To say that the British Army wheeled vehicle fleet is somewhat lacking in coherence is rather an understatement. Various factors have conspired to create a wheeled fleet that at best is far too diverse and worse, a complete dog’s breakfast that is costing a fortune in support costs.
This is not news of course, it is well recognised by all concerned and several programmes have sought to rein it in, but the combination of a lack of cash, other priorities and operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have put paid to most of these or put them so far back on the back burner they are still current in name only.
Whilst the MoD and its civilian and military staff can be rightly proud of the manner in which Urgent Operational Requirements have been fulfilled, the failure of the MoD and Army to provide adequate vehicles in the main equipment programme is an illustration writ large of all that is wrong with our system of acquisition.
We should not let the success of the UOR system compensate or somehow obscure the fact that a UOR is a fundamental admission of failure to provide equipment for largely foreseeable needs. The majority of UOR vehicle types (but not all) have been a reaction to the proliferation of IED’s in Iraq and Afghanistan, whilst the MoD might say this came as a surprise, it wasn’t, and the fact that UK forces have been dealing with mines and IED’s for decades and has a vast corporate knowledge of the issue, makes it even harder to stomach. The very fact that UOR’s can generally be fulfilled with ‘off the shelf’ solutions indicates that someone had already foreseen the problem sufficiently early to put the said solution on their shelves for us to buy.
Short term economic expediency has resulted in a vehicle fleet that was and still is, limited in capability and so varied the logistic overheads are huge. PFI’s and overtly political decisions have made things worse.
Several years ago we selected the MAN SX/HX to fulfil the Support Vehicle requirement but also selected the Oshkosh MTVR derived Close Support Tanker and Heavy Equipment Transporter, instantly creating a two manufacturer supply chain where with a longer term view on logistics commonality, we might have had one.
Compounding the problem is the C Vehicle PFI. The logical solution would have been to stipulate in the contract that the MAN HX/SX range would have to be provided for plant transport and as a base for a number of specialist vehicles like concrete mixers and tippers.
But no, it wasn’t.
The C Vehicle PFI is an availability contract, we don’t specify equipment types but instead concentrate on capabilities, the provider is, within the realms of the performance criteria, able to fulfil that requirement with any vehicle they like. Consequently, ALC, the C Vehicle PFI provider, have introduced the Iveco Trakker truck. ALC pick up the maintenance tab in the UK and Germany, but the reality on operations is somewhat different to the predictable environment of the UK and Germany. There still needs to be separate driver training and there needs to be an in theatre logistics support operation for yet another vehicle type. When ‘on hire’ in theatre it is REME that carry out maintenance on the C Vehicle PFI fleet.
There is nothing wrong with the Trakker but there is nothing unique about it either, there is no practical reason why the MAN HX/SX could not have been specified. One suspects it finally came down to a cost argument but this is penny wise, pound foolish. ALC cannot shoulder any blame for selecting the Trakker, no doubt they are rightly approaching this from a narrow contractual perspective, meeting the contract terms and that is all that matters. Ironically, one of the objectives of the C Vehicle PFI is to reduce the number of types in service. Where we used to have Volvo, Terex, JCB, CAT, Hydrema and others; we now concentrate on a few number of manufacturers.
There are also a few legacy vehicles in the system, the Alvis Unipower for the General Support Bridge and Volvo FL12 Self Loading Dump Truck being a couple of notable examples.
Go down slightly down on the size scale with Pinzgauer and Mowag Duro based vehicles we have another couple.
If one has four or five basic truck types in an operational theatre, no matter what the contract arrangements, four or five sets of spare windscreens, indicator arms or fuel pumps have to be shipped there. Given the tremendous logistic challenge that Afghanistan, for example, represents, the impact of this, either in operational or cost terms, should not be underestimated.
On top of the logistic vehicles we also have plant and some of the more combat oriented wheeled vehicles like protected patrol Ridgeback, Jackal, Husky etc etc
We often hear how the air bridge is over stretched or the cost of fuel transporting things to Afghanistan is astronomical yet we seem to make life harder on ourselves.
Any vehicle has thousands of parts that can all go wrong and if any form of vehicle availability is to be maintained, spares are needed at the point of use.
These were not UOR decisions, where capability is more important than logistics or coherence and it is simply not god enough. As any reader of Think Defence will know, one of our recurring themes is ‘ruthless commonality’ and if this costs more in the short term it will reap enormous cost savings and operational benefits later.
The first massive problem to overcome is a hugely diverse wheeled vehicle fleet that is sitting on the MoD’s ‘books’
Saying in modern conflicts there is no such thing as a front line is incorrect but one thing is certain, the grey areas are much larger. When looking at vehicles we must make certain assumptions about threats and to some extent, the future character of conflict and operations we can reasonably be expected to be involved in.
This of course raises the general issue of protection and the specific issue of IED protection. If we make the assumption that casualty tolerance remains relatively low and the most likely enemy forces will employ IED’s we must therefore set our position against these factors and design vehicles appropriately.
This sets up the possibility of a two tier wheeled vehicle fleet.
On operations where even a low threat of IED’s or small arms attack exist almost every vehicle will need some form of protection. If we look at wheeled vehicles in Afghanistan, the overwhelming vast majority of them now have IED, small arms and RPG protection, all added as UOR’s.
On other operations that are at a lesser scale of threat the disadvantages of this additional protection are many, fuel consumption, maintenance issues and even the outward appearance of vehicles can be detrimental.
The problem with slapping protection onto existing vehicles is they are very rarely designed to take it without penalty and the underlying designs are such as overcoming inherent design features to provide protection to appropriate levels becomes increasingly difficult.
I think the Army face some tough choices on vehicles, the days of putting a GS Land Rover into an operational theatre are long gone but there are tens of thousands of Land Rovers in service and little money or appetite to address these difficult issues. As we have discussed endlessly there are so many competing draws on a finite budget it is hard to see anything being given to a B vehicle fleet when the assumption is that the Army will be involved in nothing but Trooping the Colour for the next two decades.
Personally, I don’t wholly buy into this theory. There will of course be an elevated level of political reluctance to get stuck in beyond a spot of bombing from afar for some time, but politics change, circumstances change and we have to ensure we never go into an operation at the same level of equipment preparedness as we did for Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is the second fundamental problem for wheeled logistics vehicles, the protection dilemma
The Current Situation
It’s difficult to know where to start this should provide a reasonable idea of the scale of the problem (don’t forget, these don’t include tracked vehicles or mobile plant like excavator or wheeled loaders and the RAF’s specialist vehicles are also not on the list)
Some of these are due out of service soon, if they haven’t already gone to Withams
Harley Davidson MT350 – manufactured for the MoD over a period of 7 years the MT350 is a derivative of the Armstrong MT500. About 1,700 were supplied over this period and they have seen extensive service although many have now been disposed of.
Yamaha Grizzly 450 Quad Bikes and Logic SMT 171B trailers are have been purchased specifically for Afghanistan to support infantry patrols and move small items from helicopter landing sites and they have now been enhanced by the issue of a short gap crossing kit called Gap Crossing Capability Short – Quad (GXC(S) Quad) or a pair of ramps to me and you.
Supacat ATMP provides light transport functionality
Truck Utility Medium/Light or more commonly known as the Land Rover is synonymous with the British Army and there are a very large number in service of various types. Project REMUS 1 will see about 6,000 of the TUM(HS) Wolf fleet bought up to a common standard for safety and compliance.
The TUM(High Specification) or HS, more commonly known as Wolf Land Rovers were fitted with a Weapons Mount Installation Kit (WMIK), now more commonly known just as a WMIK they have evolved through a number of revisions such as the Higher Payload (HP) to the latest variant called R-WMIK (Ricardo)
The Snatch Vixen is the latest version of the protected mobility land rover.
It’s a full time job keeping track of the various versions of Land Rovers!
Truck Utility Medium (HD) is the Pinzgauer and used in 6×6 and 4×4 variants with a number used in specialist roles in addition to the armoured/protected Vector, now withdrawn.
Supacat Jackal 2 is the latest variant of the HMT400 derived reconnaissance, rapid assault, fire support and convoy protection vehicle and the Coyote is its tactical support vehicle (TSV-Light) big brother.
Supacat Extenda is in service with special forces with the bolt on axle or hamper providing extra carrying capacity.
Truck Utility Heavy Duty 6×6 Duro III are generally used by Royal Signals users for the Reacher satellite terminals but also forms the basis of the Tellar EOD vehicle
The mechanised infantry are still nominally equipped with the unloved, Bedford derived, Saxon.
Acting in the light gun limber and other roles is the equally despised RB44 that has the turning circle of a super tanker and equally dodgy stopping distance.
Mastiff 3 is the latest variant of the large protected patrol vehicle
Ridgeback is the smaller version of Mastiff, 4×4 instead of 6×6
Wolfhound is a cargo variant of Mastiff and designed to provide a number of specialist functions including towing the Light Gun and transporting specialist EOD equipment (4.5 tonne cargo capacity or 3 NATO pallets) but by far the coolest variant is the modular working dog transport system. This replaces the standard load bed and provides for the safe and air conditioned transport of up to 3 dogs.
Panther is a command and liaison vehicle
Tactical Support Vehicle (Medium) or Husky from Navistar Defence is used in the infantry support role, fuel, water, ammunition and general stores carriage, although as with most vehicles in theatre it tends to get used for whatever is needed. It has replaced the Pinzgauer and Vector vehicles in Afghanistan
The Light Protected Patrol Vehicle UOR competition was won by the innovative Force Protection/Ricardo Ocelot, to be called Foxhound in UK service. This will be delivered in the patrol and support variants.
DROPS vehicles are based on a Foden or Leyland chassis
Leyland DROPS
The Oshkosh wheeled tanker is deployed in three variants, the water and fuel close support tanker and tactical air refueller.
Also from Oshkosh is the Heavy Equipment Transporter
HET with Broshuis trailer
Although due to replaced by the Support Vehicles there are still plenty of Leyland DAF and Bedford 4, 8 and 14 tonners in the system
DAF 4 Tonner, (Image from (by Flickr user chippy1920)
The Volvo FL12 Self Loading Dump Truck is used by the Royal Engineers
The C Vehicle PFI provides a number a Iveco Trakker 6×6 and 8×8 vehicles in a number of variants.
Fuchs NBC is a specialist reconnaissance vehicle
The Tank bridge transporter and General Support Bridging systems use various versions of the Alvis Unipower 8×8 truck
Seddon Atkinson Light Equipment Transporters supplement the Heavy Equipment Transporters
Due to be replaced by the SV recovery vehicle the Foden Recovery vehicle is still in service
Bushmaster is in service with a small number of very special users
The Force Protection Buffalo forms part of the Talisman counter IED system
Various MAN Support Vehicles will replace the 4, 8 and 14 tonne trucks including variants
EPLS
I think that’s it
Oh, hang on
Springer, a light transport vehicle, I looked at this one in detail a while ago
The engine and sub systems commonality between these is almost non-existent.
If we started from scratch with a clean sheet of paper could we have possibly designed a more diverse fleet of vehicles, many of which do more or less the same job?
The current situation is not sustainable and is being held together by the daily miracles performed by The Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and Royal Corps of Logistics, largely out of the spotlight. We do not help their cause by shovelling new vehicle types into the pipeline at every opportunity and whilst the understandable and entirely proper UOR purchases are serving their purpose, beyond current operations the drive for commonality must become an obsession.
The beast is out of control.
The Jekyll and Hyde PFI/Non PFI mix is also a serious cause for concern.
Lets be clear, this is one of those ‘no ones fault’ type situations and many of the vehicles are due out of service but we are where we are but have to look forward.
Programmes and Projects
Wheeled vehicle programmes seem to come and go at the MoD with alarming regularity but some have endured.
Support Vehicles
The 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 UBRE POD’s and recovery vehicles. The contract was awarded in a cloud of acrimony and many think it was due to pressure to award it to a European rather than British or US organisation.
Total fleet size should be about 6,600 vehicles for £1.3billion, the numbers having been continually revised down from about 7,200 in initial news releases. However, with a number of UOR purchases that original number might actually be achieved but one kind of doubts the original contract value of £1.3billion will remain! Despite the controversy they are an excellent design, if more complex than what they replace, with a long heritage and the programme should complete in 2013.
On numbers, every time I read anything on the Support Vehicle contract the numbers change, I think a good final estimate will be about 7,000 across over 40 variants, some winterised and waterproofed etc.
MAN Military Trucks produce two variants; the SX has a stiffer chassis and coil springs so has much greater mobility, the HX is the lower specification variant, which of course we have ordered many more of. As usual with these programmes there were many more DAF’s and Bedford’s than SV’s, greater reliability and capability was factored into the requirement and low and behold, we need fewer to do the same job.
HX is available in…
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 is available in…
Improved Medium Mobility - SX44, 6×6
Improved Medium Mobility - SX45, 8×8
It’s difficult to provide a full list of the variants but the main types and initial ordered quantities, pulled from a number of different sources are;
- 5213, Cargo Vehicle Light CV(L)- Medium Mobility – 6 tonne (4×4)
- 376, Cargo Vehicle Medium CV(M) – Medium Mobility – 9 tonne (6×6)
- 105, Cargo Vehicle Medium CV(M) – Improved Medium Mobility – 9 tonne (6×6)
- 923, Cargo Vehicle Heavy CV(H) – Medium Mobility – 15 tonne (8×8)
- 230, Unit Support Tanker (UST) – Medium Mobility – 9 tonne (6×6)
- 81, Unit Support Tanker (UST) – Improved Medium Mobility – 9 tonne (6×6)
- 288, Recovery Vehicle (RV) – Improved Medium Mobility (8×8)
- 69, Recovery Trailers
A number of these will have hydraulic jibs and lifting tailgates
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 and other theatre specific enhancements to just over 600 vehicles in a couple of tranches. Although a Riotous Assembly Protection (RAP) kit was designed the additional protection kit delivers an adequate level of protection when the vehicles are used in a combat logistic patrol, the route being cleared and/or proven beforehand. It a balance, the MAN integrated protection cab offers a greater level of protection but it is a case of balancing risks against programme costs.
The Unit Support Tanker is particularly impressive, the payload system is from Fluid Transfer International and a significant improvement on the old UBRE’s although it would have been preferable to have the fuel delivery element as a discrete loadable unit delivering obvious flexibility benefits but I suspect legislation prevented this.
This was a UOR so costs were in addition to the programme.
Also outside the main contract the Falcon communication system programme will use 107 HX60 6 tonne vehicles instead of the original Supacat HMT based solution that was unable to accommodate the additional protection now deemed necessary.
A benefit of the maturity of programme is the final number delivered will be applied across a much smaller number of Army personnel; we might actually end up with about the right number of vehicles.
C Vehicle PFI
The C Vehicle PFI incorporates engineering plant, cranes and other equipment. Awarded to the Amey Lex Consortium (ALC) in 2005 after a lengthy bidding process and is a 15 year deal, valued at approximately £600million. Equipment is centrally pooled in a number of locations and when units use the equipment they are in effect, hiring it. VT have subsequently acquired Lex Defence and are now part of the Babcock organisation. On contract commencement, ALC purchased the MoD’s equipment although it is rumoured that acceptance criteria was so stringent the MoD had to spend considerable sums getting equipment ready for the handover and for the same costs it could have bought new. This legacy equipment was to be phased out and replaced with new equipment as the agreement progresses, most of this has already happened.
Although the scheme includes operator training, surely it would have been logical to use the same equipment as the rest of the Army?
Not in crazy PFI land it isn’t, despite nearly 500 of the MAN Support Vehicles being fitted with jibs the C Vehicle PFI has provided similarly equipped Iveco Trakker units. There is nothing wrong with the Trakker but another vehicle type that overlaps completely with existing vehicles but provided as part of the PFI means yet another training requirement at a time when we should be consolidating equipment types, funnily enough, one of the core objectives of the C Vehicle PFI, the halving of equipment types.
The PFI has provided a number of 6×6 Trakker vehicles, total chassis order was 206 with variants include Self Loading Dump Trucks (SLDT), Medium Dump Truck (MDT) tippers fitted with the Thompson Loadmaster tipping body, Nurock volumetric concrete mixing plant, Truck Mounted Loader with an Atlas Terex lifting arm and a small number of well drilling rigs.
The MoD have also used the C Vehicle Contract vehicle to obtain a small number of 8×8 Trakkers with protected cabs of the Self Loading Dump Truck (SLDT) variant to replace the Volvo FL12 SLDT in Afghanistan.
Although the contract is running well I despair at two aspects, the decision to allow ALC to use the Trakker instead of specifying the MAN Support Vehicle and using dedicated vehicles for the concrete mixing, tippers and well drills when it would have been much more sensible to specify them as demountable units for use with DROPS/EPLS.
I will leave commenting on the PFI itself for another post but this disparity between equipment types is an obvious down side, plus of course the 120 days notice required for equipment unless a penalty payment is made.
Heavy Equipment Transporter PFI
The Oskosh Global Heavy Equipment Tractor (HET) is teamed up with a number of trailers from King Trailers and Broshuis, the King trailers being used mainly for very heavy equipment like Challenger and the Broshuis for Warrior sized and below loads (max 45 tonnes). The HET is a version of the US M1070 HET.
The HET’s are provided by Fastraxx, a PFI provider owned by Kellog Brown and Root. The PFI will run for 20 years and provides 92 HET’s, trailers and sponsored reserve drivers.
The implications of FRES Scout on this PFI are uncertain.
Combined Articulated Vehicle Programme (CAVP)
The CAVP is the successor to the Future Light Equipment Transport programme that will eventually look at providing a replacement articulated vehicle but how this integrates with the HET PFI is uncertain and the fact that it will replace the current Support Tanker which in comparison is new, is rather shocking!
Providing fuel and water distribution, the Oshkosh Close Support Tanker, another Oshkosh success story, are amongst the most mobile vehicles we have, based on the well proven MTVR.
The existing Seddon Atkinson tractor units will be replaced by this programme.
Last year, 20 Improved Mobility Trailers were obtained under a UOR for the Heavy Equipment Transporter. At a cost of £150k each, the trailers from Broshuis have greater ability in rough terrain i.e. Afghanistan, than the existing Trailmaster trailers which have now been withdrawn. Given the wholesale move from CVR(T) that can be carried on the back of a Foden DROPS or MAN EPLS, to an ASCOD SV which can’t, there is going to be a need a much greater number of HET’s and trailers.
Both Oshkosh and MAN have bid for this and the obvious choice would be Oshkosh but MAN have reportedly provided a converted a small number of HX chassis for trials purposes. Again, the future is unclear, do we go for commonality with the Oshkosh family or the larger fleet of MAN Support Vehicles?
Germany now selected the Rheinmetall MAN HX81 tank transporter unit so the competition would appear to be wide open.
Non Articulated Vehicle Programme (NAVP)
This used to be called the Heavy Load Distribution Capability (HLDC) programme and will replace the nearly 2,000 Leyland and Foden Demountable Rack Offload and Pickup System (DROPS) vehicles that have seen extensive service in many theatres. Although hook-lift vehicles had been used in the civilian market for some time we could argue that the British Army pioneered their military use, primarily in supplying artillery batteries with pallets of ammunition although the use has considerably broadened since then.
DROPS is a family of logistics vehicles that use a HIAB Multilift designed derivative of the Marel Corporation hooklift system, commonly used for waste containers. A research paper from the US in 1991 shows some of the thinking behind the DROPS and ISO Container system, click here to read, no seriously, do not proceed without reading it!
There are two types of vehicle, from the Army web site[
the Leyland Medium Mobility Load Carrier (MMLC), and the Foden Improved Medium Mobility Load Carrier (IMMLC). IMMLC is used primarily as an ammunition carrier in support of AS90 155mm self-propelled guns. MMLC operates solo, or towing a skeleton trailer. DROPS revolutionised logistics transport when introduced and continues to be the backbone of the Army’s transportation capability.
Coming into service in 1994 the IMMLC (Foden) contract was for £75million and 400 vehicles. The earlier Leyland MMLC contract delivered just over 1,400 vehicles.
Project Barricade in 2008 converted 90 Support Vehicle 15 tonne 8×8 vehicles already on the production programme with the Enhanced Palletised Loading System or EPLS. Since Barricade an additional 87 vehicles with EPLS have been obtained, outside of the main SV programme, with 31 of those being used for training.
The main difference between EPLS and the DROPS system is that EPLS can lift standard ISO containers without putting them on a flatrack first, obviously providing much greater flexibility although flatracks are used quite frequently for non container loads like vehicles, trailers or other equipment.
There is absolutely no doubt, EPLS is a success story, more flexible than DROPS and delivered in double quick time, but it is not necessarily the best system for the medium to long term. Once the load has been deposited on the ground it needs a crane or similar to reposition, the centre of gravity can be high which reduces mobility and the departure angle can be disadvantageous to certain loads. The original role of DROPS, delivering huge quantities of ammunition to Royal Artillery batteries, may have diminished somewhat, but simply looking at a typical Combat Logistics Patrol in Afghanistan it is clear that the ISO container has completely penetrated the logistics system mwah ha ha mwah.
It might be assumed that SV and EPLS will be a shoe in to fulfil the NAVP programme but things are never this clear, who knows where the programme will end up but the in service date is expected to be somewhere around 2022.
It is not known if the NAVP programme will include a replacement for the highly capable Alvis Unipower vehicles used by the Royal Engineers for the Tank Bridge Transport and General Support Bridging equipment.
Operational Utility Vehicle Systems (OUVS)
This was a programme, now cancelled, to replace the plethora of smaller non logistic vehicles like RB44, Pinzgauer and Duro etc
Phil has written a few times on it, here and here
FRES (Utility Variant)
Despite putting a brave face on it, the MoD, does not have the financial ability to bring the FRES Utility Variant into service for some time.
It’s a woeful tale, detailed here and many many other times on Think Defence.
Whole Fleet Support
This has been in place for some time now but worth mentioning, it moves the majority of the vehicle fleet to a controlled humidity and temperature storage location to preserve the equipment. A separate training fleet is used and whilst the system initially met with some resistance I think it would be fair to say it has saved the Army a considerable amount of money.
A Sensible Future
We are in very real danger of actually having a fully coherent logistic vehicle fleet!
If we can just hold our nerve, specify the MAN HX81 as the vehicle for the CAVP programme, replacing the Oshkosh support tankers, also replace the HET PFI when it expires with HX81 and use a combination of SV’s for the NAVP DROPS replacement contract then for the first time ever the UK will have a common fleet of logistic vehicles that will provide a huge through life cost reduction.
The icing on the cake would be to replace the Alvis Unipower GSB’s vehicles with SV and pull back from the Iveco Trakker purchase by specifying the C Vehicle PFI utilises the same specification vehicles as the SV programme then ruthless commonality will have been achieved.
Replacing some of the specialist variants like the tippers, well drills and concrete mixers with a standard truck body and demountable payload combination would double the benefits.
As good as the Oshkosh vehicles are (and they are very good) I would trade the commonality benefits of a MAN fleet every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
It is within reach and even if we have to wait until the 2020 timeframe when most of the PFI’s expire it would still be a reasonable plan.
Instead of nine or ten completely different vehicle types we could have multiple variants of a single type, ruthless commonality in action.
Lower down the food chain is perhaps the more difficult issue to resolve.
Replacing the quite mind bending variety of light to medium weight vehicles is a serious financial and design challenge.
The most sensible and likely solution is to simply take into service some of the UoR vehicles, OUVS has been ceased and scraping together a theatre deployment fleet of vehicles may still be possible even accounting for the cost of refurbishment post Afghanistan. Some vehicles will be bought into the main equipment plan but some will inevitably fall out and find their way into the disposal agencies. Some may even remain in Afghanistan, recovery back to the UK potentially costing more than their disposal value.
Putting these vehicles through a refurbishment programme would still provide the Army with a reasonable fleet of vehicles that have been subject to considerable investment.
Instead of having a homogeneous fleet we will end up with several tiers of vehicles, those at theatre entry standard will be placed into environmentally controlled storage and broken out for the next overseas outing.
The huge costs will be hidden in current expenditure, easier to carry than the capital costs of any sweeping programme of rationalisation.
FRES UV will be formally cancelled or replaced with a selection of off the shelf vehicles like the RG35, which would seem to offer many benefits.
In the next post I am going to describe a less than sensible future so get ready for a selection of whacky hair brain schemes
The Future of the British Army Series…
The Future of the British Army 01 – Scene Setting
The Future of the British Army 02 – Tasks and Capabilities
The Future of the British Army 03 – Rank and Size
The Future of the British Army 04 – Structures
The Future of the British Army 05 – Heavy Metal
The Future of the British Army 06 – ISTAR and Formation Reconnaissance (01)
The Future of the British Army 07 – ISTAR and Formation Reconnaissance (02) A Sensible Future
The Future of the British Army 08 – ISTAR and Formation Reconnaissance (03) A Not So Sensible Future
The Future of the British Army 09 – Wheels (A Sensible Solution)
Supporting Articles
Medium Armour – what is it, and what does it mean for the post 2020 force structure?
A Lightweight Supplement to a Medium Weight FRES
TD excellent article and up to your normally high standard. I can only agree that we have far too many vehicles and a massive rationalisation exercise is required. The bloody PFIs have made it all much worse of course.
The easy bit is to fully develop the Foxhound and use this to replace as many of the small/ light vehicles as possible. This should include the following:All LandRovers including wolf,WMIK,Snatch& Vixen, jackal, coyote, all pinzgauer, rb44 and even the husky and possibly ridgeback?
I would suggest one urgent change to the Foxhound and that us a more powerful engine. The TDV8 fitted to the new RangeRovers needs looking at it is awesome!
I think the MAN SV fleet should be used to fulfil mist of the
Sorry posted by accident then got timed out whilst making changes.
My point was make ful use of MAN SV fleet but change composition to have less 4×4 versions more if the larger versions. Change to more SX than HX and upgrade to offer Stanag 4569 level 4 protection.
MRAPs and TSVs to be replaced with common range of vehicles, either the RG35 or extended Boxer range. Boxer was originally developed to have a 6×6 version. Add flatbed version and possibly 4×4 version as well.
FRES SV to replace Warrior, CVRT and FV432.
Challenger and Trojan / Titan upgraded with new gun and powertrain as discussed on other topics.
With Oshkosh vehicles being replaced by MAN equivalents I would change engine in Terrier to that fitted in FRES SV!
That leaves the light tracked vehicle roles. I think the Warhog is too big and Its crazy to have both it and Viking. it must be possible to develop a vehicles similar to the size and weight of the Viking (Maybe slightly bigger) that uses the technology used in the foxhound / ocelot to offer levels of mine protection that is acceptable. Whilst still providing the amphibious capability and offroad performance needed by light forces and the marines. I think there us a need for the Wiesel vehicle as well.
With regard to the springer type vehicles, there must be some harmonisation here. maybe the atmp should be the standard.
finding it to type as i’m wearing my kenny everret hands shouting “i believe” !!! I’ve done my time in an Armoured workshop (no i will not call it a battalion) and following the RLC packet of 50+ vehicles was a nightmare, and that was the 90′s with half the diversity we have today!
My views which i have spread over several threads is pretty much the same as TD’s you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to sort this cluster, units in germany are coming back and being re-roled so bye bye fv43 series warriors not being upgraded changed to ambulances, mortar platform hell even bridgelayer! etc so the mech inv get 1 chassis nice for your humble REME blackhand gang.
RG35 for most of the wheeled stuff (forgot about NBC) although it’s level 4 protection (more with modular armour) i believe there is a place for a dedicated 8×8 AIFV.
anyone notice in top gear the duro in the background, how old are they?
Just noting on a bit of an error TD.
Although I cannot get hold of the old pdf catalogs for the MAN series of trucks, as I recall the SX series only came in 6×6 and 8×8 variants, not the 4×4 and 6×6 as you’ve listed.
EDIT: http://www.trucksplanet.com/photo/man/hx/hx_k657.pdf
some nice info on the series as a whole, helped me understand the range back when the army first bought them and only talked in numbers of MM and IMM
would Husky not be a candidate for FRES scout?
Chris B – you just made me spray coke all over my keyboard…..
Why not use Panther as FRES Scout then ????
That’ll teach you, drinks and keyboards never mix.
Either could do, it depends how well they’re able to perform the task I imagine. Competition time.
I’m with Phil Darley on some things, but not all, Post 2015 (or as soon as possible) vehicles should consist of
Wheeled:
MAN HX/SX
RG-35
Ocelot
SUPACAT
A single vehicle to replace the ATMPs, quads and springers.
The bushmasters, like all SF gear, don’t really count, and we may need to stick with some oshkosh stuff if the MANs don’t have the grunt.
As for tracked, we should move to a 4 chassis system, C2, ASCOD II (including replacing AS90 and MLRS with Donar variants), Warthog and CVR(T). Oh, and terrier, which we are now stuck with.
I know it still sounds like a lot but to me it is the minimum which can cover all the required roles.
Thanks for the note Ashley
HX = Medium Mobility
SX = Improved Medium Mobility
HX is available in…
HX60, 4×4
HX61, 6×6
HX58, 6×6
HX80, 6×6 tractor
HX81, 8×8 tractor
HX77, 8×8
SX is available in…
SX44, 6×6
SX45, 8×8
Its all very confusing!!
Have corrected the article as you have noted, thanks again
It think it is very interesting that in the RG35 we might actually found something that all the posters on Think Defence either actively support or accept as a good second choice – of course I might have missed a strong objection to it on one of the several threads it has come up in?
Do we think that it might improve BAE’s marketing of the RG35 if they added to their brochure “As recommended by the readers of Think Defence”?
Tubby
It appears to an avid reader of the Brochures and WIki this that and the other, that the 4×4 and 6×6 version are somewhat different vehicles. Suspensions, widths etc. (OK share gearbox engines indicators tyres etc so lots of good there, but why cant 6×6 get independant susp).
Also not convinces about the big turning circle and the offroad mobility, I would be happier if at the expence of extra couple of feet length the 6 x6 became 8×8. and gained some degree of all wheeled steer to reduce turning circle.
It is very easy after some light rain to show charging arround on videos wheeled vehicles moving on what is in effect hard packed soil with a thin layer of mud on top; proclaiming their wonderful performance.
The 4×4 for some reason exceeds the worldwide 2.5metre width for commercial vehicles which could limit it’s strategic mobility.
They are way better than some of the stuff we have; they are way better than some of the stuff we are actully likely to get.
But still, only 2 cheers from Ixion, rather than the more normal 3.
Still think a RG 35 style vehicle based on my persoal favorite the Tatra 815 series running gear. Or better from commanality point MAN 8X8 would be better.
“Its all very confusing!!”
It is so confusing that what has been advertised as a “Private Venture” to tow the light gun/ H777 and trialled on the Salisbury Plains (nice photos) actually appears as standard service issue (99% identical) in the photos that are in the link to the EU BG composition that I posted
- artillery unit pledged by Spain (out of the 4 nations making the contributions; piccie could have been from any of the four)
Foxhound and FRES UV will replace many of these vehicles.
Jackal, Coyote, Pinzgauer are too dangerous.
Frenchie I agree that Foxhound should replace much of the small vehicles on existence. However, as things currently stand FRES UV us dead!!!
Hi Frenchie & Phil,
- “Foxhound and FRES UV will replace many of these vehicles” as per Phil, the former “yes”
- “Jackal, Coyote, Pinzgauer are too dangerous” – yes and no
– Jackal & Coyote: operating away from established mining zones & known choking points (for mines & IEDs)
–remaining Pinzgauers: specialised go-anywhere support platforms a bit like Husky, when the std one can’t do it… ( but in this case, including being parachuted on a std… which one is it, actually, for the RAF right now??, platform)
Pinzgauer, until the cut-over, was/ is the heftiest transport that can “float down”
Hi Phil and ArmChairCivvy
I don’t think that FRES UV is dead, there are few variants and it will be necessary to replace the Fushs, the Bulldog, have a modern ambulance, your Boxer can serve like tanker for example. There are many old vehicles to replace.
The Foxhound can replace WMIK, Coyote, Husky, this is a great invention that will be sold everywhere.
ACC I don’t want to see any vehicle like Jackal/coyote and especially pinzgauers in our inventory!
I simply do not trust the muppets in the armed forces and the MOD to provide enough of the right vehicles for these vehicles not to be used in the wrong situations as thus end up killing and maiming soldiers
There will be a report of MoD on future spending in September, we’ll see if the MoD keeps its promises.
Hi Frenchie,
Just jumping in here, the reason why Phil and ACC think FRES UV is dead, is that in the recent announcements by Liam Fox there is no mention of FRES UV (and to be fair I think you need to look on Hansard to find evidence of FRES Scout).
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=16932
Hi Tubby,
Yes I know, but these spending as the upgrade of Warrior were not in the SDSR, while the FRES UV and FRES SV yes.
Hi Tubby, I make it
- 350 to 450 Warriors , upgraded
- FRES Scouts coming in LRIP, but not as the term is used in the USA; rather, just spreading the numbers over many years
- once the AI & MI bn’s have found their “new numbers” the (1? – may be more) that can’t be covered from the existing fleet, will get the protected mobility version
This sort of plan will make the FRES SV numbers smaller than the Warrior numbers (some Warriors will be in other duties, call it 350 IFV and 100 otherwise upgraded)
Then, in the end
- C2 bridge layers
- & other specialist conversions to fill the gaps, from existing fleet
So the only open question is, will Donar also be taken up, or will the earlier programme with the gun (777) and rocket (same as GMLRS, but in smaller doses) be taken up, i.e on wheels to get them where they are needed plenty quick, rather than have higher numbers “tagging along” with other formations, just in case
Hmmm,
Can’t remember anymore: were they “the FRES UV and FRES SV yes”
- or just a FRES mention? About the programme; as we know, it can be anything (judging from the past)
Hi ACC,
RE: “once the AI & MI bn’s have found their “new numbers” the (1? – may be more) that can’t be covered from the existing fleet, will get the protected mobility version” – so the current thinking is that they will take the FRES Scout hull, stretch it and use it as APC, and we will not bother with a new wheeled vehicle?
EDIT from page 24 of the SDSR “a new range of medium weight armoured vehicles, including Terrier engineer vehicles and the Scout reconnaissance vehicles and in due course the Future Rapid Effects System Utility Vehicle (FRES UV) which will be the core of the Army’s armoured manoeuvre fleet;”
Hi Frenchie,
A lot of the things that have been have just been announced as funded where also in the SDSR so its reasonable to assume if it was not mentioned it has been dropped from the equipment plan and will not be part of Future Force 2020
Hi Tubby,
I was simply talking about the planned ‘ protected mobility’ version (they all were given the extra wheel after the mobility trials) to make up the numbers
- FRR’s first and then a bit more?
- are you thinking of more stretching to be done?
We also have the words:
-”due course” as we all know it (like:medium term is more important than the long term, because, in the long term we are all dead!)
- armoured manoeuvre; is mechanised part of it?
Weasel words, and no fiscal commitment. Next election… same again?
TD
A brilliant post, as usual!
“As any reader of Think Defence will know, one of our recurring themes is ‘ruthless commonality’”
This mantra, “ruthless commonality” occurs very frequently in Think Defence posts and I would just like to take issue with the concept involved, but only take issue to a certain extent, not completely. Of course I would certainly accept the need for “commonality” of vehicles. The advantages economically and in terms of operational support must be obvious to all and I have often written contributions warning against the over-proliferation of vehicle types. It is the use of the word “ruthless” that I am unhappy about.
Isn’t there another side to the coin? Can’t diversity be of a really positive value at times? Just think of the infinite variety of vehicles developed to win the Second World War. D-Day would be a good example to take, with Hobart’s “Funnies” including AVRES, ARKs, Flails, Crocodiles, Bobbins, Rollers etc.etc.etc.
Might it not be the case that also in modern times our Army might actually benefit from a real variety of vehicle types?
To put the argument crudely, is it not the case that one vehicle, although apparently rather similar in capability to another, might very well be able to achieve things that the second vehicle cannot? Here you will have to excuse me. These are probably poor examples, ill-thought out, but they are off the top of my head!
For instance, the Terrier vehicle, when introduced, will undoubtedly be able to work in situations, in space more confined etc, than the heavier Trojan. Ridgback was obtained presumably because Mastiff was too large and heavy for certain situations. Bulldog was a success in Iraq but had to be withdrawn from Afghanistan and replaced by other vehicles more suited to the terrain. A few years ago there was a plan to produce a lighter version of the CRARRV because it was more air portable then the larger recovery vehicle (the plan was dropped of course). ATMP might be able to carry out tasks that Springer cannot and vice versa. And so on and so forth. Now these might be very poor examples but you get the general drift of my argument. A greater variety of types enables more tasks to be carried out more efficiently. To suggest that we can reduce the whole of the British Army vehicle fleet to, say, four tracked types and three wheeled types seems to me to be verging on the ludicrous.
I realize that the above arguments must seem naïve to some. However, although we live in straitened times economically, it is surely a question of BALANCE. We have obtained a large number of different specialist vehicles through UORs in recent times and not many of them overlap in capability. It would be shame, in my humble opinion, to ditch large numbers of different types simply because people are screaming “RUTHLESS Commonality!” at the Government/MOD/Army. If we do an awfully large number of babies will be thrown out with the large quantity of bathwater. No?
Mike, I see where you are coming from and I have asked this question a few times in previous posts so I guess its a fine line to tread
Hobbarts funnies, as hugely diverse as they were, all used 2 base vehicles, the Sherman and Churchill, you take your commonality where you can, engines, wheels, brake pads, windscreen wipers etc
But of you look at ‘small trucks’ we have Pinzgauer, Duro, RB44
Look at big trucks and we have Iveco Trakkers, MAN SV, Unipower, Seddon Atkinson and two flavours of Oshkosh when with a spot of thinking we could standardise on 1
TD
Are you gonna do a tracked version?
Great post, and I am sure theres more than that! Must be the endless varients of Land Rovers…
Interesting to see what comes of them come 2015 – whats the plans regarding that?
As a fair few are more specific for Afghan/Iraq terraign in their design, I wonder how some of these would perform in Arctic/Norway and Falkland terrains.
TD
Thanks for the reply. I can also now see more clearly where you are coming from. Your point about heavy trucks is well put and almost convincing. However, don’t you think that something like the building of tank transporters is a highly specialised business and Oshkosh are the best in the world at it? The Trakker truck (widely used in the commercial sector as a rugged construction industry vehicle) has been adapted for use by the RE as a dump truck. Could that be easily done with MAN SV vehicles?
I suppose that one of the things I am fearful of is that all the vehicles purchased under UORs will be thrown out too easily and that we will lose a lot of valuable capability. For instance, the Vector met with almost universal opprobrium and was, probably quite rightly, withdrawn from Afghanistan. However, it is a better protected vehicle than the ordinary thin-skinned “Pinz” which is still used to tow 105mm Light Guns. Perhaps the Vector should be retained and used in that role instead. That kind of thing. Perhaps, having obtained them, we should try to cling on to the newer vehicles, at least place as many as possible in dehumidified storage against future emergencies/crises?
Diversity is not necessarily a bad thing.
Mike W thd Vector is a pile of Sh1t!!! The armour adds nothing to the vehicle except weight!! It protects the occupants from 2xhand grenades under the wheels and little else. The extra weight knackers the VW V5 Passat engine. A truly awful vehicle, nicknamed “Coffin on Wheels”
Phil Darley,
Well, thanks Phil for putting it so graphically! One lives and learns. I hope you grasped the general drift of my argument, though. For instance, several contributors have written in to say they feel that the Husky should be one of the vehicles to go and yet, to judge by a recent TV programme from the Army School of Driving, the vehicle is well liked by troops and effective.
Mike W
I think we are all “violently agreeing” – but perhaps from different angles. The Husky is probably great, and could probably live on without becoming a huge burden because it is a very small niche UOR fleet. If they are not all knackered by extensive use in the sand pit, then fold them into the main fleet.
However, as you have acknolwedged, this is not the same as the potentially huge fleet of MAN, Oshkosh and Trakker etc where there is MUCH greater potential for commonality and thus commonality induced efficiencies and savings over the full lifetime of the equipment.
Jed,
Yes, I think you have summed it up admirably. TD’s point about heavy trucks at least has more than some validity.
Actually, as soon as I had submitted the first long post, I started having reservations about what I had said. For a start, I was confusing diversity of variants with diversity of base vehicles.
Anyway, well summarized.
There is a balance to be struck isn’t there. If we are too ruthless in our commonality drive we end up with lots of sub optimal solutions, square pegs in round holes so any savings we might have accrued are eroded by inefficiency in operational use and problems on the ground.
However, where we have equipment that does similar things commonality should be our first consideration.
We have looked at medium weapons, how many 20-40mm calibre weapons do we have or are about to have in service
30mm on RN ships
30mm Goalkeeper
20mm Phalanx
30 mm on Warrior and Scimitar
27mm on Tornado and Typhoon
30mm on Apache
40mm on FRES
Now think of the medium logistics trucks I mentioned, we have 10 main families where in reality, with a bit of forethought and planning, we could have 1. Even after some of the current projects have completed we will still end up with 4
This isn’t an abstract problem.
Each truck family will need a BOWMAN fit, ECM, safety case, documentation, environmental certification, spares packs, contractor support contracts, people in the IPT, training and the list is endless.
Training, each one will need a different course, each course will need designing, delivering by instructors who will have to have done the instructors course, accommodation for instructors and trainees, space in Leconfield, white fleet to support those instructors and staff, pensions, pay, healthcare and the list goes on and on and on. If a driver has to do two courses instead of one, then that time is unavailable for him or her to be tasked on operations.
In theatre, each type has to have maintainers, they have to have the tools, spares, space and documentation to carry out their tasks. If we assume that maintaining a mixed fleet of say ten vehicles takes more maintenance effort than a homogeneous fleet of 10 vehicles then we need more people in theatre, more people in theatre means more air bridge, fuel for accommodation, feeding, operational allowances, leave, training and yet again, it goes on and on and on
We might save a few quid in using a Trakker over an SV but those are illusory and wiped completely off the map by accrued costs elsewhere. Its hardly joined up thinking is it.
There is no reason why we can’t use the MAN vehicles for the roles currently carried out by Trakkers and the Oshkosh tractors, as good as they are the slight incremental performance benefits that may or may not be on offer just aren’t worth the massive cost and operational impact.
Same with the future projects, DROPS and Seddon Atkinson replacements, if these go anywhere else but MAN someone needs their head examining.
Hi Mike W.
I confess! ” several contributors have written in to say they feel that the Husky should be one of the vehicles to go ”
- what I have read (could be limited on this particular topic), Husky was purchased to go to places where other protected supply vehicles would not get to
- so, a true A-stan special? For the future, we swhould have that sort of capability in one unit, ready to deploy combat core+ CS+ CSS
- what does it make it, then? A high-mobility AI bn, with some conversions (command, mortar,resupply, recovery) of Warthog
- quite different from RM Vikings (high mobility, not so armoured – and only enhance capability, rather than standardise whole units on it)
Hi TD,
A agree fully re: truck (families) & commonality
RE your leading-in example
“30mm on RN ships
30mm Goalkeeper
20mm Phalanx
30 mm on Warrior and Scimitar
27mm on Tornado and Typhoon
30mm on Apache
40mm on FRES”
I would only be worried if all the 30 mm’s (other than the outgoing Rarden) use incompatible ammo (allowing for different types of rounds, as targets/ desired effects are naturally different)
@ArmChairCivvy,
“- what does it make it, then? A high-mobility AI bn, with some conversions (command, mortar,resupply, recovery) of Warthog”
Sounds like a good idea IF you can get enough Warthogs. I hope that the 100 plus that we have bought won’t be knackered after their experience in Afghanistan.
@TD
“There is a balance to be struck isn’t there. If we are too ruthless in our commonality drive we end up with lots of sub optimal solutions, square pegs in round holes so any savings we might have accrued are eroded by inefficiency in operational use and problems on the ground.”
You’ve put it very succintly and incisively. I think we’re largely in agreement now. On another point, I’m still thinking about the need for fully armoured trucks. Might write in later.
If the Huskies are disposed I will be in the queue (fat chance of getting hands on a Foxhound as they are all brand new)
- funnily enough even the Panther production line is so busy that the civilian version has taken a back seat; I wouldn’t want one, anyway
Mike, don’t forget, I am in production on my hair brain scheme, not so very sensible post on wheeled stuff!
ACC
As you say RARDEN used supposidly the same(but just enough different not to fit) ammo as Goalkeeper.
There is a lovely little MOD cock up in there from 2 decades or so ago when we tried to develop our own APFSD round for it. (Naturely we could not use the round that came with it, that was developed by foregners). But don’t worry I think only a 10 year delay and a few of million pissed up the wall.
Apache is completely different 30 mm.
Mike W by all accounts the Husky us an excellent vehicle. I was originally sceptical as the version of the vehicle submitted as part of the JLTV programme failed the mine blast tests. It appears this had navistar developed armour not the Plasan armour of the original. The Husky is the MATV abs has the Plasan armour. It has a fcuk-off big 6l V8 powerplant as well.
I added it to the list of replacements due to it’s small numbers. When you think thus size vehicle us pretty much going to be the US entry level vehicles replacing the Humvee you see why it is not sn easy fit in the UK. In terms of size and weight it fits between the Foxhound and the Mastiff. It is very nearly the same as a Ridgeback!!
The Pinzgauers are excellent 4x4s with superb power to weight ratio but are no longer believe there us a place for such vehicles. It’s really only limited SF types that would need anything like them or Jackal/Coyote.
My suggestion is to give them to mountain rescue teams or the civvy emergency services and/or utilise as base / training area transports until they finally die.
@Phil Darley,
Thanks very much for the extra information on the Husky. I think I remember now reading something about those failed mine blast tests too. Anyway, it seems to be doing well now. I can also understand you point about it being in service in small numbers.
Just going back to the Vector for a moment (if you can bear it, that is!). Wasn’t an armoured version of the Pinzgauer purchase by the New Zealand Army? That is the vehicle I thought we were getting as Vector. Did the Brits then stick even more armour on, thus, as you say, “knackering the VW V5 Passat engine”?
@ArmChairCivvy,
Hope you get your wish one day and are able to purchase the vehicle of your choice! The problem of what to do with vehicles purchased through UORs, specially for out-of-area conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan) is a very real one. The answer is maybe to retain them in just ONE regiment within ONE of the new multi-role brigades (Mastiffs, Ridgbacks, Wolfhounds, Huskys, etc.) That way there would always be one unit “ready-to-go”, as it were, to such trouble spots. Is that what you had in mind when saying:
“so, a true A-stan special? For the future, we should have that sort of capability in one unit, ready to deploy combat core+ CS+ CSS”?
Hi Mike W.
“there would always be one unit “ready-to-go”, as it were, to such trouble spots… saying:
“so, a true A-stan special? For the future, we should have that sort of capability in one unit, ready to deploy combat core+ CS+ CSS”?”
I have been doing an overall count for AI ( as opposed to the MI , or “Light”).
Warriors 4 bn’s worth
Warthogs 1 + CS +CSS worth, maybe some new purchaces
Then we are onto
1. SF
2. AAB
3. RM
and most controversially. Light and
- how many
- and to do what (ie. what kit)
Mike W re the NZ pinzgauers. You are correct in that the Kiwis did get sn armoured version, although I think it was the 6×6 version! I honestly don’t know if the armour was the same. I suspect it started out the same but probably did get additional armour which only added to the problems. I think the axles and suspension couldn’t handle the extra weight either, being 4×4 and not 6×6 would not have helped!
@ ArmChairCivvy
Thanks very much. All clearer now. I forgot to say in my last post that the UOR kit used it equip one regiment within one brigade could be rotated around other regiments after a certain period in order to prepare more infantry in its use.
@Phil Darley.
Thanks for the information, Phil. I didn’t even know that Vector was 4 x 4!
Mike W ignore mt last email was talking bollocks!!! Vector is 6×6 NOT 4×4 sorry must have had a senior moment!!!
@ phil funnily enough last year (or was it this year) when the northern skirt wearers were all trapped by the bad weather and the news kept bleating about ambulances not been able to get to people, first thing i said to my ex VM friend was perhaps they should de-armour the vectors that sitting round waiting doing nothing in disposal yards. Especially as there are fire fighting and ambulance versions being used around the country already. Not as if the present govt need any positive PR at the moment though is it!!!
True story in the north west mountain rescue assisted the ambulances in the bad weather and then ran out of funds as they had to pay for their own fuel, un-bloody-believable
Sorry lads. Have only just seen these.
@Phil Darley
Thanks for the info. Talking about senior moments, I had about twenty of them this morning, so you are not alone!
@paul g
Sounds like a good idea to have used Pinzgauers in that, and similar, emergencies. It always amazes me that the MOD gets shot of so much kit that could be useful in one way or another. The basic Pinz is, I believe, the kind of vehicle that would have been very valuable in such situations. It is, I think, a successor to the old Haflinger (“Mountain Pony”?) vehicle, produced in Austria and very good on the hills. I always remember, quite a few years ago, the Army being left with quite a few M548 re-supply vehicles after Tracked Rapier was withdrawn. It was the only vehicle left in British Army service that was genuinely high mobility and could manage certain types of terrain. I know that because my copy of “Soldier” magazine said so! (Must be true then!) And yet within a short space of time they and the missile vehicles had somehow disappeared off the face of the earth. I feel as angry about this quick flogging of kit as Phil Darley obviously did about equipment being sold at Withams recently. Surely storage cannot be all that expensive. Whether you could have “de-armoured” Vector is another matter. I think its basic hull consisted of thin armour.
Sorry lads. Have only just seen these.
@Phil Darley
Thanks for the info. Talking about senior moments, I had about twenty of them this morning, so you are not alone!
@paul g
Sounds like a good idea to have used the vehicles in that, and similar, emergencies. It always amazes me that the MOD gets shot of so much kit that could be useful in one way or another. The basic Pinz is, I believe, the kind of vehicle that would have been very valuable in such situations. It is, I think, a successor to the old Haflinger (“Mountain Pony”?) vehicle, produced in Austria and very good on the hills. I always remember, quite a few years ago, the Army being left with quite a few M548 re-supply vehicles after Tracked Rapier was withdrawn. It was the only vehicle left in British Army service that was genuinely high mobility and could take certain types of terrain. I know that because my copy of “Soldier” magazine said so! (Must be true then!) And yet within a short space of time they and the missile vehicles had somehow disappeared off the face of the earth. I feel as angry about this quick flogging of kit as Phil Darley obviously did about equipment being sold at Withams recently. Surely storage cannot be all that expensive. Whether you could have “de-armoured” Vector is another matter. I think its basic hull consisted of thin armour.