Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by bobp »

So the JLTV is still an active program, but only just until money is available to fund it.

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 »

If the Army is to take a hit like that suggested in the article we might as well not just abandon any purchase of the JLTV but give up any pretence of being able to operate on land against anything except poorly armed insurgents in COIN operations.

J. Tattersall

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

Post by J. Tattersall »

to take a hit like that suggested in the article
I must say I tend to take Defense News with a pinch of salt. Interesting but don't bet your pension on what it says on any given subject.

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 »

True, but there does appear to be some seriously dark storm clouds gathering over the future of the Army, especially if you look at what the objectives of the Integrated Review appear to be.

J. Tattersall

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

Post by J. Tattersall »

especially if you look at what the objectives of the Integrated Review appear to be
......and what are these objectives then?

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 »

Without repeating what I said in the Integrated Review thread, the mandate of the Review is too broad and could leave the Armed Forces being tasked with too many and too broad a set of commitments, which will detract form its core roles and end up being spread too thin, with not enough mass across all capabilities.

I mean just for starters the Army's Heavy formations do not fit into the Reviews mandate, as they are too unwieldy and lack the deplorability that will be required. In theory I do not have an issue with this as I am a proponent of the Army being based around a core of properly organised and equipped "Strike" Brigades, supported by a single Armoured Cavalry Brigade (Heavy), an Artillery Brigade and so on. But if we lose the Heavy formations and the "Strike" Brigades are not properly set up our Army will be irreversible damaged, both in capability and in the eyes of our Allies.

Any how back to the thread, and with the US Army placing further orders for the JLTV even though it intends to retain a large number of Humvees for use in non combat areas and roles, we need to hurry up and at least place an initial order to provide a protected support vehicle for our Army and RAF units.

Tom8
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: 15 Feb 2020, 07:59
United Kingdom

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

Post by Tom8 »

Lord Jim wrote:A few of these would be useful on some of our planned JLTV, especially those allocated to say our "Rapid Intervention forces" . Yes it would be a new gun but we have the infrastructure in place of Chain Guns already as a result of using the Apache with its 30mm and the co-axial 7.62 version. Maybe we could swap out the Stingers for Starstreak but out SF already use the occasional Stinger.

It could also be useful for a possible SPAA version of the Boxer, though the heavier version maybe better with its added firepower.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... -for-madis

How would Moog’s system compare to Leonardo’s

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/defence- ... k.html/amp

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

Tom8 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:A few of these would be useful on some of our planned JLTV, especially those allocated to say our "Rapid Intervention forces" . Yes it would be a new gun but we have the infrastructure in place of Chain Guns already as a result of using the Apache with its 30mm and the co-axial 7.62 version. Maybe we could swap out the Stingers for Starstreak but out SF already use the occasional Stinger.

It could also be useful for a possible SPAA version of the Boxer, though the heavier version maybe better with its added firepower.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... -for-madis

How would Moog’s system compare to Leonardo’s

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/defence- ... k.html/amp
You could imagine an UK version of the Leonardo turret quite easily with UK weapons (LMM, Venom, GPMG etc) and sensors replacing the US sourced items. It does look low profile (unlike some of the other monster turrets) and no doubt Leonardo claims multipurpose (anti drone, aircraft, anything on wheels). Whether the JLTV could carry the weight, who knows, but Boxer and the Bushmaster/Eagle 6x6 MRV(P) 2, could.

The turret could very well have an excellent FCS with at least the forward hemisphere covered by the flat panel radar & EO. A weakness I think in some of the other offerings.

A tad expensive I would guess.

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 »

The USMC have been sorting out a similar turret for their JLTVs and have had the Contractor Moog) redo the proposed turret to reduce its weight, as the original was too heavy. Leonardo's may have a similar problem during operational testing.

As for a Boxer SPAA I would rather look to the Rapidfire system using the CTA40 as well as the non penetrating turret already developed for the infantry carrying Boxer to allow it to still carry eight dismounts and remove the need for Ajax to provide fire support.

A JLTV with a good RWS with a 30mm Bushmaster would be a good starting point for a light armoured recce platform for our lighter troops though and if fitted with a ATGW such as Javelin or ideally something like Spike-LR provide decent over watch and precision strike capability. The Army has an outstanding requirement for a replacement for Swingfire in the heavy ATGW role, requiring less range than Brimstone or Exactor 2.

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:The Army has an outstanding requirement for a replacement for Swingfire in the heavy ATGW role, requiring less range than Brimstone or Exactor 2.
NAO said a future anti-tank system got the chop in order to finance Challenger 3.

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

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

Post by inch »

The 3 new tanks that we might get lol,sorry I mean the probably already outgunned 3 new tanks , smashing

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 »

Ron5 wrote:NAO said a future anti-tank system got the chop in order to finance Challenger 3.
Yes it lost its funding but the requirement is still outstanding.

CMOR
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 12 Jun 2020, 08:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by CMOR »

New piece on why the US (especially Marines) are backing away from JLTV.

https://mwi.usma.edu/stuck-in-the-sand- ... ttlefield/

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

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

Post by Jake1992 »

Cuts in orders from the US forces will only mean an increase in price above the increase that have already happened. Iv said it before and this now hardens my thinking around the need to go for a home grown design, I have favoured the Foxhound family with what they’ve developed to prototype stage but there is other options.

When the above is taken in to account along with the currrnt need to spend more money at home than on imports it just seems maddening to me the JLTV orders go ahead.

I do like the look of the Flyer 60 and 72 the USMC are looking at though could be something nice to jump on for a limited order for the RMs and SF.

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

Any cuts wouldn't increase the JLTV price per se but would slow down the rate of future price decreases, and as such it will remain between a third and half the price of Foxhound.

The article referenced above was focused on the needs of the Marine corps and the writer was talking about the disadvantages of JLTV in amphibious and airborne operations. Seeing the UK won't be using its JLTV's in either role, it doesn't really apply.

Yes the JLTV is very much rooted in the demands of Iraq and Afghanistan to provide a small protected utility vehicle. I personally doubt very much whether the UK has finished its hot and dusty operations and I also think there's a very definite need for a small protected vehicle on European type ops. For example, Strike needs protected vehicles other than Boxer. So the MRV(P) program should remain.

The biggest weakness to me the JLTV's very limited UK industrial content. They won't be built in the UK.

If the Eagle 4x4 is close to the JLTV in capability (it might be) and if GDLS builds them in the UK with a high UK sourced content (they've said they will but they said that about Ajax and lied through their teeth). Then maybe the UK should swallow the extra cost and buy them plus the Eagle 6x6 to fill part 2 of the requirement. But I would insist on a fixed price contract (like JLTV) and a guaranteed UK level of content (which the numnuts at the MoD should have added to the Ajax contract).

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 »

The light weight vehicles the USMC and US Army are starting to field may carry up to four troops and fit inside either a CH-47 or CH-53, but they are a return to the Dune Buggies used by SF in the 1980s and 90s. The JLTV might not meet all of the two services requirements but it does meet the MRV(P) part 1 requirement we have.

If it become too expensive I think we should take a hard look at the new Hawkei protected 4x4 the Australians are introducing for the same requirement, and then adopt the Bushmaster for MRV(P) part 2. The Australian capability requirements are very similar to our own and it would be a good reverse of the T-26 deal with a European production line being set up in the UK for both vehicles, possibly.

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 »

Ron5 wrote:would insist on a fixed price contract (like JLTV)
A good idea... and we actually have one
Lord Jim wrote: does meet the MRV(P) part 1 requirement we have.
Yep
Lord Jim wrote: If it become too expensive I think
Well, there is a lot of talk about the price; but where are the links to verify (all that talk/ gossip)?
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 »

Hence the "If" because I haven't actually seen anything to that effect either. I still think the Bushmaster would be a good match for Part 2 though and the Army does have some experience using it, be it only in very small numbers.

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:The light weight vehicles the USMC and US Army are starting to field may carry up to four troops and fit inside either a CH-47 or CH-53, but they are a return to the Dune Buggies used by SF in the 1980s and 90s. The JLTV might not meet all of the two services requirements but it does meet the MRV(P) part 1 requirement we have.

If it become too expensive I think we should take a hard look at the new Hawkei protected 4x4 the Australians are introducing for the same requirement, and then adopt the Bushmaster for MRV(P) part 2. The Australian capability requirements are very similar to our own and it would be a good reverse of the T-26 deal with a European production line being set up in the UK for both vehicles, possibly.
I'd be happy to synch the entire army's vehicle procurement up to Australia : M1, Lynx, Boxer, Bushmaster, Hawkei, G-Wagen. Who knows we could get a three division Commonwealth Corps

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 »

SD67 wrote:M1, Lynx, Boxer, Bushmaster, Hawkei, G-Wagen
France looked at Hawkei, but the likelihood of a line in Europe...? It was all about local content for Australia, too, as the type of vehicle is required in numbers.

Boxer - Bushmaster have enough cost differential to warrant two different vehicles across many roles, but otherwise I would stick to the (Army's) knitting if we are not to wave good-bye to any type of armoured vehicle production on these islands. (Wasn't Bushmaster at least designed in Ireland? ... ticks the 'islands' box)
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
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SD67 wrote:M1, Lynx, Boxer, Bushmaster, Hawkei, G-Wagen
France looked at Hawkei, but the likelihood of a line in Europe...? It was all about local content for Australia, too, as the type of vehicle is required in numbers.

Boxer - Bushmaster have enough cost differential to warrant two different vehicles across many roles, but otherwise I would stick to the (Army's) knitting if we are not to wave good-bye to any type of armoured vehicle production on these islands. (Wasn't Bushmaster at least designed in Ireland? ... ticks the 'islands' box)
Of that list, I would only consider Boxer for the UK. The rest are rather overpriced and average.

CH3 > Aussie standard M1
JLTV > Hawkei and cheaper
Landrover > G-Wagen because the UK has zillions of them already
Lynx is too expensive and a huge target
Bushmaster wasn't the first choice of the UK SF

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jensy »

Could someone explain to me the following:

Why is Foxhound/Ocelot not suitable for at least part of the MRV(P) programme?

Is it cost, capability or just no one (GD) has a vested interest in promoting it?

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 »

Jensy wrote:Is it cost
As it stands, yes. And I have a faint recollection that trials with a steel-bodied version did not go well
- a bit like the as such good (and British) ATV being made into a portee and loaded with the American 'lightweight' 155. Looked good, but axels broke when going x-country
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)

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

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

Post by SD67 »

Ron5 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SD67 wrote:M1, Lynx, Boxer, Bushmaster, Hawkei, G-Wagen
France looked at Hawkei, but the likelihood of a line in Europe...? It was all about local content for Australia, too, as the type of vehicle is required in numbers.

Boxer - Bushmaster have enough cost differential to warrant two different vehicles across many roles, but otherwise I would stick to the (Army's) knitting if we are not to wave good-bye to any type of armoured vehicle production on these islands. (Wasn't Bushmaster at least designed in Ireland? ... ticks the 'islands' box)
Of that list, I would only consider Boxer for the UK. The rest are rather overpriced and average.

CH3 > Aussie standard M1
JLTV > Hawkei and cheaper
Landrover > G-Wagen because the UK has zillions of them already
Lynx is too expensive and a huge target
Bushmaster wasn't the first choice of the UK SF
Problem is CH3 doesn't exist, LandRover 100/90 are no longer in production, Ajax doesn't work yet after a decade of development. JLTV ok I can see the point there

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 »

JLTV is the easy bit; we'll just need to decide 'how many'. And that's a direct function of what kind of units, and how many of them.

To work that out we'll need to decide which is the biggest threat (sure, they work in combination - a rank ordering is what I'm after):
- is it Putin's tanks doing a foray into Poland, and do we provide a recce screen for other nations' tank brigades, or...
- or his subs in the Atlantic and bombers in the North ( a UK ship building renaissance if this is the right answer)

OK, will continue on the IR thread
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