Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

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

I am sure the one prototype was given away for free, in the hope of a future order:
CHF 46 million follow-on order for 56 PATROL ; 1 Swiss Franc equals
0.84 Pound sterling
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)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

Luke jones wrote:How much do these vehicles cost per copy?
CHF46m is approx £38.5m, so a headline price of c. £675,000 each (57 vehicles total).

From the article, there is no way of determining what is capital cost and what is the future support package, but assuming it's 60:40 (is that a reasonable split?), that would be £405k per vehicle
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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 »

Caribbean wrote:that would be £405k per vehicle
The £0.9 mln per Foxhound was not analysed from that POV; was it just for the 'hardware'.
- anyone happen to know?
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: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Caribbean wrote:
Luke jones wrote:How much do these vehicles cost per copy?
CHF46m is approx £38.5m, so a headline price of c. £675,000 each (57 vehicles total).

From the article, there is no way of determining what is capital cost and what is the future support package, but assuming it's 60:40 (is that a reasonable split?), that would be £405k per vehicle
That's JLTV territory.

By the way, have you folks seen that JLTV prices are going down to the point the US Army has traded more vehicles under the current contract rather than taking the cost savings. And that the follow on contract has been moved up. Don't see that often with military contracts. Their novel procurement strategy seems to be paying off big time.

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 »

USMC is also going all in; bye-bye to their Humvees (in due course as with all long contracts)
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 »

Well if the price keeps falling the the JLTV is going to be the Phase 1 MRV(P), as cost was/is going to be the only thing to make the MoD and others question the decision originally made. As for Phase 2, well we are really spoiled for choice, which is a good thing, but I see offerings form GM and Rheinmetall, if the latter has one, being front and centre as assembly lines will already exist in the UK.

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:Well if the price keeps falling the the JLTV is going to be the Phase 1 MRV(P), as cost was/is going to be the only thing to make the MoD and others question the decision originally made. As for Phase 2, well we are really spoiled for choice, which is a good thing, but I see offerings form GM and Rheinmetall, if the latter has one, being front and centre as assembly lines will already exist in the UK.
The MRVP Phase 2 was already shortlisted to Thales Bushmaster and GDLS Eagle. Both were undertaking trials last summer. RLS did bit but weren't shortlisted.

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:shortlisted to Thales Bushmaster and GDLS Eagle
Funny that;
- the first one originating from the UK/ Ireland, and
- the latter promised to ' grab this land with both hands' - probably not, though, if the only 300 or so of the Lot2 comes their way
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: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:Well if the price keeps falling the the JLTV is going to be the Phase 1 MRV(P), as cost was/is going to be the only thing to make the MoD and others question the decision originally made. As for Phase 2, well we are really spoiled for choice, which is a good thing, but I see offerings form GM and Rheinmetall, if the latter has one, being front and centre as assembly lines will already exist in the UK.
I'm sure you are correct but I do wonder the impact of the new green book rules. Old rules says low cost is the only driver in awarding contracts. New rules says positive impact on the UK takes priority.

If it were me, I'd reopen the competition and pit JLTV vs Eagle. That might persuade Oshkosh to come up with a UK assembly plan and the UK to forgo the FMS route. Still, if it were based on UK prosperity, I think Eagle would win by a country mile. That's assuming it meets the requirement as well as JLTV.

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 agree, and think have a common fleet using the 4x4 and 6x6 Eagles to meet the MRV(P) programme would bring superior benefits to the UK and probably allow the GM facility in Wales to be expanded and put on a firmer footing.

Although I usually go on and on regarding Boxer, the MRV(P) programme is just as important to the transformation of the British Army and should allow the UK to conduct low intensity operation without having to run to the Treasury with a long list of UORs. In addition with the desire to use the MRV(P) in higher level conflicts I think the Eagle should also prove its worth.

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

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

Post by Mercator »

new MR6 vid


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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Mercator wrote:new MR6 vid

They've put doors in the driver's compartment!

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 »

The sooner we get some of our numerous "Light" role Infantry Battalions into vehicles like this the more use we will be able to get out of them, using troops from 1st Division for roles we would currently have to use 3rd Division units for.

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

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

Post by Luke jones »

Does this vehicle shown in the clip above differ greatly in capabilities from Mastiff, which we have hundreds of?
If so how?
We have the best part of 1000 UOR vehicles in fleet now. Aren't these already doing whats needed?

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 »

Luke jones wrote:If so how?
Mastiff being practically road bound. Perhaps not on the North German plain, but then again it is not for manoeuvre warfare.

I v much agree that we have been overzealous in weeding out categories of UOR vehicles. While Mastiff is lacking in mobility, Husky was bought to get supplies to where they are needed... even x-country.
- that, combined with the decent protection, would lend it useful to be used alongside with Boxers, until we get A. enough of the latter for infantry, and B. after that can move the production/ orders to specialist versions, to replace not just such Huskies, but any remaining Bulldogs in frontline support roles.
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: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Mercator wrote:new MR6 vid

Fugly.

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: Fugly.
& vintage
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)

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

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

Post by Dahedd »

But by all accounts very effective

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 »

Dahedd wrote:effective
... or cost effective?

Boxer is v effective, but not cheap (value is to be derived from doctrine and tactics).
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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote:The sooner we get some of our numerous "Light" role Infantry Battalions into vehicles like this the more use we will be able to get out of them, using troops from 1st Division for roles we would currently have to use 3rd Division units for.
I would agree and think two Brigades of the 1st Division should get them
Luke jones wrote:Does this vehicle shown in the clip above differ greatly in capabilities from Mastiff, which we have hundreds of?
If so how?
We have the best part of 1000 UOR vehicles in fleet now. Aren't these already doing whats needed?
As for the UOR fleet of Mastiff's & Ridgeback's they should go to make up 3 Battalions of Reserve mobile infantry

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 »

Tempest414 wrote:two Brigades of the 1st Division should get them
would leave 5 without... we could always beef up the first two
Tempest414 wrote:should go to make up 3 Battalions of Reserve mobile infantry
A good idea, as in the sparsely 'populated' battle space the nodes (arty, HQs, logs) will - at times - need defending. Those wagons have good road speed
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 »

Luke jones wrote:We have the best part of 1000 UOR vehicles in fleet now. Aren't these already doing whats needed?
Many of which are up for disposal at present. The IR may change this however.

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote: As for the UOR fleet of Mastiff's & Ridgeback's they should go to make up 3 Battalions of Reserve mobile infantry
There's zero value dumping such equipment onto reserve units when it will be reliant on a regular army maintenance support and supply chain package.

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: reserve units when it will be reliant on a regular army maintenance support and supply chain package.
I have never understood matters to stand as if there was a separate
maintenance support and supply chain package.
for the reserves?
- or if so, then the Whole Force concept has been unceremoniously 'dumped'
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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Tempest414 wrote: As for the UOR fleet of Mastiff's & Ridgeback's they should go to make up 3 Battalions of Reserve mobile infantry
There's zero value dumping such equipment onto reserve units when it will be reliant on a regular army maintenance support and supply chain package.
There is never zero value there are always pro's and con's. (sorry fantasy button on) If two brigades of the 1st Division where to be made mobile infantry with Bushmaster's then having three reserve Battalions with Mastiff and Ridgeback could be a good thing yes these vehicles would need to be serviced by the REME but then most combat vehicles are. My concern is that at this time the 1st division is going no where and will have little or no effect by making two Brigades mobile the division as a whole becomes more deployable and effective across the board

Post Reply