UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5297
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby shark bait » 05 Feb 2016, 12:02

MRV(P) recently went out to tender;

http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE ... XT:EN:HTML
From the Contract Notice

The provision and in-service support (including but not limited to spares, repairs, PDS and ad-hoc tasking) Protected Mobility (PM) vehicles capable of providing a ‘Troop carrying’ and Pre-Hospital Emergency Care (PHEC) and Medical Evacuation (MEDEVAC) ambulance capability of a modern design.

In addition, the Contractor will be required to integrate UK Armed Forces specific mission equipment with the vehicles.

Multi Role Vehicle — Protected (MRV-P) Troop Carrying Vehicle (TCV) and Future Protected Battlefield Ambulance (FPBFA) are intended to be based on a common base platform with sufficient flexibility to satisfy a number of roles. The TCV and FPBFA variants will support the rapidly deployable forces (i.e. first-in, airborne or amphibious capability) as well as the regular armed forces. TCV and FPBFA must therefore provide protected mobility against real world scenarios encountered by military forces conducting Global Operations.

As core equipment, TCV and FPBFA shall have an in-service life of at least 25 years.

It is intended that the TCV variant will provide the base platform to satisfy wider requirements which include but are not limited to EOD, RMP, Engineer Support, and Gun Limber. Any requirements for these variants will be completed via Ad Hoc Tasking, post Contract Award.

In order to achieve a Planning Assumption for Service Entry (PASE) date during 2019, the TCV and FPBFA capability is expected to be based on Military off the Shelf (MOTS) mature platforms of modern design capable of incorporating the required

Personnel and Medical mission fits.

Whilst a detailed requirements document will be released as part of the Invitation to Negotiate (ITN), the following should be considered as general characteristics of a vehicle suitable to meet the TCV and FPBFA requirement.

Occupants FPBFA:

1 x Driver;
1 x Commander;
6 x Personnel ( FPBFA) — Combination of permanent seating for 2 x Medical Attendants seated at the head of the stretcher and ability to transport 2 stretchered casualties or 1 stretchered casualty and 3 Seated Casualties and combinations thereof.
Occupants TCV:

1 x Driver;
1 x Commander;
6 x Seated Passengers (TCV).
Human Factors Integration (HFI)

FPBFA must allow Medical Attendants to carry out a number of medical tasks while the vehicle is stationary and in motion.

Capacity

Must have sufficient capacity to carry occupants and personal equipment, UK mission systems, Complete Equipment Schedule (CES) and appropriate medical equipment for FPBFA.

Dimensions:

Max width 2 500 mm;

Max width 2 500 mm;

Max Height 2 650 mm (transit mode).

Transportability:

Must be capable of being transported by land, sea and air (including but not limited to A400M and C17) with minimal preparation. There is no requirement to transport under slung by rotary wing aircraft.Mobility:

Mobility:

Must have ≥ Medium Mobility load carrying classification.Survivability:

Survivability:

To provide threshold protection to the occupants from ballistic threat at ≥ Stanag Level 2 and blast threat at ≥ Stanag Level 2.

Quantity or Scope

The Authority is considering the purchase of around 150 TCV and 80 FPBFA vehicles including 12 simulators initially (precise number to be finalised and advised in the tender documents) along with 5 years of associated support. The initial contract for delivery and initial support is expected to be of around 7 years duration. It is also expected that irrevocable contractual options will be required for additional vehicle quantities (in increments up to a total of around 300 TCV and 300 FPBFA) and support covering a period of 25 years. The ranging and scaling of support may vary through the life of the contract.

Estimated value excluding VAT:

Range: between 170 000 000 and 2 000 000 000 GBP

The Authority intends to seek irrevocable options to include:

Additional numbers of vehicles (to be defined) in batch buys but which may not run concurrently with the initial purchase;

Additional blocks of 5 yr Support Packages (up to a maximum of 25 years).

Exercise of these options will be at the Authority’s sole discretion and subject to the contract continuing to demonstrate best value and required performance against Key Performance Indicators.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5297
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected

Postby shark bait » 05 Feb 2016, 12:06

I know what get my vote, I believe it fits all those requirements

Image
@LandSharkUK

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2367
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Location: Niue
Contact:

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby arfah » 05 Feb 2016, 12:54

...........
-<>-<>-<>-

Why this forum is pish!

1: Ineffective moderators
2: Too many fantasists ruining dedicated equipment threads with notions of what gun/mortar/artillery/missiles the equipment should have because it makes their panties moist.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected

Postby marktigger » 05 Feb 2016, 16:41

yes but in that carriage of Med Modules and soldiers CES does it include room for expansion? Radio fits? The ambilance should have an FFR fit with suficient capability to fit defensive aids and Towing capability.
But also include rood to be able to work with the kit.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected

Postby mr.fred » 05 Feb 2016, 16:42

shark bait wrote:I know what get my vote, I believe it fits all those requirements
[Foxhound]

Apart from being too small and too expensive?

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2367
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Location: Niue
Contact:

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby arfah » 05 Feb 2016, 17:00

..........
-<>-<>-<>-

Why this forum is pish!

1: Ineffective moderators
2: Too many fantasists ruining dedicated equipment threads with notions of what gun/mortar/artillery/missiles the equipment should have because it makes their panties moist.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected

Postby RunningStrong » 05 Feb 2016, 20:22

GD also had the Eagle platform at DSEi with the potential for it to form part of the bid. Eagle already has the COTS variants and costs have been driven down on it.

Unsure whether Foxhound has made the same cost drive, and of the steel hull is enough of a benefit.

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 440
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected

Postby Dahedd » 05 Feb 2016, 23:45

Im pretty sure there I s the option for a long wheelbase Foxhound. Gabriel has a few pics in his blog of the concepts.

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot ... y.html?m=1

My apologies to Gabriel for pinching his post.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8027
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 06 Feb 2016, 07:44

RunningStrong wrote:GD also had the Eagle platform at DSEi with the potential for it to form part of the bid. Eagle already has the COTS variants and costs have been driven down on it.

Unsure whether Foxhound has made the same cost drive, and of the steel hull is enough of a benefit.


My money would be on this kind of a combo, same supplier so that the order can be flexibly adjusted (cfr. Starstreak order cut down to get LMMs instead; a Win-Win negotiation which the MoD/ DE&S don't seem to have much knack for)
- too small/ too expensive would stand against the over-zealous standardisation drive onto Foxhounds

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected

Postby marktigger » 07 Feb 2016, 07:34

yes having over the years worked with 1 tonne Ambulance and BFA its interesting when you tried to add the ambulance modules, crew kit and radios. mind you was the same with landrover with missile kit and command post kit. Maybe this time the DMS will get a properly integrated vehicle designed with stowage and working room. you need to be able to get at your casualty easily and be able to carry out a number of things whilst the vehicle is moving to help keep the poor sod comfortable and alive so the back needs to be quite roomy and well lit.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5297
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected

Postby shark bait » 07 Feb 2016, 10:28

Why is foxhound too small?
@LandSharkUK

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2367
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Location: Niue
Contact:

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby arfah » 07 Feb 2016, 10:42

...........
-<>-<>-<>-

Why this forum is pish!

1: Ineffective moderators
2: Too many fantasists ruining dedicated equipment threads with notions of what gun/mortar/artillery/missiles the equipment should have because it makes their panties moist.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected

Postby mr.fred » 07 Feb 2016, 11:10

arfah wrote:Foxhound was designed primarily for urban operations in the "Snatch" role and only carries four occupants in the back.

Against a requirement of 6 dismounts. So it does not fit the stated requirements

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8027
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Feb 2016, 11:11

marktigger wrote:to add the ambulance modules, crew kit and radios. mind you was the same with landrover with missile kit and command post kit


Leaving the missile kit mention aside, I am under the impression that Huskies have been converted both to the ambulance and command post roles, when 325 of them were taken into the Core
- how does the space available in the back compare with that of a Foxhound?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8027
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Feb 2016, 11:14

mr.fred wrote:Against a requirement of 6 dismounts. So it does not fit the stated requirements


Driver and gunner dismount, too (TICK in the box)?
- we know how it went with the Red Caps in Iraq, esp. when the radio kit was/is so bad/ old/ power hungry/ heavy that it only works when operated in the vehicle

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5297
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected

Postby shark bait » 07 Feb 2016, 13:08

Our version current version takes 4 dismounts, but I was under the impression there is space for 6 in the back with a modified module, is that not the case?
@LandSharkUK

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2367
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Location: Niue
Contact:

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby arfah » 07 Feb 2016, 13:48

...........
-<>-<>-<>-

Why this forum is pish!

1: Ineffective moderators
2: Too many fantasists ruining dedicated equipment threads with notions of what gun/mortar/artillery/missiles the equipment should have because it makes their panties moist.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8027
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Feb 2016, 13:49

It was a joke!

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2367
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Location: Niue
Contact:

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby arfah » 07 Feb 2016, 13:55

...........
-<>-<>-<>-

Why this forum is pish!

1: Ineffective moderators
2: Too many fantasists ruining dedicated equipment threads with notions of what gun/mortar/artillery/missiles the equipment should have because it makes their panties moist.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected

Postby mr.fred » 07 Feb 2016, 15:00

shark bait wrote:Our version current version takes 4 dismounts, but I was under the impression there is space for 6 in the back with a modified module, is that not the case?

Not so far as I am aware. Certainly the pictures posted are the 4 dismount version. Having nosed around a little in the back of a Foxhound, an increased dismount capacity would either require a lengthened chassis, or replacing the equipment bays and placing two occupants over the wheel wells, which I understand is undesirable in mine protected vehicle design.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5297
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected

Postby shark bait » 07 Feb 2016, 20:57

mr.fred wrote:Not so far as I am aware. Certainly the pictures posted are the 4 dismount version. Having nosed around a little in the back of a Foxhound, an increased dismount capacity would either require a lengthened chassis, or replacing the equipment bays and placing two occupants over the wheel wells, which I understand is undesirable in mine protected vehicle design.


Yes I believe the idea was to change the equipment and electronics at the rear of the vehicle and fit another 2 seats in there, one either side of the door. I didn't realise it was undesirable to sit above the wheels.
@LandSharkUK

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected

Postby mr.fred » 07 Feb 2016, 21:36

As I understand it, the wheels on mine-protected vehicle are either expected or designed to come off in the event of a mine strike, carrying that energy away from the vehicle. The problem comes when there is structure above the wheel, which gets hit. The Foxhound has a different slope to the side of the pod above the rear wheels to mitigate this problem, so it would either be difficult to fit a seat there or you'd have to change the pod and risk those two occupants getting a wheel up their arse, if you'll pardon my French.
Sticking two occupants there would also remove most of your storage space.

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2367
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Location: Niue
Contact:

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby arfah » 07 Feb 2016, 21:39

..........
-<>-<>-<>-

Why this forum is pish!

1: Ineffective moderators
2: Too many fantasists ruining dedicated equipment threads with notions of what gun/mortar/artillery/missiles the equipment should have because it makes their panties moist.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5297
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected

Postby shark bait » 07 Feb 2016, 21:55

Foxhound is full of great design forethought, perhaps a stretched foxhound then.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1433
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Postby The Armchair Soldier » 17 Jun 2016, 11:12

UK in Talks with Pentagon for JLTV Buy
PARIS – The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle could be in line to win its first export order even before the US Department of Defense makes a decision to order full rate production of the platform.

The UK’s Ministry of Defence has revealed it is in talks with the Pentagon, which might lead to a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) deal. The British Army is interested in acquiring the Oshkosh Defense vehicle, set to replace the Army and Marine Corps Humvees, to meet part of a requirement known as the Multi-Role Vehicle-Protected (MRV-P).

“We can confirm that we are talking to the US DOD regarding package 1 [of MRV-P], to inform our understanding of an FMS option for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle,” said an MoD spokesman.

In a separate move to the JLTV talks announcement, the MoD confirmed June 16 that it had drawn up a short-list of contractors to battle it out for a second element of MRV-P and had put a third piece of the requirement on hold for the time being.
Read More: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /86011774/


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests