Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

[ArmChairCivvy]

Bushmaster is for Group 2, and its only rival left running is the GD Eagle 6x6.

For the former, the existing Thales facility here has been mentioned; no such mention (has caught me eye) for using the GD facility for producing/ assembling Eagles 'locally'
- we do remember how "british to the bootstraps" proved to be a winning slogan
- regardless of the rather short production run (and the timing for the latter half's ordering, of the total expressed need, being shrouded in fog)

[Lord Jim]

I do believe we would do better to only proceed with the Group 1 MRV(P) and use it and additional Boxers to cover the requirements the MRV(P) programme as a whole would have met. The right Group 1 platform could also carry out some of the roles intended for the Group 2 platform, and he Boxer can certainly cover the rest, in fact exceed the requirements by some margin. Now we have chosen the Boxer I strongly believe we should double down on the platform especially with the production line being set up in Telford. This has the possibility of become the main if not sole Boxer production facility in Europe moving forward, and will give the UK a far more substantial AFV manufacturing capability than the sites putting together the Ajax for example.

[ArmChairCivvy]

use [it and] additional Boxers to cover the requirements the MRV(P) programme [Group 2...]
The right Group 1 platform could also carry out some of the roles intended for the Group 2 platform, and [t]he Boxer can certainly cover the rest, in fact exceed the requirements by some margin.

- for once I am with someone who wants to exceed the rqrmnt... in the bigger picture might not cost any xtra

[RunningStrong]

I do believe we would do better to only proceed with the Group 1 MRV(P) and use it and additional Boxers to cover the requirements the MRV(P) programme as a whole would have met. The right Group 1 platform could also carry out some of the roles intended for the Group 2 platform, and he Boxer can certainly cover the rest, in fact exceed the requirements by some margin. Now we have chosen the Boxer I strongly believe we should double down on the platform especially with the production line being set up in Telford. This has the possibility of become the main if not sole Boxer production facility in Europe moving forward, and will give the UK a far more substantial AFV manufacturing capability than the sites putting together the Ajax for example.

I had hoped the MRV-P would have been based on a single family with a 4x4 and 6x6 variant, unfortunately the MoD seem to have chosen to keep a fractured vehicle fleet the normal and awarded JLTV part 1.

The 2 remaining options for Part 2 are both around 15t, the Boxer is nearly 40t in operational fit. That's a huge difference in deployability! You also struggle when you move into more urban environments and road moves.

It is an idea worth considering though in an increasingly tight defence budget.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Boxer can certainly cover [SOME OF] the rest, in fact exceed the requirements by some margin.

The 2 remaining options for Part 2 are both around 15t, the Boxer is nearly 40t in operational fit. That's a huge difference in deployability! You also struggle when you move into more urban environments and road moves.
- YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT; hence I added two words into my first quick thought

It is an idea worth considering though in an increasingly tight defence budget.

[Ron5]

Why is this requirement split into two? Why not 4x4 and 6x6 variants of the same?

If Oshkosh are too busy, I bet there's a UK engineering company or two that could stretch the JLTV. Supacat for one.

Who would provide the warranty on that vehicle and act as design authority?

Anything is possible with enough money, but we're not in a position to be spending frivolously. We need OTS solutions with some British specific requirements.

Not exactly insuperable problems.

I don't know much if anything about army kit but I do know something about trucks and JLTV is at heart just a very heavy duty small truck. Fitting a third axle to increase volume & weight carrying is not exactly rocket science. Oshkosh might do it if they thought the US military could be interested or, if not, they could either subcontract or license a UK company to take a standard JLTV and extend via an Oshkosh sanctioned design.

The end result would undoubtedly be a lot cheaper to buy & support than any other of the alternatives mentioned so far but would be later in arriving (probably not an issue with the drip feeding of money from the Treasury) and a bit more UK risk (the upside would be cost saving and less adverse reaction to once again buying foreign).

At least it would be nice to hear it had been looked at rather than we have to buy their jeeps because they bought our frigates BS.

[Ron5]

use [it and] additional Boxers to cover the requirements the MRV(P) programme [Group 2...]
The right Group 1 platform could also carry out some of the roles intended for the Group 2 platform, and [t]he Boxer can certainly cover the rest, in fact exceed the requirements by some margin.

- for once I am with someone who wants to exceed the rqrmnt... in the bigger picture might not cost any xtra

Wasn't pretty much the whole point of Group 2 the fact that there wasn't enough money to 100% equip with Boxers hence the two tier fleet?

[RunningStrong]

Not exactly insuperable problems.

As I said, with money...

The end result would undoubtedly be a lot cheaper to buy & support than any other of the alternatives mentioned so far but would be later in arriving (probably not an issue with the drip feeding of money from the Treasury) and a bit more UK risk (the upside would be cost saving and less adverse reaction to once again buying foreign).
.

Risk is cost. Whether it's realised or not, you still have to budget for it and be prepared to cough up. I would say the cost of designing and the risk of proving a bespoke UK platform is significant.

Why wouldn't GD Eagle, available in both 4x4 and 6x6 not be a better option?

[Lord Jim]

A mixed JLTV and Boxer fleet need not be hugely more expensive than having a MRV(P) fleet of both 4x4 and 6x6 platforms. The bulk of tasks could be carried out by the JLTV with only a few by additional Boxers, namely those in the highest threat areas. If we go with the Group 2 6x6 platform how long do we think it will be before it is pushed forward into areas with a threat level is was not intended to operate in. We will probably develop and add on armour package, possible fit an APS and so on. So why not purchase the additional Boxers which have this scenario covered from the start.

Will we send the Group 1 platforms into harms way, most likely in the appropriate situation but this is what the highest spec variants have been designed to do.

Take the role of battlefield ambulance. The are ambulance version of both the Boxer and JLTV and so the latter carries out casualty evacuation from the main combat area and then the JLTV moves the casualties from the clearing station to the field hospital.

With regards to the troop transport Group 2 MRV(P) with its six dismounts, well I can never see use equipping whole Battalions as Motorised Infantry with these. For the tasks these were to be assigned to, three JLTV Carriers can do the job of two 6x6 MRV(P).

In fact having a number of these in the Mechanised Battalions as scout vehicles may not be a bad idea. They would also make an 1deal platform to tow Extractor 2 and whatever succeeds it if that system is also trailer mounted. Carrying Starstreak or Javelin teams could be other roles on the frontline.

So in my opinion we should use the JLTV or whatever is finally chosen for the Group 1 MRV(P) for as many of the roles as possible, and those it cannot undertake we would use the Boxer. I believe these platforms actually compliment each other.

Now all we need is an even lighter, unarmoured platform that can be either carried inside a Chinook or Parachuted in to provide mobility to elements of 16 Air Assault Brigade.

[Ron5]

Not exactly insuperable problems.

As I said, with money...

The end result would undoubtedly be a lot cheaper to buy & support than any other of the alternatives mentioned so far but would be later in arriving (probably not an issue with the drip feeding of money from the Treasury) and a bit more UK risk (the upside would be cost saving and less adverse reaction to once again buying foreign).
.

Risk is cost. Whether it's realised or not, you still have to budget for it and be prepared to cough up. I would say the cost of designing and the risk of proving a bespoke UK platform is significant.

Why wouldn't GD Eagle, available in both 4x4 and 6x6 not be a better option?

1. Your implication is that it would cost a lot of money to create a contractual arrangement to solve your problems of design authority and warranter (hopefully that's a real word). No reason to assume that. If Oshkosh is willing, it won't be an issue. Don't forget they stand to make a significant amount of money under my proposal.

2. Your implication is that the risk in implementing a 3rd JLTV axle is large. It is not. 80% of the complexity in any truck is in the forward 20% of the vehicle. The back end is easy.

3. Risk is not cost. Being prepared to cough it up is not the same as actually coughing it up. And if worse comes to worse, if coughing it up is still cheaper than buying the alternative, you're still ahead of the game. Remember standard JLTV is still likely to be half the price of its competitors.

4. Bespoke?? These aren't suits. The UK specific comms and electronic gizmos will make these vehicles a lot more unique than a 3rd axle.

[Ron5]

A mixed JLTV and Boxer fleet need not be hugely more expensive than having a MRV(P) fleet of both 4x4 and 6x6 platforms. The bulk of tasks could be carried out by the JLTV with only a few by additional Boxers, namely those in the highest threat areas. If we go with the Group 2 6x6 platform how long do we think it will be before it is pushed forward into areas with a threat level is was not intended to operate in. We will probably develop and add on armour package, possible fit an APS and so on. So why not purchase the additional Boxers which have this scenario covered from the start.

Will we send the Group 1 platforms into harms way, most likely in the appropriate situation but this is what the highest spec variants have been designed to do.

Take the role of battlefield ambulance. The are ambulance version of both the Boxer and JLTV and so the latter carries out casualty evacuation from the main combat area and then the JLTV moves the casualties from the clearing station to the field hospital.

With regards to the troop transport Group 2 MRV(P) with its six dismounts, well I can never see use equipping whole Battalions as Motorised Infantry with these. For the tasks these were to be assigned to, three JLTV Carriers can do the job of two 6x6 MRV(P).

In fact having a number of these in the Mechanised Battalions as scout vehicles may not be a bad idea. They would also make an 1deal platform to tow Extractor 2 and whatever succeeds it if that system is also trailer mounted. Carrying Starstreak or Javelin teams could be other roles on the frontline.

So in my opinion we should use the JLTV or whatever is finally chosen for the Group 1 MRV(P) for as many of the roles as possible, and those it cannot undertake we would use the Boxer. I believe these platforms actually compliment each other.

Now all we need is an even lighter, unarmoured platform that can be either carried inside a Chinook or Parachuted in to provide mobility to elements of 16 Air Assault Brigade.

Surely the cost differential between Boxer and the two species of MRV(P) make this impossible?

[RunningStrong]

Not exactly insuperable problems.

As I said, with money...

The end result would undoubtedly be a lot cheaper to buy & support than any other of the alternatives mentioned so far but would be later in arriving (probably not an issue with the drip feeding of money from the Treasury) and a bit more UK risk (the upside would be cost saving and less adverse reaction to once again buying foreign).
.

Risk is cost. Whether it's realised or not, you still have to budget for it and be prepared to cough up. I would say the cost of designing and the risk of proving a bespoke UK platform is significant.

Why wouldn't GD Eagle, available in both 4x4 and 6x6 not be a better option?

1. Your implication is that it would cost a lot of money to create a contractual arrangement to solve your problems of design authority and warranter (hopefully that's a real word). No reason to assume that. If Oshkosh is willing, it won't be an issue. Don't forget they stand to make a significant amount of money under my proposal.

2. Your implication is that the risk in implementing a 3rd JLTV axle is large. It is not. 80% of the complexity in any truck is in the forward 20% of the vehicle. The back end is easy.

3. Risk is not cost. Being prepared to cough it up is not the same as actually coughing it up. And if worse comes to worse, if coughing it up is still cheaper than buying the alternative, you're still ahead of the game. Remember standard JLTV is still likely to be half the price of its competitors.

4. Bespoke?? These aren't suits. The UK specific comms and electronic gizmos will make these vehicles a lot more unique than a 3rd axle.

Do you have any experience of the defence vehicles industry?

Did FRES UV contracts teach us nothing? Oshkosh would lose control of their intellectual property, they'd lose prime spot in the supportability contracts over 30 years, they'd lose competitiveness as they will have a competitor to an in-house design in future.

So you introduce another axle? You don't change the engine? The brakes? What about the electrical loading for all that extra equipment you want? (ambulance, C2).

It's utter ignorance to think it's just another axle bolted on.

[Lord Jim]

Surely the cost differential between Boxer and the two species of MRV(P) make this impossible?

I am not suggesting this route would be cost neutral by any means. We are in all likelihood going to be buying more Boxers than have already been announced, as there is an urgent need to replace the 1960s vintage FV430 series of AFVs in the combat and support roles so there is some logic in also allocating some to the roles planned for the MRV(P). The majority of the roles planned for the 6x6 variant (Group 1) could if the right platform is chosen, be carried out by the 4x4 (Group 1) platform. FO example there is already a ambulance demonstrator based on the JLTV and if you can fit an ambulance body then you should be able to fit one capable of carrying six troops.

[ArmChairCivvy]

there is an urgent need to replace the 1960s vintage FV430 series of AFVs in the combat and support roles so there is some logic in also allocating some to the roles planned for the MRV(P).

Commonality was the stated driver for launching the MRV(P) prgrm.

For 150-300 vehicles to live on for the next 20-30 years, the life-time cost must take a hit from them being 'unique' relative to the rest of the fleets (to come).
- so not the ticker cost, not even the first ten-years (' buy a support package & transfer some of the risk'), but over the whole life?

[Ron5]

Do you have any experience of the defence vehicles industry?

None. But I clearly know a lot more about trucks than you do.

Did FRES UV contracts teach us nothing? Oshkosh would lose control of their intellectual property, they'd lose prime spot in the supportability contracts over 30 years, they'd lose competitiveness as they will have a competitor to an in-house design in future.

Nothing I have suggested would result in Oshkosh losing any intellectual rights. Or anything else in this laundry list.

So you introduce another axle? You don't change the engine? The brakes? What about the electrical loading for all that extra equipment you want? (ambulance, C2).

I know trucks. None of this is hard. For Oshkosh, it's a breeze.

It's utter ignorance to think it's just another axle bolted on.

It's nothing like as hard as you think it is. A truck is a truck is a truck. Go check on the differences between your Eagle 4x4 and 6x6. Not as much as you might imagine.

[Ron5]

Surely the cost differential between Boxer and the two species of MRV(P) make this impossible?

I am not suggesting this route would be cost neutral by any means. We are in all likelihood going to be buying more Boxers than have already been announced, as there is an urgent need to replace the 1960s vintage FV430 series of AFVs in the combat and support roles so there is some logic in also allocating some to the roles planned for the MRV(P). The majority of the roles planned for the 6x6 variant (Group 1) could if the right platform is chosen, be carried out by the 4x4 (Group 1) platform. FO example there is already a ambulance demonstrator based on the JLTV and if you can fit an ambulance body then you should be able to fit one capable of carrying six troops.

I see what you are getting at. I suppose there are some theoretical savings from not having a third vehicle type (MRV(P) Grp 2) to support but I suspect that's not much considering the volumes. In terms of payloads other than troops or ambulances, I wonder if trailers for the JLTVs might help. I don't think the UK is currently planning on any. I would have thought they would be useful and relatively cheap.

[Lord Jim]

With the MRV(P) now being intended for frontline use by many different units, especially our high readiness ones, I an slightly worried about having a "Snatch Land Rover 2.0", situation develop. This is especially so with the troop carrier. Does the Army intend to equip current "Light" role battalions with this platform to turn them into Motorised units? I am of the opinion that any vehicle on or near the front line needs to have both IED protection as well as a certain level of protection against RPG style weapons. So I believe the JLTV and other candidates have the first one covered, the additional passive and active protection to deal with the latter is going to seriously push up the weight and cost of the platform. In addition there are a large number of Russian 14.5mm HMGs out there mounted on everything from pick up trucks to true AFVs. How vulnerable is the MRV(P) going to be to those.

Like with the Boxer, the Army is going to have to spend some time working out how it is going to use these new vehicles and what additional kit they are going to need to make them operationally effective.

[Lord Jim]

A good report from Forces TV about the "Snatch" Land Rover and the Foxhound.

Hope I am not duplicating this though.

[jonas]

Parliamentary defence written answers Jan 13th 2020 :-

Q
Asked by Chris Stephens
(Glasgow South West)
[N]
Asked on: 07 January 2020
Ministry of Defence
Armoured Fighting Vehicles: Procurement
1098
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what recent progress he has made on procurement under the (a) MRVP, (b) MIV and (c) Challenger 2 Life Extension programmes; and if he will make a statement.
A
Answered by: James Heappey
Answered on: 13 January 2020

The Multi-Role Vehicle - Protected (MRV-P) programme is being delivered in two packages. The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) has been identified as the preferred option for Package 1, Command, Liaison and Logistic Vehicles, procured through a US Foreign Military Sales case. A decision on the procurement of JLTV is due this year. For Package 2, Troop Carrying Vehicles and Future Protected Battlefield Ambulances, the competition is ongoing. Subject to the conclusion of current negotiations and internal approvals, the competition winner is planned to be on contract later this year.

For the Mechanised Infantry Vehicle programme, a contract was signed on 4 November 2019 between OCCAR and ARTEC. The Ministry of Defence aims to have the first vehicles delivered in 2023.

On the Challenger 2 Life Extension Programme (CR2 LEP), further to the expanded Assessment Phase, work is ongoing and current plans are for an investment decision in late 2020.

[ArmChairCivvy]

(CR2 LEP), further to the expanded Assessment Phase, work is ongoing and current plans are for an investment decision in late 2020.

Almost a year's delay as decision was expected after the 2-yr period allowed for the prototypes.

[Ron5]

(CR2 LEP), further to the expanded Assessment Phase, work is ongoing and current plans are for an investment decision in late 2020.

Almost a year's delay as decision was expected after the 2-yr period allowed for the prototypes.

My understanding is that the technical decision has been taken i.e. what the solution looks like. Surprise RBSL won!!!! And that they are now in the phase of detailed design so that production costs may be generated and a final bill/budget calculated and approved. I hope and assume that includes surveying all the vehicles earmarked for upgrade to make sure they don't get any Nimrod 4 moments.... oh shyt, it don't fit, where's me 'ammer.

So no delay, just onto the next phase without an announcement of the competition winner because, well, the competitors joined hands and crossed the line together.

[Lord Jim]

It shouldn't take three years to deliver Boxer. The only reason I can think of is when funding is available. No trials are needed, the equipment fit should be plug and play and all the how to use it stuff can be done once deliveries start. I cannot see any reason why the basic versions, Command, APC for example couldn't arrive next year.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Thanks Ron, a good reasoning for what probably is going on

@LJ: Are they shipping the whole production/ assembly line over to here? That in itself would take some time ('someone' will have to be trained to operate it, too)

[Lord Jim]

The initial deliveries are going to be from Germany whilst the Telford plant gets up to speed. As for training the instructors, why can we sent pilots and ground crew to the US to learn how to fly and maintain the F-35 yet apparently we cannot send Army personnel to Germany or the Netherlands to learn how the operate and maintain the Boxer ahead of deliveries to the Army.

[Ron5]

The initial deliveries are going to be from Germany whilst the Telford plant gets up to speed. As for training the instructors, why can we sent pilots and ground crew to the US to learn how to fly and maintain the F-35 yet apparently we cannot send Army personnel to Germany or the Netherlands to learn how the operate and maintain the Boxer ahead of deliveries to the Army.

I think he was talking abut training to build the Boxers, not operate them. It will take some time to recruit a factory full of new staff and get them going. Quality tests etc. Look at how long it's taken the Ajax lot.