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 »

Have wondered if all the other candidates around this were any better than what this upgrade offered other than there were something new.

A lot of uk content and crucially we have design integration and testing capacity in the uk


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 »

We will probably retain the upgraded Mastiffs, and even upgrade a further small number. the upgraded vehicle is now very capable off road and our Light BCTs will need such vehicles for Command and other specialist roles. These together with the Foxhounds, Jackals and Coyotes will be enough for us to operate at least one Light BCT as a motorised formation, oh lets not forget the protected MAN HX 6x6 and 8x8 around as well.

If the MRV9P) programme does start up again, I can see it being satisfied over a number of procurement batches. I can also see it being satisfied by platforms that will only be fitted out in the UK, that is the installation of UK specific equipment. The choice will be an off the shelf design as it is not worth developing a bespoke vehicle, especially as there are a multitude of such vehicles already on the market or in development. As long as we can maintain and modernise the vehicles chosen will suffice.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

bobp wrote: 30 Apr 2022, 20:12
Caribbean wrote: 30 Apr 2022, 19:13
bobp wrote: 30 Apr 2022, 19:10 Pretty sure the Mastiffs and Ridgeback are likely to be taken out of use soon.
120 Mastiff going to Ukraine and all the Huskies are up for sale (or possibly going to Ukraine also)
Yes i heard that also.
Even with the 120 going to Ukraine and if we say we lost 100 over the years that would still leave some 400 Mastiff , Ridgebak & Wolfhounds

So we brought

680 x Mastiff , Rigdeback & Wolfhound
500 x Jackal & Coyote
400 x Foxhound
300 x Husky
400 x Panther

So if we look down the back of the sofa I am sure we could find the numbers I am talking about and come up with 6 x Battalion battle groups

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 »

I wonder how many MRAVs we will end up sending to Ukraine as they are, besides the CVR(T) really are only stockpile we can afford to send. I am sure we will retain a number of Mastiffs as well as the Jackals, Coyotes and Foxhounds. Our promise to send artillery has me also questioning what we could send. We do have AS-90s in storage and the unmodified half of our M270 fleets. There is the 105mm Light Gun, but I cannot see that being of any real use considering the Ukrainians already use both 120mm Mortars and 122mm SP and towed guns.

Given recent event though the purchase of both phases of the MRV(P) should become an immediate priority to fully equip both our Light BCTs and eventually our Ranger Regiment and other units not being equipped with Boxer variants.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

The way I see it we should pull our thumb out and order 1000 Bushmasters and 300 Vikings in

APC
C&C
SP Mortar
Air defence ( with Rapid Ranger HVM / LMM )
Over Watch ( with 18 GL Brimstone )
Engineer
Medic

The sad fact is we are only seeing ground launched Brimstone push on so Boris can look good the upside is we can now fit it to Boxer and MPV

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

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

Post by Luke jones »

Don't think 120 Mastiffs are going to Ukraine but may be wrong.
I thought it was 120 vehicles total Inc Stormer etc.
It doesn't make sense to send vehicles we use and need for the future.

Give any CVRT as they are going out if service now.

Why not start sending Warrior if that is not far off going out of service aswell? There must be spares of those given 700 odd to start. 2025 is OSD.

What about bulldog if they are kicking around. I think we upgraded 700 or 900??

As Boxer starts coming next year it will free up these two types.

Why get rid of Mastiff/Ridgeback?

MRVP is years away let's be honest.

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 »

The Mastiff isn't in the Army's 2030 transformation plan, btu rather being used as a stop gap until the MRV(P) programme actually delvers. In Ukraine it will be very useful as a specialist platform for Command, Signals, EW etc.

Sending the CVR(T)s is a good idea but the least useful version will be the Scimitar and its 30mm Rarden. The other variants, especially the Spartan and Samaritan will be exceedingly valuable as will the Sampson recovery and Sultan Command platforms. Mind you the TI sights o n the Scimitar may well be of use so who knows.

If the Scimitar is given in large numbers then Warrior could be viable with it having the same main armament and reasonable optics. It could dboth provide recce like the Scimitar as well as carry specialist weapons teams like the Spartan. WE must have s fair amount of spares knocking around, as well as surplus vehicles that could be stripped down.

Would the Ukraine be a good place to send some or all of the Panthers? They might however get confused with their Russian Cousins.

Being cynical though could the Army be happy sending all this kit as it believes it can then stiff arm the Treasury with the help of the PM, to get new replacement kit fast tracked, speeding up the whole Future Soldier programme, furher aided by the changes in the security picture in Europe and the UK's commitments to this?


User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

For me right now I would go for 1000 Bushmasters in

APC (fitted with RWS with 12.7 mm , 30mm venom , 40mm GMG )
C&C
SP Mortar
Air defence
Over watch ( with Brimstone )
Engineer
Logistics

This with the Foxhound's and Jackals we would be in a really good place

As a side we should be looking to design a new vehicle to replace Foxhound and Jackal in the mid 2030's

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: 10 May 2022, 18:02 For me right now I would go for 1000 Bushmasters in

APC (fitted with RWS with 12.7 mm , 30mm venom , 40mm GMG )
C&C
SP Mortar
Air defence
Over watch ( with Brimstone )
Engineer
Logistics

This with the Foxhound's and Jackals we would be in a really good place

As a side we should be looking to design a new vehicle to replace Foxhound and Jackal in the mid 2030's
There is nothing wrong with bushmaster an available of the shelf purchase it’s fine. If you wanted to take a long term commonality view with industrial benefit ect and in an ideal world (which it isn’t) I would actual say bring the 6x6 boxer to production and bring back an 4x4 alavis scarab type vehicle using the same wheels and use those for MRVP requirement but I suspect there’s no appetite for such expenditure or development.

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 »

Interesting that the US has just taken delivery of JLTVs for its Special Forces equipped with Spike-NLOS. Maybe that weapon system is not dead as some would lead us to believe, nor is it as unreliable and awkward to use.

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

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

Post by leonard »

In the meantime directly from the frontlines in the East of Ukraine a good look of this Bushmaster and his RWS
These users liked the author leonard for the post:
Lord Jim

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: 02 May 2022, 03:26 Our promise to send artillery has me also questioning what we could send. We do have AS-90s in storage and the unmodified half of our M270 fleets.
Rocketry (range!) would be valuable, but the AS90s would make good resupply vehicles to the 122 mm SPGs that they have there ... the latter amphibious, as well as on par with the AS90 in x-country mobility
Luke jones wrote: 03 May 2022, 20:37 going to Ukraine but may be wrong.
I thought it was 120 vehicles total Inc Stormer etc.
Based on published sources I am thinking the same
Lord Jim wrote: 04 May 2022, 05:19 The Mastiff isn't in the Army's 2030 transformation plan
2020 was postponed for 2024... which goal was never scored
Lord Jim wrote: 04 May 2022, 05:19 If the Scimitar is given in large numbers then Warrior could be viable with it having the same main armament and reasonable optics.
A good thought... but how much of that 'unique' Rarden ammo is still there to be given, with them?
SW1 wrote: 10 May 2022, 18:57 a long term commonality view with industrial benefit ect and in an ideal world (which it isn’t) I would actual say bring the 6x6 boxer to production
Well, yes, it is so (?) modular. CFR. AMV... where the "M" is for modular, and the 6X6 entering production for several countries
These users liked the author ArmChairCivvy for the post:
SW1
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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 21 May 2022, 16:08
[quote=SW1 post_id=139661 time=<a href="tel:1652205425">1652205425</a> user_id=2026]
a long term commonality view with industrial benefit ect and in an ideal world (which it isn’t) I would actual say bring the 6x6 boxer to production
Well, yes, it is so (?) modular. CFR. AMV... where the "M" is for modular, and the 6X6 entering production for several countries
[/quote]

Yes absolutely and with fording ability too. The poles have a very significant number too.

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 21 May 2022, 16:08 A good thought... but how much of that 'unique' Rarden ammo is still there to be given, with them?
Latvians no doubt have stock and a source.
These users liked the author RunningStrong for the post:
ArmChairCivvy

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 »

Though it is linked to the Rarden in our eyes the 30mm round the gun uses is not unique to it. Other weapon systems do or have used it in the past. Isn't there similarities to Aden 30mm ammunition as well? What could be scarce id the later anti armour versions.

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: 22 May 2022, 00:52 Though it is linked to the Rarden in our eyes the 30mm round the gun uses is not unique to it. Other weapon systems do or have used it in the past.
Groping for the air-minded? I might be wrong but would like to be educated.

As for the Navy under-the-water-line penetrating munitions are available for the ATK alternative... which in my mind has been the deciding factor.
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)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote: 22 May 2022, 00:52 Though it is linked to the Rarden in our eyes the 30mm round the gun uses is not unique to it. Other weapon systems do or have used it in the past.
True, Hispano Suiza and Oerlikon KCB are chambered for it
Isn’t there similarities to Aden 30mm ammunition as well? What could be scarce id the later anti armour versions.
Only in the sense that .30 carbine cartridge is similar to the .30-06 rifle cartridge. I wouldn’t recommend loading one into a gun chambered for the other.
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post:
Lord Jim

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: 22 May 2022, 00:52 What could be scarce id the later anti armour versions.
Indeed. The 23 mm (Ukraine must have loadsa) can be used against mech infantry (depending on what they ride in) and 'my' recommended load-up is one in three an AP round and the other two (I believe what was produced for the AA, original, use) HE
... so whether all or some of the infantry have demounted, they will all be 'in for a treat'

That makes for a nice 2 km zone, if my memory serves (as opposed to the AA range)
... now! Where can we find enough pick ups with an armoured cabins? Didn't the NL just buy abt a thousand Amaroks from VW. As they are under a lease, Germany could count that against their 'somewhat' laggard profile
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)

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 »

Would be a nice fire support platform for teh Ukrainian Tank Hunter Infantry units. Small units for say two Armoured Pick Up as Infantry Carriers and carrying a 12.7mm HMG compliments by a third with a ZU-23-2 bolted on the back.

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

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

Post by leonard »

First video confirming the presence of the
Wolfhound in training with the Ukranian Army. The number of this vehicle wich was donated by the UK to the Ukraine is given to be 80 .

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 »

Well that is one way of effectively reducing the number of vehicles the Army sees no future use for. Better they have them that some American AFV collector.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

leonard wrote: 30 May 2022, 06:22 First video confirming the presence of the
Wolfhound in training with the Ukranian Army. The number of this vehicle wich was donated by the UK to the Ukraine is given to be 80 .
If I was them I would be fitting 81mm mortars on the back and using them for fire support given they already have a 12.7mm fitted

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

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

Post by Timmymagic »

Thank christ for that.....

JLTV dead. Hopefully we'll buy a Uk solution...ahem Foxhound.


sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

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

Post by sol »

Timmymagic wrote: 31 May 2022, 14:21 JLTV dead. Hopefully we'll buy a Uk solution...ahem Foxhound.
If I am not wrong, Foxhound production was closed years ago. So I doubt it is an option, in fact it was also supposed to eventually be replaced with MRV-P. Considering this part from Shephard article ...
A spokesperson for the UK MoD confirmed to Shephard that the army has ended the proposed MRV-P Package 1, which comprised acquisition of JLTVs. ‘This difficult decision took into consideration affordability and the requirement to deliver several major army programmes within the same period,’ the official stressed.
... whole program might be further delayed and the Army should stick with current vehicles for some time

Post Reply