Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
I am sure the one prototype was given away for free, in the hope of a future order:
CHF 46 million follow-on order for 56 PATROL ; 1 Swiss Franc equals
0.84 Pound sterling
CHF 46 million follow-on order for 56 PATROL ; 1 Swiss Franc equals
0.84 Pound sterling
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
CHF46m is approx £38.5m, so a headline price of c. £675,000 each (57 vehicles total).Luke jones wrote:How much do these vehicles cost per copy?
From the article, there is no way of determining what is capital cost and what is the future support package, but assuming it's 60:40 (is that a reasonable split?), that would be £405k per vehicle
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
The £0.9 mln per Foxhound was not analysed from that POV; was it just for the 'hardware'.Caribbean wrote:that would be £405k per vehicle
- anyone happen to know?
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
That's JLTV territory.Caribbean wrote:CHF46m is approx £38.5m, so a headline price of c. £675,000 each (57 vehicles total).Luke jones wrote:How much do these vehicles cost per copy?
From the article, there is no way of determining what is capital cost and what is the future support package, but assuming it's 60:40 (is that a reasonable split?), that would be £405k per vehicle
By the way, have you folks seen that JLTV prices are going down to the point the US Army has traded more vehicles under the current contract rather than taking the cost savings. And that the follow on contract has been moved up. Don't see that often with military contracts. Their novel procurement strategy seems to be paying off big time.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
USMC is also going all in; bye-bye to their Humvees (in due course as with all long contracts)
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
Well if the price keeps falling the the JLTV is going to be the Phase 1 MRV(P), as cost was/is going to be the only thing to make the MoD and others question the decision originally made. As for Phase 2, well we are really spoiled for choice, which is a good thing, but I see offerings form GM and Rheinmetall, if the latter has one, being front and centre as assembly lines will already exist in the UK.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
The MRVP Phase 2 was already shortlisted to Thales Bushmaster and GDLS Eagle. Both were undertaking trials last summer. RLS did bit but weren't shortlisted.Lord Jim wrote:Well if the price keeps falling the the JLTV is going to be the Phase 1 MRV(P), as cost was/is going to be the only thing to make the MoD and others question the decision originally made. As for Phase 2, well we are really spoiled for choice, which is a good thing, but I see offerings form GM and Rheinmetall, if the latter has one, being front and centre as assembly lines will already exist in the UK.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
Funny that;RunningStrong wrote:shortlisted to Thales Bushmaster and GDLS Eagle
- the first one originating from the UK/ Ireland, and
- the latter promised to ' grab this land with both hands' - probably not, though, if the only 300 or so of the Lot2 comes their way
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
I'm sure you are correct but I do wonder the impact of the new green book rules. Old rules says low cost is the only driver in awarding contracts. New rules says positive impact on the UK takes priority.Lord Jim wrote:Well if the price keeps falling the the JLTV is going to be the Phase 1 MRV(P), as cost was/is going to be the only thing to make the MoD and others question the decision originally made. As for Phase 2, well we are really spoiled for choice, which is a good thing, but I see offerings form GM and Rheinmetall, if the latter has one, being front and centre as assembly lines will already exist in the UK.
If it were me, I'd reopen the competition and pit JLTV vs Eagle. That might persuade Oshkosh to come up with a UK assembly plan and the UK to forgo the FMS route. Still, if it were based on UK prosperity, I think Eagle would win by a country mile. That's assuming it meets the requirement as well as JLTV.
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
I agree, and think have a common fleet using the 4x4 and 6x6 Eagles to meet the MRV(P) programme would bring superior benefits to the UK and probably allow the GM facility in Wales to be expanded and put on a firmer footing.
Although I usually go on and on regarding Boxer, the MRV(P) programme is just as important to the transformation of the British Army and should allow the UK to conduct low intensity operation without having to run to the Treasury with a long list of UORs. In addition with the desire to use the MRV(P) in higher level conflicts I think the Eagle should also prove its worth.
Although I usually go on and on regarding Boxer, the MRV(P) programme is just as important to the transformation of the British Army and should allow the UK to conduct low intensity operation without having to run to the Treasury with a long list of UORs. In addition with the desire to use the MRV(P) in higher level conflicts I think the Eagle should also prove its worth.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
They've put doors in the driver's compartment!Mercator wrote:new MR6 vid
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
The sooner we get some of our numerous "Light" role Infantry Battalions into vehicles like this the more use we will be able to get out of them, using troops from 1st Division for roles we would currently have to use 3rd Division units for.
-
- Member
- Posts: 129
- Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
Does this vehicle shown in the clip above differ greatly in capabilities from Mastiff, which we have hundreds of?
If so how?
We have the best part of 1000 UOR vehicles in fleet now. Aren't these already doing whats needed?
If so how?
We have the best part of 1000 UOR vehicles in fleet now. Aren't these already doing whats needed?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
Mastiff being practically road bound. Perhaps not on the North German plain, but then again it is not for manoeuvre warfare.Luke jones wrote:If so how?
I v much agree that we have been overzealous in weeding out categories of UOR vehicles. While Mastiff is lacking in mobility, Husky was bought to get supplies to where they are needed... even x-country.
- that, combined with the decent protection, would lend it useful to be used alongside with Boxers, until we get A. enough of the latter for infantry, and B. after that can move the production/ orders to specialist versions, to replace not just such Huskies, but any remaining Bulldogs in frontline support roles.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
& vintageRon5 wrote: Fugly.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
... or cost effective?Dahedd wrote:effective
Boxer is v effective, but not cheap (value is to be derived from doctrine and tactics).
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5624
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
I would agree and think two Brigades of the 1st Division should get themLord Jim wrote:The sooner we get some of our numerous "Light" role Infantry Battalions into vehicles like this the more use we will be able to get out of them, using troops from 1st Division for roles we would currently have to use 3rd Division units for.
As for the UOR fleet of Mastiff's & Ridgeback's they should go to make up 3 Battalions of Reserve mobile infantryLuke jones wrote:Does this vehicle shown in the clip above differ greatly in capabilities from Mastiff, which we have hundreds of?
If so how?
We have the best part of 1000 UOR vehicles in fleet now. Aren't these already doing whats needed?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
would leave 5 without... we could always beef up the first twoTempest414 wrote:two Brigades of the 1st Division should get them
A good idea, as in the sparsely 'populated' battle space the nodes (arty, HQs, logs) will - at times - need defending. Those wagons have good road speedTempest414 wrote:should go to make up 3 Battalions of Reserve mobile infantry
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
Many of which are up for disposal at present. The IR may change this however.Luke jones wrote:We have the best part of 1000 UOR vehicles in fleet now. Aren't these already doing whats needed?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
There's zero value dumping such equipment onto reserve units when it will be reliant on a regular army maintenance support and supply chain package.Tempest414 wrote: As for the UOR fleet of Mastiff's & Ridgeback's they should go to make up 3 Battalions of Reserve mobile infantry
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
I have never understood matters to stand as if there was a separateRunningStrong wrote: reserve units when it will be reliant on a regular army maintenance support and supply chain package.
for the reserves?maintenance support and supply chain package.
- or if so, then the Whole Force concept has been unceremoniously 'dumped'
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5624
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
There is never zero value there are always pro's and con's. (sorry fantasy button on) If two brigades of the 1st Division where to be made mobile infantry with Bushmaster's then having three reserve Battalions with Mastiff and Ridgeback could be a good thing yes these vehicles would need to be serviced by the REME but then most combat vehicles are. My concern is that at this time the 1st division is going no where and will have little or no effect by making two Brigades mobile the division as a whole becomes more deployable and effective across the boardRunningStrong wrote:There's zero value dumping such equipment onto reserve units when it will be reliant on a regular army maintenance support and supply chain package.Tempest414 wrote: As for the UOR fleet of Mastiff's & Ridgeback's they should go to make up 3 Battalions of Reserve mobile infantry