Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

I have no problem with Eagle 6x6 so to say and the 4x4 has worked well in service with Germany plus the Swiss have ordered the 6x6.

Plus if a Bushmaster 6x6 is to much then just go with the Bushmaster MR6 for me the UK needs to be building a new alliance like CANZUK so it is not left out in the cold and with Australia going for type 26 we should be looking to build a partnership and 1200 Hawkei and 800 Bushmaster would be the right number for 2 x light BCT's plus the RAF Regiment with a few left for the new Ranger units

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

I can't get head around why we are selling off Husky surly we should be looking at having light BCT's with a mix of Jackal , Husky & Foxhound with

Jackal = Recce
Foxhound = troop movement
Husky = tactical support , Mortar carrier & 105mm gun limber

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2674
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

But there is so many options that could be developed here in uk, the enclosed cabs on HMT series, more foxhound if GD aren’t put on the naughty step. You might have one light BCT on wheels the other on something like bsv10 and there assigned different geographic areas in the world to engage with long term.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 752
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

SW1 wrote:But there is so many options that could be developed here in uk, the enclosed cabs on HMT series, more foxhound if GD aren’t put on the naughty step. You might have one light BCT on wheels the other on something like bsv10 and there assigned different geographic areas in the world to engage with long term.
HMT is the Made In the UK option, for certain. It would still need a systems integration partner (Like Thales, GD or BAE), but it's a vehicle with some pedigree (and to my knowledge quite liked) in UK service.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote:But there is so many options that could be developed here in uk, the enclosed cabs on HMT series, more foxhound if GD aren’t put on the naughty step. You might have one light BCT on wheels the other on something like bsv10 and there assigned different geographic areas in the world to engage with long term.
I don't disagree that we could develop what we have but my point is we are going to need partners going forward to hold our place at the big table against the US , China & EU. And building an alliance like CANZUK with tec share is one way forward

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2674
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote:
SW1 wrote:But there is so many options that could be developed here in uk, the enclosed cabs on HMT series, more foxhound if GD aren’t put on the naughty step. You might have one light BCT on wheels the other on something like bsv10 and there assigned different geographic areas in the world to engage with long term.
I don't disagree that we could develop what we have but my point is we are going to need partners going forward to hold our place at the big table against the US , China & EU. And building an alliance like CANZUK with tec share is one way forward
Sharing tech doesn’t mean you need to buy there vehicles it’s the sub systems you can develop with partners and integrate onto ur own vehicle (hybrid tech to reduce logistic burden ect). Alliances doesn’t mean u all need to have the same equipment in fact it works better to an extent if you don’t.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 752
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote:
SW1 wrote:But there is so many options that could be developed here in uk, the enclosed cabs on HMT series, more foxhound if GD aren’t put on the naughty step. You might have one light BCT on wheels the other on something like bsv10 and there assigned different geographic areas in the world to engage with long term.
I don't disagree that we could develop what we have but my point is we are going to need partners going forward to hold our place at the big table against the US , China & EU. And building an alliance like CANZUK with tec share is one way forward
I do agree, but for MRV-P I'd much prefer the ability to pool shared spares and skills within a European family of vehicles than for trying to do the same across the Atlantic/world.

I can see how it makes more sense for aircraft and ships, but I don't see it for (relatively low cost) land vehicles.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 769
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

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

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

I have a question that maybe someone here can help with. What is the rationale behind the requirement for a 6x6 anyway?

Is a 6x6 solution even a stated requirement for MRV-P package 2?

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 752
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:I have a question that maybe someone here can help with. What is the rationale behind the requirement for a 6x6 anyway?

Is a 6x6 solution even a stated requirement for MRV-P package 2?
I doubt there's a stated requirement for 6x6, or even wheels.

But the issue of a 4x4 would be a compromise of approach angle and break/over angle for a vehicle of the required payload dimensions length.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 769
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

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

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

RunningStrong wrote: I doubt there's a stated requirement for 6x6, or even wheels.

But the issue of a 4x4 would be a compromise of approach angle and break/over angle for a vehicle of the required payload dimensions length.
With all the talk of 6x6 that gets bandied about I had begun to think it was some sort of formal requirement.

Seems to me that there aren't all that many fieldable 6x6 solutions around presently anyway, at least not many that aren't overkill for what we are trying to achieve. You have the Eagle offering, but we would be the sole user of that particular model?

MRV-P is a topic I find immensely frustrating. It should be, relatively speaking, one of the more straightforward projects the UK is working on yet we seem to endlessly go round in circles on it. We need a protected carrier and sub-variants thereof, how hard can that be to formulate as a requirement and then choose a solution?

I mean we are practically spoiled for choice and even have the option of a home grown solution for relatively little risk/outlay if we really wanted it!

I'll get off my soapbox now :lol:

GarethDavies1
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: 26 May 2021, 11:45
United Kingdom

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

Post by GarethDavies1 »

Something is very wrong with the MOD, if I was more cynical I would say that it's all down to how long the project can be stretched out while at the same time lining the pockets of civil servants and MPs!!!! Just a thought though!

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 752
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:
RunningStrong wrote: I doubt there's a stated requirement for 6x6, or even wheels.

But the issue of a 4x4 would be a compromise of approach angle and break/over angle for a vehicle of the required payload dimensions length.
With all the talk of 6x6 that gets bandied about I had begun to think it was some sort of formal requirement.

Seems to me that there aren't all that many fieldable 6x6 solutions around presently anyway, at least not many that aren't overkill for what we are trying to achieve. You have the Eagle offering, but we would be the sole user of that particular model?

MRV-P is a topic I find immensely frustrating. It should be, relatively speaking, one of the more straightforward projects the UK is working on yet we seem to endlessly go round in circles on it. We need a protected carrier and sub-variants thereof, how hard can that be to formulate as a requirement and then choose a solution?

I mean we are practically spoiled for choice and even have the option of a home grown solution for relatively little risk/outlay if we really wanted it!

I'll get off my soapbox now :lol:
German and Swiss have both ordered the 6x6.

The issue isn't about the engineering solutions more often than not. It's about the business and political solution, and that includes the price but also the UK work-share and delivery schedule.

I guess the point is that MRV-P is supposed to be Off the Shelf, and HMT w/ cab is definitely not on the shelf.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

JLTV has already been selected for part 1 of this requirement. What they're waiting for now is the money to buy some.

Part 2 has two candidates: Bushmaster and Eagle 6x6. Bushmaster is the favorite.

In answer to the gentleman above who asked why is the part 2 vehicle has to be a 6x6 The answer is that it doesn't. But it does have to carry more than the part 1 vehicle and the most common configuration in that class is a 6x6. However, Bushmaster is a 4x4.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 752
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote: Part 2 has two candidates: Bushmaster and Eagle 6x6. Bushmaster is the favorite.
Any reference on that?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote:JLTV has already been selected for part 1 of this requirement. What they're waiting for now is the money to buy some.
JLTV is in the demonstration phase until sometime in 2021 ( now the back end of 2021 clearly ) once complete the MOD will put a business case forward for 821 vehicles

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 769
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

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

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Tempest414 wrote: JLTV is in the demonstration phase until sometime in 2021 ( now the back end of 2021 clearly ) once complete the MOD will put a business case forward for 821 vehicles
Has that figure you reference been confirmed anywhere? I know the original FMS notification mentioned a possible contract total of upwards of 2,700 vehicles?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

That 2700 was the figure put forward to congress as a top line figure the 821 would be the first phase of JLTV buy with it ending up some where around 1300 to 1600 vehicles

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2674
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

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

To support Operation Newcombe, which is the British Army contribution to the ongoing UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in Mali (MINUSMA), NP Aerospace carried out a major upgrade to the suspension and drivetrain of Mastiff 6x6 and Ridgeback 4x4 protected mobility vehicles (PMVs).
These vehicles were originally procured under UOR funding for deployment in Afghanistan and Iraq.
For improved cross-country mobility and to allow them to operate in long-range reconnaissance patrols, these vehicles have been enhanced by incorporating an advanced independent suspension system, which also features height adjustment and a central tyre inflation system.
Taken together, NP Aerospace argues that these features deliver ‘an offroad capability that is on par with the Jackal and Foxhound vehicles’.
The modifications have significantly improved hill-climbing, gap crossing and wading capabilities. In addition, the steering and braking systems on the Mastiffs and Ridgebacks have been enhanced, leading to reduced noise and vibration.
NP Aerospace performed the UOR upgrade with partners such as HORIBA MIRA, Horstman, Texelis and Tyron.
The work itself took three months with the upgraded vehicles deployed in seven months.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Thanks for posting @SW1.

Makes you wonder if they already have MRV(P) part 2 solution in service. How many Mastiffs and Ridgebacks are there?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2674
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

Given everything that’s going on in the army I have thought that the easiest way to get the two light brigades up and running is to scale up Mali force construct to full battle group and brigade level all the pieces are there. It’s gets you something deployable and useable relatively quickly and ease of integration of new systems.

No idea on numbers

sol
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

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

Post by sol »

Ron5 wrote: How many Mastiffs and Ridgebacks are there?
According to UK Government, on April 1st, 2021 (not a joke) there were 396 Mastiffs and 168 Ridgebacks in the UK Armed Force

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... tions-2021

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

As I said up thread I can't get my head around why we are selling off Husky with

500 + Mastiffs & Ridgebacks
350 + Foxhounds
300+ Jackal / Coyote
200+ Husky

We should have 2 good light mechanized BCT's up and running now

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

At least they could get one up and running to find out what the BCT still needed and what it actually had. More importantly it would give the Army the ability to find out how to use such a force as it is new to them and the two planned light BCTs will be nearly half of the Army's vehicle mounted combat power.

They should be doing the same thing with one of the current Armoured Infantry Brigades, turning it into a prototype Heavy BCT for the same reasons as above.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

AN interesting piece of new kit. Would be nice on the MRV(P) as well as 6x6 and 8x8 protected trucks like in the video. There would be no front line in any peer conflict so all vehicles need a way to defend themselves now an d in the future. Looks more resilient then many current RWS.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 752
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:The variants needed by the British Army are;

Armoured Personnel Carrier.
Command Vehicle.
Armoured Recovery Vehicle.
Ambulance.
Joint Fires Vehicle.
Signals Vehicle.
ISTAR/EW Vehicle.
Engineering Support Vehicle.
Mortar.
Bridgelayer.
Combat Engineering vehicle.
SPAA Platform.
Overwatch/NLOS Platform.

Some of these roles would historically be carried out by soft skinned platforms and ones that were very lightly armoured. The Heavy BCT needs to be self contained and its vehicles as well protected as is viably possible, so for these formations these support roles will need to be carried out by variants of the Boxer. This is where the modularity of the Boxer should be an advantage to the Army.
For me the same should be applied to the Light BCT's and for me we should do away with JLTV and double down on Bushmaster which already comes in

Troop carrier
Command
Air defence
Mortar
Direct fire
Ambulance
Maintenance
plus they are already working on a EW type

And for me we should be looking for 8 battalion's worth making 4 BCT's
The list looks very questionable.

Direct fire. Is that just RWS?
Mortars. Is that just an internal stowage scheme for carrying a dismounted mortar team?
Air defence. As with mortars, is this integrated, or just a few tubes stowed in the back for RBS70 dismounted team?

Post Reply