I’ve just finished reading the excellent “Night Action” by Captain Peter Dickens which tells the story of his experiences in WWII as a MBT Flotilla commander. In my view it is a good example of the challenges faced in both developing the right equipment and establishing effective tactics in what was a crucial arena of the war.
In the pre-war period the Admiralty had neglected this area and had focused funds on larger ships, in the mistaken thought that a light craft capability could be easily rebuilt in an emergency. The reality was that it took 3 years, half way through the war, to get to the position where the RN could effectively compete in this area with equipment such as the Fairmile D “Dog Boat” MGBs.
A brief look at sea depths around the world show that the key areas of conflict (Persian Gulf, Mediterranean, South China Sea and even the Baltic Sea) partially, if not completely, fall into the shallow water (Littoral zone) category. Additionally, recent “incursions” from our Russian friends off the coast of Scotland / grand standing in the English Channel and by the Spanish in the waters off Gibraltar, demonstrate that this area is not just about global power projection.
With the SDSR coming up, and the focus once more on large units which are optimised for deep sea operations such as the Global Combat Ship, is history repeating itself?
With the expected output from the MHPC programme and modular MCM (instead of specialist small ships), it seems likely that deep water navy frontline requirement for the RN will result in a fleet of approximately 30 vessels, being made up of a mixture of T45s, T26s, OPVs and specialist hydrographic/ice patrol ships. But what are the plans for the shallow water fleet?
There have been many discussions on whether the RMs will get the CB90 to replace the slow LCVP Mk5, but this has gone very quiet recently. Also, with recent engine refits to the P2000s it seems that the RN is content keeping the current small fleet staying as is. But is this enough?
For a bit of New Year fun, whilst we work up to and recover from our hangovers, I would like to pose the following question – “Should the RN be looking at a new class of light craft? If so, what are the key requirements?”
In this the final post in the series I am going to look at a handful of technologies and systems that might be used in the MRV(P), CAV and NAV(P) described in Part 9., and one or two other vehicles.
Small Stuff
Hand Trucks
In the Air Despatch post I described one of the old capabilities we have let lapse, the Airborne Trolley. Although Paras can carry small buildings on their backs wheels are a wonderfully simple and effective invention, quads might not always be available after all and there is no doubt they aid mobility whilst reducing stress on the body.
This news piece about Afghanistan from 2006 illustrates the problem, hauling water with stretchers.
Zarges make large wheels and handles for some of their larger boxes and Hinterher, an ultra lightweight trolley with Zarges fittings. We might also look at the rescue market where a number of manufacturers make rough terrain wheeled stretchers, the angling market also has some interesting solutions.
Airborne Trolley
For moving pallets, on the bottom rung of the simplicity ladder is the hand truck, a much neglected piece of equipment!
We us all manner of hand pallet trucks of course but they all require a good surface. From Midland Pallet Trucks in the West Midlands is the RTT12 Rough Terrain Hand Pallet truck Rough terrain powered hand trucks are also available from many manufacturers such as Conhersa, Vestil and Kropf. They can be petrol, battery or gas powered and would very useful for moving pallets around temporary base areas where ground conditions might not be perfect.
Quads
With the withdrawal of the 6×6 All Terrain Mobile Platform and the Universal Engineering/Supacat FLPT trailer the Army, especially light role forces, will use quad bikes and trailers. If there is to be no like for like replacement for ATMP we might seek to exploit further the in service quad bikes with a range of specialist trailers and accessories.
[the_ad id=”53382″]
Fork lift attachments for moving lightweight pallets or boxes, pallet trailers and powered trailers could all find roles.
Cargo Handling on MRV(P)
The more I think about MRV(P) the more I think it is a flawed concept based upon assumptions about future operating environments that have more than a dose of wishing future operating environments are what we want, not what they will be.
That said, one of the highlights and key requirement for MRV-P is a pallet handling system for unit stores, which is of course, the real interesting part!
Lifting a pallet or two presents an interesting challenge, do you go for a hydraulic jib or something like a mini DROPS hooklift?
Hydraulic Loader Jib
Hydraulic loader are available from a large number of suppliers so instead of looking at all of them I have picked one.
The 300kg HIAB 026T can lift a NATO ammunition pallet at 1.8 tonnes to an 1.4m outreach, enough to lift it directly from a cargo vehicle load bed, a DROPS rack on the ground or even an air drop pallet. At lower weights longer outreach distance is available, 550kg at 4.6m for example. A number of accessory attachment are also available to extend the utility of the basic lifting device such as rotators, buckets, weighing systems and pallet forks.
Smaller devices are available and some can be manually or electrically powered, eliminating hydraulics as a trade off for lower performance.
Hooklift
If speed is required the time taken to deploy the outriggers and connect any lifting strops might create a problem so an alternative might be to use a smaller DROPS style hooklift.
Again, HIAB make a suitable example, the Light Range having a capacity between 2 tonnes and 7 tonnes.
XR Light range hooklift – XR 2S
XR 2S hooklift on Ford Transit.
Customer GMC Truck with Multilift XR5 and Yellow Bin
With a required payload of >2.5 tonnes the MRV(P) could use the smaller of the HIAB range to lift a small flatrack carrying a couple of standard pallets, quadcon/tricon or pallet boxes such as the JMIC.
A few years ago OVIK created their Iveco Daily 4×4 based Cameleon with Edbro LN hooklift, I thought at the time this was a neat solution and it might have some utility for the MRV(P).
Cameleon Patrol
Cameleon Rack
Camelon Power
An alternative to a hooklift, but in the same ballpark, is the Stellar Industries X-tra Lift which would require a pallet to be dragged off as the vehicle drives forward, or use a wheeled pallet.
Skiploader
A hooklift does not add a great deal of weight but it does increase the height, raising the centre of gravity. An alternative is a skip loader as used by the German KMW Mungo.
The Mungo is I think the only vehicle of its type that uses a skip loader, constrained by internal height of the CH-53.
Pallet Trailers
Pallet trailers could equally be used by any small vehicle, perhaps even a Quad Bike.
Manufacturers include EHS, Lift n Go and Perimeter Security, the latter also produce an adjustable version that can be used for small containers and concertina wire coils.
The self storage and moving industries have come up with a few innovative solutions using lightweight containers that are optimised for volume rather than weight.
Truck Mounted Forklift
Although there are many JCB Telelifters in service and alternative to putting pallet handling equipment to a vehicle is to use a demountable forklift. You can go manned or remote controlled, Palfinger or MDB for example.
Unmanned
Worthy of a post all on its own there is a great deal of potential for unmanned autonomous cargo handling equipment. The MoD has conducted some research activity but the running is certainly being made by the DoD.
Fuel
In between the large fuel tankers and jerrycan, there is not a great deal. Although multiple jerrycans can be pallet cage loaded an IBC size fuel container offers a useful intermediate size that would be useful for smaller locations and reduce manual handling. The offshore and mining industries have provided the impetus for development in this area.
Western Global of Bristol have a full range, from plastic injection moulded to steel construction. Forklift pockets or top lifting lugs provide handling flexibility.
With the MRV(P) having an integral pallet handling system it might be an opportunity to look at this intermediate container size.
Big Stuff
Pallet Containers
Look at images of Combat Logistic Patrols in Afghanistan and you will see a mix of flat racks and containers being used and in many of these images you will also see very poor space utilisation on both the flat rack and container. As I have said in many previous posts we need to reduce the manpower to pallet/load ratio and maximise packing density. It is the norm that logistics trucks max out on volume or space before they do on weight and if we are going to see an increase in the use of intermodal containers in all kinds of military logistic support operations we need to think about maximising the cube. In Part 8 I showed how the use of pallet wide containers and internal pallet racking on containers could be employed at low impact and cost and both would dramatically increase utilisation for palletised stores. Smaller containers like Tricons, Bicons and Quadcons, employed in conjunction with shelving and racking systems like those from Seabox, BOH, Cave Systems, MSS and Ban Air can also increase density for unitised stores.
For small parts I think the slide out shelving systems from Seabox, BOH and Cave Systems show great potential bit for larger stores, pallets and bulk pallets (liquids for example) the MSS Shark Cage and Ban Air Rack Box, combined with side opening or curtain-side containers provide equally large potential so I have replicated the content from the previous post below.
These containers can be lifted onto the load bed of a standard truck or lifted using the EPLS hooklift vehicles already in service. If the container is not being unloaded onto the ground there is no need for a hooklift, pallets are unloaded using the in service JCB Telehandlers and transferred to smaller vehicles if needed. The container could also be pre-positioned at a replen RV, delivered to a location ready for unloading and the unloaded container picked up by a suitable vehicle on the return leg of the logistics patrol.
All sorts of flexible deployment options become available by combining side opening containers with internal pallet racking.
Sidelifters
The most common means of loading and unloading containers without the use of external lifting equipment is the hooklift as used on DROPS and EPLS vehicles but as we saw with the Rail Transfer Equipment, the sidelifter is worth considering.
Sidelifters keep the container level and more importantly, can transfer the container to or from another vehicle, trailer or rail freight car. Because the hydraulics equipment is not situated underneath the load the centre of gravity is lower than hooklifts, an important mobility consideration. Instead of chains, container top spreaders can be used to reduce time and improve safety. Lifting two 20ft containers at once and stacking two high is also possible with most sidelifters.
Sidelifters have come a long way since the early unreliable rail transfer equipment and compared to container handlers life the Kalmar RTCH are a fraction of the cost for only a small reduction in capability, three high stacking for example.
Mobitainer
The Faun FUG was developed in the late nineties and is now sold by Drehtaineras the Mobitainer, it is an off road dedicated solution for the transport of 20ft containers with an ability to stack two and load and unload standard trucks.
This is a novel concept and one which keeps the centre of gravity low, improving mobility and could be copied with current vehicle technology for commonality.
Why NAV(P), how about more trailers?
A possible non articulated alternative is to use more articulated trailers, funnily enough!
There are obvious mobility disadvantages to using articulated vehicles but with improving trailer mobility and the ability to really maximise volumes I think there are opportunities to exploit for some circumstances, they cannot of course replace the non articulated truck but increasing use of trailers is worth exploring.
The container racks shown above hints at the potential for increasing pallet utilisation on trailers.
In the civilian logistics world double deck trailers are commonplace. Some solutions can push the pallet count to over 50, pushing things even further, Argos have recently taken delivery of a number of 60 pallet trailer bodies. Whilst not exactly replicating these high pallet trailers exactly, the underlying technology, whether fixed deck or moving deck combined with an improved mobility trailer (like those from Broshuis). The space used for road trailer above the gooseneck could not be used where significant movement is expected, off road for example.
Double Deck Pallet Truck
Articulated trailers can also accommodate 40 foot containers, or two 20 foot, or 8 Quadcons. 40ft containers are not widely used in the forward supply chain because they are difficult to handle but with sidelift they become much easier to use. Sliding skeleton trailers can be used to adjust the weight distribution so improving mobility
Hooklift trailers are also widely used in the waste management and agricultural sectors.
Why Trucks, how about tractors?
If we can make greater use of trailers for pallet and container logistics it follows that the same level of questioning can be applied to the front end, do we actually need trucks or can we use tractors or articulated loaders instead? Trucks provide the optimum solution for road use but go off-road and tractor type units offer greater mobility. Sitting in between are vehicles like the JCB Fastrac and those from Multidrive and the construction and mining industries provide another solution using articulated loaders.
Articulated Dump Trucks
Articulated dump trucks are designed for rough terrain and heavy loads, they are not suitable for sustained or long distance road use as the method of steering articulates the two bodies instead of turning wheels. On roads, tire wear can be significant but some applications might benefit from adapting these vehicles. Swedish forces use Volvo articulated loaders fitted with hook loaders and side lifters. A Volvo A30 articulated dump truck also forms the basis of the Archer self propelled artillery gun which has a 4 man armoured crew cab.
Archer self propelled artillery gun and resupply vehicle
With an armoured 4 man cab like that on the Archer system and an armoured pod replacement for the dump truck body could this combination combine the protection of Mastiff with the mobility of a tracked vehicle.
We already have a podded solution with Foxhound, the concept is proven, scaling it up should not present any insurmountable engineering challenges.
Germany and Sweden has an ISO container sized personnel transit box called Transpotec from EADS that can carry 18 personnel. The Bundeswehr has also taken delivery of a number of ambulance versions. US forces also have a similar system in service called the PLS Personnel Carrier.
Just to be clear, am not advocating this for anything other than personnel transport i.e. not combat operations, but the concept, in a similar vein to Foxhound, is proven.
Foxhound WMIK Pod
Oshkosh Armoured Troop Carrier
However, if we take the concept and make a smaller, articulated hauler specific version that sits inside the natural V shape between the rear wheels, add in protected seating, communications and weapon systems, you have a vehicle would be in the same weight and protection class as Mastiff but have dramatically increased mobility
Multidrive, for those that have not read this post were (and are) a British engineering company that pioneered a revolutionary powered trailer system. Read more about the history at the link but the equipment that did come into service was widely regarded as brilliant and as fast off road as a greased weasel!
The key to their offroad mobility was a splined power transfer system and rear steer bogie. Difficult to explain, watch the videos below of this amazing vehicle and browse for more at the Multidrive Vehicle YouTube Channel
CVR(T) Scorpion on a Multidrive truck
JCB Fastrac
The RAF have used these air aircraft tractors (Unimog replacement) for Harrier operations and although a number have appeared in the usual ex MoD sales channels I think they could provide an effective solution able to cover a number of roles. They combine the pulling power of a tractor with high road speed and manoeuvrability.
Fastracs can be fitted with a front mounted lift arm (forklift) with 3.5 tonnes capacity so the same vehicle that transports pallets on a trailer could unhitch it and then unload those pallets, loading them on to smaller vehicles, a neat and efficient solution. This combination would not offer all the features of a dedicated telehandler but it would be sufficient for simple pallet transfer.
With all round suspension, ABS and a powerful engine the large Fastracs can travel at 70kph whilst towing a 24 tonnes trailer, with a heavier trailer speeds are reduced.
Hooklift, dumper, various low loaders and tanker trailers are available.
They can also be fitted with a rear hydraulic loader arm, 3.5 tonnes rear deck, chassis extensions and the RAF could get onto the commonality bandwagon by using them in the runway snow clearance role, as they do at Luton airport. Stretched versions have been produced, extra axles fitted and all manner of hydraulic loaders and shovels integrated, the Fastrac is a versatile machine.
The Health and Safety Executive have published an interesting paper on the crossovers, legal issues and trailer restrictions on the subject of using the Fastrac as a HGV replacement, read it here
If the Fastrac could be modified with the Multilift style powered trailer technology then that would provide a very high mobility solution that could be equally useful on road, albeit not for very long distance travel. One problem that would have to be addressed is protection and crew seating; protection against blast would be assisted by the central crew pod position instead of the seating position being directly over the wheels but it is good practice to have two personnel in each vehicle to provide overwatch, navigation assistance and other functions. Although they do have a passenger seat there might be some additional work required.
By combining the functions of C and B vehicles, a Fastrac type vehicle could provide some very interesting options in the logistics and plant area and looking sideways at the Fastrac, I wonder how well it would meet the MRV(P) requirements with a crew pod?
In fact, the more I look at the Fastrac the more I see a Unimog without the crew sitting over the wheels.
Turning the Container into a Trailer
Taking a completely different tack, the novel idea of using the steel container as its own trailer and just adding wheels has been developed y a couple of organisations
The Airlift Global Carrier is a wheeled system that includes a special container and flatrack system used for both transport and C130 aircraft loading without specialist airport equipment. It also serves as the prome mover for the MBDA Spada anti aircraft missile system. An armoured version has also been recently introduced. Manual container dolly sets or mobilisers are quite common but mostly used in ports and logistics hubs so low speeds and smooth road surfaces are the norm, the AGC extends this concept to longer distances and rougher terrain whilst adding a very useful C130 loading and unloading capability.
CDK and Cignys take a similar approach but with a focus on container mobilisation rather than the tractor unit. They make a few different models catering for different loads and regulatory environments but all have three functions; aircraft loading, transport and handling. The Container Loading Trailer comes in two parts that are connected to the ends of a container.
For transport, the two components fit in a single 20ft intermodal container and when deployed can be used for short distance transport, loading and unloading containers without the use of dedicated equipment and aircraft loading. It is a neat system that eliminates the need for hooklift vehicles and container handling plant, it is a neat system.
Demountable Modules
Engineering
If the decision is made to cease using the Iveco’s (and I think it makes some sense to do so) another option presents itself. Instead of turning an MAN HX truck into a MAN HX dumper truck we could make use of the larger EPLS fleet and instead, make demountable tipper and concrete mixers. By not relying on a small fleet of specialist vehicles but instead, the larger fleet of general purpose EPLS type vehicles we are able to separate serviceability of the truck from availability of the specialist payload.
The US Army take this approach with their Oshkosh Palletized Load System (PLS) and the HEMTT vehicles, equivalent to DROPS/EPLS. The PLS includes a Dump Body M6, Concrete Mobile Mixer M5, Fuel Farm, Water Distributor, Bituminous Distributor M4 and the interesting Flatrack-Mounted Armoured Troop Carrier (FRES UV here we come!)
The Fauntrackway system is available in a demountable format also.
Yet again there are off the shelf military and civilian options, many of them in widespread service.
Oshkosh EMM M6 Dump Body
If this approach can be realised with the engineering modules the question must be asked, can the same be achieved with refuelling and tankers?
Fuel and Water
Fuel tankers look exactly what they are, high value targets.
Both the Oshkosh articulated high capacity tankers and lower capacity MAN SV based tankers are distinctive in appearance and beyond differences in capacity and mobility, carry out the same role. For operations in Afghanistan the MoD purchased 20 ISO tank container based Fuel Dispensing Racks from WEW in Germany. As noted in a previous post these are ground mounted and not used whilst mounted on the vehicle.
Although tank containers are less distinctive than traditional bulk fuel tanks they are still obviously a fuel tank so taking this a step further would see the tank simply contained within a conventional intermodal container.
Close Support Tanker (CST) (Image Credit – Plain Military)
MAN SV Unit Support Tanker (UST)
WEW Fuel Dispensing Rack
]
Instead of specialist vehicles (inc trailers) for fuel, water and other stores we could move to a model that used utility vehicles for everything, this allows us to flex up and down easily depending on the nature of the operation or phase within it using a smaller number of vehicles.
For a higher capacity tanker replacement we could either use a 40ft container or simply connect two 20ft units.This moves us away from specialist tanker vehicles.
The Unit Support tanker carries 7,000 Litres, the Close Support Tanker 20,000 Litres and the Tactical Aircraft Refueller 15,000 Litres. All have metering, pumping and filtering equipment and carry an assortment of ancillary items like pipeline and manifolds. Much of the Joint Operational Fuel Systemis DROPS rack mounted but the concept could be extended.
WEWmake a full range in heated, unheated, tank only and dispensing units that scale from MRV(P) size units to a rear area fuel or water farm complete with e-learning software.
A key question would be whether a flatrack or containerised solution would be able to meet safety requirements, one would imagine fuel has a whole host of safety and environmental regulations. If so, I think there is mileage in going taking a wholly modular approach to fluids transport and dispensing.
WEW Dingo
WEW Fuel Dispensing Rack
WEW Military Fuel Container
The two ‘go to’ companies in the UK for fuel pumping and dispensing are Fluid Transfer and DESMI, bith of whom provide solutions to all three services including exotica such as the Air Delivered Bulk Fuel Installation, special forces Air Landed Aircraft Re-fuelling Point and Forward Air Refuelling Point. The mining and offshore industries provide additional options including designs that are fitted into standard containers. The US company DRS also make a similar range of productslikewise,the Canadian company SEI and from Italy, AMA. Not to forget JPC in the UK
Without any kind of space allowed for pressuration, filtration or metering equipment a 20ft tank container can hold approximately 25,000 Litres and the 40 ft tank container, 50,000 Litres. Add the ancillary equipment and these volumes will decrease but an alternative to the cylindrical tank inside a container or container frame is to use rectangular bunded tanks inside the container that maximises volumes. Square tanks may place restrictions on placement, handling and whether they can be moved with fuel inside but it is a proven method of increasing volume. The German company Tank Systemstake this approach with their Centaur and Minotaur systems, an interesting alternative that uses a number of Euro Pallet compatible stacking and interlocking ‘building blocks’ to create mobile and static solutions for transport and dispensing various types of general, aviation and marine fuels.
Container Handling
The Kalmar RT240Rough Terrain Container Handler is no doubt a fantastic bit of machinery that can lift 24 tonnes but we only have a handful hence the need for hooklift type vehicles such as DROPS and EPLS because we have nothing else in service beyond the equally exotic Terex cranes that can lift one (actually, the MAN SV Recovery Vehicle can lift 15 tonnes and the Truck Mounted Loader, 5.3 tonnes, but these would not be fully loaded containers).
For handling sub 20ft containers the number of lifting vehicles that become practicable increases.
If greater use is to be made of containers in general, it might be worth looking at other handling options.
Spreaders
Where situations dictate the use of non specialised container lifting equipment a spreader frame increases speed and safety. The twistlocks are activated by pulling a toggle which eliminates the need for personnel to climb on top of the container. Bottom lug lifters are also available to avoid working at height.
Manual
Not everything has to be powered and simple mechanical equipment still has utility.
Recotechin Sweden make the 17 tonne capacity Wing Lift, Anga in Poland and Haaconin Germany also make similar equipment that can be used for limited road moves and aircraft loading.
These manual systems can be slow and have a lower lift weight but the advantage of not needing power is obvious,especially for the wheeled lifting jacks. They also allow containers to be loaded and unloaded from vehicles without any MHE.
Powered
Although manual systems are cheap and easy to use they often lack speed and lifting capacity. Moving containers around rear storage areas is usually done by equipment like container forklifts at the Kalmar but as mentioned above, are difficult to deploy, expensive and few in number.
Other powered systems might not have the reach or stacking capacity of the Kalmar but are much lower cost and easier to deploy.
The most simple type is like the manual systems above, corner jacks and hoists, but of course, powered.
Container mobilisers are similar in concept to the large shuttle and straddle carriers seen in container terminals. They are much easier to transport although may require some assembly in theatre, can operate on moderate to poor surfaces and can be easily used indoors or where space is tight due to a low height and small footprint.
Best of all, compared to the Kalmars of this world, are as cheap as chips.
Combilift, ISO Loader, Meclift and Mobicon are notable manufacturers in this space, the latter selected by the US Navy for moving containers on and off LCS.
The Combilift is delivered in two 20ft containers and takes about a day to build.
The Mobicon straddle carrier uses two lifting frames that operate together rather than the rigid frame of the combilift. Mobicon also make a soft terrain version that because of the low container height are not vulnerable to tipping over should a soft patch or hole be encountered, they are more or less tip proof.
The Meclift is intended for use on storage yards but it reminds me of the Mobitainer aboce and which may be an alternative to using a hooklift trailer, the centre of gravity is much lower than a hooklift.
Series Summary
This has been an interesting series to write and has hopefully shown the dull and boring (to some) world of military logistics in a better light. At the beginning I wrote that the MoD has bigger fish to fry than boxes and pallets but as can be seen, there are innovative solutions in both the civilian and military domains that can deliver improvements in capability and reductions in cost, reducing cost is the way to preserve combat power.
When I wrote about the issues and range of potential solutions for pallets and containers in the previous post I came to the conclusion that barring some major investment in a metric JMIDS like capability across the three services and the joint supply chain the best we could hope for is a greater use of sub 20 foot containers for unit loads and container inserts for unit stores. The impact would potentially be relatively minor because the mechanical handling equipment already in service for pallets handling can mostly be utilised for these smaller containers, within certain constraints.
The logical next step is to examine the means to move those boxes, pallets and containers; trucks and trailers.
An Eclectic Mix of Vehicles
To describe the logistics vehicles in service (or recently left) within the confines of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) as an eclectic mix is the charitable thing to do. Less charitable types might describe the fleet as a dogs breakfast resulting from a series of incoherent, illogical and short term service-centric decisions.
Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan required the purchase of a number of vehicles under the UOR process because simply put, the existing fleet was inadequate for the conditions and threats encountered. As operations ceased the decision was made to bring all the UOR vehicles into the core fleet as a transition to Future Force 2020 in which it was envisaged that the fleet would get back into a more stable steady state.
SDSR 2010 also mandated a return to the UK from Germany and overall force reduction size which has contributed to the problem of trying to hit the moving target that is fleet coherence.
It is easy to be critical of the current situation but that must be tempered with the obvious need to deliver suitable vehicles to theatre; the Urgent Operational Requirement fulfilment process cannot, and should not, put the long term situation at the top of the decision process.
To try and understand how the future might be structured the current must be described.
[the_ad id=”53382″]
Multi Role Tactical Support
These vehicles are not all strictly speaking classed as operational support of multi-role but it is convenient to lump them together. I have also excluded the many flavours of the Land Rover because they are not primarily used for the movement of unit stores but have included the Pingauer, because they do and also provide the base platform for a number of specialist conversions that have relevance. Panther is also included because it falls within the MRV(P) programme that will be discussed below. Likewise Fuchs, nominally an ‘armoured vehicle’ but potentially replaced with MRV(P)
Husky is a new protected support vehicle, providing commanders with a highly mobile and flexible load carrying vehicle. This has been designed for a range of Afghanistan missions, including transporting food, water and ammunition, and acting as a command vehicle at headquarters. Some vehicles will be fitted out as protected ambulances. Equipped with a machine gun, Husky will join its sister vehicles Wolfhound and Coyote as part of the £350m Tactical Support Vehicle programme.
Jackal
Coyote Tactical Support Vehicle (TSV)
Panther
Wolfhound Dog Pod (Image Credit – Plain Military)
Mastiff
A British Ridgeback vechile drives into a camp in Kabul.
Most of these are UOR’s, the exceptions being Pinzgauer, Fuchs and Panther and some have sub variants such as Husky ambulance and recovery (from Boniface Engineering). The background for these vehicles is widely known so I am not going to go into much detail.
Non Articulated Cargo
The Army has four types of basic cargo truck in service, not including the Leyland and Foden DROPS which are practically out of service now.
There are also a collection of specialist vehicles used mostly by the RAF.
MAN Support Vehicle
The £1.3 billion Support Vehicles (SV) contract was to replace DAF 4 tonners and Bedford TM 8 and 14 tonne trucks plus assorted vehicles based on these chassis like the old Bedford TM UBRE POD’s and Foden recovery vehicles. The original contract was for 4,815 cargo trucks, 314 recovery vehicles and 69 Andover recovery trailers but following a decision not to upgrade the existing Leyland DAF 4 tonne vehicles an option for an additional 2,077 vehicles was exercised. As part of this revision, the number of recovery vehicles was reduced to 269.
Type
Axles
Name
Qty
HX60
2
Cargo (Light) Medium Mobility GS
3394
HX60
2
Cargo (Light) Medium Mobility Cargo
958
HX60
2
Cargo (Light) Medium Mobility GS CALM
84
HX60
2
Cargo (Light) Medium Mobility Cargo CALM
209
HX60
2
Cargo (Light) Medium Mobility GS tail lift
28
SUB TOTAL
4673
HX58
3
Cargo (Medium) Medium Mobility GS
264
HX58
3
Cargo (Medium) Medium Mobility Cargo
63
HX58
3
Cargo (Medium) Medium Mobility GS CALM
3
HX58
3
Cargo (Medium) Medium Mobility Cargo CALM
46
HX58
3
Unit Support Tanker Medium Mobility
230
SUB TOTAL
606
HX77
4
Cargo (Heavy) Medium Mobility GS
464
HX77
4
Cargo (Heavy) Medium Mobility Cargo
328
HX77
4
Cargo (Heavy) Medium Mobility GS CALM
12
HX77
4
Cargo (Heavy) Medium Mobility Cargo CALM
119
SUB TOTAL
923
SX44
3
Cargo (Medium) Improved Medium Mobility GS
41
SX44
3
Cargo (Medium) Improved Medium Mobility Cargo
59
SX44
3
Cargo (Medium) Improved Medium Mobility Cargo CALM
5
SX44
3
Unit Support Tanker Improved Medium Mobility
81
SUB TOTAL
186
SX45
4
Recovery Vehicle (Heavy) Improved Medium Mobility
288
Recovery Trailer AT DBT30
69
TOTAL Excluding Trailers
6,676
These quantities have been revised up following a decision to mount the FALCON communications on SV and additional EPLS conversions from the original HX77’s.
MAN Military Trucks (now Rheinmetall) produce two variants;
HX is the lower mobility variant, classed as Medium Mobility, with conventional leaf spring suspension and tipmatic gearbox. The 2 axle variant has a 326bhp engine and the 3 and 4 axle variants each have the same 440bhp engine as the SX.
Medium Mobility – HX60, 4×4
Medium Mobility – HX61, 6×6
Medium Mobility – HX58, 6×6
Medium Mobility – HX80, 6×6 tractor
Medium Mobility – HX81, 8×8 tractor
Medium Mobility – HX77, 8×8
SX has a stiffer chassis, full automatic gearbox, coil spring suspension and 440bhp diesel engine so has much greater mobility, classed as Medium Mobility
Improved Medium Mobility – SX44, 6×6
Improved Medium Mobility – SX45, 8×8
As can be seen from the table above, the Improved Medium Mobility was ordered in relatively small numbers, most being the specialist Recovery and Unit Support Tanker variants.
MAN SV Unit Support Tanker (UST)
There has been some movement on final delivery quantities since then and inevitably, the fleet size will fluctuate due to combat or non combat related damage. In the original contract a number of appliqué protection kits were purchased but these were called the Riotous Assembly Protection (RAP) kit so one can imagine the actual level of protection. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have of course influenced the programme; in 2008 Project Fortress was let to provide a protected cab, weapons mount, run-flat tires, BOWMAN twin fit, wire cutters, ECM and night driving aids for 324 vehicles.
As a follow on, 324 vehicles (including 211 FORTRESS vehicles) were upgraded to the more advanced Theatre Entry Standard. The weapons mounts were provided by ISTEC Services. All the SV load beds were supplied by Marshall.
MAN SV HX60 Project Fortress trials Vehicle
ISTEC Weapons Mount for MAN SV
Marshall loadbed for MAN SV Truck
For operations in Afghanistan, where artillery ammunition expenditure rates were relatively low and operations conducted from fixed locations the traditional role of the DROPS fleet was not required, supplying forward operating bases and general cargo movement was. With much greater use of ISO containers the MoD diverted about 90 HX77 SV’s from the core programme to be converted under an Urgent Operational Requirement called the Enhanced Palletized Load System or EPLS. Some of these have also been used for the REBS bridging system UOR and an additional 87 EPLS obtained.
EPLS can lift ISO containers without first placing them on a flatrack but in most other respects, EPLS is broadly similar to DROPS. The H Frame or Container Handling system uses ISO locks and can lift 8’0″, 8’6″ and 9’0″ containers with an optional kit for 4’0″ and 3’3″ half height containers. EPLS has been a great success in Afghanistan and will now be bought into the core fleet.
EPLS and 20ft ISO Container on DROPS Flatrack (Image Credit Plain Military)
Rapidly Emplaced Bridging System (REBS) (Image Credit – Plain Military)
The final contract was for 7,216 vehicles with additional purchases of 107 HX60 for the FALCON communications carrier, 87 HX77 EPLS (not the conversions) under a UOR contract for Operations in Afghanistan and five SX45 for the Land Environment Air Picture Provision (LEAPP). The MoD transferred four HX77 EPLS to New Zealand.
Leyland DAF 4 Tonne General Service
The original plan was to replace the Leyland DAF 4 tonne trucks with MAN SV but a number of specialised variants remain given the saga of the MAN SV’s towing some of the older trailers including FEPS and the Light Gun it looks like a number of the General Service vehicles will also remain, with minor modifications. A dedicated High Mobility Support Vehicle Trailer has been obtained from Universal Engineering.
The ALC C Vehicle PFI includes a number of Iveco Trakker vehicles;
6 Truck Mounted Volumetric Mixers fitted with Nurock Volumetric systems for precision on demand supply of various types of concrete and cements. This is especially suited for airfield damage repair where the high strength requirements call for precise mixing.
33 Truck Mounted Loaders were supplied, fitted with a Mackworth flatbed with twistlocks for securing 20ft ISO containers and a 5.3 tonne capacity TL C2 40 2E/A2 Terex Atlas lifting crane. Because the lifting arm is mounted at the back of the load bed and has a long reach and high load capacity it can fulfil many of the traditional roles of the Grove Coles cranes such as lifting containers, loading MGB pallets onto their trailers and splitting BR90 panels for inspection and build.
61 Medium Dump Trucks which have a slightly longer wheelbase (3.82m) than the other variants and are fitted with a Thompson tipping body, 2 are also be provided in a winterised/waterproof variant. Off road payload is 16 tonnes and on road, 10 tonnes.
71 Self Loading Dump Trucks fitted with an Atlas Terex TLC105.2/A1 hydraulic lifting crane with digging bucket and Thompson tipping body made using Hardox steel from MTL. The bucket can carry 350L of material and the vehicle will be used for a wide variety of combat engineering construction tasks, replacing the well used Volvo FL12 Self Loading Dump Trucks. In addition to lifting loose materials such as sand, gravel or hardcore using the bucket, the crane can also be used for engineer stores, pallets or any general materials up to 2.6 tonnes at 4.1m reach. A lower weight can be lifted out to a longer reach if needed.
In 2010, ALC contracted with Thompson and Bozeat Industrial Engineering to supply a tipping body for a protected 4 axle version of the Iveco Trakker to be called the Self Loading Dump Trucks (protected) or SLDT(P), with 24 ordered in total. The protected cab was already developed for another customer (Germany I think) so was an off the shelf item but BOWMAN, ECM and the additional bar armour added considerably to the cost of the standard unit.
The final two Iveco Trakker variants are for well drilling, the Drill Rig and Flush Capping System
SITE EQUIPMENT – Truck Mounted Volumetric Mixer
CRANE – Truck Mounted Loader 6T Terex Atlas
DUMP TRUCK – Dump Truck Med 6×6 Trakker AD380T 45W
Dando Watertec 12.8 Truck Mounted Well Driller (TMWD)
Alvis Unipower
Although not strictly a cargo vehicle the Alvis Unipower was bid as part of the HET competition but after losing to Oshkosh their new owner, BAE, no longer market the vehicle. The Army eventually took delivery of 190 Unipower 8×8 vehicles in three variants for use with the BR90 bridging system.
The C Vehicle PFI comes to the end of its term in 2020 and BR90 is currently undergoing a Capability Sustainment Assessment. The 140 or so Unipowers left (Tank Bridge Transporter, ABLE and BV) may possibly be withdrawn and the bridging components transferred to another vehicle. Malaysia is a BR90 user and uses a MAN base vehicle.
Alvis Unipower Tank Bridge Transporter (Image Credit: Tony @Plain Military)
Mostly for use on main operating bases or training areas although the RAF green fleet refuellers are meant for tactical deployments. The older ones are a mix of Dennis, Bedford’s and Scammels but the newer types are MAN TGS’s
RAF MAN Fuel Tanker
RAF Mercedes Snow Plough
RAF MAN Aircraft Refueller
Mobile Electronics Unit
Articulated Bulk
Articulated vehicles are used for bulk cargo, fluids and vehicle transport.
Close Support Tanker (CST)
The Oshkosh MTVR derived tractor unit has all wheel drive and rear wheel steering providing excellent mobility for such a large vehicle. Three trailers are in service,;
200 Close Support Tanker (CST) with 20,000 L (5280 gal) capacity
57 Close Support Tanker For Water (CSTW) with 18,000 L (4755 gal) capacity
82 Tactical Aircraft Refueller (TAR) with 15,000 L (3960 gal) capacity
The tanker trailers are provided by Magyar in France and for the refuellers, the pumping and metering equipment by Alfons Haar in Germany.
Close Support Tanker (CST) (Image Credit – Plain Military)
Close Support Tanker
Oshkosh Tactical Aircraft Refueller
Heavy Equipment Tractor (HET)
Like the Iveco Trakkers, the Oshkosh 1070F (Euro III compliant) Heavy Equipment Tractors (HET) are provided through a PFI, Fastrax, a KBR company. Starting in 2001 the 22.5 year £290m PFI provides 96 HET’s and trailers (89 King GTS 110/7 trailers and 3 Tru-Hitch recovery systems) with the drivers through FTX Logistics based in Bulford and Fallingbostel. The drivers operators are sponsored reserves.
The King Trailers are recognisable by the perforated plates on the side that flip down to support very wide vehicles like main battle tanks and the four thousand wheels!. In order to comply with relevant European legislation the width is limited to 2.9m to allow it to be unescorted and each axle is limited to 10 tonnes. The King trailers experienced mobility problems in Afghanistan due to the poor road conditions and in 2009 the MoD purchased 20 two axle trailers with a maximum payload of 45 tonnes from Broshuis in the Netherlands.
Oshkosh Heavy Equipment Transporter (HET)
King GTS 100 Trailer
Broshuis Improved Mobility Trailer
Light Equipment Tractor
The Seddon Atkinson Strato has been out of service in the Army Light Equipment Tractor role since 2012 and the Future Light Equipment Tractor programme cancelled but the interim solution has involved a handful of the MTVR tanker tractor units being used in the role with Broshuis trailers; the Interim Light Equipment Tractor. 60 three axle semi trailers were obtained in 2005 and a further 39 in 2006.
ILET (Plain Military)
Broshuis I-LET Trailer
Also in service with the MoD and RAF are a number of other tractor/trailer combinations. For nuclear weapon transport and RAF movement.
Nuclear Weapons Prime Mover (Image Credit – Plain Military)
Royal Air Force Seddon Atkinson Tractor Unit
RAF Volvo FH12 Tractor
RAF MAN TGA Truck 2 MT Squadron
Replacement Programmes
Status and Issues
‘Ruthless Commonality’ is an enduring hobby horse at TD tower not because of reasons of neatness but simply because of cost.
It is obvious that the more individual types of equipment there are in service the proportional cost to support them will be greater. No organisation can afford this and the British forces are no different to any other organisation. Whether commonality should exist at system or sub system level is an interesting debate but I think we can all agree, some sort of commonality is a Good Thing™
In the list above there are Iveco, Cummins, Caterpillar, Steyr, MAN, Mercedes, MaxxForce, Detroit, Mercedes Benz and DAF engines. At this subsystem level there will be little or no commonality and a closer look at the power ratings reveals different manufacturers engines of comparable output sitting in the logistics and support vehicle space. In the 320 to 330 BHP range, the Husky, Mastiff/Wolfhound and MAN Support vehicles all use different engines, between 400 and 450 BHP there are Cummins, Detroit, Man and Iveco engines powering the Unipower, HET, CST, MAN SV and Trakker vehicles.
Now consider things like wheels and tires, lamp clusters, power steering components, transmission parts and switchgear; all things that break and wear down. For each of these there is a NATO Stock number, an entry into a parts ordering system, a technical description and detailed procedures for changing them and not forgetting a stock holding or call off contract with suppliers.
Each vehicle will also need a range of operating training courses at DST Leconfield or maintenance courses at REME training schools, those courses will have instructors and require training vehicles, those instructors will need salaries and pensions and the course administration will need another group of people. Expensive service personnel will also have to attend those courses.
Vehicles will have support contracts managed by personnel in DE&S Abbey Wood, more salaries and pensions.
All this matters because duplication and overlap creates inefficiency, inefficiency adds unnecessary cost and unnecessary cost means a reduction in combat capability, it really is that simple.
Put the same vehicles into a deployed operation and the problems are amplified, amplified for a couple of reasons.
In a modern operational risk environment to days of soft skinned vehicles are pretty much gone so each type will have a home and away specification. Look at what was required for Theatre Entry Specification for any of the logistics vehicles, ECM, BOWMAN, armour, weapons mounts, night vision capability, situational awareness additions and wire cutters for example. Instead of doing the design/certification work once and reaping the economy of scale benefits on longer production runs there were/are numerous and very expensive design programmes and boutique vehicle modifications to small fleets because of a simple lack of commonality.
Some of these vehicles might be managed under a PFI but on operations, it is the joint supply chain that must accommodate vehicle spares diversity, a MAN brake light, an Iveco Trakker brake light and, well, I think you get the picture!
The elimination or reduction of duplication at component, sub system and system level must therefore be a key aspect of future vehicle programmes.
This is of course, all common sense and the Army is just as aware of the need to reduce duplication in order to reduce cost as anyone else but after doing the hard yards in Iraq and Afghanistan the diverse vehicle fleet cannot be consolidated overnight, it is not economically feasible to do so and also, the Army has to be ready for operations. It does not get a post Afghanistan grace period in which it can relax and sort its vehicles out.
There are multiple overlapping Out of Service Dates (OSD) to factor in to future programmes and the two key PFI’s (HET and C vehicle) will also conclude in the next decade. First out will be the C Vehicle fleet in 2010 then Wolfhound and Mastiff, in 2024, by 2025 the articulated tractors from Oshkosh will be out of service, 2027 will see Husky gone and 2030, the end of Jackal/Coyote, RWMIK, Land Rover and Pinzgauer. By 2034 the MAN Support Vehicles will be with Withams and inexplicably, Panther will soldier on until 2037.
These OSD’s are sourced from a presentation given by the head of Operational Support Programmes earlier this year, it also stated that the OSD for Foxhound was 2024. I can only assume this is a mistake, maybe the Panther (Less Protection than a Crisp Packet) OSD is 2024 and Foxhound is 2037?
Regardless, most of these OSD’s are relatively far into the future.
The responsibility for operational support vehicle replacement resides in the Operational Support Programme which includes both Operational Support Vehicles Programme (OSVP) and Protected Mobility Platforms (PMP).
The diagram below gives a good overview of current and future fleets.
Current and Future Vehicles
There are three major programmes in flight;
Multi Role Vehicle (Protected)
Future Non Articulated Bulk Capability provided by the Common Articulated Vehicle (CAV)
Future Common Articulated Bulk Capability, provided by the Non Articulated Vehicle (NAV)
All of these are intended to come into service on or around 2020, the inference being no changes to the fleet before then. Each of them also has a non too distinguished pedigree of failed predecessors, OUVS, F-LET and HLDC for example.
We might also speculate on the commercial model used for the programmes, although C Vehicle and HET PFI’s have worked pretty well I think the PFI concept is damaged goods and it would be a brave man to bet on continuance in the same format.
What is not shown on the diagram, sadly, is the C Vehicle fleet and Unipower BR90 fleet, which is either a simple omission or an opportunity lost to the lack of joined up thinking that got us in this position in the first place. It is also an Army only affair, the RAF’s MT fleet is not shown, although again, that might be a simple omission, hope so.
The Mastiff family is also undergoing a number of conversions and updatesto align with Army 2020.
Wolfhound Explosive Ordinance Disposal (WHD EOD) variant to Wolfhound Military Working Dog (WHD MWD) variant Conversion
Mastiff 1 to Mastiff 2 Conversion
Influences and Requirements
The requirements for the future programmes described above must be defined with reference to the contemporary operating environment, where and how the vehicles will operate, the range of enemy threats that must be mitigated and a range of other issues.
Although the Army in its current ‘return to contingency’ mode is seen driving non TES Challenger on Polish exercise areas this is an illusion. It is the smallest of remote possibilities that the British Army will ever deploy again into a combat environment at any kind of scale without the full ‘up armoured’ TES versions of its vehicle fleet. The contemporary operating environment also includes the contemporary risk and litigation environment, where the MoD has a duty of care to its personnel. Put the two and two together.
Pick any combination of asymmetric warfare, three block war, the nine domain challenges or ambiguous combat operations and the logistic vehicle answer is always the same, soft skinned vehicles are yesterdays news. It is a brave (or foolish) man that predicts the future conflicts the British Armed forces will be involved with but I think it would be reasonable to say the IED, RPG and AK will figure largely. In looking at the MRV(P) requirements I think there might be some element of wishing for the future to be somewhat different to what it is likely to be.
The demand for precision indirect fire and its resulting systems could also result in a complete reversal of one of the underlying driver for logistics vehicles, artillery. In the post on pallets I described how DROPS (concept and quantity) was born from a requirement to keep the AS90 self propelled guns of the Royal Artillery fed with a constant stream of ammunition in order to blunt the advancing Warsaw Pact forces in Germany. Only 32 AS90’s were deployed to Iraq in 2003 and none to Afghanistan. SDSR 2010 signalled a reduction of the AS90 fleet to 89. It should be obvious that with GMLRS and an overall reduction in force size, the demand for a DROPS fleet to support the Royal Artillery is significantly smaller. Am not ignoring or downplaying the artillery demand on the supply chain but placing it in context.
Many of the Army’s smaller logistic vehicles are deliberately constrained by C130 carriage. There is not much point having an air assault brigade if it not air mobile of course, whether this means Chinook sling loading, parachute delivery or simply flying in the back of an aircraft is another debate but what is certain is the C130 is going out of service. A few may hang on and money is currently being spent on the Block 7 software/hardware update with a lead in to 8.1 in 2019 but the venerable Hercules is on borrowed time. Which for many vehicles is a good thing because the larger A400M can now accommodate a C130 transportable vehicle with TES type modifications, unlike the C130, which in many cases cannot. The A400M is going to be the backbone of the UK tactical air transport fleet, we should be thinking about this for vehicle design and stop worrying about C130 carriage.
For 3 Commando Brigade the issue is less about air transportability and more about water and winterising, compatibility with ships and fitting on landing craft although in the current Ship to Objective Manoeuvre and Operational Mobility from the Sea context we might also need to consider what the wheezy Merlin HC4’s will be able to carry.
Personally, I think if 3 CDO and 16 AAB had any shred of self preservation instinct they would be talking to each other about merging and creating a single oversize and heavier brigade structure that still retained rapidity of response and high mobility courtesy of Messer’s Chinook, A400M and LCVP Mk10, but like whether air mobility means parachutes or helicopters, that argument is for another post!
SV Scout and its family will present the Army with another logistic challenge. DROPS could carry, and has carried on many operations, a pair of CVR(T). The articulated light and heavy equipment transporter fleet could comfortably carry two, without breaking the merest hint of a sweat. They could also be stuffed into containers and easily carried on the majority of civilian trucks. CVR(T)’s replacement, the SV Scout will not be able to be carried on any of the DROPS type vehicles, it is simply too heavy. Instead, it will require the same class of vehicle currently used for Challenger, Warrior and some of the heavy plant; the Oshkosh Heavy Equipment Transporter. Apart from these being provided by a soon to terminate PFI, there are only a small number of these exotic beasts, less than a hundred total in the fleet. Without augmentation moving an armoured division from the Port of Disembarkation (POD) to its area of operations is going to be a rather ponderous affair.
Although 20ft ISO containers were quite common in Afghanistan a manoeuvre focused operation may not use containers to the same extent with a reversion to a ‘pallet economy’ more likely.
For the smaller vehicles the payload will likely be no more than a pallet or two but there are issues of protection and mobility to consider also. Afghanistan and Iraq focussed one the need for protection as vehicles, by virtue of the operating environment, could not utilise their mobility to avoid repetitive use of established roads and crossing points. In a faster flowing operation with greater potential freedom of movement the dial would need to be swung back in favour of mobility and away from protection.
Organisational change with the resultant transition to ‘Contingency Operations’, the prevailing strategic landscape and wider MoD ‘transformation’, especially within DE&S will also influence equipment decisions.
The Army has also, as a matter of coincidence, ended up with an oversize MAN SV fleet, it being originally scaled for an Army size much greater than exists now, or is likely to exist in the future, could some of these be used for a replacement for the tanker fleet, using ISO Tank Containers instead, reducing the need for specialist vehicles?
Specialist vehicles like tankers deliver that 100% of capability but if a tanker truck has a major problem with its brakes it will be classed as Vehicle off Road or VOR. There are much fewer tankers available in the fleet so it will have a disproportionate impact on operations. If the ‘tanker’ part of the overall package were demountable, using a tank container for example, it could be transferred to another vehicle with little effort and the valuable capability it imparts, made available in short order.
Demountable payloads, and this applies across many domains, provide flexibility and resilience.
Finally, there is the elephant in the room, funding.
The Army is seen by many as the SDSR 2015 cash cow that can be remorselessly beaten like a Mexican piñata until the money for F35, Carrier Strike, Typhoon, Type 26, complex weapons and Vanguard replacement comes tumbling out. We keep hearing how Afghanistan was the last hurrah for the British Army and the future is more Libya style operations characterised by remote control meddling from sea and air with SF only ground forces. The mood music is crystal clear, the Army is last in line for investment unless a) it cuts numbers again or b), President Putin starts driving his tanks into Poland.
So not only does the Army face significant technical, organisational and doctrinal change it also has to face the reality of being on the budgetary down slope for the next several years. Does it trade away personnel numbers for better equipment or does it do the opposite and rely on UOR funding to plug obvious gaps during the next major operation?
Both options have inherent risk.
Operational Support Programmes
The Army is of course fully aware of the issues with having a post Afghanistan vehicle mix that is both unnecessarily diverse and not optimised for its view of the contemporary environment. It has a number of vehicle programmes in various early stages that will address the issues at hand.
The existing protected mobility fleet is being retained in core to provide space for these programmes to be realised; Multi Role Vehicle (Protected), Utility Vehicle (no longer called FRES), Common Articulated Vehicle and Non Articulated Vehicle. A number of smaller programmes also exist such as a protected ambulance and light role recovery vehicle but I have not included them here, or UV.
This request was published in December 2013;
The Operational Support Programme (OSP) is to deliver four new vehicle projects on behalf of Capability Director Combat Service Support (CD CSS) and Capability Director Medical (CD Med):
Multi Role Vehicle – Protected (MRV-P) is a Cat A project intended to meet the requirement for a protected deployable platform employed by all Force Elements, at all scales of effort, in a wide range of environments, and on all parts of the battlefield except for the direct fire zone. The MRV-P should bring commonality to the fleet and reduce the logistic footprint for utility vehicles by 2020.
Non-Articulated Vehicle – Protected (NAV-P) is a Cat B project to meet the requirement for a protectable Palletised Load System (PLS). This would replace the ageing and unprotected DROPS fleet, enabling logistic support by a protected fleet to concurrent operations from 2020.
Light Weight (Air Portable) Recover (LW(AP)RC) is a Cat D project to meet the requirement for a recovery capability that is air portable and that can wade ashore with Commando Forces to provide intimate support to Very High Readiness (VHR) forces by 2016
Future Protected Battle Field Ambulance (FPBFA) is a Cat C project to meet the requirement for a Protected Mobility (PM) battlefield multi role ambulance. This will enable in-theatre protected movement of casualties, whilst delivering expected clinical care by 2020.
The OSP Programme Management Office (OSP PgMO) in the DE&S at Abbey Wood is conducting a Market Survey to inform Concept Phase.
These are the Army programmes, clearly commonality is front and centre, at least for the vehicles in scope. It would make sense if BR90 and C Vehicles formed part of the requirement and maybe we can be hopeful about the other services.
I do get that sinking feeling though, are we missing an opportunity to be more ambitious?
Multi Role Vehicle (Protected)
The MRV(P) is a Category A programme that is intended to replace a number of vehicles and is the latest incarnation of the 2003 Operational Utility Vehicle System (OUVS) programme that was cancelled a few years ago.
‘Salvador’ wrote a very good article on OUVS in 2009, click here to read.
One MRV(P) variant will be for the carriage of unit stores, which may be palletised or contained within a Quadcon for example. MRV(P) will have a palletised load system, brilliant.
In April this year the MoD released this request
Specialist and Logistic Project Team (SLV PT) in conjunction with a yet to be selected vehicle trials and demonstration authority will be running a multi role vehicle – protected (MRV-P) pre-concept study; It is planned to hold the study the week after the defence vehicle demonstration which is being held on 20th & 21.6.2012. Designed to determine the quantity of platforms that conform to the high level requirement and fall within the desirable Unit Price Cost (UPC) of 250 000 GBP, the study will look at a number of vehicles in the 5 to 15 tonne range that are modular to may be considered as being able to form the base vehicle for and other programmes such as future protected battlefield multi-role ambulance.
Background
The MRV (P) programme is currently at the pre-concept phase and has evolved from the operational utility vehicle system (OUVS), with significant changes in the total numbers and protection level. The vision is for one variant to fulfil all roles, using plug-and-play communications and flexible seating layouts. MRV(P) is not seen as appropriate for providing utility vehicle support to rapidly deployable forces (i.e. first-in, airborne or amphibious), where a lighter, more agile, capability is required. There are currently no KURs or URD for MRV (P), so a clear high-level requirement is needed.
The roles expected of the capability include:
Command and communications post vehicle,
Command and liaison vehicle,
General purpose vehicle – cargo,
General purpose vehicle – pax,
Light gun towing vehicle.
Aim
The study within this pre-concept phase is to assist in de-risking the MRV (P) Concept Phase by indicating the general ability of the market to meet endorsed MRV-(P) 3OAs. The study is to be completed by an independent vehicle trials and demonstration authority. Prior to the authority being selected all interested manufacturers should express their interest to Lt Col Licence SLV PT. Once the trials and vehicle demonstration authority is selected, the authority will engage directly with OEMs in order to secure platforms for trial. It must be noted that this study is not for down-selection purposes, but a practical method to conduct a market survey on a wide selection of available candidate Military/Commercial Off the Shelf (MOTS/COTS) vehicle platforms.
Requirement
Base platform. The base platform must fall within the 250 000 GBP UPC, it must be of a modular design capable of fulfilling the requirement for a ‘family’ of platforms and although there must be capacity for growth, must contain the following minimum requirement:
Number of crew ? 6 (Pax) Dvr, Comd, Gnr + 3 (pax carrying platform)
Payload capacity > 2 500kg (Cargo) + Crew of 3 To allow for the appropriate crew, pax, Bowman, ECM, cargo preponderance requirements for towing and up to 20 % growth.
Unladen mass <14 000kg <10 000kg if transport by C130.
Turning circle < 18m Land Rover = 14m
Width < 2.5m Medium Mobility
Power to weight ratio > 20 hp/t at the wheels Medium Mobility
The platform design must incorporate adaptable vehicle architecture to allow the following capabilities to be integrated into the platform:
Open architecture communication information system,
Generic vehicle architecture level 2,
Fitted for electronic counter measures,
Fitted for bowman,
Fitting of protect weapon system.
Estimated cost excluding VAT: 250 000 GBP
This has a number of interesting points, the low cost mainly.
The diagram below explains the variants, although omitting the gun tractor.
MRV(P) Variants
Looking at quantities and timelines, two diagrams lifted from a May 2014 presentation given by the Head of Operational Support Programmes.
MRV(P) Indicative Strategy
MRV(P) Numbers
MRV-P timeline
A few thoughts…
Am I the only one that thinks a Panther (less protection than a crisp packet) OSD of 2037 whilst the shiny new £800k Foxhound will be at Withams in 2024 looks odd, perhaps it is an RAF thing, or a mistake, or both.
MRV(P) will be in service for quite a few years before the other types fall away but it should be noted that the initial requirement is for 800 only with the dangling carrot of another 4,000, maybe, perhaps.
A single order of 4,800 vehicles might attract a unit price of £250k but less sure about one for 800, which as per every other single defence programme will be reduced. Manufacturers are not going to be giving volume discounts where the volume commitment is ‘maybe’
MRV(P) is not intended to replace the Land Rover (except RWMIK) and Pinzgauer vehicles that are used by light role forces but will replace Jackal and Coyote, you guessed it, used by light role forces.
I would imagine Navistar and Iveco will be making a case for a run on purchase of the MXT (Husky) and LMV (Panther) respectively. Supacat are said to be preparing their SPV400 and many others, this kind of vehicle sits inside a saturated market space, there are numerous off the shelf solutions available.
The General Dynamics (Mowag) Eagle, Thales Hawkei, the larger Thales Bushmaster and Renault Sherpa also look like interesting contenders. All have the crew cab, personnel carrier and cargo flatbed variants available.
I quite like Thales Australia products, especially the larger Bushmaster which could replace Mastiff, this is of course unlikely because that would step on the toes of UV. Bushmaster is available in all the variants in the MRV-P requirement, in addition to Ambulance, ISTAR, EOD and Pioneer and , it is also not from the pre IED generation like Eagle and Sherpa.
Thales Bushmaster
Thales Bushmater IED Strike
Thales Bushmaster ISTAR
Thales Bushmaster Pickup
Thales Hawkei
Thales Hawkei Pickup
Foxhound out of service date not withstanding the General Dynamics Ocelot/Foxhound platform must surely be in the running, especially in the less expensive (non composite) version.
Ocelot S Logistics
Ocelot S – Stretch
Ocelot S – Ambulance
The KMW Dingo family should also be a contender, this is a very well developed vehicle with many 4×4 and 6×6 variants, all right off that shelf; Patrol, NBC Recce, ISTAR, Ambulance, Recovery, EOD, Repair, Command Post, PsyOps
Cast your mind back to OUVS and there was a Small and Large, MRV-P does seem to include a stretched variant although not for stores carriage but personnel and I think it would provide greater clarity if two sizes were specified. Like OUVS, MRV-P has great potential to standardise across a very diverse fleet, certainly in more than the initial 4 or 5 variants would suggest.
Perhaps the Army is reticent to create a programme with as much ambition as OUVS and is taking a more conservative path to make sure it gets into service.
I am also doubtful about replacing the highly mobile Jackal/Coyote with a lower mobility vehicle, the Army is trading down on mobility and protection in order to get MRV(P) at a relatively low cost, I fear some of the hard won recent lessons are being discounted because MRV(P) is fashioned around how the Army now sees itself.
Non Articulated Vehicle (Protected)
The Heavy Load Distribution Capability (HLDC) has changed into the Non Articulated Vehicle (Protected) seems to be a straight replacement for the existing DROPS fleet which is now more or less out of service. What isn’t clear is whether this will be Medium Mobility (Leyland) or Improved Medium Mobility (Foden)
The slit chart from the same presentation mentioned above shows a number of options including converting an additional batch of 15 tonne SV to EPLS.
Non Articulated Vehicle (NAV)
A requirement of 1,349 vehicles does seem rather high given the likely operational context, it was reported earlier in the year that an additional purchase of 350 EPLS vehicles combined with the existing MAN SV UOR EPLS fleet and a life extension for the DROPS fleet would get to this number but the DROPS fleet was withdrawn last month, the RLC HQ confirming;
The DROPS vehicle has been the workhorse of the Army for 25 years. At the end of this month we say farewell to the last of our DROPS……whilst eagerly waiting for them to be replaced by the latest 15T MAN Support Vehicle. Sad to see a great truck go, but always better to see a greater one arrive
This would seem to point to ‘new vehicles’ from MAN, rather than simply using the existing 170 odd EPLS. It would be good if those new vehicles were from the SX range, the improved medium mobility version equivalent to the FODEN DROPS but it appears that they will be lower mobility HX77 drawn from the existing fleet. The EPLS fleet will therefore appear to number approximately 350, all of them taken from the core HX77 fleet and equivalent in mobility terms to the Leyland DROPS, not the Foden DROPS. I have also seen a number of comments regarding lower ‘sturdiness’ and slower loading speeds compared to the much loved Foden. It has also been reported that the programme will include 130 trailers . Much of this is third hand reporting so to be honest, I am not confident that this is the current position.
An SX would also be the obvious choice to replace the Unipower vehicles used for the Royal Engineers BR90 bridging system. A shame, as the Unipower remains an excellent vehicle but they must be getting more difficult to support by now and this isn’t going to improve. The Malaysians use a MAN base vehicle for their BR90 equipment so it does not seem an insurmountable challenge.
Another issue that should really be considered as part of the NAV programme, but doesn’t seem to be, is what happens when the C Vehicle PFI concludes in 2020. This includes a number of Iveco Trakker AD380T45W vehicles used in the Truck Mounter Loader, Volumetric Mixer, Tipper, Self Loading Dump Truck, Well Drilling and Flush Capping roles.
Will the PFI be extended, an alternative commercial arrangement defined or the entire capability bought back in house. Who knows what option will be taken but if we are thinking about commonality and reduction of types it must make sense to migrate the equipment onto MAN SV chassis.
Iveco Trakker Protected EPLS
The MoD only ‘own’ the Self Loading Dump Trucks (Protected), enlarging the Iveco fleet does not make a great deal of commonality sense, despite Iveco pushing their case.
Common Articulated Vehicle (CAV)
Is it possible to bring into service an articulated vehicle that is capable pulling both the gooseneck King trailer and the more conventional Broshuis/Tanker types, the same vehicle that can be used for peacetime and overseas operations and used in both the light, heavy and tanker roles
No news on quantities because I think this is relatively early in the planning stages but the decision might come down to a question of sticking with Oshkosh or not. For non operational peacetime tasking I could see a joint Army/RAF function emerging with a mix of White Fleet on unmodified civilian tractor units, civilian contractors and a small number of military owned units to ensure availability. It would be good to see these using the same vehicle.
For operational use, we might replace the water and fuel trailers with container based units such as the WEW Fuel Dispensing racks and similar. I am going to explore this option in the next post but it would not be a simple swap. Replacing the Oshkosh Het and MTVR tractor units with a single MAN unit might also be possible.
The MAN HX81 is a relatively new addition to the HS/SX family now in service with the Bundeswehr, the second video shows the Goldhofer MPA trailer. The Bundeswehr has three Doll trailers in service, 30 tonnes, 50 tonnes and 70 tonnes.
The engine is more powerful than the existing SV fleet but it would have a great deal of commonality.
Given the size of the MAN SV fleet it does seem to be somewhat of a no brainer to at least consider the HX81 as a replacement for the HET and CST, think of the logistics savings.
And that is why I shall leave this post, a question about logistics commonality.
In the next part of the series, a few more thoughts on trucks and trailers.
I watched Castles in the Skyover the weekend, the story of Robert Alexander Watson-Watt and the invention of radar staring Eddie Izzard.
A great story of British innovation and doggedness in the face of official obstruction and sneering class attitudes it made me go and read some more about this amazing gentleman from Brechin.
The Chain Home system operated at 25MHz, much lower than radars being developed by other nations. He justified this non optimal choice with the oft quoted ‘cult of the imperfect’
Give them the third best to go on with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes.
Without the third best, the Chain Home system would not have been operational and the Battle of Britain might have had a rather different outcome, not least the microwave might never have been realised!
I wonder if today, those that specify defence equipment should revisit this eminently sensible philosophy?
This technology has massive potential for disability care and of course, military applications.
I think we will see this technology replacing mechanical handling equipment for aircraft munitions loading and stores and pallet loading and unloading.
Or maybe rickshaw pulling as this video from Active Link (Panasonic) demonstrates!
Think Defence 