Having had a close look at a MAN SV truck, it is difficult to provide sensible protection levels due to driver location over the wheel, and it also has obsolescence written all over it (too complex to be an Army truck). Also very easy to sabotage (if you know where to look).

The Military need simple to fix reliable and cost effective designs, commercial vehicles have a very short shelf life in comparison to Military need. Systems engineered COTS with careful subsystem selection (e.g. in volume use in a number of commercial markets and robust) could lead to more suitable options, this was proven by DERA with HMD in the 1990s, this is still one of the most highly mobile wheeled vehicles http://www.sae.org/ohmag/toptech/02.htm (scroll down to see details). HMD can be configured to have any top hamper/mission module including PPV and the driving position can be from either side or centre.

Perhaps we should entrust the MOD’s own R&D design houses to lead/architect future system rather than have competition drive such huge fleet diversity. Then compete build to print the proven design to multiple manufacturers to avoid single source risks. As noted above, this was the case in the 1950s when MVEE insisted on the use of proven common components, leading to standard crew layouts which eased the training burden etc.

I know this is rather off-thread but this is the only vaguely relevant thread I could think of posting it on.

I have recently come across a series of excellent close-up photos of the mine ploughs that are currently in use by the British Army. The pictures are to be found on the “Plain Military” website, under the headings SPTA Exercises – Pashtun Dawn 2011 – Pashtun Dawn Convoy Mine Rollers. If anyone is registered with that website, they might care to look at them. The ploughs are used on both Mastiff and Ridgback.

What I really wanted to know, though, was which firm produced them? Are they British (perhaps produced by Pearson Engineering) or are they produced abroad? It would be nice to know that we still have some military manufacturing still left in this country.

Sounds like a very good point you are making. Is it quite as easy as that, though? Wouldn’t the present flat racks used on, say, the MAN EPLS (or the tanks on the USTs or whatever) and the truck itself be precision engineered to fit each another? Are all 8 x 8s and 6 x 6s engineered to a standard size? Are flat racks, tippers, rocket pods etc. all standard size? I don’t know the answer but couldn’t calling in another firm and getting them to precision engineer their new trucks prove quite costly?

Moreover, I think TD was suggesting that all heavy trucks, including tank transporters be standardized on MAN. Two points here. If ASCOD2 is selected for FRES SV, we shall need more transporters to carry them. If we purchase new MAN transporters to do so in the interests of commonality, then we shall suddenly find ourselves with a split (MAN/Oshkosh) HET or LET fleet. Secondly, say if MAN, as monopoly suppliers, suddenly were to prove “uppity” over supplying new mainstream SVs and raised the price or something, we should have to revert to Oshkosh (or another firm) to supply not only the HETs but middle-range trucks too. This probably all sounds confused but I don’t think it is as easy a matter as just switching the trucks.

In many cases commonality does not mean the same vehicle.

A Flat rack/ container sized, Cement mixer/tipper/rocket artillery etc etc could be fitted to ANY 8 x 8 comercial truck chasis. So if one supplier go uppity you could next time the contract cam up switch from MAN to IVECO to Mercedees etc.

Presumably the avoidance of being screwed by the supplier is why the MoD wanted the IPR for the Piranha V when they down selected for FRES UV, so they could go back to a third party to make modifications or create a new batch.

“Re: ruthless commonality.
If we end up basing everything on a handful of base designs dont we risk ending up getting royally rogered by the supplier? If you want another batch, or another variation the supplier has you over a barrel. Unless you buy the intellectual property for all the bits you want, and then put out the manufacturing to contract, so you can change manufacturer without changing the design.”

Couldn’t agree more. I thought of a point along these lines (honest!) after I had submitted some of my earlier comments.

Commonality, yes. RUTHLESS commonality? Not really, for several reasons.

@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.

@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.

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!

“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)

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”?

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.

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.

“- 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.

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)

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)

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.