Scott you don't come off harsh, just opinionated and uninformed. Bang your head a few times, it'll work itself out.
The MRAP is a unique class of vehicles, complete with its own "statement of requirements" that the vehicle manufacturers used to develop these specialized vehicles. Your statement"
Virtually anything that is factory armoured and militarized these days is an MRAP" is ridiculous, if everything else was an MRAP why would they have spent billions of dollars building and deploying a whole new class of vehicles? Clearly it was done because the MRAP requirement was unique and no vehicle at the time offered the protection the Military required. It was also so specialized that most were broken up in Iraq and AF and not kept in the inventory of any major country. Pretty much useless anywhere else, hence they are no longer manufactured, so nothing today is MRAP.
Having worked closely for many years with the Israeli company that developed the Sand Cat I can tell you this is not an MRAP, even in their marketing material it states
"the Sand Cat uses lessons learned from MRAP development in its design" it does not state anywhere that the Sand Cat meets the protection criteria of the MRAP, JLTV or MATV.
If you're curious about the basic level of protection, have someone go to the weld seam on the vehicle (next time they are getting fuel), measure the thickness of the plate and look up MIL-STD 46100. This is an open source document that will tell you the basic level of protection of the armour plate used in construction.
From their brochure (which I have in my desk)....
"
The SandCat is manufactured using a standard, factory-installed 'A kit' armour system, which is low in weight and enables less consumption of fuel. It is the base-level metal composite unit. The 'B kit' armour is a composite-ceramic armoured solution fitted in addition to the 'A kit' for a higher ballistic protection. These kits are flexible enough to be assembled in the field."
Your comment regarding the level of protection of this vehicle as seen filling up (no "B" kit) is wildly optimistic, just saying.... your making an uninformed guess. Back in the day we called that "speaking out of one's ass" not sure what they call it nowadays.
The protection level of a military vehicle is not just based on crew protection. It is designed to keep a combat vehicle in combat, so weapon systems, ammunition, fuel and engines are all protected. And in security vehicles where its often a low paying-low skill job, they don't want some dufus playing quick draw shooting a grandma through the wall of the "armoured car" so its written right into the ballistic spec that whatever weapon they are issued is the base level of protection.
Patrolling in a vehicle does not give you any insight into how it was designed, tested or manufactured, it just lets you know if its a POS or not. It does however improve your patrolling skills, which is the name of the game as a soldier. Soldiers don't even know the level of protection their vehicles are manufactured to.
As for the "threat assessment" rant, and how that relates to vehicles and armour your still pretty much in the "don't know dick" category. As part of a working group all you get to do is make a "wish list" of what you want and send it into the void. I was on the working group for the Coyote and what a POS that turned out to be. I (and others) really wanted a small, fast Recce vehicle with a 20mm cannon and good optics. Not at all what we ended up with and too many crews paid the ultimate price in that thing. Being on a working group teaches you nothing, but it does give you a warm and fuzzy because someone asked your opinion.
The reason I'm so opinionated about armour is that as a retired armoured crewman I entered the armour business full time in 1996 developing and making Coyote ceramic armour kits and have been at it ever since. I don't spend much time speculating on armour, I go to the range and shoot. As they say one test is worth a thousand "educated" opinions.
There is noting "op-sec" in these statements.