Good sentiment but wrong application. This device keeps the inside explosion in. What you want is to keep the outside explosion out.
Depending on the vehicle, these vehicles already use multiple layers of protection from stand-off bar armor, explosive reactive armor, various types of solid and composite armor, and interior spall liners. The later contain all the bolts and nuts and handles and fixtures that may be dislodged by an outside explosion and prevent them from becoming shrapnel inside the vehicle (along with scabs of armor plate that may come off of inner surfaces of body armor due to kinetic shockwaves).
What this technology demonstrates is that there is a lot of innovative research and development going on right now that promises great levels of blast protection along with very significant reductions in weight. What we need to do is be very, very, very prudently in buying just enough of the old armor technology to meet current needs. That way we don’t foreclose investing in the new technologies once they mature because we blew our available procurement dollars in buying too much of the old armor technology. Once bought, some of these vehicles may serve 30, 40, or more years before being replaced.
The first US HMMWVs came into service in the early to mid-1980s. The last won’t leave service until the mid-2030s (if then). Yes, the last model HMMWVs are not anything like the first but the point I am making here is the deadening effect on future procurement of all that sunk capital investment.
Thanks for the info. I was imagining simply a lightweight, flexible barrier lining to stop the blast, but you’re right - an outside explosion is going to have an asymmetrical effect on the target, pretty much defeating the whole point of the lining acting as a bag to contain the whole blast from within.