Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

SD67 wrote:My understanding is that if we buy JLTV we’ll likely be operating :Jackal powered by a 6.7 litre Cummins Bushmaster powered by a 7.2 litre CatFoxhound powered by a Steyr monoblock - 5 litres I believeJltv powered by I believe a 6 litre GM based engineThen of course all the CVRTs which I believe are now powered by 5.9 litre Cummins b series (made in UK)Excuse me if to an outsider that looks like a bit of a mess.
Ok lets look at the list;
Jackal - Being retained for Yeomanry and for use by light forces. Some of the earlier models could be replaced by JLTV
Bushmaster - Only small number in service mainly with Special Forces.
Foxhound - Will be replaced in front line units by JLTV with some probably be passed to the Reserves or alternatively simply sold.
CVR(T) - Being replaced by Ajax family of Boxer family, and in some roles by JLTV

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Are you sure the Foxhounds will be replaced? Seems to me they serve a different purpose and does it well.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

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

Post by SD67 »

I was assuming Bushmaster is chosen for MRVP group one JLTV for group 2 Foxhound and Jackal retained long term and given history with FV432 the CVRTprobably still with us for a while.
There’s no coherence and a multiplication of drivetrains all doing roughly the same thing - it must be a big cost driver. IMHO we should just pick one platform and one drivetrain and evolve them. I’d suggest Cummins B series as it’s made here and has been used in everything from a Leyland Roadrunner to CVRT its a known quantity and the parts are everywhere.
I suspect the Jackals chassis can be stretched/evolved to do all of these roles, instead we’ll get an expensive smorgasbord and inevitably numbers will be cut

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jake1992 »

SD67 wrote:I was assuming Bushmaster is chosen for MRVP group one JLTV for group 2 Foxhound and Jackal retained long term and given history with FV432 the CVRTprobably still with us for a while.
There’s no coherence and a multiplication of drivetrains all doing roughly the same thing - it must be a big cost driver. IMHO we should just pick one platform and one drivetrain and evolve them. I’d suggest Cummins B series as it’s made here and has been used in everything from a Leyland Roadrunner to CVRT its a known quantity and the parts are everywhere.
I suspect the Jackals chassis can be stretched/evolved to do all of these roles, instead we’ll get an expensive smorgasbord and inevitably numbers will be cut
I agree it seems to be a lot of duplication due to lack of money for the numbers needed and lack of decision making.
Personally as Iv made clear on here a number of times I’d go for an all Foxhound family to replace 90% of the fleet keeping only the Jackals for forces like 16AA, but as you mentioned above the Jackal family can be evolved for all these roles this artical I found goes in to detail on how it can and why either this or Foxhound should be chosen over JLTV

https://www.google.com/amp/s/uklandpowe ... ramme/amp/

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:Are you sure the Foxhounds will be replaced? Seems to me they serve a different purpose and does it well.
Foxhound is certainly more suitable in urban areas than JLTV (2m wide v 2.5m wide), and it seems a few modular adaptions have been shown (WMIK, C2, Utility).

Foxhound fleet is going through an upgrade with GDUK and Thales right now I think, so would be weird to see it binned off.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

I do not think the Foxhounds should or will be "Binned off", but I can see them re rolled, given to the RAF Regiment for example, but I can also see the idea of one platform being used by the Army making more sense, even is it only applies to the regular units. We are using them now in the roles we are simply because we already have them, but we do not have enough to fulfil the need of the MRV(P) programme. They are a good platform and have, after being overhauled to deal with much of the wear and tear they have suffered from being heavily used, many years left. Of course logic doesn't always come into the decision of the MoD and they may decide that selling off the Foxhounds may generate funding for other programmes and lessen the number of support chains.

Whether we still pursue the second part of the MRV(P) programme or decide to make do with a combination of JLTVs and Boxers is still not certain. A lot will depend on the unit cost of each and with the latter this will depend on how efficient the production line in Telford becomes and whether this becomes the main Boxer production line for the Manufacturer.

The SF like the Bushmaster but it wasn't their first choice, that was the Pandur 6x6 I believe. It has also shown that it has limited growth potential, as the Australian Army have discovered. Luckily they are bringing into service a new platform more than capable of doing the tasks they originally earmarked for the Bushmaster.

The Jackal and its logistical cousin certainly have a role going forward, both with Reserve and Regular units and still has room to grow. But it is now a more specialised platform post Afghanistan and not really suitable for service wide use, but rather in only certain units.

Of course all of this makes the big assumption that the JLTV purchase is a done deal, which is far form certain and will depend on it being the most cost effective platform, especially given the number required. Having a common drive train would be a wonderful aspiration, but that is all it can realistically be. I am not sure but do the Warrior CSP and Ajax share the same drivetrain? Do either of these have anything in common with the Boxer? I think this is less important nowadays with the level of contractor support within the Military. Manufacturers have to guarantee the availability of platforms these days only really excluding combat loses form these figures.

Voldemort
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Finland

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

Post by Voldemort »

Just buy Sisu GTP and be happy.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

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

Post by SD67 »

Lord Jim wrote: Having a common drive train would be a wonderful aspiration, but that is all it can realistically be. I am not sure but do the Warrior CSP and Ajax share the same drivetrain? Do either of these have anything in common with the Boxer? I think this is less important nowadays with the level of contractor support within the Military. Manufacturers have to guarantee the availability of platforms these days only really excluding combat loses form these figures.
Ajax and Boxer both use an MTU engine with the same power rating, not sure if it's exactly the same but likely very close. Pretty ubiquitous unit apparantly. The old Perkins engine in Warrior is not being replaced as part of the CSP, it's an orphan and must be getting hard to support. Whether the support is external or internal it's paid for by the MOD in the end.

I imagine the ex-Rolls engine in CR2 is getting tough to support as well, and that's before they try and squeeze more power out of it.

i think there are real opportunities to simplify but it will take some hard nosed forward planning.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

Agreed but how much of a priority should this be compared to actually getting Ajax, Boxer and so on into service. Ideally the CR2 CSP would also include installing the MTU diesels and related Gearbox as I believe is used in the Omani variant.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

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

Post by SD67 »

Lord Jim wrote:Agreed but how much of a priority should this be compared to actually getting Ajax, Boxer and so on into service. Ideally the CR2 CSP would also include installing the MTU diesels and related Gearbox as I believe is used in the Omani variant.
The point I was trying to make is that the latest 1.5 billion cost of Warrior CSP would by quite a few additional Boxers and/or Ajax, without the obsolescence issues

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

Bearing in mind that some of the £1.5bn will have been spent, and you’re looking at £5m apiece for Boxer (APC only) and £6m apiece for Ajax (equal mix of turreted and non-turreted) you may not get as many as you think.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

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

Post by SD67 »

If we pay the same price Lithuania paid in 2016 we'd get 380 Boxers, with 30mm turret and Spike. They'd last 30 years not 10 and they'd work.

You're assuming the Warrior CSP contract will actually be delivered at the current cost. The cost keeps going up and quantity keeps coming down. Wait till they get to chassis 173 which has been flogged all over Iraq, I can smell Nimrod.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

But we’re not getting the price that Lithuania got. We’re paying £5m each for APCs.

Warrior upgrade is a risk. It may or may not pay off, but I don’t think anyone here is in a position to say so yet.
Pretending that you can recover money already spent and get a deal you have not got so far seems like more of a risk, to me.

SouthernOne
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 23 Nov 2019, 00:01
Australia

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

Post by SouthernOne »

Lord Jim wrote:
The SF like the Bushmaster but it wasn't their first choice, that was the Pandur 6x6 I believe. It has also shown that it has limited growth potential, as the Australian Army have discovered. Luckily they are bringing into service a new platform more than capable of doing the tasks they originally earmarked for the Bushmaster.
The Aus army seem pretty happy with the Bushmaster in its originally intended role as a protected mobility vehicle. There the Boxer will replace the ASLAV, the Hawkei will be used where the MB G-Wagon is unsuitable due to lack of protection, while a contest is currently underway between the Rheinmetall KF-41 and the Hanwha Defence Redback to replace the M113.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

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

Post by SD67 »

mr.fred wrote:But we’re not getting the price that Lithuania got. We’re paying £5m each for APCs.

Warrior upgrade is a risk. It may or may not pay off, but I don’t think anyone here is in a position to say so yet.
Pretending that you can recover money already spent and get a deal you have not got so far seems like more of a risk, to me.
I hate to sign like a broken record, but the fact is that today there has been no production contract signed for Warrior CSP. There’s been a long running and troubled development contract but no Green Light on actually building the thing. That means around 805% of that 1.5 billion is recoverable as it hasn’t been spent or even legally committed. A quick “MOD considering cancelling Warrior”

I’m aware that Boxer is costing us 5 million but it sure isnt costing anyone else that much, and I suspect that given a transparent competition and a strong entrant from Korea the price will fall pretty quickly. Witness type 31.

And there shouldn’t be any risk - that’s why defence contractors exist. We’re the customer not the supplier. You deliver to spec or you lose the job that’s how it tends to work in the non-MOD world.

Seriously this whole escapade is just Nimrod with wheels.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

SD67 wrote:That means around 805% of that 1.5 billion is recoverable
If you can get £12bn out of it, then might I suggest loftier ambitions?
SD67 wrote:And there shouldn’t be any risk - that’s why defence contractors exist.
If the MoD specify the requirements, they must hold the risk related to that. If they provide equipment, then they must hold risk related to that too.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

SouthernOne wrote:he Aus army seem pretty happy with the Bushmaster in its originally intended role as a protected mobility vehicle. There the Boxer will replace the ASLAV, the Hawkei will be used where the MB G-Wagon is unsuitable due to lack of protection, while a contest is currently underway between the Rheinmetall KF-41 and the Hanwha Defence Redback to replace the M113.
That is basically what I had heard. The issues with the Bushmaster appeared when it was tried to use the design for other roles, and it has now been decided to use the Hawkei instead in many of these.

The problem for the UK adopting the Bushmaster for the MRV(P) programme is exactly that, we want number variants based on a common platform, and the Bushmaster is not well suited to that. There are many platforms out there and the winner is probably going to be the one with the least risk and most cost effective throughout its service life, not just its initial procurement cost.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by 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.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote: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.

Mercator
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

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

Post by Mercator »

Lord Jim wrote:
SouthernOne wrote:he Aus army seem pretty happy with the Bushmaster in its originally intended role as a protected mobility vehicle. There the Boxer will replace the ASLAV, the Hawkei will be used where the MB G-Wagon is unsuitable due to lack of protection, while a contest is currently underway between the Rheinmetall KF-41 and the Hanwha Defence Redback to replace the M113.
That is basically what I had heard. The issues with the Bushmaster appeared when it was tried to use the design for other roles, and it has now been decided to use the Hawkei instead in many of these.

The problem for the UK adopting the Bushmaster for the MRV(P) programme is exactly that, we want number variants based on a common platform, and the Bushmaster is not well suited to that. There are many platforms out there and the winner is probably going to be the one with the least risk and most cost effective throughout its service life, not just its initial procurement cost.
Jim, the Bushie already has variants in every role you guys want for MRV-P... And that's why its so popular in Oz. It brings protection where mostly there was none previously, especially for the CSS people. It has been used in practically every role from APC to LOG ute. It will be displaced at bit by sexier vehicles only on the margins, but will still be there in every combat brigade in Oz in 10 years time. Prob 20 years. It's not a problem child in any sense in Oz and its replacement hasn't even been thought of yet.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

I bow to your greater knowledge on the subject. The reason I thought there were issues was the fact that the Hawkei was chosen over the Bushmaster for the various components of the new SAM system you are adopting was because it was too difficult to use the Bushmaster due to all the equipment on the basic vehicle that had to be retained and so on. But as you say this is on the Margins.

We really could do with at least a price comparison for all the various platforms that could be considered for the MRV(P) in both its 4x4 and 6x6. Which category would the Bushmaster fall in by the way?

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

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

Post by Gabriele »

Bushmaster is for Group 2, and its only rival left running is the GD Eagle 6x6.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Gabriele wrote: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)
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)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by 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.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: 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 :idea:
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)

Post Reply