RetroSicotte wrote:There are three separate vehicles planned for MRV(P). The JLTV is the first one, the standard utility.
The second batch will be vehicles more in the class of the Bushmaster or (to use a French example) the Griffon.
MIV being considered a separate, more frontline thing. Just hopefully with the proper support. I am deathly worried of how lightly armed they aim to end up being.
So they've completly gone back on the orginal plan of having them all based on one family and are now going for seperate family's again ?
If so then it's complet madness as it loses all the benafits they were aiming for in massively reducing training and logistics costs
Jake1992 wrote:So they've completly gone back on the orginal plan of having them all based on one family and are now going for seperate family's again ?
I don't believe that ever was the plan so much as just misreporting on the intended procurement due to the shared name "MRV(P)."
Jake1992 wrote:So they've completly gone back on the orginal plan of having them all based on one family and are now going for seperate family's again ?
I don't believe that ever was the plan so much as just misreporting on the intended procurement due to the shared name "MRV(P)."
That's a real shame as reducing it down from 5 families of vehicles to 1 would make so much sence and could deliver good savings in training and logistics. The same could be done for the medium armer aswell reducing from the current 5 to 3 ( warrior, boxer and Ajax ) and then eventually to 2 ( boxer and Ajax ) with an AFV variant of Ajax to replace the Warriors.
Over the long run reducing from 10 different families of vehicles to just 3 could have substail savings but hey.
Also Iv looking over the foxhound family designs and I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be a good choice. They currently have the
-standard foxhound that we know,
-RWMIL version that offers better protection and 2 extra weapon mounts over the landrover set up we have.
- a flat bed set up to replace the 4x4 Pinzgauer ( a 6x6 larger flatbed would be very simple )
And the original design could be very easily modified to get replacements for the Huskys and panthers.
The only down side I see is cost st £900,000 a peice, but if built in the U.K. And HMG had a brain then they'd take into account tax returned and accomadate for that
Jake1992 wrote:Also Iv looking over the foxhound family designs and I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be a good choice. They currently have the
-standard foxhound that we know,
-RWMIL version that offers better protection and 2 extra weapon mounts over the landrover set up we have.
- a flat bed set up to replace the 4x4 Pinzgauer ( a 6x6 larger flatbed would be very simple )
And the original design could be very easily modified to get replacements for the Huskys and panthers.
The only down side I see is cost st £900,000 a peice, but if built in the U.K. And HMG had a brain then they'd take into account tax returned and accomadate for that
No disagreement. Foxhound was the perfect choice, but the budget demands they keep throwing away more and more of the family silver, or in this case worthwhile production British technology.
Same reason Supacat isn't getting contracts for the MVR(P) alternate families. They have a ton of concepts too.
One can only hope that MIV with Boxer will lend some regeneration, ability to independantly export could maybe secure a proper British AFV order.
You will perhaps say that this has nothing to do in your discussion, but it is to explain the French point of view.
There is between the choice of French armored vehicles on the one hand, and the German, British and American vehicles on the other hand, a mass difference of the order of 10 tons. The French force is less passively protected, but the safety of the various vehicles is ensured one by the other.
The Scorpion project involves the acquisition of 1,872 Griffons, 300 Jaguars, 978 light VBMRs (4x4s of 10 to 15 tonnes) and the renovation of 200 Leclerc tanks.
All these vehicles, as well as helicopters, Caesars and VBCIs, will be equipped for collaborative combat, they will exchange thousands of data in real time via a common information system (SICS), developed by Atos-Bull. A vehicle will be able to know, in real time, how much ammunition or fuel remains to an allied vehicle, what enemies surround it, and if it needs support. The idea is to synthesize thousands of data in a very simple way, so that the commander of the vehicle has a clear vision of the situation, and can make his decision quickly.
The Griffon is available in 11 versions and sub-versions, it is primarily intended for troop transport, but it can also carry out medical missions, observation of artillery or serve as command post. The Griffon has a modular architecture, with a system of mission kits. In most cases, it only takes four hours to switch from one version to another, with only two people. No need to go back to the factory as for the VAB, the changes will be made in theaters of operations.
With its thick aluminum hull, the Griffon, which can carry a dozen soldiers, has a high level of protection against mines and IEDs. It incorporates a 12.7mm teleoperated machine gun, and is equipped with a battery of sensors to protect it from enemy fire. Laser alert detector when it is aimed, missile or firing start detector, radio and infrared jammers. If the sensors detect a laser that is pointing on the vehicle, it sends smoke to be able to retreat safely, and let a friendly vehicle, such as Jaguar or Leclerc, the ability to destroy the enemy vehicle.
After we can say that the Griffon is not heavy enough compared to the Boxer, take the chassis of the VBCI to make a "Griffon" 8x8 of 32 tons would have been possible, but the price of a VBCI is four million euros, a Griffon costs 1.5 million euros. As well as the choice of the VBCI T/40 instead of the Jaguar would have allowed the constitution of a homogeneous fleet thus to realize savings on the production and the standardization of the maintenance. But it would have cost a lot anyway. 1.872 VBCI "Griffon" would not have been possible.
The trouble with French vehicles is the lack of feedback from operations. The French have steered clear of all the recent major conflicts so how do we know their stuff is any good? Anyone can write a great brochure.
Ron5 wrote:The trouble with French vehicles is the lack of feedback from operations. The French have steered clear of all the recent major conflicts so how do we know their stuff is any good? Anyone can write a great brochure.
"All the" major conflicts? By that you mean only Iraq 2003? The French have been in Afghanistan and Mali on the ground in vehicles.
By most reports, VBCI performed quite well in Mali. Mobility wise it certainly did, due to their rapid advance that impressed many in British circles. The known British concerns with VBCI was that its protection was too low, its powerpack couldn't be easily removed in the field and its turning circle was too large. These have been corrected in VBCI 2.
It was also observed that the Armee de Terre purchased RPG-standoff nets from Qinetiq (The US Qinetiq, not the UK one) to mount on the VBCI, but thats hardly any surprise, APCs of that type all have something to be concerned for with RPGs.
It is, however, not VBCI the British are going for. So moot point regardless.
Griffon meanwhile isn't even in service yet, so not certain what experience could even be expected of it.
Jake1992 wrote:Also Iv looking over the foxhound family designs and I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be a good choice. They currently have the
-standard foxhound that we know,
-RWMIL version that offers better protection and 2 extra weapon mounts over the landrover set up we have.
- a flat bed set up to replace the 4x4 Pinzgauer ( a 6x6 larger flatbed would be very simple )
And the original design could be very easily modified to get replacements for the Huskys and panthers.
The only down side I see is cost st £900,000 a peice, but if built in the U.K. And HMG had a brain then they'd take into account tax returned and accomadate for that
No disagreement. Foxhound was the perfect choice, but the budget demands they keep throwing away more and more of the family silver, or in this case worthwhile production British technology.
Same reason Supacat isn't getting contracts for the MVR(P) alternate families. They have a ton of concepts too.
One can only hope that MIV with Boxer will lend some regeneration, ability to independantly export could maybe secure a proper British AFV order.
And that's the sad thing if only HMG used a smart way of looking at spending money ( hard for them I know ) with HMG taking tax returns from the business and employment in account and compensated accordingly, then DTI stumped up funds for helping a strategic busy the MOD could get a top quality peice of kit for a similar price to the JLTV aswell of having the potential of picking up exports on quality proven equipment.
It's a 3 way win -
The army gets the best kit in this role for a good price
There's the chance of now winning exports in a feild were not currently in
A strategic industry is saved
What's not to like a simple solution yet HMG just can't see it or choose to ignore it
Ron5 wrote:The trouble with French vehicles is the lack of feedback from operations. The French have steered clear of all the recent major conflicts so how do we know their stuff is any good? Anyone can write a great brochure.
"All the" major conflicts? By that you mean only Iraq 2003? The French have been in Afghanistan and Mali on the ground in vehicles.
By most reports, VBCI performed quite well in Mali. Mobility wise it certainly did, due to their rapid advance that impressed many in British circles. The known British concerns with VBCI was that its protection was too low, its powerpack couldn't be easily removed in the field and its turning circle was too large. These have been corrected in VBCI 2.
It was also observed that the Armee de Terre purchased RPG-standoff nets from Qinetiq (The US Qinetiq, not the UK one) to mount on the VBCI, but thats hardly any surprise, APCs of that type all have something to be concerned for with RPGs.
It is, however, not VBCI the British are going for. So moot point regardless.
Griffon meanwhile isn't even in service yet, so not certain what experience could even be expected of it.
Jake1992 wrote:Also Iv looking over the foxhound family designs and I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be a good choice. They currently have the
-standard foxhound that we know,
-RWMIL version that offers better protection and 2 extra weapon mounts over the landrover set up we have.
- a flat bed set up to replace the 4x4 Pinzgauer ( a 6x6 larger flatbed would be very simple )
And the original design could be very easily modified to get replacements for the Huskys and panthers.
The only down side I see is cost st £900,000 a peice, but if built in the U.K. And HMG had a brain then they'd take into account tax returned and accomadate for that
No disagreement. Foxhound was the perfect choice, but the budget demands they keep throwing away more and more of the family silver, or in this case worthwhile production British technology.
Same reason Supacat isn't getting contracts for the MVR(P) alternate families. They have a ton of concepts too.
One can only hope that MIV with Boxer will lend some regeneration, ability to independantly export could maybe secure a proper British AFV order.
And that's the sad thing if only HMG used a smart way of looking at spending money ( hard for them I know ) with HMG taking tax returns from the business and employment in account and compensated accordingly, then DTI stumped up funds for helping a strategic busy the MOD could get a top quality peice of kit for a similar price to the JLTV aswell of having the potential of picking up exports on quality proven equipment.
It's a 3 way win -
The army gets the best kit in this role for a good price
There's the chance of now winning exports in a feild were not currently in
A strategic industry is saved
What's not to like a simple solution yet HMG just can't see it or choose to ignore it
Are you sure the BA shares your love for the Foxhound?
Jake1992 wrote:Also Iv looking over the foxhound family designs and I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be a good choice. They currently have the
-standard foxhound that we know,
-RWMIL version that offers better protection and 2 extra weapon mounts over the landrover set up we have.
- a flat bed set up to replace the 4x4 Pinzgauer ( a 6x6 larger flatbed would be very simple )
And the original design could be very easily modified to get replacements for the Huskys and panthers.
The only down side I see is cost st £900,000 a peice, but if built in the U.K. And HMG had a brain then they'd take into account tax returned and accomadate for that
No disagreement. Foxhound was the perfect choice, but the budget demands they keep throwing away more and more of the family silver, or in this case worthwhile production British technology.
Same reason Supacat isn't getting contracts for the MVR(P) alternate families. They have a ton of concepts too.
One can only hope that MIV with Boxer will lend some regeneration, ability to independantly export could maybe secure a proper British AFV order.
And that's the sad thing if only HMG used a smart way of looking at spending money ( hard for them I know ) with HMG taking tax returns from the business and employment in account and compensated accordingly, then DTI stumped up funds for helping a strategic busy the MOD could get a top quality peice of kit for a similar price to the JLTV aswell of having the potential of picking up exports on quality proven equipment.
It's a 3 way win -
The army gets the best kit in this role for a good price
There's the chance of now winning exports in a feild were not currently in
A strategic industry is saved
What's not to like a simple solution yet HMG just can't see it or choose to ignore it
Are you sure the BA shares your love for the Foxhound?
They very well may not and I'm no expert on them I can only gather the info avalible in the public domain so undoubtably they will know more about them, but from what Iv read and seen the foxhound family do seem the more capable better protected and easier to work on plus more flexible with there modular set up.
It really does seem more of a cost aspect being that on the face of it the foxhound is around 3 times the price. But I a mentioned above that could be changed when certain things are taken in to account
JLTV does look/sound rather tough and with the huge US production should be reasonably priced.
From my perspective, Foxhound has already proven it can save lives, it's had several operational deployments without severe issues, and it's built here in Britain. Thats about the extent we know.
Losing that purchase to just giving all the money to the US instead essentially killed off a promising return to AFV development in the UK, even at that small scale. And I believe that is what most people begrudge, even if JLTV is just as good as Foxhound in the end. It'll cost on the long term when there's no-one left to build even a simpler vehicle like this.
Hopefully Boxer's one helps keep SOMETHING ticking over, but it's not a full British design, not full British made, like Foxhound was.
RetroSicotte wrote:I am deathly worried of how lightly armed they aim to end up being.
Seems a simple matter of popping the Ajax turret onto some of the Boxers. Already been done by the manufacturers and there're photo's to prove it.
Simple technically, not cheap tho. And there's the rub.
2 Shakespeare quotes in 3 days. A new record
AJAX turret has never been anywhere near a Boxer, fact.
Mechanically fitting a turret can be a relatively simple thing, but you'd need significant investment in Hull equipment to make full use of the AJAX turret capability.
I did. Nothing there to change my view. Both articles re-enforced the view that the French were opposed by poorly equipped irregulars but deployed with admirable speed. Basically they were fighting civilians armed with rifles & machine guns. They should have prevailed and they did. But I wouldn't base any buy decision on that experience. Well maybe except for the C-17's that got them there.
RetroSicotte wrote:I am deathly worried of how lightly armed they aim to end up being.
Seems a simple matter of popping the Ajax turret onto some of the Boxers. Already been done by the manufacturers and there're photo's to prove it.
Simple technically, not cheap tho. And there's the rub.
2 Shakespeare quotes in 3 days. A new record
AJAX turret has never been anywhere near a Boxer, fact.
Mechanically fitting a turret can be a relatively simple thing, but you'd need significant investment in Hull equipment to make full use of the AJAX turret capability.
Apologies if I mislead anyone. So what is this Lockheed CTA 40mm gun turret perched on a Boxer:
Let me answer my own questions. Seems the turret in question is a derivative of the Warrior turret. My bad. There was a Lockheed online brochure at one time that waxed lyrical but seems to have been removed.
Still leaves my original question, why not stick a few of these on some Boxers? The US is up gunning its Strykers. Australia is buying turreted Boxers. What does the BA know that others don't?
Ron5 wrote:
Still leaves my original question, why not stick a few of these on some Boxers?
Leaving any specialist versions out of this; in a 1 in 4 ratio
- allow a meaningful load of rounds eat into the back compartment
- after that total the number of dismounts carried by all 4
... and one gets? A hint: At least not the problem some others have faced; splitting squads across vehicles
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Ron5 wrote:Let me answer my own questions. Seems the turret in question is a derivative of the Warrior turret. My bad. There was a Lockheed online brochure at one time that waxed lyrical but seems to have been removed.
Still leaves my original question, why not stick a few of these on some Boxers? The US is up gunning its Strykers. Australia is buying turreted Boxers. What does the BA know that others don't?
Lockheed Martin currently have 3 turret designs in their catalogue: AJAX, Warrior and Export. The latter has been fitted on Patria and various other platforms to highlight its ease of integration.
The issue that integration can mean a whole lot of things these days.
What's going through your turret RBJ? Power? Data? RF? Air? Or can you fit everything (including full radio set) into the turret?
Ron5 wrote:But I wouldn't base any buy decision on that experience.
I understand your reasoning, we have aging material, it will take us ten years to renew our equipment, anyway even European countries do not buy our equipment, except the material that we manufacture in common, European countries prefer to buy American equipment. It is a fact.
I still want to defend the VBCI.
The first deployments take place in 2010 in Afghanistan. Initially confined to the protection of convoys, the VBCI then participates directly in combat operations. The choice of a wheeled vehicle proves all its relevance. For example, a VBCI was able to return to its base with two wheels ripped into pieces by an IED.
In Mali in 2013, it was on another subject that the VBCI were able to demonstrate their qualities. At the end of a 2500 km raid, conducted in less than a week, they were able to give full measure of the lengthening of their sensors and their armament, with neutralization fire beyond 2000 meters. In Mali as in Afghanistan, the protection has also allowed no victim to be deplored, despite clashes and many shots at goal of any caliber.
