Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Mercator
Member
Posts: 367
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

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

Post by Mercator »

C'mon. Bushmaters enable Motorised Infantry with good mine protection and able to withstand GPMG weapons and below, with some protected CSS thrown in. They get Light Infantry near the objective so they can dismount fresh and with a few days worth of supplies. Surely it's not a novel concept for anyone. We still have Regiments in Oz with 'Mounted Infantry' in their title because they did the same thing with horses more than 100 years ago.

If you have tons of Light Infantry with nothing better, isn't this an upgrade?

Also, even Heavy Armour and Mech forces could do with some protected CSS [not to mention Motorised forces to follow on and occupy their objectives for them].

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3037
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote:God help the army that goes to war with only these vehicles. Trucks with a thin armor coating.
Ron5 wrote:I said with ONLY these vehicles
again in what context what do you want to say Ron

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2688
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

There will be significant use for light mechanised forces I suspect much more use than anything else the army has or will have specially if some of the modern sensors are incorporated.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3037
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote:There will be significant use for light mechanised forces I suspect much more use than anything else the army has or will have specially if some of the modern sensors are incorporated.
I would agree and the UK would be in a good place if it had 3 x Light Mech BCT's with one based somewhere in the region of the boards of Romania , Hungany and Ukraine

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6250
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

Unfortunately the only way that would happen is if one of the planned Heavy BCTs was instead reorganised as a Light BCT.

The reorganised Army with Five or Six BCTs is an improvement on what it is now I must admit. The relevance of the preponderance of Light Role Infantry Battalions that are not totally relevant now or in the future is an issue that has needed fixing for decades. Iraq and Afghanistan didn't help matters either.

With the size of our Army now, we have to equip and train it to fight against a peer level opponent. It will still be able to fight less intense conflicts but the other way around simply doesn't work. In fact to save a few pennies, I would have any remaining Light Role Battalions reduced in size and capability. They will be useful is a number of roles still, but they will not be aimed at peer level warfighting except as replacements if ever this went that far south.

What the Army must ensure it that its frontline BCTs are all full manned and properly equipped above anything else. Ensuring that it purchases both sufficient MRV(P)s and Boxers in the needed variants to equip the four BCTs plus additional units that are at the nominal "Divisional", level as well as equipping 16AA, the Deep Fires BCT, Ranger Regiment and SFSG. This is going to cost money but I will keep saying this, if we want a viable Army it needs to have a greater priority for funding than it has now.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2688
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote:
SW1 wrote:There will be significant use for light mechanised forces I suspect much more use than anything else the army has or will have specially if some of the modern sensors are incorporated.
I would agree and the UK would be in a good place if it had 3 x Light Mech BCT's with one based somewhere in the region of the boards of Romania , Hungany and Ukraine
Well indeed I would use the battalions in Cyprus and Brunei as the fwd deployed elements of two
of the light mech bct with a third in Africa. These areas could be used as fwd mounting logistics areas incorporating regional engagement and training especially if they become proper bcts with logistical and strategic transport assigned. The LRRG deployed in mali I think has given a gd template for the make up with added fires and istar sensors they would be a capable deterrent.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3037
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote:Unfortunately the only way that would happen is if one of the planned Heavy BCTs was instead reorganised as a Light BCT.
for me this what I would like to see

1 x Deep fires BCT
2 x Heavy BCT's ( based around Boxer )
3 x Light BCT's ( based around Bushmaster)
1 x Air Assault BCT

With the SF , SFSG and Rangers under the 6th Division

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6250
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

The idea is fine and worthwhile, but it would be some way off. Although the reorganisation of the Army was the cornerstone of the section from the Command Paper that dealt with the Army, we are going to be lucky to see any fully formed BCTs of any description until the 2030s. We also want to maintain the maximum flexibility with the size of Army we will have, so we really should avoid stationing troops overseas beyond the existing Battalions, and these should not be part of a BCT. These two battalions already have important roles, but could be equipped with either MRV(P) or light vehicles like the Polaris to improve their regional capabilities. The two light BCTS should be providing support two these two battalions is the need arises as well as the planned Ranger Regiment. The latter should also be properly equipped with integral transport and also logistics and other support capabilities.

To facilitate this the two Light BCTs with their MRV(P) should be fully self contained and be able to deploy self contained units from Company Level upwards. All vehicles in said BCTs should have the same respective levels of protection and mobility. Again this points to the need for variants of the MRV(P) beyond the three or four Variants currently list, which currently is unacceptable.

Having more than two Light BCTs will put too much of a demand on already overstretched coffers. The Army is already going to have to convince the MoD that it needs additional funding beyond what was talked about in the 2021 SDSR just to meets its existing reorganizational needs. The funding for both the MRV(P) and Boxer programmes are insufficient at the moment, and I am sure the Army knows this. This could be the reason for the ongoing study that was due this summer, that is to show what it believes it needs to form the BCTs. Things have been very quiet since the study was announce in the Command Paper, but we can only wait and see what comes out of it.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2688
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Unfortunately the only way that would happen is if one of the planned Heavy BCTs was instead reorganised as a Light BCT.
for me this what I would like to see

1 x Deep fires BCT
2 x Heavy BCT's ( based around Boxer )
3 x Light BCT's ( based around Bushmaster)
1 x Air Assault BCT

With the SF , SFSG and Rangers under the 6th Division
I think it would be better if the paras became the (SFSG/Rangers) and the air assualt BCT disappeared.

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 598
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

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

Post by Dahedd »

Sol over at Snafu says the British armies dead anyway. Why bother? :lol:

https://www.snafu-solomon.com/2021/10/t ... o.html?m=1

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 768
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Dahedd wrote:Sol over at Snafu says the British armies dead anyway. Why bother? :lol:

https://www.snafu-solomon.com/2021/10/t ... o.html?m=1
Francis Tusa posting absolute bilge again, looking for another red-top to pickup the story :lol:

Mercator
Member
Posts: 367
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

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

Post by Mercator »

The other thing I would say is that you could easily pace your production with a very modest workforce and still gain significant capability. Look at Australia - 1000 vehicles over 10 years. Every 10 vehicles is roughly Company lift and you can easily raise a Battalion every 6 months with all the ancillary variants. Slow, cheap, but growing capability within the usual readiness cycle of battalions and brigades.

Incidentally, after 10 years you switch to your patrol/liaison production for a bit, then when you are done, you restart with your next gen replacement vehicle. Continuous design, continuous production; stable, predictable costs.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3037
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Dahedd wrote:Sol over at Snafu says the British armies dead anyway. Why bother? :lol:

https://www.snafu-solomon.com/2021/10/t ... o.html?m=1
Francis Tusa posting absolute bilge again, looking for another red-top to pickup the story :lol:
Bang on if the army has to stand up a high readiness brigade in 2024 it will do so with what it has and it will be capable of the task. all the talk of Ajax , Boxer , CH3 is shit they would not have been used in 2024 anyhow

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6250
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

Yes the Army could stand up a fully manned and equipped Brigade, by drawing personnel and and what equipment was serviceable from a multitude of units. It would only be the training of the personnel that may give this formation any semblance of a viable fighting formation, but it would need their high morale as against a peer opponent they would be outnumbered and outgunned.

Yes we would have allies operating with us, but in all likelihood the area where our Brigade will be deployed would be seen as a soft spot by any opposition with a half decent understanding of the British Army. They will know they have a substantial advantage in Artillery, have a far greater EW capability and a greater access to UAVs, whilst being able to restrict our use of the same platform. Our GPS would probably be unreliable, and we would not be able to rely on air support, either fix or rotary due to out opponent's integrated GBADS. How long our brave and well trained personnel would be able to hold their positions whilst under superior direct and indirect enemy fire, and what level of casualties they would suffer in doing so is difficult to would probably be far worse than our Politician believe they would.

Yes this is a very negative picture, but for the next ten years we are really out of the peer level warfare game. Yes would could deploy troops but our losses would rapidly make any formation sent non combat effective, as would the loss of equipment. This is why the Army must use this ten year period to really get its house in order. It needs to make a strong case that it needs additional equipment above and beyond what is already planned to achieve the transformation desired by the Government, and that the recapitalisation of out conventional formations need to be a higher priority than the new capabilities like cyber, as the latter are of little use without the former. Yes the latter are needed but there must be a strong core in place first to which these new capabilities will compliment and enhance.

So once again the Army MUST purchase both Boxer and MRV(P) at an accelerated rate and include all the variants it must have, carrying out any developmental work in a timely manner to ensure the latter are available when the units are stood up. If necessary the Ajax contract should be terminated and the money not yet spent diverted to the MRV(P) and Boxer programmes. Drastic action I know but the latter two are far more important to the Army's future than the former.

Of course all this is only necessary is we are determined to be able to deploy land forces on a global scale in meaningful numbers. If we restrict any deployments outside of Europe to the Royal Marines, SF, SFSG and the Ranger Regiment, the we can curtail many of the Army's procurement programmes, purchasing boxer and MRV(P) on a much smaller scale, and have the majority of units committed to NATO contain a high ration of reserves. We would possibly have to give up our leadership of NATO's Rapid Reaction Force as we would have difficulty providing its Headquarters and so on.

So the UK has to match its aspirations as a Global Military Power to its defence budget, and prioritise where the money needs to go in the near to medium term up to around 2030. Either we actually transform and recapitalise the Army, placing orders in the very near future for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the MRV(P) programme in the numbers and variants required, or we admit we are strictly limited as to what we can deploy in the way of land forces to support our allies and have to rely mainly on or limited Naval and Air power.

Oh well I am going round in circles here and have stretched things way beyond just the MRV(P) programme but it is hard not to as everything is linked and it is hard to limit the discussion solely to that. Better stop here I think.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

I don't understand how an army built around Boxer and an armored truck will be capable of peer warfare. Sounds more like a unit for fighting colonial wars against under equipped 3rd worlds. In which, by the way, the UK is 0 and 2 over the past 20 years.

Peer warfare is armored warfare.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 768
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:I don't understand how an army built around Boxer and an armored truck will be capable of peer warfare. Sounds more like a unit for fighting colonial wars against under equipped 3rd worlds. In which, by the way, the UK is 0 and 2 over the past 20 years.

Peer warfare is armored warfare.
Why does armour have to fight armour? Why can't anti-armour fight armour?

We haven't properly used our armour in peer warfare for at least 3 decades. That doesn't mean it's been without use. But equally, and by your own admission, it hasn't been the war-winning capability that perhaps some advocate.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6250
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

There is no reason a properly equipped wheeled 8x8 IFV or APC cannot support or be supported by an MBY whilst conducting "Armoured" warfare. The Boxer is more than capable of carrying out the role currently in the hands of the Warrior. A properly equipped APC Boxer variant armed with a HMG and ATGW is probably the minimum spec to carry out the above, but a mix of capabilities is probably preferential.

Yes as a frontline formation the Light BCTs equipped with variants of teh Phase 1 and Phase 2 MRV(P) would do well not to go toe to toe with a peer or near peer opponent, but units from said BCT would be more than capable of supporting a Heavy BCT, securing key location and providing rear security. The reverse is also true a Light BCT could also benefit from the support of say a Mechanised Infantry Battalion equipped with Boxer, or a Recce Squadron equipped with a Boxer Variant.

What is important though is that for both platform types, the right numbers and the right variants are purchased. The new BCTs are supposed to be self contained and be totally viable combat formation in their own right. Other units can compliment those in the BCT such as Special Forces, Area Air Defence, Medical, additional Artillery or one or more detachments from other BCTs to reinforce the BCT in question. It would therefore be fairly safe to assume that besides the conventional combat Battalions/Regiments in a BCT it will also contain the following support Regiments;
Artillery.
Field Engineering, both Heavy and Light.
Signals including EW and Cyber.
Logistics.

Some of these will use platforms based on either the Boxer or MRV(P) Phase 2 but others will simply use 6x6 or 8x8 Protected Trucks, or in a few cases specialised vehicles like the M3 Amphibious Ferry.

If done properly over the next ten years the British Army will be very capable for conducting "Armoured" warfare and anything below it. It will have the formations that can be deployed worldwide using either Charters Ro-Ro vessels or ship form the RFA. But the funding shortfalls that already exist in the 2021 SDSR must be corrected to allow the Army a chance to carry out its transformation during this time. But when I say properly I also mean timely, so it need to select and order all the required variants of both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 MRV(P) within the next twelve months so that deliveries and IOC can take place no later then 2025 and the same goes for Boxer, with at least a Battalion of each being delivered each year after then allowing FOC before 2030, plus the vehicles needed for support units or course.

But equipping the Heavy and Light BCTs is not the only programme the Army must complete by 2030. It needs to train and properly equip the new Ranger Regiment, improve the capabilities of the 1st aviation BCT and its related Airmobile BCT. Key though for the Army's plans of Peer warfare is teh establishment of the Deep Fires Recce BCT. If Ajax survives then the updated M270 will compliment it but if not ans a Boxer variant is used then the Army needs to seriously look and cancelling the update to teh M270 and purchase the HIMARS, possibly using a MAN chassis. The HIMARS will come with all the upgrades the M270 update would have incorporated into that platform.

I will leave things here to be chewed on by others. But as a summary the British Army will be capable of conducting "Armoured" warfare is its transformation is allowed to reach completion with the right decisions made and the programme being fully funded.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 451
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

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

Post by jimthelad »

RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:I don't understand how an army built around Boxer and an armored truck will be capable of peer warfare. Sounds more like a unit for fighting colonial wars against under equipped 3rd worlds. In which, by the way, the UK is 0 and 2 over the past 20 years.

Peer warfare is armored warfare.
Why does armour have to fight armour? Why can't anti-armour fight armour?

Define peer warfare. In real terms, the BA does not have the critical mass to influence any ChiCom incursion in Asia. Africa, Or Taiwan. Nobody does. The whole point now is containment within the second island chain. Here the naval assets with supporting air and asymetric light forces MIGHT be effective. The Chinese now have a near qualitative match and a critical mass which cannot be stopped directly without resorting to strategic arsenals. You can trade space for time but tis doesn't work well in the littoral context.

In the case of Russia, we have to get the assets we need to influence to the battlefield. In real terms this is not possible without the BAOR style basing in Europe (now Poland, Lithuania, Estonia). Here 2 decent armoured brigades with a littoral action in the Baltic might contribute to the overall actin. Throw in a littoral incursion over the Baltic coast to upset the Kalingrad pocket or break the MSR from St Petersburg then this also could help. 16AA could revert to their cold war role and insert in a particularly difficult spot for the Russians but we all knew this was a suicide mission.

As for anti-armour ops, armour is vulnerable unless supported directly by infantry and SPAA. A good light anti-armour platoon, with favourable terrain and space allocation, could disrupt the recon screen and the lead companies of any WarPac armoured force. BUT, the real reason for armour, is to survive the initial artillery onslaught, no amount of cover will help you there. So, you have to either cede the OLT margins to enemy, and then sprint forward to prepared positions, and hope you get there in time, or try to fight a rearguard action to string out the lead elements and allow for defiladed actions by other units.

As we saw in NgornoKarabkh, armour is horribly vulnerable to loitering munitions. Perhaps this might mitigate the lack of armour, and allow for what we have to be used in the counteroffensive role, when the initial attack is stalled. Personally i think if you can negate the artillery overmatch, by something like a loitering munition or Brimstone, the armour could be repulsed if you have the space, terrain, and training.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1146
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

jimthelad wrote:As we saw in NgornoKarabkh, armour is horribly vulnerable to loitering munitions
Not nearly so much as infantry are vulnerable to everything.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 451
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

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

Post by jimthelad »

No, not really. If you can disperse and find decent cover, they can take anything on other than indirect battery fire.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1146
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

jimthelad wrote:No, not really. If you can disperse and find decent cover, they can take anything on other than indirect battery fire.
While dispersed and in decent cover they’re not capable of offensive operation and unable to move to avoid indirect fire, so they’re toast, or at least combat ineffective.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 451
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

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

Post by jimthelad »

I can think of quite a few people who had armour and indirect fire superior to our unit, who are now contributing to the long term soil fertility of their homeland. So, I respectfully disagree with your latter.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1146
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

There’s a decent strip of land in eastern France that says something about infantry-based armies.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3037
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

Chaps lets just say a lot of good men have paid for poor leadership with there lives and it is safe to say the key is good leadership training equipment planning and morale plus ability to adapted when shit happens

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

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

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

It's ironic what with all the references to the Great War, that, to my mind, the only thing that will rescue the Army now is a period of reforms of Haldanian proportions - literal root and branch.

Much as then, it is clear we stand at the precipice of great change in terms of how land warfare will be fought going into the near future an beyond. At the same time, just as more then a century ago now, such a change comes at a time of heightened and increasingly bellicose great power competition.

We have to get this right, and we have to be ambitious.

Just my two pennies' worth, I guess back to MRV-P now? :lol:

Post Reply