Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

[Ron5]

They do look good, sigh ..

[mr.fred]

They do look good, sigh ..

I respectfully disagree.

[Ron5]

They do look good, sigh ..

I respectfully disagree.

Handsome is as handsome does

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

They do look good, sigh ..

Agreed. They also look waaay better in green than tan as well in my opinion. I reckon they'd look pretty good in British Army two tone!

[Jake1992]

I personally think they’re quiet ugly vehicles, the best looking in this sort of class for me is either the Foxhound or Hawkei.

I don’t know why but to me the Foxhound has that much more British feel to it where you can really see the Americanness of the JLTV.
It might the more narrow appearance of the Foxhound in comparison, much more like looking at a defender than a Hummer.

[Tempest414]

However you can buy almost 3 JTVL for every 1 Foxhound

[ArmChairCivvy]

buy almost 3 JTVL for every 1 Foxhound

Is that true (sticker price vs. our version)?
- deliveries to the US are running at 1 in three with uparmoring kit, whereas I believe (as it is v foggy around this prgrm/ order) all of ours will be uparmoured from Day1

And, if we only add the armour kit (once the vehicle has been prepared in the depo, the crew can put it on in half an hr in the 'field') and Bowman, why is the testing going to go on for ANOTHER year when the deliveries are running like T-Fords used to, off the production line?
- my guess is that we are simply managing inter-year budgets within the MoD... do they have an internal Dept called 'the shunting yard' as there seems to be so much of work of that ilk

[SW1]

Heard these comparisons before with the buy US line. Look how well that’s worked out on f35, p8, e7, chinook ect.

[ArmChairCivvy]

chinook ect.

Rather than that on the list (I take it you refer to the 'glass cockpit, homegrown to 'British' rqrmnts), which I count as an own goal, the Apache 'thing' would fit: forgetting training from the budget so the hardware was then sitting around forever, doing nothing

[Tempest414]

At today's rates foxhounds 928,000 is 1.3 million dollars even if we brought the armour package for every other vehicle we could still get two JLTV for each foxhound

I am not against foxhound but we need wheels on the ground so to say and would happy if we had 600 Foxhound and say 600 RG-35 6x6 for the light BCT's

[Ron5]

Heard these comparisons before with the buy US line. Look how well that’s worked out on f35, p8, e7, chinook ect.

The JLTV is coming down in price to a point that the US Army is getting more vehicles than originally stated in the contracts for the same price. Quite remarkable.

[SW1]

People compare the price of whatever the US buys things at and then assumes that the U.K. will buy them for the same price. Only to be shocked when a billion or two is added to the price. Enter your favourite bit of U.S equipment here.

The foxhound to which JLTV is always compared for example was procurement at a standard with all the extra to deploy immediately to Afghanistan. What is the cost of JLTV with all the toys added for immediate deployment to a high threat operation.

If JLTV is what is being proposed then it has to be assembled in the U.K. with full U.K. independence to modifying and equip anything it wishes and to test it here without recourse to U.S. if that is not on the table and that price compared to an equivalent such as foxhound then it’s not a viable option.

[ArmChairCivvy]

we could still get two JLTV for each foxhound

I am not against foxhound but we need wheels on the ground so to say and would happy if we had 600 Foxhound

I'm happy with the 400 - we never ordered the Patrol Version/ pod; something to consider? At least the pods

What is the cost of JLTV with all the toys added for immediate deployment to a high threat operation.

Effectively, that was my question
- of course, we could decide on a mix (like the USMC and their - US - army have done) because it is all 'retro-fittable'

[Lord Jim]

But because Foxhound was developed to hit the ground running in Afghanistan, is it actually possible to remove any of the kit or is it integral to the design, whereas with the JLTV the extra armour etc. are addons. If this is the case then we could follow the US example and not have every JLTV at TES but have say kits for half the fleet.

As far as testing, surly this involves making sure the vehicles do what is said on the tin, as US trials will have ensured it meets the respective NATO standards. If we have to reinvent the wheel every time we introduce a new platform already in use elsewhere in NATO, then in my opinion it is one of the reasons we are wasting money.

The cost of fitting Bowmen should not be a major exercise either, and I wouldn't be surprised if the ground work for this has not already been done since the JLTV was selected as the preferred choice for the MRV(P) Phase 1. I would make sense for the Manufacturer to work with the MoD on this to improve the chances of a contract being let.

Even if we only get one basic and one full spec JLTV for the price of a Foxhound it will still be worth it. Even if the UK workshare is low, we cannot have out hands tied by the level of UK involvement, if this is so important then the Government needs to fork out more cash, otherwise this policy is going to bite the MoD in the arse and push up costs, when there is no room to do so what so ever. And cost will go up as economies of scale and/or lower labour costs come into play.

[SW1]

It’s not just about armour. What camera systems are on it, what radio systems are on it what ew systems are available to, what sort of tracking systems are on. But all these it can’t cost so much extras need to be upfront and in the contract not sneaked in a couple years down the line and result buy cut because we bluffed it to make the investment case “work”

As for testing it’s not just about testing the initial vehicles, what if I want to integrate a future UK radio system, a future UK remote weapon station, different seats, or anything else you can think of. Do I have to go and ask the US’s permission, do I need the US prime and its staff in the US to do it and end up where ever we are in there queue do I need to use US test vehicles on US test ranges or is all of that done in the UK by people employed here.

I get the impression we end up here all the time because we simply do no want to spend money on maintenance and support contracts and want whatever the US has simply because whenever we deploy somewhere we simply want to use the US military’s supply chain as the borrowers in chief!.

[ArmChairCivvy]

at TES

this whole TES thing is horses for courses, ie. it means nothing ( as in stds being pre-set)
- we have Warriors (ambulances and other) for use in A-stan; the other were held (note the tense; don't know about the status) in Cyprus for use by a Theatre Reserve AI bn... ambulances can be used as long as any of the special versions will be supported; well past 2025

Even if we only get one basic and one full spec JLTV for the price of a Foxhound it will still be worth it.

- agreed

And we already were going to buy 3000 Merc 4x4s to replace the Landies (a wider wheelbase eliminated, or would have, the problems with using a narrow and tall vehicle as a weapons platform). But then we went to Iraq, and found out that buying something else made more sense
... so, a bit like with PPE, we bought everything in sight. Most of it good; some not so (Vector?)

But: The basis for me agreeing is that now we have the BCT roles more clearly delineated:
- only leaves the two Light BCTs, 16X ( the new Airmobile BCT that is) and the two bn-strength units of the RM (already kitted out for most circumstances) to consider
- and of course a lot of units that 99% are not meant to be in the direct fire zone (distributed battlefield and all that; might make an adjustment to that - but how big?)

[Lord Jim]

Ok alternatively should we call it Combat Spec, or High Threat Spec then? Rather than using UORs to buy add on kits, shouldn't we hold a quantity of addon sets, made up of the kit needed to make a platform ready for combat. To me their should only be one standard, so either you are at home and next to zero threat and so use the vanilla version, or you go somewhere where you might get shot at so you fit the kit. No levels of threat variation and so on, just keep it simple. Not being in an adequately protected vehicle just makes you and easier and therefore more likely target these days in my book.

[SW1]

A domestic industrial strategy

[ArmChairCivvy]

for medium intensity

[Tempest414]

A domestic industrial strategy

Which could be said for Australia as well with Bushmaster and Hawkei

[SW1]

Yep a both countries have smaller budgets than we do! We talk a gd game and buy American

[Tempest414]

We could have the same if we took on the BAE RG-35 4x4 and 6x6 design and developed and built it in Newcastle

[SW1]

We could have the same if we took on the BAE RG-35 4x4 and 6x6 design and developed and built it in Newcastle

Do they still have that? I thought it was sold ages ago

[Tempest414]

Which the RG-35 or Newcastle

[ArmChairCivvy]

A domestic industrial strategy

Which could be said for Australia as well with Bushmaster and Hawkei

The IFV, likewise, will be built/ assembled in Australia.