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: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

Does any one have any info on these packages? I've not seen them before.

Confused at the JLTV suggestion, what does that offer that one of the current vehicles doesn't?
It also doesn't seat 6, has the requirement changed?
Why introduce a new type, we should be reducing vehicle types not increasing?

from the article;
The MoD program announcement said the Army would initially require 150 troop carrying vehicles and 80 ambulances but incremental orders would take eventually the numbers up to 300 of each. That’s less than expected. A second industry executive said a requirement for an 8x8 mechanised infantry vehicle is eating into the MRV-P numbers
I don't think that's right, I though it was always around the 600 units mark. At least there's an indication MRV-P is proceeding.
@LandSharkUK

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

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

Post by Dahedd »

Why not stick with the Fox hound? Is it too light for the role?

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

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

Post by Dahedd »

Double post

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

Dahedd wrote:Why not stick with the Fox hound? Is it too light for the role?
They should do, British, in service, and excellent.

I suspect it may be an issue of cost.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 539
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
United States of America

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

Post by Halidon »

Cost, Weight, external dimensions could all be factors.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

I am suspecting that there is another "buy it while the production line is going into white hot mass production" factor coming into play here for the price range.

It is extremely disappointing to not see a British vehicle here though. Light armour is all we've got left that we make with things like Foxhound, Jackal and Perocc.

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

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

Post by LordJim »

I think the Foxhound was/is the preferred platform but the JLTV is going to be a lot cheaper. I can see both in service but the latter being procured as the actual MRV(P), equipping the Adaptive Force and the Foxhound used for more specialist roles in units supporting the Reaction Force.

Given the amount of new kit out armed forces and especially the Army needs over the next ten years, cost is going to have to be the main driver. Unless a UK manufacturer can invest in new design and manufacturing facilities and match the costs of an overseas producer then I am sorry but they will lose out. Our AFV industry was allowed to atrophy during the past two decades if not earlier and is past the point of no return except for foreign companies setting up production lines in this country for their products, and these have finite lives. Very few if any future AFVs will be UK designed or even manufactured as we have lost the capacity to do so whist keeping costs down. Foxhound could well be the last AFV we design that is used by the UK's armed forces. Sad but true.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

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

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

MRV-P moved ahead: http://www.janes.com/article/63811/uk-mrv-p-moves-ahead

Perhaps coincidental timing, but only yesterday the first deliveries of the JLTV were announced as due to take place by the end of this month.

EDIT: Interestingly, the article seems to suggest that it has already been decided that the MRV-P Group 1 requirement will in fact be met by the Oshkosh L-ATV. Anyone know anything about this? I thought this was just meant to be one option being discussed?

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

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

Post by arfah »

..........
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

What a great purchase, the UK has never had a nicely armoured, mine protected 4x4 jeep vehicle in service in large numbers that could be simply expanded using UK manufactur-

Oh wait. :roll:

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 »

300-some Husky
398 Foxhound
441 Jackal / Coyote
401 Panther

And soon enough some JLTV, and then yet another vehicle type as Foxhound-clone with less armour and as protected ambulance.

And Land Rover. And Pinzgauer. And Duro.

A few of everything. Zero coherence.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

Of course, you know why they're doing it.

It's so they can reel off "We have modern Foxhound vehicles, Protected Recon Jackals and Coyotes, Husky support vehicles, Panther command vehicles, JLTV transports being acquired now and new vehicles on the horizon."

It's so they can just "say" lots of names and make it sound bit for political soundbytes.

I'm sure there's people tired of me saying it, but I'm sorry, I'm not going to stop repeating every time this same thing happens. That 'checkbox military strikes again'.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

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

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Gabriele wrote:300-some Husky
398 Foxhound
441 Jackal / Coyote
401 Panther

And soon enough some JLTV, and then yet another vehicle type as Foxhound-clone with less armour and as protected ambulance.

And Land Rover. And Pinzgauer. And Duro.

A few of everything. Zero coherence.
This is the worst part, IMHO. Even if you have to bin some things early, just pack them in and work to create some semblance of a unified fleet.

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

RetroSicotte wrote:What a great purchase, the UK has never had a nicely armoured, mine protected 4x4 jeep vehicle in service in large numbers that could be simply expanded using UK manufactur-

Oh wait. :roll:
Foxhound unit costs are just way too high. And that's before you get a 6x6.

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 »

RunningStrong wrote:Foxhound unit costs are just way too high. And that's before you get a 6x6.
Agreed. But has it been costed with good old steel/ aluminium construction (instead of composites now extensively used)?
- we could get an automotively identical fleet, with different performance (and unit cost) levels
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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:Foxhound unit costs are just way too high. And that's before you get a 6x6.
Agreed. But has it been costed with good old steel/ aluminium construction (instead of composites now extensively used)?
- we could get an automotively identical fleet, with different performance (and unit cost) levels
But what would the trade off be, weight or survivability?

You make it heavier and brakes, suspension and transmission all have to change. Not so much to maintain the dynamic performance, but simple reliability.

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 »

Could well be... but it all goes into the costing.
- could be a worthwhile exercise; then again, slotting into a 50.000 unit production run will give massive savings
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)

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Could well be... but it all goes into the costing.
- could be a worthwhile exercise; then again, slotting into a 50.000 unit production run will give massive savings
At the cost of killing off one of only two remaining British vehicle projects left.

This decision pretty much kills Foxhound to be a 400 run only vehicle.

Christ, it's aching to think that the Supacat Extenda might be the last British AFV for a long long time now. It's the only one that's surviving and has orders. There are no other purchased British vehicles. None. Nothing in years other than it has gone out.

This was our one chance to buck that trend, we had the vehicle, it was proven and we had it in service already and we had the manufacturing to make it. This was the last chance to get a large scale British vehicle production line going again. Of course it'll cost a little more, but look at France. They make things themselves and they're only going from cost effective strength to cost effective strength because it builds industry.

And they threw it away.

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 »

RetroSicotte wrote:Supacat Extenda might be the last British AFV
AFV? The top is open; does the lower half stop assault rifle bullets?

Talking about open tops: I wonder if the Norgies swap their Supacats for bandvagens in winter months? Or ski-dos... will do nicely for recce.
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)

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

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

Post by arfah »

..........
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

RetroSicotte wrote: At the cost of killing off one of only two remaining British vehicle projects left.

This decision pretty much kills Foxhound to be a 400 run only vehicle.

Christ, it's aching to think that the Supacat Extenda might be the last British AFV for a long long time now. It's the only one that's surviving and has orders. There are no other purchased British vehicles. None. Nothing in years other than it has gone out.

This was our one chance to buck that trend, we had the vehicle, it was proven and we had it in service already and we had the manufacturing to make it. This was the last chance to get a large scale British vehicle production line going again. Of course it'll cost a little more, but look at France. They make things themselves and they're only going from cost effective strength to cost effective strength because it builds industry.

And they threw it away.
I'd hardly say that costing 2-3x the unit cost of JLTV, plus increased spares costs, is a minor price to pay for a UK-manufactured vehicle.

And no one else seems willing to pay the price either.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:Supacat Extenda might be the last British AFV
AFV? The top is open; does the lower half stop assault rifle bullets?
It's better protected than often given credit, but yes, it's hardly the definition of "AFV" either. It's hard to believe I'm being generous with my definition of AFV for the remaining British industry.
RunningStrong wrote: I'd hardly say that costing 2-3x the unit cost of JLTV, plus increased spares costs, is a minor price to pay for a UK-manufactured vehicle.
You have the exact unit prices for an unreleased deal? I wouldn't give numerical estimates until we know.

Either way, without this, the light AFV sector dies.

Without that, there are no British AFVs remaining. That is a loss greater than any amount extra on one order would ever have been, as it leaves us 100% open to the whims of others in terms of purchases. Again, look at France. They accept the sometimes higher cost and look what it got them, one of the strongest full system export economies in the defence sector, incredibly experienced skillsets, regular and varied concepts that they can throw into production to match needs in a changing world, much cheaper and longer run programs in the long term and ultimately a healthier Army vehicle fleet year on year.

If we only ever thing short term benefit being unable to make what we need, we get where we are now, with the Army set to have a hilariously underarmed and undersized vehicle pool.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

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

Post by whitelancer »

When you fail to invest for the future the future inevitable catches up with you. By closing down and selling off almost the entirety of the defence research and development establishments, in order to make short term and I believe spurious cost savings, that is what the Government has done. Failed to invest. We are now reaping the rewards of such a policy. The nuclear industry is anther case that seems highly relevant today!

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 »

arfah wrote:Lowered tyre pressures and fitment of snow chains.
... not really

Apologies for straying off the topic.
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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

This should have been a programme to fix the light vehicle fleet, instead it fucks it up even more.

Opportunity missed, Army putting more nails in their own coffin.
@LandSharkUK

Post Reply