Why are we still using the old Alvis Unipower 8×8 truck for the BR90 bridging system.
It is an old design, no longer made and possibly has an expensive logistic/spares package and we should be looking at transferring the bridging element to the MAN Support Vehicles as soon as possible.
All the design work has already been done, the Malaysian Army has the BR90 modular bridging system on their MAN SX vehicles.
Come on MoD, lets get them transferred and start realising the benefits of one less vehicle system to support.
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Share on Facebook!
Share on Reddit!
Stumble it
Add to Technorati
5 Comments
Admin, I thought that the change to MAN trucks was in the pipeline, part of a mid-life upgrade package for the BR90 system. I might be wrong and it might not happen because of defence cuts.
Yes Mike, I think it is part of the BR90 sustainment programme but I just wanted to post some pics!!
Random Question when did you post this in the morning? As I noticed this post at 5 this morning and thought to myself that you must have been wandering the internet and found these pictures and decided to have a quick poke at the MoD. Nevertheless it’s a good point and as it makes perfect sense and is low cost I suspect they are some of the reasons why it has yet to be done.
You obviously have not thought about the cost of a new Veh v an upgrade of existing – an oversight?
Unipower vehs might be old but as a Bridging fleet that does not cover the miles of a log fleet, it is cheap to run in comparison. Unipower 8x8s were purpose built for BR90 loads and flatbed lengths 8m – this makes them highly mobile. Putting kit onto MAN for malaysia was a step down in terms of manoeuvre capability and a 2 fold step up in price!
MOD plans for fleet upgrade are in place but as with all of these things subject to SDSR.
Watch this space.
Hi SG, welcome to Think Defence
In terms of manoeuvrability, did the Malaysians go for an SX or HX chassis?
You are right in pinging me for not thinking about an upgrade to the existing vehicles as a cost effective exercise, guilty!
In my defence, we have so many diverse and unique vehicle types that it is getting ridiculous and needs trimming. One of the underlying themes I subscribe to is ruthless commonality because when applied across the whole defence piece the savings in maintenance, logistics, spares, training, maintaining it on James, ECI’s pams etc etc must surely mount up so the questions should also be, beyond the individual fleet type, is there a saving to be had over say 10 or 20 years?
Without seeing the figures it impossible to know but as a ‘gut feel’ the principle of fewer types appeals