Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

And everyone outside the defence bubble just calls them a tank!

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

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

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 11 Jun 2022, 09:19 And everyone outside the defence bubble just calls them a tank!
yes everything with tracks would be called a tank by the great unwashed

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 11 Jun 2022, 05:20 They weren't originally supposed to see combat but now they are.
Not sure where you get that idea from.

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

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

Post by leonard »

Someone has had a brand new green camo and just arrived in the frontlines in Ukraine

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 »

RunningStrong wrote: 11 Jun 2022, 11:29
Lord Jim wrote: 11 Jun 2022, 05:20 They weren't originally supposed to see combat but now they are.
Not sure where you get that idea from.
If you go back over the requirements for the MRV(P) you will see how initally they were supposed to be in a support role and not on the frontline. However this slowly changed to saying they may be required to do so. Anyway I just prefer to differentiate between MRAP type platforms and light/medium armoured vehicles, in extreme you could say the Mastiff was the former and Boxer is the latter. The way we are using our Foxhounds in frontline usits inthe Baltics would place them in the latter category and any Bushmasters purchased would also be so. But that is just my take on things.

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 11 Jun 2022, 23:09
RunningStrong wrote: 11 Jun 2022, 11:29
Lord Jim wrote: 11 Jun 2022, 05:20 They weren't originally supposed to see combat but now they are.
Not sure where you get that idea from.
If you go back over the requirements for the MRV(P) you will see how initally they were supposed to be in a support role and not on the frontline. However this slowly changed to saying they may be required to do so. Anyway I just prefer to differentiate between MRAP type platforms and light/medium armoured vehicles, in extreme you could say the Mastiff was the former and Boxer is the latter. The way we are using our Foxhounds in frontline usits inthe Baltics would place them in the latter category and any Bushmasters purchased would also be so. But that is just my take on things.
This is incorrect. They were not intended for the direct-fire zone. Indirect fire is still combat, and still frontline.

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

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

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote: 11 Jun 2022, 23:09
RunningStrong wrote: 11 Jun 2022, 11:29
Lord Jim wrote: 11 Jun 2022, 05:20 They weren't originally supposed to see combat but now they are.
Not sure where you get that idea from.
If you go back over the requirements for the MRV(P) you will see how initally they were supposed to be in a support role and not on the frontline. However this slowly changed to saying they may be required to do so. Anyway I just prefer to differentiate between MRAP type platforms and light/medium armoured vehicles, in extreme you could say the Mastiff was the former and Boxer is the latter. The way we are using our Foxhounds in frontline usits inthe Baltics would place them in the latter category and any Bushmasters purchased would also be so. But that is just my take on things.
So as said the Army class Foxhound Units as Light Mechanised and Mastiff Units as Heavy Mechanised for me I would like to see the 1st division reshaped into 6 to 8 Light Mechanised Battalion battle groups of

1 x Cavalry Company = Jackal & Coyote
1 x Infantry battalion = Foxhound & Mastiff
1 x Artillery support group = 105mm , Brimstone MMS , Air defence , UAV
1 x Logistics support group

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

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

Post by SW1 »

These users liked the author SW1 for the post (total 2):
Lord JimJensy

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

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

Post by Tempest414 »

very nice but at 4+ tons if you had the choice of airlifting 2 of these or 4 ATMP's which would opted for

this said these would be good for Airborne Recce units , Rangers and SF

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

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

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 13 Jun 2022, 14:32 very nice but at 4+ tons if you had the choice of airlifting 2 of these or 4 ATMP's which would opted for

this said these would be good for Airborne Recce units , Rangers and SF
As they offer protection both environmentally and from ballistics I would suggest these over ATMP.

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

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

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 13 Jun 2022, 15:28
Tempest414 wrote: 13 Jun 2022, 14:32 very nice but at 4+ tons if you had the choice of airlifting 2 of these or 4 ATMP's which would opted for

this said these would be good for Airborne Recce units , Rangers and SF
As they offer protection both environmentally and from ballistics I would suggest these over ATMP.
I have to say the seating layout is not good with one stuck in the middle and the armour is very light only small arms but its speed , RWS and silent running will make it good for recce and fire support I also liked what look like a towed air defence system maybe the way forward would be 6 Chinooks carrying 8 of these and 8 ATMP's

Would see the above as a replacement for Land Rover WMIK in the Air Assault Role

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

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

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 13 Jun 2022, 16:29
SW1 wrote: 13 Jun 2022, 15:28
Tempest414 wrote: 13 Jun 2022, 14:32 very nice but at 4+ tons if you had the choice of airlifting 2 of these or 4 ATMP's which would opted for

this said these would be good for Airborne Recce units , Rangers and SF
As they offer protection both environmentally and from ballistics I would suggest these over ATMP.
I have to say the seating layout is not good with one stuck in the middle and the armour is very light only small arms but its speed , RWS and silent running will make it good for recce and fire support I also liked what look like a towed air defence system maybe the way forward would be 6 Chinooks carrying 8 of these and 8 ATMP's

Would see the above as a replacement for Land Rover WMIK in the Air Assault Role
Yeah stanag level 2 I think it said but better than nothing. Just curious the seating layout is different but why would it be bad?

Yeah could see this as a land rover replacement

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

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

Post by Tempest414 »

with the doors and top hatch where they are with someone right up behind the driver he is going to have a devils job getting out if the thing ends up on its roof and one door is damaged

The McLaren F1 road car had the same layout I spent 3 hours getting a driver out of one after a RTA
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 2):
SW1Mercator

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

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

Post by SW1 »


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

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

Post by SW1 »

Not sure who’s being dragged kicking and screaming more the army or oshkosh to little bit at a time appear to increase U.K. content in this bid


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: 10 Jun 2022, 20:54 I do not see the MRV(P) programme delivering vehicle like the types purchased under UORs for Afghanistan and Iraq.
Hard to see the difference between some of the UORs and the so-called Batch2
- it being called B2 was based on the idea of (technical) standardisation, but when was it last that we saw any candidates sharing anything ... before Batch1 was cancelled, that is
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 »

RunningStrong wrote: 12 Jun 2022, 07:29 This is incorrect. They were not intended for the direct-fire zone. Indirect fire is still combat, and still frontline.
Would you like to elaborate on splinter-proof... as opposed to the various 30 mm from the front and 50 cal from all other sides ? Without any reference to MBTs; an art of its own
- as in direct-fire zone vs, defining "frontline"?
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)

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

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

Post by SW1 »

Amazing what changes when pressure is applied

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/land ... news_promo

UK-based Jankel on 20 September announced that is has sealed agreements with ‘a number of key UK defence industry partners’ under its June 2022 teaming agreement with Oshkosh Defense to deliver optimised Joint Light Tactical Vehicles for the British Army in line with the Land Industrial Strategy.

NP Aerospace was the first company to sign agreements.

‘A comprehensive partnership framework is being identified and developed by Jankel to establish a robust, UK-based, expert supply chain to deliver design, sub-system integration, manufacture, assembly and through life support services,’ the company stated.

Jankel chairman Andrew Jankel is eyeing benefits beyond JLTV, claiming that ‘these partnerships could be further developed to support our long-term strategy of establishing a UK-based light vehicle centre of excellence’.

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

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

Post by SW1 »


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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

As on the Twitter thread, that looks like a logistics vehicle, not a protected tactical vehicle.

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

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

Post by Caribbean »

From the graphic behind it, it looks like a common chassis, with multiple cab and body options. The chassis is supposed to be modular as well IIRC. I must admit I quite like the idea of a core vehicle that can be adapted by fitting different body types.
These users liked the author Caribbean for the post (total 2):
SW1jedibeeftrix
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

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

Post by SW1 »

As Caribbean mentions and I assume the u stands for utility for this particular configuration but it shows a configurable base platform that could be used in multiple role. I remain amazed but not surprised that we have ignored developing this platform
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Caribbean

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 »

Developing a family of AFVs these days seems to be reliant on having a requirement existing and in place from your own Military. Few countries have a home-grown Manufacturer of AFVs that can afford to develop AFVs based on the possible future needs of another country, even France is struggling to do this now. Our AFV manufacturing capability has been driven almost entirely by the requirements of the British Army for decades, and with the corresponding lack of said orders, our home-grown Simply put we are no longer in the export business for AFV manufacturing capability and capacity is really limited to those sites involved in meeting existing programmes, with little or no room for the development of AFV platforms at the company's own expense for export, beyond a few demonstrators. As an example, how long do we think the GDUK plant in Wales will stay active once the Ajax programme is finished without additional orders form the MoD to supply and support platform such as Ajax or something new? With luck the BAe/Rheinmetall partnership may prosper beyond Boxer and Challenger 3 as the latter has a constantly evolving family of different AFVs, some of which may find a future home in the British Army. Of course, al this is my opinion, and I could be well off the mark.

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Caribbean wrote: 04 Oct 2022, 17:02 From the graphic behind it, it looks like a common chassis, with multiple cab and body options. The chassis is supposed to be modular as well IIRC. I must admit I quite like the idea of a core vehicle that can be adapted by fitting different body types.
And part of that family is already on service as the Jackal and Coyote, and very successfully. But what both lack is all round protection. Which is accepted in their intended roles, but does not meet the MRV-P requirement.

I'm completely skeptical that you could maintain the same or an adapted chassis and include the impacts of weight and CoG on a platform now equipped with all round protection. Hence why I think the HMT proposals from Supacat are not intended for MRV-P, but for modernization of similar vehicles like the Pinz.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

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

Post by SD67 »

Lord Jim wrote: 04 Oct 2022, 20:48 Developing a family of AFVs these days seems to be reliant on having a requirement existing and in place from your own Military. Few countries have a home-grown Manufacturer of AFVs that can afford to develop AFVs based on the possible future needs of another country, even France is struggling to do this now. Our AFV manufacturing capability has been driven almost entirely by the requirements of the British Army for decades, and with the corresponding lack of said orders, our home-grown Simply put we are no longer in the export business for AFV manufacturing capability and capacity is really limited to those sites involved in meeting existing programmes, with little or no room for the development of AFV platforms at the company's own expense for export, beyond a few demonstrators. As an example, how long do we think the GDUK plant in Wales will stay active once the Ajax programme is finished without additional orders form the MoD to supply and support platform such as Ajax or something new? With luck the BAe/Rheinmetall partnership may prosper beyond Boxer and Challenger 3 as the latter has a constantly evolving family of different AFVs, some of which may find a future home in the British Army. Of course, al this is my opinion, and I could be well off the mark.
IMHO that plant in Wales would have zero future beyond British Army Ajax deliveries, which is one of the reasons I don't think Ajax is worth dying in the ditch for. Unless as per previous discussion there's a grand settlement, chop Ajax and build Eagle there for MRVP, steady drumbeat, lots of different variants.

RBSL seem to be subcontracting out much of the Boxer manufacturing to WFEL and Pearson, which is smart, both have plenty of non Boxer related business. Future evolutions and maybe export of UK developed modules like Brimstone overwatch should also help keep them ticking over. There's the AS90 replacement coming up. Also some chatter previously of RBSL offering the CH3 turret on the export market as a Leo upgrade option

Post Reply