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.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 15 Jan 2020, 09:19

Lord Jim wrote:As for training the instructors
Indeed, I meant was is said in the above post.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4350
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

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

Postby Ron5 » 15 Jan 2020, 16:45

. deleted ....

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4365
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Lord Jim » 15 Jan 2020, 17:04

Sorry, I saw the word "operate" and assumed it was referring to the user not the builder. Saying that with the initial Boxer coming from Germany the set up of the construction line in Telford should not hold up deliveries in it self, but rather affect the pace. In my vies we should have at least one if not two Battalions up and running by the end of 2021, not waiting another two years to get our hands on the first vehicle.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 15 Jan 2020, 17:16

Lord Jim wrote:saw the word "operate"
Admittedly we are talking about manufacturing, not process industry where one man operating the computers in the control room will be enough
Lord Jim wrote:two Battalions up and running by the end of 2021
Yes, buy them outright! Though in the 'real world' the first Strike Bde will take until 2023 to be up and running (with two bns).

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4350
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

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

Postby Ron5 » 15 Jan 2020, 17:18

Lord Jim wrote:Sorry, I saw the word "operate" and assumed it was referring to the user not the builder. Saying that with the initial Boxer coming from Germany the set up of the construction line in Telford should not hold up deliveries in it self, but rather affect the pace. In my vies we should have at least one if not two Battalions up and running by the end of 2021, not waiting another two years to get our hands on the first vehicle.


Kinda depends on how many you want built in Germany and how busy that line is. I think they've just gotten another large order from the German army so they might not have the scheduling freedom. In other words, maybe UK industrial benefits (i.e. jobs) might be taking precedence.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4350
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

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

Postby Ron5 » 15 Jan 2020, 17:23

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:saw the word "operate"
Admittedly we are talking about manufacturing, not process industry where one man operating the computers in the control room will be enough
Lord Jim wrote:two Battalions up and running by the end of 2021
Yes, buy them outright! Though in the 'real world' the first Strike Bde will take until 2023 to be up and running (with two bns).


And it's not quite like Fords with a moving production line and vehicles coming off in their thousand more like a set of bays with each vehicle being hand built at a speed that would make Rolls Royce or Ferrarri blush with shame...

BDcMgjD.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 15 Jan 2020, 17:39

Ron5 wrote:each vehicle being hand built at a speed that would make [Rolls Royce or] Ferrarri blush with shame...


Ferrari is actually owned by Comau (as is Maserati, within the wider automotive group) and Comau is among the leading automation firms supplying the automotive industry, so Ferrari factory has been kicked into shape a while back: https://www.designboom.com/design/ferra ... mbly-line/
- but we want jobs. Which is quite right as you can't take the robots with you, when you deploy. Whereas to the Gulf a good number of workers deployed as 'contractors'... and things were made to work. On the spot.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4350
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

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

Postby Ron5 » 15 Jan 2020, 18:07

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:each vehicle being hand built at a speed that would make [Rolls Royce or] Ferrarri blush with shame...


Ferrari is actually owned by Comau (as is Maserati, within the wider automotive group) and Comau is among the leading automation firms supplying the automotive industry, so Ferrari factory has been kicked into shape a while back: https://www.designboom.com/design/ferra ... mbly-line/
- but we want jobs. Which is quite right as you can't take the robots with you, when you deploy. Whereas to the Gulf a good number of workers deployed as 'contractors'... and things were made to work. On the spot.


Poorly worded by me, I meant that Ferrari and RR produce cars far quicker and in greater quantities than the Boxer lines ever will.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4365
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Lord Jim » 15 Jan 2020, 19:44

I fully agree with wanting the Telford line up and running together with the job it will bring, but yet again we have an Army AFV programme that is set to deliver its actual product at a snail's pace. I am pretty sure if we asked Rheinmetall to produce enough Boxers to equip two battalion by the end of 2021 they probably could. If I remember there are/were two production line for Boxer, one in Germany and one in the Netherlands.

I wonder how much the lethargic pace of the Army's ARV programmes is down to programme management and how must to available funding year on year. We know with FRES for example the Army kept moving the goal posts as it appeared to try to match the latest ideas being generated by the US Army. Splitting FRES into SV and UV stream Didi little to help things move along and the decision to cancel tranche 3 of the Ajax programme is going to come back to bit them I am pretty sure.

And with Boxer we are only ordering the most basic variants for now with minimal UK content beyond communications gear, or at least that is what I hope we are doing. We urgently need enough Boxers to equip a trials units, battalion sized when combined with the first Ajax platform so that the Army can actually work out how to use the bloody things and identify what capabilities it will need. The current unit using stand in platforms can only go so far, and we need to know what combination of both Ajax and Boxer variants we actually need before we end up with warehoused filled with ones we have too many of in the wrong configuration. Of course with Boxer you only need new modules but these are not going to be cheap especially with the more complex ones.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 15 Jan 2020, 21:41

We've drifted (different threads), but
Lord Jim wrote:and one in the Netherlands

but did they not already complete deliveries? Might be that be line to be boxed into crates and shipped over?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4365
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Lord Jim » 15 Jan 2020, 23:54

Maybe we should leave Boxer for the MIV thread and try to work out what we should get for the Batch 2 MRV(P) now that both it and the Batch 1 vehicles are to be used in harms way on or near the front lines.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 16 Jan 2020, 03:42

Quite right.

I believe the driver for the choice will be the need for a protected ambulance. Secondary is a troop transport that does not cost an arm and a leg (money terms!)
- for the latter the new Finnish Sisu sets a cost benchmark (half a mln), but is too low in the back for ambulance use, so not a contender for the 'composite' requirement
- also the muttered strategy of buying 150 ;now; and the same again 'later' makes it imperative to buy from a line that is running and will be running

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4365
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Lord Jim » 16 Jan 2020, 06:03

What about the new French platform that is to replace their VABs. Is that in the right price bracket?

Andy-M
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: 01 Jun 2015, 20:25
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Andy-M » 16 Jan 2020, 13:35

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Quite right.

I believe the driver for the choice will be the need for a protected ambulance. Secondary is a troop transport that does not cost an arm and a leg (money terms!)
- for the latter the new Finnish Sisu sets a cost benchmark (half a mln), but is too low in the back for ambulance use, so not a contender for the 'composite' requirement
- also the muttered strategy of buying 150 ;now; and the same again 'later' makes it imperative to buy from a line that is running and will be running


the ambulance version of the SISU GT4 hasn't been unveiled yet, but the drawing shows it to have a raised roof, so it shouldn't be too low.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/finland ... video.html

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4350
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

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

Postby Ron5 » 16 Jan 2020, 15:42

The parliamentary reply indicated a competition for Group 2 was going on but has a list of the competitors ever been announced?

I've seen Eagle & Bushmaster labelled as favorites but not from official sources.

The more I think about it, I think LJ has a good point when he suggests eliminating the requirement and filling the gap with more Boxers & JLTV's. The financials might not looks so good but there would be other advantages.

But then again, Group 2 is supposed to be cheaper than Boxer but by the time the winner has been Anglicized (is that a word?), I wonder. And of course the Grp 2 winner wouldn't be built in the UK unlike Boxer.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 16 Jan 2020, 17:43

Ron5 wrote:And of course the Grp 2 winner wouldn't be built in the UK unlike Boxer.
yep, and that would make sense -not just because of the low numbers overall, but also due to
ArmChairCivvy wrote:the muttered strategy of buying 150 ;now; and the same again 'later' makes it imperative to buy from a line that is running and will be running

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 312
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Postby RunningStrong » 16 Jan 2020, 21:35

Ron5 wrote:The parliamentary reply indicated a competition for Group 2 was going on but has a list of the competitors ever been announced?

I've seen Eagle & Bushmaster labelled as favorites but not from official sources.

Both have been pictured on trials and demonstration with the Army in 2019.

Mercator
Member
Posts: 268
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Location: Australia
Contact:

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

Postby Mercator » 16 Mar 2020, 02:52

"7th Combat Brigade was visited by the United Kingdom’s Chief of the General Staff (CGS), General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith KCB CBA ADC Gen. During the visit, General Carleton-Smith spoke with soldiers from the 8th/9th Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment about capabilities of the Protective Mobility Vehicle and its variants."

Image

more pics: http://images.defence.gov.au/S20201155

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4350
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

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

Postby Ron5 » 16 Mar 2020, 14:49

We have a winner in the funny hat competition - the guy behind the midget Brit general chatting up the gal.

Image

And a number one beer belly:

Image

Progress is being made and hat deployed:

Image

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4365
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Lord Jim » 16 Mar 2020, 21:14


Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4350
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

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

Postby Ron5 » 16 Mar 2020, 22:52

No brainer which is best - only one is too big to drive on a regular license, drives thru puddles & potholes as fast as my wife's Honda, does that up and down thing to make life easier for midget generals (see above), isn't chromed/owned by every other rapper, and has Her Majesty's approval for her armed forces.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 17 Mar 2020, 08:11

Old clapped-out, uparmoured Humvees beat the two other rivals in the three years of reliability testing!

They talk about the kit that can bring protection to MRAP level; we did order ours with a protection kit, but may be not that one? I wonder what weight is reached, with a fully kitted out JLTV?

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4350
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

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

Postby Ron5 » 17 Mar 2020, 13:24

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Old clapped-out, uparmoured Humvees beat the two other rivals in the three years of reliability testing!

They talk about the kit that can bring protection to MRAP level; we did order ours with a protection kit, but may be not that one? I wonder what weight is reached, with a fully kitted out JLTV?


Compared to CR3, Ajax & Boxer: featherweight.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 17 Mar 2020, 15:09

7 Weasels to a Jumbo
... 2 (3?) fully protected JLTVs to an A400M? Just to give background to the question (as one does not send 'real' armour ;) by air)

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4350
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

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

Postby Ron5 » 17 Mar 2020, 17:23

The UK doesn't have the capability/capacity to fly to war so it doesn't matter.


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests