Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Luke jones
Member
Posts: 105
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

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

Post by Luke jones »

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:
I'd be interested to know why Francis Tulsa is writing bilge?
It's a genuine question by the way.

The British Armoured Brigade going in 2024 looks like a load of shite to most observers.
Chally not yet upgraded
Warrior about to go, not upgraded.
CVRT clapped out, no sign of Ajax, should be in a museum.
FV432 clapped out, should be in a museum.
AS90. Never been upgraded.
No Boxer in service.

I'm not sure how things could be worse really

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Luke jones wrote: I'd be interested to know why Francis Tulsa is writing bilge?
It's a genuine question by the way.

The British Armoured Brigade going in 2024 looks like a load of shite to most observers.
Chally not yet upgraded
Warrior about to go, not upgraded.
CVRT clapped out, no sign of Ajax, should be in a museum.
FV432 clapped out, should be in a museum.
AS90. Never been upgraded.
No Boxer in service.

I'm not sure how things could be worse really
Well let's start with your own post.

CR2 - Still a capable platform. It hasn't suddenly stopped working because an upgrade is in process, neither was it a useless platform prior to the upgrade plan.

WR isn't about to go, at least not until Boxer and AJAX are fielded.

Not sure what this "no sign of AJAX" line is, when there's dozens of turreted vehicles awaiting whatever fix is identified in the vibration work. Will that be resolved in time for 2024? Not sure anyone publicly knows yet.

FV432 - In the meantime we have Bulldog, again, still serving a purpose ahead of Boxer/AJAX availability.

AS90 - Upgraded in 2009. Still capable of chucking big lumps of steel a decent distance from an armoured and CBRN protected platform.

No Boxer in service - Boxer deliveries commence 2023. With plenty of opportunity to cross-train on allied platforms to get ahead for FoC of there's a genuine need for their use in 2024.

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

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

Post by Tempest414 »

So what could we see in the 2024 armoured brigade deployment if the will is there

1 x Tank regiment = CH2
1 x Cavalry regiment = Warrior with RWS fitted
2 x infantry battalions = Warrior & Bulldog Mk-3
1 x Light infantry = Mastiff , Foxhound , Husky
1 x Artillery = AS-90 , air defence , Watchkeeper


Challenger 2 is still a good MBT and can hold its own

Warrior fitted with a RWS for me would make a good stop gap recce wagon plus some in the infantry units fitted with a Javalin RWS would not go a miss

FV430 Bulldog was upgraded with new engines and steering plus armour package in 2007 bring it closer to Warrior some were also fitted with RWS

AS-90 still a good capable system

Mastiff , Foxhound , Husky good for moving around in the rear of the forward formation protecting logistics units

All round not a bad package that would not be easy to beat

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

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

Post by SW1 »

How long would it take to deploy such a brigade from the U.K. to say Estonia and how long would we be able to sustain it there for.

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

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

Post by Tempest414 »

in this case as long as it takes using the Point class however someone will no doubt us know

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:in this case as long as it takes using the Point class however someone will no doubt us know
I think there would need to be significant rail and/or road moves as well. It would be interesting to compare with the gulf war and in twice because operating the armoured brigades in those conflicts were limited to days due to logistics and it is in a poorer state now.

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

1. No one in the MoD or Army is saying an armored brigade could be ready for deployment in 2024

2. Even if, no one would put the whole brigade in one ship especially in the Baltic

3. Average age of the equipment on that brigade would be double that of the average age of the soldiers. Be like a very big mobile museum on wheels and tracks.

4. Stocks and logistics would be insufficient for any sustained combat

Would not do well against a Russian armored force.

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote: 3. Average age of the equipment on that brigade would be double that of the average age of the soldiers. Be like a very big mobile museum on wheels and tracks.
You've never been prone to talking absolute BS before have you :lol:

CR2 - 1998
Warrior - 1984
AS90 - 1999 (with 52 cal) [correction] 1992
Mastiff/Foxhound/Husky - 00s

Bulldog is obviously an older platform but with an extensive upgrade, as are the remaining CVR(T) fleet which were new hull builds.

So I'll accept that all above mentioned platforms are not at the latest technology level and need modernisation to be 21st century platforms, but let's leave the amateur dramatics out of it.

Online
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1133
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

RunningStrong wrote:AS90 - 1999 (with 52 cal)
1992 for the in-service vehicle, the 52 calibre length ordnance was not adopted.

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

mr.fred wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:AS90 - 1999 (with 52 cal)
1992 for the in-service vehicle, the 52 calibre length ordnance was not adopted.
Of course, well corrected. Still puts Ron's comment in the bin.

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 »

Ok, but could a British Armoured Infantry Brigade, equipped as above, and when it eventually gets to where ever it has to after playing musical chairs with the 90+ HETs the Army has to get to and from the boats, cope with a Class A Russian Armoured Or Motor Rifle Brigade? Air cover and CAS is not guaranteed as the air space is contested, and C2 in unreliable due to superior Russian EW.

Our Artillery would be playing cat and mouse with its more numerous opponent, still being able to provide a level of support, but having to move far more frequently due to accurate counter battery fire missions using submunitions, but we are stuck with HE and Smoke as we gave up our bomblet rounds after signing the Montreal accord. We have the effective GMLRS but these need targets to shoot at, and Russian anti drone equipment is pretty good. But so are their UAVs and our anti drone capabilities by 2024 will be little better than now. Bad news for our unfortunate troops as many of the Russian MLRS systems also have GPS equivalent guidance packages for all types of warhead.

Our well trained troops will do their best, that is for sure, but our lack of spares and ammunition will start to be a major factor after only a short amount of time as we never have enough in reserve as that costs money we need to pend elsewhere. How long until we start to run out of Javelin and NLAW for the Infantry, without which they are very vulnerable to any hostile AFV, of which a large number are heading directly for them. The one Regiment of Challenger 2s cannot be everywhere and will take losses. Initially the kill ration should be considerably in our favour but that will reduce pretty quickly.

So how long until our troops have to withdraw, hopefully to be replaced by another NATO Brigade. When it does it will probably be done and
Even with resupply will no longer be fully combat effective. It should really go back into combat but will probably have to as out second Brigade will not be ready for quite some time unless they sent one of the Light BCTs to replace it.

I have total confidence in the ability of our troops, but their equipment is lacking and by 2024 it will be even more so. None of out AFVs can be considered up to date, and all lack firepower in their respective categories. As usual our troops will do the best with what they have, but what they have just isn't good enough. We are taking another ten years to match what some NATO members have now or in the near future, and many of the new technologies being touted for the British Army to complete its transformation and replacing conventional equipment will not be mature until the mid 2030s.

Ok rant over, now time to take those tablets :D

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 »

This need to move to the Future of the British Army Thread I think, fun discussion but way off topic and I am as guilty as any one of steering things off course.

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

Challenger 2 - 28 years old
AS90 - 29
Warrior - 37
CVT(R) - 51
FV432 - 57

Geriatric in military terms.

As a comparison, the very first tank, the Mk 1, was introduced in 1916. If it had lasted as long as the Challenger 2, it would have gone over the beaches at D-Day. If it had served as long as the FV432, it would have still been in service in 1974.

Image

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:Challenger 2 - 28 years old
AS90 - 29
Warrior - 37
CVT(R) - 51
FV432 - 57

Geriatric in military terms.
Is it?
Leopard 2 - 1979
Abrams - 1980
Bradley - 1981
CV90 - 1993
M109 - 1963
M113 - 1960

Oooops.

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 »

Thing is all of the above have had a continuous and incremental upgrade path, sometimes by individual nations, sometimes as a multinational programme. The only one that is not undergoing an upgrade at the moment is the M2/3 Bradley as it is due to be replaced by the new optionally manned platform starting around 2025. As for the M113, well in the US Army at least the BAe Systems platform using parts common to the M2 is replacing it, whilst in European Armies it is being rapidly replaced by wheeled 8x8. Yes some will linger on as the M113 is a useful platform for secondary duties and many were upgraded to the M113A3 standard about a decade ago.

As for our platforms, the majority of any upgrades have been conducted as part of UORs and not on a fleet wide basis, relying on pools over overworked TES platforms, thou we did end up doing some rotation eventually.

Given how long our AFV programmes are taking, maybe we should look at acceleration our replacement ATGW programmes and adopt the Spike family across the board, even on the AH-64E as Israel is clearing a couple of version for use on this platform as we speak. We need to greatly increase the number of Anti-Tank weapons across the board. NLAW is a good starting point but we need at least Spike-LR2 on our Recce platforms and Boxer APCs, with Spike-ER2 as a overwatch weapon system and then Spike-NLOS/Extractor Mk2 as our long range precision strike weapon. The missile is already manufactured in Europe and many NATO nations already use one or more versions. It still has a ongoing development path and most likely will gain the additional capabilities the British Army is after, Spike-ER2 is already a networked weapon for starters.

We then need to look at our GBAD increasing the number of CAMM batteries ordered so that we have enough to equip two rather than one Regiment. Starstreak/LMM in its pedestal form needs to be issues at Company or even Platoon level, with the SP variant used possibly for close protection of Artillery units.

Finally we need to increase the size of out Armoured, Mechanised and Motorised Infantry Battalions adding either a forth Rifle Platoon per Company or a forth Rifle Company per Battalion. We could use "Light Role", Battalions to provide the personnel and we certainly have enough Warriors to get things started I believe.

All of the above could be carried by 2025 increasing the firepower of our units. But as the saying goes "Firepower without manoeuvre is indecisive, manoeuvre without firepower can be fatal". But we have to start somewhere don't we to get out of this self created mess.

Oh dear need more medication, Nurse!! :D

SD67
Member
Posts: 329
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

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

Post by SD67 »

Let's be realistic though - what is the threat? The Polish army field a thousand MBTs with another 250 on order, the Bundeswehr right behind them, with all the benefit of in country logistics. Estonia is indefensible if Putin really wanted it, the battle group there is a political gesture. We're not going to be doing another Gulf War. The army is now a light expeditionary force, they're keeping a skeleton armored capability going to retain core skills as an insurance policy in case it needs to be rebuilt in the future. Given the macro situation, I think it's understandable.

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

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

Post by sol »

SD67 wrote:The Polish army field a thousand MBTs with another 250 on order
Polish has like 860 tanks and those 250 Abrams will not add to that number but instead replace all those T-72 tanks still in service. And they already looking for replacement of all PT-91 and, eventually, Leopard 2s in service. Final result should be 12 tank battalions with some 700 tanks, and their tank battalion is the same strength as the British one, with 58 tanks per battalion.
SD67 wrote:Estonia is indefensible if Putin really wanted it, the battle group there is a political gesture.


Probably .... but it does not change the fact that in that case Britain would still be in the war with Russia.
SD67 wrote:The army is now a light expeditionary force, they're keeping a skeleton armored capability going to retain core skills as an insurance policy in case it needs to be rebuilt in the future.
Keeping a skeleton armoured capability is ok if you have a chance to rebuild it but UK is no longer producing tanks. Or any other heavy armoured vehicle beside Boxer. And it doesn't look like their are planing to in the future. And even if it is skeleton capability it would still need to be capable of doing its job or what is the purpose keeping it just for sake of having it. In that case it is just a waster of money and resources.

BB85
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

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

Post by BB85 »

I know we are going miles off topic but when there is an actual update on the MRVP program I'm sure it will steer back.

Germany and Poland are expected to provide the bulk of Europe's heavy armour. Their naval commitments don't come close to that of the UK or France and they don't need to ship their armour halfway across the continent. Germany I suspect is subsidising some of its exports to the likes of Hungary to beef up the buffer states as it is a lot cheaper subsidising their soldiers to operate them than their own.

SD67
Member
Posts: 329
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

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

Post by SD67 »

sol wrote:
SD67 wrote:The Polish army field a thousand MBTs with another 250 on order
Polish has like 860 tanks and those 250 Abrams will not add to that number but instead replace all those T-72 tanks still in service. And they already looking for replacement of all PT-91 and, eventually, Leopard 2s in service. Final result should be 12 tank battalions with some 700 tanks, and their tank battalion is the same strength as the British one, with 58 tanks per battalion.
SD67 wrote:Estonia is indefensible if Putin really wanted it, the battle group there is a political gesture.


Probably .... but it does not change the fact that in that case Britain would still be in the war with Russia.
SD67 wrote:The army is now a light expeditionary force, they're keeping a skeleton armored capability going to retain core skills as an insurance policy in case it needs to be rebuilt in the future.
Keeping a skeleton armoured capability is ok if you have a chance to rebuild it but UK is no longer producing tanks. Or any other heavy armoured vehicle beside Boxer. And it doesn't look like their are planing to in the future. And even if it is skeleton capability it would still need to be capable of doing its job or what is the purpose keeping it just for sake of having it. In that case it is just a waster of money and resources.
I’m guessing the point of a skeleton capability is retaining skills in the army as skills are much harder to regenerate than equipment. Similar to the navy running on Illustrious then Ocean for a few years the actual combat utility is limited but it kept them “in the game” with flat tops.

Probably also a secondary role adding heft to an expeditionary operation against a non peer opponent. But let’s be realistic we are not going to be on the front line in a European land war because the logistical footprint no longer exists

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

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

Post by Ron5 »


BB85
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

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

Post by BB85 »

When their biggest weakness was off-road mobility the army is bound to be questioning if there is life in the old MRAP's yet. If they get away with delaying the MRVP program they are bound to consider if it funds the C3 upgrade, Boxer, Ajax and indirect fire replacements.

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 »

That is a really interesting development. Ok it make a big vehicle appear even bigger due to the increase in height, but the improvements make both platforms more than capable of meeting the MRV(P) phase 2 programme requirements, especially if some further modifications produce a number of variants. These plus our Jackal and Foxhound should allow us to deploy a fairly sizeable force without the need to actually purchase any new MRV(P) vehicles for quite a while.

The question is how many of each vehicle are left after the serious culling of legacy vehicles the Army undertook during 2020? I hope we are not returning to the days of the Supercat when we bought some, decided we didn't need them so sold them, them decided we did and so bought some more and so on.

Given the size of operations that we may be mainly handling, I can see both Light BCTs only having a small number of MRV(P) plus legacy vehicles, with a full Brigade set stored for operational use. This greatly reduces the numbers of MRV(P) type vehicles the Army actually needs, and this could affect what vehicle we actually purchase in the end, though I still think the Army will eventually go for the JLTV, but any decision will now not take place until after 2025, rather than the more urgent timescale initially announced.

I was never a fan of teh Mastiff, but this development has changes all that. With these modification it is basically a new vehicle, though soldiers will need a ladder to get in and out!

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

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

Post by Tempest414 »

the good thing here is the Mastiff has been upgraded been tested at Millbrook and are operations in Mali giving more info on performance. this being said the upgrade cost 7 million for 12 vehicles = £583.000 each but this would include R&D fitting and testing if the cost could be got down to £200.000 each for say 350 vehicles then with the Jackals , Foxhounds , Huskies we could have some 1200 vehicles to build 3 light BCT's

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

Israeli mortar on a JLTV ...


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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

They seem to have made a small but fundamental mistake in the design...

Post Reply