Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

British military to shed some of their blast proof vehicles

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

British military to shed some of their blast proof vehicles

Old 14th Jul 2020, 12:11
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 18,205
British military to shed some of their blast proof vehicles

Nearly 750 armored vehicles purchased by the British Ministry of Defence to combat the threat of roadside bombs in Afghanistan are being axed from the Army’s force structure.
Bye Bye to the Mastiff, Ridgeback and Wolfhound armored fleets which are to be pensioned off in the latest drawdown of vehicles under the Land Environment Fleet Optimisation Plan (LEFOP) by the British Army, MoD procurement minister Jeremy lawmakers this month.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/e..._source=clavis

It would appear the navy is struggling to form the carrier fleets as well.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...-strike-group/
NutLoose is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2020, 12:21
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: England
Posts: 368
Maybe an investment to counter the Chelsea tractors that think they own the roads.
Capt Scribble is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2020, 13:15
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 987
There’s a bit more to the story. The MRV-P (Multi Role Vehicle - Protected) contract has been awarded to Oshkosh for 700+ highly survivable JLTVs, with the potential for more - MoD just need to clear the Business Case. Boxer has also been ordered. What the Army is doing is rationalising all of the various UOR buys and their complex (read expensive....) support arrangements. We forget that UORs are inevitably compromises, and biased towards the ‘T’ in ‘TCP’. They are also (unsurprisingly) optimised to the Campaign they are purchased to support, so may be poorly configured for more general use or long term supportability and upgrade.
Evalu8ter is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2020, 18:24
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Newport
Posts: 5
Originally Posted by Evalu8ter View Post
There’s a bit more to the story. The MRV-P (Multi Role Vehicle - Protected) contract has been awarded to Oshkosh for 700+ highly survivable JLTVs, with the potential for more - MoD just need to clear the Business Case. Boxer has also been ordered. What the Army is doing is rationalising all of the various UOR buys and their complex (read expensive....) support arrangements. We forget that UORs are inevitably compromises, and biased towards the ‘T’ in ‘TCP’. They are also (unsurprisingly) optimised to the Campaign they are purchased to support, so may be poorly configured for more general use or long term supportability and upgrade.
Not quite right, the JLTV is only for MRV-P Package 1, which are the command & liaison and utility roles. Package 2 for an ambulance and troop transport is still up for selection, though the only competitors are now the Bushmaster and the GD Eagle 6x6
madhon is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2020, 18:54
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,429
Nutloose,

Totally inaccurate and misleading thread title, try;

"British military to shed some of their blast proof vehicles, keep others, and order some new ones..."
pr00ne is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2020, 21:38
  #6 (permalink)  
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: The Gulf Coast
Posts: 830
As Mod:
pr00ne, I've revised it. Do you feel that title will suffice? Your suggestion was a bit long for a headline.
If any of our contributors can link this matter (that Nutloose has brought to our attention) to military aviation, to whit, how many one can carry in what kind of transport aircraft, that would be of interest to at least one reader.
T28B is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2020, 23:40
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 18,205
It also effects the ability of the Army to conduct similar future operations, which would have a knock on effect to putting aviation on the ground.
I did also link to the ongoing probs with the carrier fleet which involve the aviation side.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2020, 00:00
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,045
The RAF Regiment currently use Jackal, Foxhound and Panther.
RAFEngO74to09 is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2020, 06:34
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: not scotland
Posts: 199
I flew from Bastion to KAF on a J with a Jackal beside me.
Toadstool is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2020, 08:52
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 987
JLTV fits in C17, C130 and A400. Can be underslung by a -47 and -53......
Evalu8ter is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2020, 09:59
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: various locales
Posts: 1,639
MPs have accused the Ministry of Defence of a "lamentable" failure to properly fund new military equipment required for the armed forces.

BBC report


Green Flash is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.