce 1,000 MRAP Vehicles for the USMC
    Apr 24, 2007 · 300 of the vehicles will be 4×4 (Category I) and the remaining 700 Category II (6×6 vehicles). Deliveries are expected to complete by May 2008.
  25. [25]
    Month of June Sees 912 Additional MRAP Vehicles Placed on Order
    Jun 29, 2007 · Force Protection Industries received an order for 395 Category I and 60 Category II MRAP vehicles June 19 valued at $221.6 million through a ...Missing: Inc | Show results with:Inc
  26. [26]
    Force Protection wins 800-vehicle contract
    The new contract calls for 553 MRAP Category I Cougar 4X4 and 247 Category II Cougar 6X6 vehicles. All of the vehicles are to be delivered by April 2008 under ...
  27. [27]
    DoD: MRAPs saved thousands of lives
    Oct 2, 2012 · Officials say that soldiers riding in MRAPs were approximately 14 times more likely to survive an improvised explosive (IED) device attack than ...
  28. [28]
    Delay in armored trucks blamed for U.S. deaths - NBC News
    Feb 15, 2008 · Only four U.S. troops have been killed by such bombs while riding in MRAPs; three of those deaths occurred in older versions of the vehicles. ...
  29. [29]
    Defense Department Contracts for 2400 More MRAP Vehicles
    Oct 19, 2007 · WASHINGTON, Oct. 19, 2007 - The Defense Department has let contracts for an additional 2,400 mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles, ...
  30. [30]
    Force Protection, Expands Armored Vehicle Production Capacity
    Apr 6, 2007 · Force Protection is expected to reach per-month vehicle production levels of more than 400 vehicles per month by the end of 2007, compared to 50 ...<|separator|>
  31. [31]
    Force Protection Inc. being sold - Post and Courier
    The company, one of the Charleston region's largest manufacturers, said it agreed Monday to be acquired by General Dynamics Corp.'s Land Systems division for ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
  32. [32]
    Cougar MRAP, USA - Army Technology
    Dec 24, 2021 · In February 2007, Force Protection was awarded a $67.4m contract for 65 Cougar 4×4 CAT I and 60 Cougar 6×6 CAT II vehicles. In April 2007, the ...
  33. [33]
    Ocelot / Foxhound Light Protected Patrol Vehicle (LPPV)
    Oct 19, 2009 · It is a six-cylinder, four-stroke diesel engine with turbocharger. The vehicle is also fitted with six speed auto-transmission and independent, ...
  34. [34]
    Tough enough to take on land mines | Machine Design
    Nov 3, 2005 · The armored Cougar uses a V-shaped hull for protection against mine blasts. Soldiers inside can fire out using the gun ports visible in the ...
  35. [35]
    Monthly Military: Buffalo MRAP - Diesel Army
    Sep 14, 2017 · In terms of protection, the Buffalo boasts a V-shaped hull that's designed to deflect blast energy away from the passenger compartment. It is ...
  36. [36]
    Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle Program - History
    Mar 8, 2011 · Marines started reaping the benefits of the mine protected vehicles in Fall 2004 after procuring around 27 Force Protection Cougars. The Marine ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  37. [37]
    Buffalo Mine-Protected Clearance Vehicle - Army Technology
    Apr 26, 2021 · Buffalo's maximum range is 300 miles with an 85gal fuel tank. Orders and deliveries. The Buffalo has been ordered by several countries. In ...Missing: combat statistics
  38. [38]
    Cougar MRAP - Program History - 2006 - - GlobalSecurity.org
    In December 2006, Force Protection announced it was entering into a partnership with General Dynamics Land Systems to deliver Cougar MRAPs and support for ...Missing: headquarters | Show results with:headquarters
  39. [39]
    Cougar 4x4 MRAP - Military.com
    Manufactured by Force Protection Inc., the Cougar has been in production, and in service since 2004. While new to the US military, vehicles such as the Cougar ...
  40. [40]
    Force Protection Armored Vehicles Win Praise from Combat Troops ...
    Jan 20, 2006 · "Two of my men in Ramadi survived an IED attack while in the Cougar, so I am a believer," wrote U.S. Navy EOD Lieutenant Cameron Chen. "I have ...Missing: incidents | Show results with:incidents
  41. [41]
    'Buffalo' Finds Explosive Devices, Saves Lives - DVIDS
    Apr 7, 2025 · The armored Buffalo saves lives because IEDs explode while they're being inspected about 10 percent of the time. The heavy vehicle has provided ...Missing: incidents | Show results with:incidents
  42. [42]
    Why Troops Love, and Sometimes Hate, the MRAP
    Sep 1, 2011 · They're vehicles designed for survivability that do their job well, but because of the rapid acquisition process the MRAP went through, it is a ...Missing: Inc | Show results with:Inc
  43. [43]
    Tell-Tale MRAPS - Institute for National Strategic Studies
    By 2008, the casualty rate (injured and killed) for troops in MRAPs was six percent, compared with a casualty rate of 22 percent rate for the up-armored Humvee.Missing: statistics | Show results with:statistics
  44. [44]
    Buffalo Mine Protected Route Clearance Vehicle | Military.com
    The Buffalo MPRC is a single-door, diesel driven, 19-ton capacity 6-wheel drive Mine Protected Route Clearing vehicle.Missing: Mastiff | Show results with:Mastiff
  45. [45]
    New Mine-Resistant Vehicles Aimed at Foiling IEDs - NPR
    May 18, 2007 · A small factory in Charleston, S.C., just got a big contract to build 1000 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, or MRAPs.
  46. [46]
    [PDF] Mine-Resistant, Ambush-Protected (MRAP) Vehicles
    Apr 27, 2009 · DOD officials have stated that the casualty rate for MRAPs is 6%, making it “the most survivable vehicle we have in our arsenal by a multitude.” ...
  47. [47]
    [PDF] Mine-Resistant, Ambush-Protected (MRAP) Vehicles - DTIC
    Aug 1, 2008 · MRAP Survivability.​​ 5 DOD officials have stated that the casualty rate for MRAPs is 6%, making it “the most survivable vehicle we have in our ...
  48. [48]
    [PDF] Of IEDs and MRAPs: Force Protection in Complex Irregular Operations
    While MRAPs provide increased protection to light infantry forces, the stated intent to improve force protection dramatically by replacing. Humvees (and other ...
  49. [49]
    Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle Program
    Oct 1, 2012 · Experience in theater showed that a Soldier or Marine was four to five times less likely to be killed or injured in an MRAP-type vehicle than ...
  50. [50]
    Iraq's New Buffalo Soldiers - Army Technology
    Jun 24, 2007 · ... COMBAT FRONTLINE. Since Force Protection started supplying its Buffalo vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003, there have been no fatalities ...Missing: rates | Show results with:rates
  51. [51]
    Big Wheels for Iraq's Mean Streets - MRAP - - The New York Times
    Feb 24, 2008 · Sergeant Spurlock's 20-ton transport had been hammered by an improvised explosive device, better known as an I.E.D. ... Force Protection and ...Missing: incidents | Show results with:incidents
  52. [52]
    MRAP - PMI
    Concurrently, in response to warfighter feedback and evolving threats, the JPO embarked on major upgrades to vehicle protection, load capacity and mobility.
  53. [53]
    Foxhound MoD vehicles 'keep breaking down' - BBC
    Sep 28, 2017 · The vehicles designed to protect British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are overheating, soldiers say.Missing: Ocelot quality control
  54. [54]
    MoD defends £370m Foxhound vehicles after breakdown claims
    Sep 29, 2017 · Ministry of Defence insists vehicles are suitable for conditions in Iraq after sergeant complains of 'massive' overheating issue.
  55. [55]
    Army's armoured vehicles 'can't take Afghan heat' - The Times
    Sep 3, 2018 · The army's Foxhound armoured vehicles in Afghanistan break down about once a week, raising the risk to soldiers travelling in them, an officer has said.
  56. [56]
    Force Protection's New Battle - TheStreet
    Oct 10, 2007 · Force Protection denies Protected Vehicles ... Force Protection's own securities attorney later questioned the company's actions as well.
  57. [57]
    2 execs quit Force Protection - Post and Courier
    The management shakeup was announced after the company disclosed late Friday that it had "discovered significant accounting errors during its year-end review.Missing: turmoil | Show results with:turmoil
  58. [58]
    Force Protection Is Haunted by Past - TheStreet
    Feb 13, 2007 · Before then, Force Protection was a sinking recreational boat seller known as Sonic Jet Performance. At first, Garrett stayed on as Force ...Missing: Inc origins
  59. [59]
    Force Protection shareholders sue for mismanagement
    Three shareholders of Ladson-based armored vehicle manufacturer Force Protection Inc. are suing a group of the company's current and former executives, ...
  60. [60]
    Force Protection Agrees to $24 Million Settlement - Berman Tabacco
    Oct 7, 2010 · The settlement covers those investors who purchased Force Protection common stock from Jan. 18, 2007, through and including March 14, 2008. The ...
  61. [61]
    Untitled
    In addition, the Company has reached an agreement to settle a related shareholder derivative suit entitled In re Force Protection, Inc. Derivative ...
  62. [62]
    Spartan Motors Pays $1.7 Million for False Claims Act Violations
    Jan 2, 2009 · In the complaint, the United States alleged that Spartan paid the Force Protection employee approximately $100,000 in exchange for Spartan to ...Missing: controversies achievements<|control11|><|separator|>
  63. [63]
    Force Protection Inc. has been sold to General Dynamics Corp.
    Lincoln International acted as the sell-side advisor to Force Protection Inc. (NasdaqCM:FRPT) in its sale to General Dynamics Corp. (NYSE:GD) for $360 million ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
  64. [64]
    The MRAP Boondoggle | Foreign Affairs
    Jul 26, 2012 · The Defense Department says that its $45 billion MRAP program saved the lives of 40000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  65. [65]
    The MRAP: Was It Worth the Price? - National Defense Magazine
    Oct 1, 2012 · “Data from the battlefield does not support the claims that MRAPs are highly effective in decreasing the number of U.S. causalities,” said the ...
  66. [66]
    Defense Acquisitions: Rapid Acquisition of MRAP Vehicles | U.S. GAO
    Oct 8, 2009 · Challenges to MRAP remain in its reliability, mobility, and safety, which required some modifying of designs and postproduction fixes, and ...Missing: critiques | Show results with:critiques
  67. [67]
    [PDF] GAO-08-884R Rapid Acquisition of Mine Resistant Ambush ...
    Jun 22, 2006 · As indicated in figure 1, DOD is also testing vehicles to determine their operational survivability, effectiveness, and suitability when ...
  68. [68]
    Majority of US MRAPs To Be Scrapped or Stored - CSBA
    Jan 5, 2014 · Overall, the US military is destroying about $7 billion worth of material in Afghanistan as US troops head for the exits, including the MRAPs. ...Missing: critiques | Show results with:critiques<|separator|>
  69. [69]
    General Dynamics and Force Protection Agree to Terms of Acquisition
    Nov 7, 2011 · General Dynamics will acquire Force Protection for a price of $5.52 per share of common stock, or approximately $360 million.
  70. [70]
    Force Protection sold: $360 million deal may be completed today
    Talks with General Dynamics began in the summer of 2010, the companies said last week. The deal was announced Nov. 7.Missing: details | Show results with:details
  71. [71]
    General Dynamics buys Force Protection - The Washington Post
    Nov 7, 2011 · General Dynamics said it is set to pay $5.52 per share of stock or about $360 million for Force Protection of Summerville, S.C., in the ...Missing: Inc | Show results with:Inc
  72. [72]
    General Dynamics Awarded $36 Million Contract for Additional ...
    Sep 13, 2013 · General Dynamics Land Systems - Force Protection Europe has received a $36.3 million (€23 million) contract for an additional 24 Foxhound ...
  73. [73]
    [PDF] Mine Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) Vehicles - Army.mil
    Aug 25, 2025 · MRAPs are Mine Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicles. MRAPs provide significant protection from small arms.Missing: features | Show results with:features
  74. [74]
    Stryker 'double v-hull' proven success | Article - Army.mil
    Nov 30, 2012 · The Stryker DVH took the concept a step further by incorporating enhanced armor, a new suspension and blast-attenuating seats.Missing: origin | Show results with:origin<|control11|><|separator|>
  75. [75]
    How to use the 'MRAP mindset' to get US industrial base on a ...
    Jan 3, 2024 · In this op-ed, acquisition expert Jerry McGinn lays out how the Defense Department can improve, using one success story as a template.