Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
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 »

Is the SPEAR Mortar the one where you can punch in co-ordinates and it rapidly slews around to face target said location and at the correct elevation, like the US Army is upgrading its Stryker 120mm Mortar Carriers with?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote: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
The answers should not be on a postcard, but be posted on the :D "who's gonna get the hand-me-downs?" thread
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)

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

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

Post by Ron5 »

Latest order for JLTV. No sign of the UK :(

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/senso ... 0381167I8F

BB85
Member
Posts: 79
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: 2331
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: 6250
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: 25
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: 6250
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.

Post Reply