Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

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

Post by BB85 »

I don't think it's coming. Seems to be bottoms of a long list now.

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

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

Post by bobp »

i
I do not think the program is funded anymore.

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 suppose the fact that only one of the Light BCTs was classified as "Motorised" was a clue. Despite all the hype and hot air about the Army being transformed, the Army has really gotten a bum deal out of the Review and has ended up with what is in effect a game of musical chairs, moving units around and changing the names. The only partial win has been Challenger 3 but alot can happen between now and when the first tanks are supposed to be delivered.

Not pursuing the MRV(P) programme is a huge mistake and leaves the Army still with a large number of "Light role" infantry units, that are becoming less and less relevant. Between the two Heavy BCTs, Ranger Regiment, 16AA, and the one Light (Motorised) BCT and support formations there will be few if any protected platforms left to even have a pool of vehicles for use by the remaining Infantry. Not having the MRV(P) means that certain units that were to use it like Signals, will now have to use the Boxer to replace their FV243 platforms.

The Army is still on a down hill slope and it is getting steeper!

GarethDavies1
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: 26 May 2021, 11:45
United Kingdom

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

Post by GarethDavies1 »

Perhaps we should stop putting so much effort into Ceremonial duties too

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 »

Little actual effort of resources goes towards that already.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

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

Post by Timmymagic »

There isn't a Bushmaster thread, and I've posted it in the Operation Shader thread...but its worth posting here...

Not often you see these around, and not 5 of them...which is c20% of the fleet.

These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
Dahedd

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

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

Post by Timmymagic »

And even better...video...no personnel on view.

These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
Dahedd

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

Yep just order another 800 to a 1000 of the new Bushmaster and we would be in a good place
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 2):
MercatorDahedd

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 »

Interestingly though we do not call them Bushmasters. I had an article with the name we use but cannot seem to find it, but I believe it is very british in nature.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

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

Post by Timmymagic »

Lord Jim wrote: 25 Jan 2022, 22:54 Interestingly though we do not call them Bushmasters. I had an article with the name we use but cannot seem to find it, but I believe it is very british in nature.
They're called Escapade.

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

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

Post by Mercator »

Should be something a bit more British like say, 'WoodLord' or something. No wait, that should be in Welsh: 'ARGLWYDD COED'. I bet the bad guys can't say that!

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 to equip both the Ranger Regiment and 1st LBCT, the Army either needs to increase the number of Mastiffs that are upgraded or purchase a number of MRV(P), especially the Phase 2 platform. For this the Bushmaster, in its latest form should be the easiest to bring into service as teh Army already has experience in operating it, and it is also a mature low risk platform.

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

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

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

A thought has occurred to me. I was re-reading the Australian Defence White Paper from 2016 today in which it is stated that the ADF is looking to replace the Bushmaster with a new platform in the "2025" timeframe.

Ambition of the timeframe aside given we haven't seen any progress to date, perhaps this might explain our own failure to move on with MRV-P, or at least the package 2 element of it. Maybe we are looking to dovetail the requirements for a collaborative project?

Just a theory.

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

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

Post by Mercator »

Replacement for Bushmaster is almost certainly going to be another Bushmaster variant. Perhaps even a rebuild of the existing ones, but a bit of that's going on anyway as there have been a few 'upgrades' along the way already. As to when that will happen, when the existing production of Hawkei is complete. Hawkei and Bushmaster share the same production lines/factory/design team/workers and, by design, as part of the industrial strategy of keeping this capability alive, one program follows the other. It won't be long before the Hawkei run is complete. A few years maybe.

In a way, the proposed UK variant of Bushmaster is already the 'latest' publicly known Bushmaster variant. Given that, I would not expect anything wildly different for the next Australian version. The only thing talked about that I have not yet seen is a six wheel version. But even then, Australia is not likely to want anything significantly heavier, more ambitious or costly. The basic dynamics of the design can't be much different if they are to meet the same requirements. Probably just better material science, would be my guess. And evolutionary, rather than revolutionary.

Also, most existing Australian Bushmasters aren't too old or run down. The run for Australian vehicles only finished a few years ago. They will live on in CSS and Reserve units for a decade or more, I reckon.

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

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

Post by Mercator »

This version with side-doors was just produced in 2021 for the Netherlands. This is very close to the proposed British design, I think. The Kiwis are also taking delivery of 43 of a similar design very soon. So I don't think any British variants will be orphans.
https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/thal ... bushmaster
https://adbr.com.au/production-of-nz-ar ... commences/

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Australia sending Bushmaster to Ukraine, might give them a nice piece of TRL9 against the EAGLE, if we ever see this programme revived!

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

And straight into use it would appear


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 really surprised how the MoD has let the whole MRV(P) programme simply wither away. The last few decades have shown clearly how important Protected Mobility platforms are and how it is foolish in the extreme to move personnel in unprotected platforms. The same should also be said for supplies etc, and I suppers the Armoured cabin MAN HX trucks in service sort of cover that aspect.

Yes we have the Foxhound as well as Mastiff and other legacy platforms from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the latter need a major rework, like that done to the vehicles sent to Mali, to be effective moving forward. Surely a multi year procurement programme for say Bushmaster could be funded to gradually replace these larger legacy platforms, as a protected troop carrier would seem to be the priority.

Or is it the case that the Army is focused on purchasing increasing number of Boxers to cover the role that were earmarked for the 6x6 version of hte MRV(P) programme? If it is , then its lighter formations are going to be poorly equipped to carry out anything but training and light COIN work, and we will have to allocate units from our heavier BCTs to cover anything else. Not the best situation for the Army and will increase the confusion as to the organisation of the Army and the primary roles of individual units and their parent formations.

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

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

Post by BB85 »

JLTV doesn't have much domestic content so it's an easy one to postpone. I have a feeling they will re-run the whole thing again when they actually have money but for now looks like all the money is going on Ajax, Boxer, C3 and Indirect fire. I don't think anything will enter services on mrvp until after 2030.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

It will need sorting soon that is for sure however right now if we say we have

350 Jackals
350 Foxhounds
350 Mastiff & Ridgeback's
250 Husky

Then we have some 1300 vehicles enough vehicles for 7 motorized Battalion battle groups

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

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

Post by bobp »

Tempest414 wrote: 30 Apr 2022, 15:29 It will need sorting soon that is for sure however right now if we say we have

350 Jackals
350 Foxhounds
350 Mastiff & Ridgeback's
250 Husky

Then we have some 1300 vehicles enough vehicles for 7 motorized Battalion battle groups
Pretty sure the Mastiffs and Ridgeback are likely to be taken out of use soon.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

bobp wrote: 30 Apr 2022, 19:10 Pretty sure the Mastiffs and Ridgeback are likely to be taken out of use soon.
120 Mastiff going to Ukraine and all the Huskies are up for sale (or possibly going to Ukraine also)
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

bobp wrote: 30 Apr 2022, 19:10
Tempest414 wrote: 30 Apr 2022, 15:29 It will need sorting soon that is for sure however right now if we say we have

350 Jackals
350 Foxhounds
350 Mastiff & Ridgeback's
250 Husky

Then we have some 1300 vehicles enough vehicles for 7 motorized Battalion battle groups
Pretty sure the Mastiffs and Ridgeback are likely to be taken out of use soon.
Why? We just upgraded a few of them and they've been performing well in Mali.

https://npaerospace.com/ridgback-and-ma ... operation/

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

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

Post by bobp »

Caribbean wrote: 30 Apr 2022, 19:13
bobp wrote: 30 Apr 2022, 19:10 Pretty sure the Mastiffs and Ridgeback are likely to be taken out of use soon.
120 Mastiff going to Ukraine and all the Huskies are up for sale (or possibly going to Ukraine also)
Yes i heard that also.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

The Mastiff Rigdebacks a Huskies were /are going but with no replacement coming down the line we may need to keep them

Post Reply