Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by Defiance »

Request for Oshkosh JLTV officially made

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/bri ... hkosh-jltv
Talbot Rice told an audience of industry executives and military personnel at the International Armoured Vehicles conference in London on Tuesday that the Army had opted for the single-source purchase due to its ability to meet UK requirements and its value for money.

"The price point the Pentagon had achieved for a (US) production run of up to 55,000‎ was not going to be matched by other contenders. On the basis of the assessment on price and value for money, we made the case to go the FMS route," he said.

Subject to final approval of the deal from both sides of the Atlantic, a sale will mark the first export success for the Oshkosh Defense-designed vehicle destined to replace the Humvee in US Army and US Marine Corps service starting in 2019‎.

...

The British purchase is part of the Multi-Role Vehicle-Protected (MRV-P) program. JTLV will meet a requirement for troop-carrying and other light duties.

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 »

Defiance wrote:JTLV will meet a requirement for troop-carrying and other light duties.
MRV-P is easy as 1,2,3... no it is not, or just careless wording;
- has the requirement 2 now been restricted in scope (and therefore quantity) as it was for a bigger vehicle for troop carrying and ambulance
- now the former is mentioned in the already decided order?
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 »

MRV-P Phase 1 is the one to be met by JLTV and it is essentially a general purpose vehicle carrying 4-5 men. And that's all JLTV can do.

MRV-P Phase 2 is about 6x6 platforms, of which the Troop Carrier is to carry 2 + 6 and the other is the battlefield ambulance.
I'm not sure what a 6-man dismount team is for. Is it really a gun-towing vehicle and/or a mover for specialized teams, such as Joint Fires Support Teams...?

Then there is the Lightweight Recovery Vehicle requirement.

Aside from the horrendous proliferation of small fleets within fleets in the British Army, i continue to be absolutely confused about Foxhound. Did it turn out to be crap? What are they doing with it? If the Light Mechanized battalions are all going back to Light Role, who is going to get it? Surely it could be used to cover Phase 1 if it has no other roles...?
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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 »

Gabriele wrote:MRV-P Phase 2 is about 6x6 platforms, of which the Troop Carrier is to carry 2 + 6 and the other is the battlefield ambulance.
That is how it was... and still is?
Gabriele wrote:Is it really a gun-towing vehicle and/or a mover for specialized teams
- Pinzgauer is unprotected (Vector did not turn out too well, when they tried to change that)
- a few in that role would not hurt; then again there are plenty of other than assault engineers/ sappers (who have proper armour) in the immediate vicinity of FEBA that would benefit from moving around somewhat protected
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)

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Gabriele wrote: MRV-P Phase 2 is about 6x6 platforms, of which the Troop Carrier is to carry 2 + 6 and the other is the battlefield ambulance.
I'm not sure what a 6-man dismount team is for. Is it really a gun-towing vehicle and/or a mover for specialized teams, such as Joint Fires Support Teams...?
Whilst this makes perfect sense, I'm not sure it's entirely certain. More than a few 4x4 vehicles still doing the publicity rounds on the premise of MRV-P.

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:More than a few 4x4 vehicles still doing the publicity rounds
Just the volume of the body; mobility can be tested against each other, so no need to specify how te traction is to be achieved.
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 »

Whilst this makes perfect sense, I'm not sure it's entirely certain. More than a few 4x4 vehicles still doing the publicity rounds on the premise of MRV-P.
That's normal. While JLTV is seen as a clear favorite, it hasn't been formally picked yet, and a FMS sale request does not a contract make, but merely a passage of the process and an estimate of the cost. Technically, the army could well still select Eagle 4x4 instead of JLTV.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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 »

dmereifield wrote:Thanks. I thought it was going to be more than that
It will be eventually, this is just a first round. However considering the British Army look focused on diverging their scattered fleet even further expect them to buy something else completely different in the future.
@LandSharkUK

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 »

shark bait wrote:considering the British Army look focused on diverging their scattered fleet even further
Yep, we have to decide what we want to be compatible with. Panther is a sad expression of wanting to be compatible with other nations contingents on EU peace making/ keeping missions.

Cross-referencing another thread:
For Miv
- both Boxer and AMV would be preferable because of the modular design (as of today, more versions of the AMV)
- however, buying the French one (with some Mk.2 UK-specced modifications) would make us compatible within the Joint Expeditionary Force, and save sending REME twice over (whatever their French equivalent has as a designation)
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 »

http://www.janes.com/article/67246/uk-c ... -for-mrv-p

It is expected that around 750 JLTVs will be bought as part of MRV-P Group 1. When pressed for delivery timelines Maj Gen Talbot Rice declined to provide a date, however he stated that UK deliveries could be expected to follow shortly after US full rate production deliveries begin, a decision for which is expected by the Pentagon in 2018.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by bobp »

That appears to be good news, if the numbers are correct.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

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

Post by dmereifield »

And down to 3 for the 6x6 for Group 2, apparently:

"MRV-P Group 2, which seeks a larger 6x6 platform for specialist roles, including armoured personnel carrier (APC) and protected ambulance, is also understood to have progressed with three contenders reported to remain in competition, understood to be Mercedes-Benz with the FGA 14.5 fitted with an MRV-P specific body; General Dynamics with the EAGLE V; and Thales with the Bushmaster"

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

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

Post by Mercator »

Some details of Thales' Bushmaster offering for MRV-P:
Ian Gethin, Thales Australia's director of marketing and sales operations for its armaments and protected vehicles division, told Shephard that the Bushmaster would be despatched to the UK soon so it could take part in upcoming evaluations.

The demonstrator, painted in a green camouflage scheme, is the first to feature front doors. The Australian Army did not want cab doors on its Bushmaster fleet, so this required some reengineering to meet British requirements.

The MRV-P demonstrator has six seats in the troop compartment, plus it has an alternative storage arrangement whereby lockers are replaced by a rack that accommodates storage boxes.

The door at the rear of the vehicle is also wider, this being the same as that fitted to Australian Defence Force (ADF) ambulances. The Bushmaster also features armour of the style fitted on Dutch vehicles.
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/land ... -vehicles/

Antipod
Junior Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 27 Oct 2016, 10:43
Australia

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

Post by Antipod »

Gabriele wrote: i continue to be absolutely confused about Foxhound. Did it turn out to be crap? What are they doing with it? If the Light Mechanized battalions are all going back to Light Role, who is going to get it? Surely it could be used to cover Phase 1 if it has no other roles...?
Anyone know the status/future of foxhound? How many wound up in service, who uses them, and for what? Is it still in production/available?

It seems like a capable piece of kit, with decent protection and mobility, the potential for all sorts of modular cleverness, and some useful payoffs in terms of U.K. industrial capacity. Too expensive? Or are/were there other issues? (Ha! Not sure if I should speak of it in the past or present tense...)

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 »

400 purchased, but a few are write offs, so there are, like... 390, something like that. I believe deliveries are over, but the production line is still there, as GD still offers them on the market.
For sure it is expensive: the British Army essentially paid them one million pounds each.

As of now they are used by Light Protected Mobility infantry battalions. Army 2020 included 6 such battalions. But Army 2020 Refine seems to reconvert all of those to Light Role infantry, and the future role of Foxhound is a question mark, for all i know.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

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

Post by marktigger »

storage with any luck or looking at other things in the UK Kinnegar might be a good place to store them As I suspect there might be a requirement for them and 5 roulemont bns.

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
France

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

Post by Frenchie »

I don't know why ACMAT does not offer its Bastion HM, which is a combat vehicle of 14.5 tonnes for 340 hp, a payload of 4.5 tonnes and a very good all-terrain capability, with a armoured monocoque, a internal volume of 8.5m3, as well as excellent protection with an armor and ballistic glass level 3, anti-mine protection levels 2a/2b, unit cost 400.000$. It is at least as well as a Bushmaster.

http://www.acmat.eu/content/download/32 ... -EN-BD.pdf

http://www.acmat.eu/content/download/29 ... N2-LD.pdf.

Smokey
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: 18 Feb 2017, 13:33
Cyprus

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

Post by Smokey »

This has just been posted on UKDJ.

2,747 units to be purchased.

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

https://oshkoshdefense.com/jltv/

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 »

Any news on the heavy part ( a 6-wheeler?) of the prgrm, where the quantities being talked about are under 10% of the now announced (light)

REF from over a year back "Protected (MRV-P) Troop Carrying Vehicles (TCV) and a Future Protected Battlefield Ambulance (FPBFA) for the British Army have been initiated. Details were provided in a contract notice from the UK MoD on 2 February, but the numbers expected are fewer than initially planned..."
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)

Smokey
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: 18 Feb 2017, 13:33
Cyprus

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

Post by Smokey »

Nothing seen, so far.

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

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

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

There has to be some massive cock-up with those numbers. 2,747? Really? I don't think so....

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 »

Not in one go, for sure, but those are the numbers if you want MRV-P to have one sense and eventually replace several of the small fleets of today.
The number requested is the one good news in there. Shows that the army is finally thinking long-term, at least.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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

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

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Gabriele wrote:Not in one go, for sure, but those are the numbers if you want MRV-P to have one sense and eventually replace several of the small fleets of today.
The number requested is the one good news in there. Shows that the army is finally thinking long-term, at least.
Agreed, but i wasn't even aware that final fleet numbers were intended to approach anywhere like those sorts of numbers? If accurate then we can finally say with some certainty that the much-needed consolidation of the Army's light vehicle inventory will finally go ahead, like you say.

Interesting armament options available too, could help solve the Army's fire generation deficit.

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 »

Well, the last time the Army gave numbers, it had 5648 Land Rovers of various kinds and 628 Pinzgauers. It wanted to replace a good portion of these with MRV-P.

In addition, there are 344 RWMIK, 311 Husky, 401 Panther, 437 Jackal, 71 Coyote and 399 Foxhound. That's over 8000 candidates for a MRV-P replacement.
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 »

I'm completely torn over this.

On one hand it makes short term sense, it's a cheap deal to replace an army of different logistics vehicles.

But long term, this deal has just destroyed the one area the British industry had left in ground vehicles, that of light armoured vehicles, which it had been excelling at recently with successes like the Jackal's variants.

Post Reply