Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
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 »

Both WCSP and MRV-P Group 1 contracts were expected this year, but yesterday's written answers contained no indication at all about a contract award date target, so probably nothing will progress for the moment.

I don't even know anymore.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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 »

Hopefully the ball will start rolling after the SDR.

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

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

Post by benny14 »

"U.S. Army has placed a $484 million order for 1,574 Joint Light Tactical Vehicles"

"To date, Oshkosh has produced more than 2,000 JLTVs and has delivered more than 1,600 JLTVs to the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. A Full Rate Production (FRP) decision is expected in FY19."

https://oshkoshdefense.com/news/u-s-arm ... -vehicles/

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2782
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

benny14 wrote:"U.S. Army has placed a $484 million order for 1,574 Joint Light Tactical Vehicles"
At $1.30 to the £ , that's approx. £237,000 each - so within the £250k target price.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

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

Post by benny14 »

Caribbean wrote:At $1.30 to the £ , that's approx. £237,000 each - so within the £250k target price.
Might get them even cheaper if we wait until they start full rate production next year.

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 »

Don't make the classic mistake of dividing the American manufacturer contract by the unit number to get a price. That is never the price it actually costs the Americans, and is definitely not the price it will cost the Brits.

The government to government price to the U.K. before integration is a little over double the price you worked out. I've been told that price is closer to $700k.
@LandSharkUK

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

The UK are going to get the vehicles at exactly the same price as the US army.

The spares, training, service & support will be extra and tailored to the UK requirements.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2782
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

shark bait wrote:Don't make the classic mistake of dividing the American manufacturer contract by the unit number to get a price. That is never the price it actually costs the Americans, and is definitely not the price it will cost the Brits.

The government to government price to the U.K. before integration is a little over double the price you worked out. I've been told that price is closer to $700k.
Fair point, but "overall cost" tends to include multi-year maintenance contracts etc. My impression was that the £250k figure was the headline "sticker price", rather than the more usual "acquisition plus 10 years maintenance price" that we tend to get quoted.
Ron5 wrote:The UK are going to get the vehicles at exactly the same price as the US army.
Indeed - the whole point of the exercise - someone seems to have finally figured out that there are times when it's a far better idea to piggy-back on another someone else's economies of scale.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

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

Post by Mercator »

Ron5 wrote:The UK are going to get the vehicles at exactly the same price as the US army.

The spares, training, service & support will be extra and tailored to the UK requirements.
Plus the FMS surcharge, of course. Whatever that's at these days.

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

Mercator wrote:
Ron5 wrote:The UK are going to get the vehicles at exactly the same price as the US army.

The spares, training, service & support will be extra and tailored to the UK requirements.
Plus the FMS surcharge, of course. Whatever that's at these days.
The surcharge is not for profit making. It just passes on the cost of the work the US had to do on behalf of the UK to process the bid. Work the UK would otherwise have to do itself. In this case, it would be tiny.

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

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

Post by benny14 »

shark bait wrote: The government to government price to the U.K. before integration is a little over double the price you worked out. I've been told that price is closer to $700k.
Does that include the theatre entry gear? If so, then still cheaper than Foxhound by a mile.

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 »

Interesting option for fire support of Infantry units:
https://www.army-technology.com/project ... ar-system/
Yes it is heavier and bulkier than the exisitng 81mm mortar but its accuracy, within 2m of target, and rate of fire, 25 rounds per minute continuous, are quite an improvement over our existing weapon and it can engage within 10 seconds of the vehicle stopping. Mounted on the Boxer, MRV(P) and even the reay section of the Bv210 Viking it would give our Infantry greater integral indirect fire support, especially out light and planned medium formations. In addition a 120mm versiopn is under developement in response to a request from the Spanish Army.

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 »

benny14 wrote: still cheaper than Foxhound by a mile.
Would that be $700k vs. £900k?
Lord Jim wrote:n addition a 120mm versiopn is under developement in response to a request from the Spanish Army.
The competition has been launched (for a 120 mm; I would imagine because of range as the lighter bomb in itself is compensated for by the rate of fire) and an alternative, from a different company, already exists.Who would have thought that Spain is the land of mortars. - Their mortar bombs travel far and wide, though, even Finland with their 700 heavy and 1000 of 81 mm buy from Spain rather than bothering with own.
https://www.janes.com/article/84119/spa ... ted-mortar
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 »

I am still a fan of having 120mm Mortars as the integral fire support within Infantry formations. Some are light enough to be towed by a Quad bike whist more supplicated versions are easily adaptable to many platforms, both wheeled and tracked, big and small. Having a SP 120mm based on the 4x4 MRV(P) would be ideal for the units within 16 Air Assault, and the same weapon system should be used on the Boxer in the Mechanised Infantry. These would reduce the reliance on the 105mm Light Guns allocated at present to the former formations and give the latter a much needed boost in firepower. The RA Units could then concentrate on more flexible 155mm systems able to use both cargo and precision rounds and hopefully a lightweight long range Rocket system using GMLRS or another system.

I do see both 3 Commando and 16 Air Assault as being the main beneficaries of the MRV(P), complimenting the Vikings inthe former and additng mobility and firepower to the latter.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote: having 120mm Mortars as the integral fire support within Infantry formations. Some are light enough to be towed by a Quad bike
This one - strictly speaking more than a quad - https://www.irishexaminer.com/remote/me ... =ie-407684 can tow 750 kg, which is not shown on the piccie.
- the power-assisted dump box (shown) can take 340 kg of mortar bombs, with two pax sitting to the front of it. So a normal quad could carry two more of the crew
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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Considering that GPS-guided precision mortar rounds - aside from their use in MOUT - need strong and continuous intel (typically having to be able to survive intense AD), then perhaps this area effect weapon that finishes the job with precise homing after having searched the general area for targets... might make a come back?
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: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Merlin

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 »

Ron5 wrote:Merlin
Nix :) - so much smaller than Strix, to do the same job
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 »

That picture takes me back to when I subscribed to Armed Forces magazine published by Ian Allan

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 »

So that is what the Panther could have been, we dodged a bullet on that on regarding looks.

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:a militarised supermarket home delivery van.
has some rally genes in it http://www.snaplap.net/iveco-dakar-rally/ and here one of the drivers from the Paris-Dakar is 'marinising' it on a training track for MBTs
- utube does let the viewer opt for translations, but the footage makes the point - does not improve the Iveco 4x4's looks, though
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)

Little J
Member
Posts: 972
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Little J »

Was it the only entry or did they not have a competition at all :wtf:

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 »

benny14 wrote:It was then reported several months later that the MRV-P group 1 has been raised to potentially 2,747 vehicles.
Looks to me that the base vehicle comes at the targeted price
"November 29/18: $1.7b order The US Army is ordering another batch of Joint Light Tactical Vehicles from Oshkosh. Oshkosh will deliver 6,017 JLTVs at a cost of $1,7 billion. "

Other than higher level protection (still a std add-on) what on earth are the 'gubbins' that make our vehicles (rumoured?) much dearer?
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
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

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

Post by Gabriele »

I have no clue where that rumor came from. The FMS approval for up to 2747 vehicles had a unitary price of 376,775 USD, and it included quite a lot of extras, as always with FMS authorizations which tend to aim for the stars as it is easier to buy less than authorized than seek a new authorization,
The Government of the United Kingdom (UK) has requested a possible sale of up to two thousand seven hundred forty-seven (2,747) Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTV). This possible sale also includes baseline integration kits, basic issue item kits, B-kit armor, engine arctic kits, fording kits, run-flat kits, spare tire kits, silent watch kits, power expansion kits cargo cover kits, maintainer and operator training, U.S. government technical assistance and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. Total estimated cost is $1.035 billion.
With no evidence of big cost growth on the US side, i have no clue on which grounds the news of big cost increase for the UK started to circulate.
Mind you, the introduction of ANY new fleet comes with costs that go above and beyond the purchase of vehicles and kits themselves, but that is hardly the JLTV fault.

I wonder if the crowd of people opposing this purchase (not without some reason, thinking of home industry capability) have gotten overeager with their claims.


Also note that the latest US purchase includes 6100 vehicles and 22.000 kits.
Oshkosh Defense LLC, Oshkosh, Wisconsin, was awarded a $1,698,639,588 modification (P00163) to contract W56HZV-15-C-0095 to exercise available options for 6,107 vehicles and 22,166 kits. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 30, 2019. Fiscal 2017, 2018 and 2019 other procurement, Army funds; and 2018 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $1,698,639,588 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity.


Doubt the UK is purchasing anything near that number...!
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

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

Post by R686 »

Are these planned to be LHD or RHD?

Post Reply