Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Tempest414 wrote: As for the UOR fleet of Mastiff's & Ridgeback's they should go to make up 3 Battalions of Reserve mobile infantry
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.
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 board
So you'd have a REME workshop unit and a supply chain setup to support a reserve unit? That makes no sense.

The reserve units will only act to supplement the regular unit in all but total warfare. For that reason they should be trained and exercise on the same equipment so that they can work alongside their regular counterparts.

Bare in mind that regular units will work with Whole Fleet Management, they won't be using every vehicle, and so an availability surge is available should additional platforms be needed for reservist numbers.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

Not really sure that reserve infantry battalions really work that well I cant think of any that have ever formed and deployed unless there’s going to be a whole sale change in there construct and employment I’m not sure what the benefit is of sending such vehicles there.

I think MRVP is much more important that many give it credit for, like when the logistics forces decided to concentrate on thousands of man vehicles they are seeing the benefits of that so the army should see MRVP as such a program for the field army. Deploying unprotected regular infantry units just isn’t going to be an option anymore and so these vehicle will be what the majority of army are in and deploy with for the majority of operations below peer conflict. If it’s not being seen as a vehicle family that will stream line a myriad of vehicles allowing for a much simplified training and logistical burden then it will be a spectacular own goal.

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 »

We could see the Infantry Units within 1st Division being based around a regular cadre with the remainder made up of reserves. Say the HQ, one Company and core of the support units were regular then said unit could still be viable for deployment to either Cyprus or the Falklands with the reserves rotating for training and obviously easily flown in to bring said units to full strength. Therefore having four Brigades, two Motorised and two "Light " role (12 Battalions) would give the Army the capacity to still conduct training, mentoring and other missions, and the opportunity for overseas training should help the recruitment and retention of reserves. If funding were available then obviously the combat capability of these units could be increased, but even so the Motorised battalions with integral 81mm Mortars, Javelin and Section weapons would still be viable in low intensity missions, as would the "Light" role units to a certain extent. Add reserve GDAD units along with Engineers, Signals, Logistics and other support units and 1st Division starts to become a viable formation, and to take some of the workload off 3rd Division enabling it to concentrate on its primary role.

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

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

Post by Mercator »

Not every infantry unit that gains a ride with a bushmaster needs to be motorised. In Australia, we've tried lots of modes of delivery. Indeed, I think most of them still exist simultaneously somewhere in our ORBAT. We have motorised infantry, APC squadrons and transport squadrons all operating bushmasters and all capable of delivering infantry to different places on the battlefield, though obviously with different tactics and capabilities.

What might be especially applicable to your discussion here are reserve APC squadrons operated by reserve armoured corps units like this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th/16th ... er_Lancers

These guys operate with sufficient skills to be able to deploy as reinforcements to permanent forces while also providing options to other dismounted light infantry units, particularly our reserve forces. If you don't have enough bushmasters to go around, this might be a good compromise.

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 »

SW1 wrote:really work that well I cant think of any that have ever formed and deployed
check out the list @UKLandPower
SW1 wrote: like when the logistics forces decided to concentrate on thousands of man vehicles they are seeing the benefits of that so the army should see MRVP as such a program for the field army.
a valid point, and
Lord Jim wrote:then said unit could still be viable for deployment to either Cyprus
goes right back to my first comment above, as this is actually happening for Cyprus
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)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:check out the list @UKLandPower
Not sure what article to look at have you a link?

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 »

SW1 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:check out the list @UKLandPower
Not sure what article to look at have you a link?
SW1 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:check out the list @UKLandPower
Not sure what article to look at have you a link?
Should be the latest, re: what can we learn from the Allies' (armies)... which then had an in-depth discussion of the reserves in our own line-up, in the comments,

This one was questioned https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events ... onal-tour/
so I put in a (smaller in headcount, but) more serious A-stan deployment
... or may be (once again) I did not manage to sign in, to WP and posted the latter here (under IR?)
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)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Tempest414 wrote: As for the UOR fleet of Mastiff's & Ridgeback's they should go to make up 3 Battalions of Reserve mobile infantry
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.
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 board
So you'd have a REME workshop unit and a supply chain setup to support a reserve unit? That makes no sense.

The reserve units will only act to supplement the regular unit in all but total warfare. For that reason they should be trained and exercise on the same equipment so that they can work alongside their regular counterparts.

Bare in mind that regular units will work with Whole Fleet Management, they won't be using every vehicle, and so an availability surge is available should additional platforms be needed for reservist numbers.
OK taking what you say on board and looking at the 1st division as it stands we should make the 4th and 7th Brigades into mobile infantry both already have light cavalry regiments with Jackal plus 3 full time and 3 reserve Battalions if we gave the 4th new Bushmasters and started the 7th off with Mastiff and Ridgebacks and had them convert later to Bushmaster I think the 1st division would be a lot more useful and deployable leaving the the 3rd division to focus on its task


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 »

This (from Ron's linked article)
"The JLTV family of vehicles is designed to restore payload and performance that were traded from light tactical vehicles to add protection in recent conflict." as it it also the key to the transition.
- speed of the introduction
- which units first
- where would the total number stop

We will (may be) have the first Boxer bde (or the core of it) up and running by 2026
- a Warrior 2 BG will exist by then, too. I repeat: A Battle Group, presumably within 2 bdes
- the rest (the milestones) are in a fog... luckily there is no war (yet, or as far as we can see)

As for
Tempest414 wrote:taking what you say on board and looking at the 1st division as it stands we should make the 4th and 7th Brigades into mobile infantry both already have light cavalry regiments with Jackal plus 3 full time and 3 reserve Battalions if we gave the 4th new Bushmasters and started the 7th off with Mastiff and Ridgebacks and had them convert later to Bushmaster I think the 1st division would be a lot more useful and deployable leaving the the 3rd division to focus on its task
this is a sensible view, for
A. orderly transition, and
B. to make the 1st division more than an organisation charged with the husbandry of resources

To comment further, from that wider perspective
1. forget Ridgebacks ( we moved onto Mastiffs for a reason)
2. yes, we have the cavalry (and then the 3+3)
3. make the cavalry sharper... for every two squadrons of Jackal/ Coyote, have a sqdrn in Boxer CVR (err, not an official label, but is becoming part of the nomenclature used in the conversation here)
4. have the rglr bns ride in Foxhounds (peacekeeping deployments, and the like)
5. make the (called-up) reserves ride in Mastiffs (and Wolfhounds)... can't be that difficult as it was done for the brigades (a bn in each) in the 3rd division - ' not long ago' ie. today, as presumably the replacement mounts are still in manufacture (?)
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 »

Given how quiet the MRV(P) programme has been both before and after the Integrated Review, I re read the Think Defense article on rethinking he MRV(P) and how it could form the cornerstone of a AFV Industrial Strategy. One vehicle I had forgotten about was what was the BAe RG-35, now called the Nimr JAIS
https://nimr.ae/jais-mrap-range
It looks quite an impressive platform, is available in both 4x4 and 6x6 and comes in almost any variant you could want;

6 x 6 APC
6 x 6 Ambulance ( easily developed from APC)
6 x 6 Engineer ? Looks like a canvas cover on the rear and a jib ?
6 x 6 MANPADS based AA
6 x 6 with manned AAA mount ?
6 x 6 AA with larger SAM ?
6 x 6 APC with RWS
6 x 6 APC with pintle mount MG
6 x 6 with manned turret
6 x 6 with ATGW turret
6 x 6 155mm gun
4 x 4 APC with RWS
4 x 4 APC with pintle mount MG
4 x 4 MANPADS AA
6 x 6 with additional armour (no windows / vision blocks)
6 x 6 Recce – additional armour and manned turret
6 x 6 Command vehicle (or Comms or EW vehicles)
6 x 6 Engineer vehicle
6 x 6 Recovery vehicle

I strongly recommend people read TD's article as it opens some interesting trains of thought for the programme, and should start some interesting debates on the subject.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Nicholas Drummond says the UK needs this for MRVP. It's ideal he says if it can be built at under 1 million a pop (eyes roll) ...



Image

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 »

We certainly need one more platform that can take a .50cal plus a single Javelin
- we have an abundance of all the other types that would need to contribute to manoeuvre warfare (capability)
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)

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:Nicholas Drummond says the UK needs this for MRVP. It's ideal he says if it can be built at under 1 million a pop (eyes roll) ...
I'd love to see his tax returns.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

Don’t really see why we shouldn’t use what is being used in Mali at present for the light brigades going fwd. will need more examples of the vehicles going fwd but at least we already have them in service to build and develop on.

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 can see certain sectors of the Government and Civil Service looking at the Cottonmouth and saying its a cheaper 6x6 Boxer, so why don't we buy these and as a result less Boxers.

The twelve updated MRAVs operating in Mali are doing a great job and we should certainly have a number of these available to the Army if they suit a given mission. The Same could also be said for a limited number of Viking Mk2s if the mission requires them. Maybe these should be pooled under a RLC unit, or bring back on of the Royal Tank Regiments with a regular Cadre backed up by reserves to cover the size of the operation. All these vehicles can work together over a multitude of terrain types with one specialised in Arctic terrain.

The MRV(P) is probably going to have a fighting role now we have decided to create light BCTs. The existing Foxhounds will probably no go away, maybe being assigned to the RAF Regiment as an example. I like the idea of TD's of making the 6x6 the major variant as its hull size offers the greater flexibility, with the 4x4 fulfilling the role currently given to the Foxhound. But until the silence is broken regarding this programme we have really little idea of where it is heading after the Command Paper.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote:The MRV(P) is probably going to have a fighting role now we have decided to create light BCTs. The existing Foxhounds will probably no go away, maybe being assigned to the RAF Regiment as an example. I like the idea of TD's of making the 6x6 the major variant as its hull size offers the greater flexibility, with the 4x4 fulfilling the role currently given to the Foxhound. But until the silence is broken regarding this programme we have really little idea of where it is heading after the Command Paper.
For me MRV(P) should have always had a fighting role.

For the Light BCT's need to move around the battle field engage and disengage at speed and would need

APC's capable of taking 10 pax
CRV's
120mm Mortar vehicle
mobile Artillery

As for the RAF Regt they need something a bit more than foxhound can give them we need to think back to the cold war and give them something along the line of Scorpion tanks like Jaguar CRV

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote:One vehicle I had forgotten about was what was the BAe RG-35, now called the Nimr JAIS
Looking at this would make a good mount for the light BCT's a bit like a Griffon

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

SW1 wrote:Don’t really see why we shouldn’t use what is being used in Mali at present for the light brigades going fwd. will need more examples of the vehicles going fwd but at least we already have them in service to build and develop on.
You mean more Foxhound?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... tacks.html

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

RunningStrong wrote:
SW1 wrote:Don’t really see why we shouldn’t use what is being used in Mali at present for the light brigades going fwd. will need more examples of the vehicles going fwd but at least we already have them in service to build and develop on.
You mean more Foxhound?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... tacks.html

Yes I would want more foxhound. Also perhaps newer variants of it and maybe some Jackal in the cavalry role and a some more modified mastiff if they work in roles where larger space is needed.

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 »

You may get your wish if the MRV(P) programme doesn't get back into gear soon. Plans were for units to being equipped by 2025 but who know what the timetable is now?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Didn't know where to put this. Amazing vehicle ..



They do a bigger one ..

Image

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 »

It looks like the 21st Century descendant on the old Gamma Goat used by the US Army and USMC

A bit bigger I confess, but has everything gotten bigger over time. :D

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:Amazing vehicle ..
They have finally militarised it. The comments say it is from Ukraine, whereas the utube vids have all been coming from Russia
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 »

If it is amphibious then we have a vehicle to fill the role that was once filled by the Stalwart, thought probably more for supplying forward troops wherever they end up. Would be a great support platform for the Light BCTs giving them some substantial logistics capability whilst also being easily deployable. Ans again the same could be said for he Royal Marines if it is actually amphibious. Even if it is not, its go anywhere capability would offer some interesting opportunities.

Post Reply