UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Frenchie
Member
Posts: 567
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
Location: France

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

Postby Frenchie » 19 Jan 2018, 13:21

Pongoglo wrote:Really ? I never knew that, the French have gunners on the ground in Iraq - well done them! I knew that the US had Arty units in action both Army and USMC but didn't realise the French had too. Shows how UK centric the media focus is over here. Anyone got any good links??




A good summary of what we were doing in Iraq.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 19 Jan 2018, 13:25

Pongoglo wrote:Shows how UK centric the media focus is over here.

Equally, one could believe that the whole war in Afghanistan was fought in Helmand... that holds 3% of the population.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2041
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby RetroSicotte » 19 Jan 2018, 15:06

It's the same in any country.

Timmymagic
Member
Posts: 952
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Timmymagic » 20 Jan 2018, 13:32

Little J wrote:Like to see who is going to volunteer for the live passenger demo


This has been years in the making, I remember seeing the guy developing it posting about it on Think Defence about 5-6 years ago. It was in testing then, its a brilliant idea.

Can't see many people volunteering for a bomb blast in any vehicle to be honest...

Timmymagic
Member
Posts: 952
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Timmymagic » 20 Jan 2018, 13:34

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Equally, one could believe that the whole war in Afghanistan was fought in Helmand... that holds 3% of the population.


Given the percentage of total TIC's that were taking place in Helmand at its peak compared to the rest of Afghanistan they weren't far wrong. Apart from Kunar and Kandahar, both of which were not as intense as Helmand, it was pretty much the epicentre of the war.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 20 Jan 2018, 13:48

Timmymagic wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Equally, one could believe that the whole war in Afghanistan was fought in Helmand... that holds 3% of the population.


Given the percentage of total TIC's that were taking place in Helmand at its peak compared to the rest of Afghanistan they weren't far wrong. Apart from Kunar and Kandahar, both of which were not as intense as Helmand, it was pretty much the epicentre of the war.


This looks like an update? https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives ... hideen.php If there is a graphic on TIC's it would be interesting to compare (over time)
- looks like, though, that mine-resistant vehicles would be much in demand? A pity we shipped most of them out, and do not know what t do with them now

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1791
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Lord Jim » 20 Jan 2018, 17:46

We should have given most of the Mine Protected Vehicles bought through UORs to the UN to issue to peacekeepers etc.

Timmymagic
Member
Posts: 952
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Timmymagic » 20 Jan 2018, 21:07

Lord Jim wrote:We should have given most of the Mine Protected Vehicles bought through UORs to the UN to issue to peacekeepers etc.


Sod that. They can have the Vectors...and the Springers...

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1791
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Lord Jim » 20 Jan 2018, 22:28

I would rather other nations send troops and we give them the kit when it comes to Peacekeeping. This is what the Mastiff etc. was designed for and we won't be doing it again any time soon or at least I hope not. We need at least a decade to get our shit back together and re-equip with the right equipment. MRV(P) is a key part of this especially is we use the 6x6 as an APC to bring at least 4 light role battalions into this century and give some additional mobility to 16 Air Assault.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1598
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby dmereifield » 23 Jan 2018, 10:24

The general consensus appears to be that MRV(P) group 2 seems to be a choice between GD's Eagle and Thales' Bushmaster.

Does anyone know what proportion of the content, if any, from each is UK built?
I also wonder if it might make (financial) sense to award the contract to GD for a UK build to offset a possible reduction of Ajax??

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 23 Jan 2018, 10:47

Don't know about the content, but by now the Bushmaster should be a mature product, with nothing left to "iron out" - a pick from TD's chronology regarding medium-weigh capability and concepts of its use:
"A 2004 Sydney Morning Herald story in 2004 summed up the situation:
The army’s new Bushmaster troop carrier sums up what can go wrong with defence purchases. The prototype vehicles were 10 times less reliable than the army wanted. But the army bought them anyway because the only alternative was 20 times less reliable. The original cost was supposed to be $170 million for 370 vehicles. In the end, taxpayers will get 299 vehicles for $329 million. And though taxpayers’ money has been used to develop the vehicles, the army has no patent over any part of the project and no royalty agreement with ADI if the company sells the vehicles overseas. Now that the wrinkles have been ironed out using taxpayer money, that looks likely."

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1791
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Lord Jim » 23 Jan 2018, 19:38

Didn't we purchase a small number of Bushmaster on the quiet a while back. From what I have been able to find out, those using them were full of praise in their ability to handle the conditions. What modification would be needed to make it more suitable for operations in Europe and Scandinavia?

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 567
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
Location: France

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

Postby Frenchie » 23 Jan 2018, 20:39

Nexter develops a new 4x4 vehicle of about 15 tonnes with a stanag 4/4a/4b protection level as part of the light VBMR, if you are not really in a hurry, it would be interesting.

Mercator
Member
Posts: 183
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Location: Australia
Contact:

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

Postby Mercator » 24 Jan 2018, 02:53

It has its own Twitter account...




:-)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 24 Jan 2018, 03:23

Frenchie wrote:Nexter develops a new 4x4 vehicle of about 15 tonnes with a stanag 4/4a/4b protection level as part of the light VBMR, if you are not really in a hurry, it would be interesting.


Hi Frenchie, wiki knew about Bushmaster having made a brief appearance in France (Thales...):
"France : The Bushmaster, under the name of Broussard (Bushmaster in French), "is" competing against a lightened version of Nexter's VBCI and the Renault AMC for a 2,300 vehicle contract to replace the French Army's VABs.[95] France finally selected the Nexter VBMR Griffon"
- would you say that it fell between two stools (Griffon being closer to MIV and Bushmaster, at the same time, not light enough[?] as "light VBMR"?

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 567
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
Location: France

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

Postby Frenchie » 24 Jan 2018, 11:50

Hi ACC,
All that is said in wikipedia about the Bushmaster is false, it was not even a candidate for the light VBMR, which is a vehicle that will replace the VABs in the Parachute Brigade and the Mountain Infantry Brigade, the VBMR Griffon being too heavy to be deployed quickly as part of the "L'alerte Guépard" which represents the French Army's emergency ground reaction capability that allows to 700 troops to be deployed in 12 hours, and anyway the paratroopers and the alpines prefers a 15 tonnes vehicles than 25 tonnes Griffons for their mobility, it's the same logic as for the 16AAB and the 3 Commando Brigade.
These vehicles will also be used to replace VLRAs whose I do not know exact number and which serve as a long range patrol vehicle, weapons carrier, light recovery vehicle, troop carrier, ambulance, command and transmission vehicle, cargo and 3,500 liter water or fuel tanker truck.
In total this would represent around 2000 vehicles.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 24 Jan 2018, 13:44

Thanks Frenchie,

I would have been surprised if such a major competition, so close to home, would have passed unnoticed.

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 156
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Pongoglo » 24 Jan 2018, 15:15

dmereifield wrote:The general consensus appears to be that MRV(P) group 2 seems to be a choice between GD's Eagle and Thales' Bushmaster.

Does anyone know what proportion of the content, if any, from each is UK built?
I also wonder if it might make (financial) sense to award the contract to GD for a UK build to offset a possible reduction of Ajax??


Well by sheer co-incidence I had eyes on both contenders yesterday as it happens and whilst I couldn't possibly comment I would have to say that Dmeriefield might just be right on cue, and also that the trials might be happening somewhere close to Aldershot where they do such things :-). Also and before I get jumped on and lectured about OPSEC etc there are no secrets here as they are both parked out in the open and next to a very busy road :-)

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Postby RunningStrong » 24 Jan 2018, 23:57

dmereifield wrote:The general consensus appears to be that MRV(P) group 2 seems to be a choice between GD's Eagle and Thales' Bushmaster.

Does anyone know what proportion of the content, if any, from each is UK built?
I also wonder if it might make (financial) sense to award the contract to GD for a UK build to offset a possible reduction of Ajax??

Given MoD budget and timelines I don't think you'll see platform being constructed in the UK, but it's likely that final fit of any C4I and GVA will be in the UK.

I know Thales have used several sites in the UK for fitting out Warthog and Foxhound. Almost a pop-up shop in the past.

GD have lots of space in Merthyr.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1598
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby dmereifield » 25 Jan 2018, 07:45

RunningStrong wrote:
dmereifield wrote:The general consensus appears to be that MRV(P) group 2 seems to be a choice between GD's Eagle and Thales' Bushmaster.

Does anyone know what proportion of the content, if any, from each is UK built?
I also wonder if it might make (financial) sense to award the contract to GD for a UK build to offset a possible reduction of Ajax??

Given MoD budget and timelines I don't think you'll see platform being constructed in the UK, but it's likely that final fit of any C4I and GVA will be in the UK.

I know Thales have used several sites in the UK for fitting out Warthog and Foxhound. Almost a pop-up shop in the past.

GD have lots of space in Merthyr.


Thanks for the info. Do you (or anyone else) know how many we are looking to buy?

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 567
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
Location: France

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

Postby Frenchie » 25 Jan 2018, 11:49

dmereifield wrote:Thanks for the info. Do you (or anyone else) know how many we are looking to buy?


https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/eurosatory/2016/06/17/uk-in-talks-with-pentagon-for-jltv-buy/

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.


It's an old article but that's all I found.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1598
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby dmereifield » 25 Jan 2018, 12:09

Thanks, fewer than I had expected...

User avatar
Zealot
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 16:39
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Zealot » 25 Jan 2018, 13:14

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-purc ... lion-deal/

According to the UK Defence Journal, its 2,747 JLTVs

benny14
Member
Posts: 555
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby benny14 » 25 Jan 2018, 16:41

dmereifield wrote:Thanks, fewer than I had expected...


This is originally what was said.

"In January 2017, it was confirmed that the Army had started negotiations to purchase the Oshkosh Joint Light Tactical Vehicle from the United States to fulfil the MRV-P Group 1 requirement. The expectation is that 750 such vehicles will be acquired. For MRV-P Group 2, which will require a larger platform, we understand that three potential suppliers remain in the competition. A contract is expected to be agreed within two years, and initially the Army is expected to buy 150 APCs and 80 ambulances, with this later rising to 300 of each if the money is available."

It was then reported several months later that the MRV-P group 1 has been raised to potentially 2,747 vehicles. It seems that they went from wanting to equip only the strike brigades, to replacing the whole army vehicle fleet. This might also mean that the MRV-P group 2 vehicles have scaled up to match, potentially up to 1000 maybe?

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2041
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby RetroSicotte » 25 Jan 2018, 16:50

As far as I'm aware, think of it like the F-35 buy.

Commit to X number.

Actually buying Y number at a time.


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest