Army Vehicle Boiling Vessels

Essential defence news.

The MoD has issued a contract note for…

Cooking vessels and ancillaries enabling contract.

Parts of military vehicles. Defence Support Group Land Supply Business Unit, part of the UK Ministry of Defence, seeks to place an Enabling Contract for the supply of various Cooking vessels and ancillary spares for a period of 2 years, with an option for a further year.

Estimated value excluding VAT: Range: between 4 500 000 and 10 000 000 GBP

Instead of only heating the RAK 15H/C can now cool as well.

Read the brochure hereTeaPut the kettle on

Read more here

14 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The Other Chris
February 18, 2015 9:28 am

Bibby Scientific are a great company, a lot of very smart and practical engineers working there.

Does the deal consist of a large number of their Hot/Cold units?

Chris
Chris
February 18, 2015 9:57 am

TOC – you confused me there – BVs have always been made by Electrothermal! But I see Bibby and Electrothermal are one and the same. So that’s all right then.

Obviously there is a BV in every one of my designs. Its the law. At a trade show last year I saw the new heater/cooler demonstrated – a fine bit of kit, even if the extra height might cause headaches in installation.

A related couple of notes. Note 1 – For Gulf1 Alvis made a mine scattering vehicle in record time; it was a flatbed version of Stormer, so had a driver beside the engine and commander immediately behind. We fitted all the tactical stuff around the commander, so the BV went over to the far sponson where there was space. Post deployment, the most important gripe in the debrief was “Put the radio IK over on the far sponson and the BV next to the commander.”

Note 2 – When LM started the design of their futuristic looking AVA truck, I bought a BV off ebay. I then had it stripped and refurbished to look shiny-new. It cost a bit… My American management thought I was wasting their time and money; none too pleased at the time – until the prototypes were presented to the Army. Almost without exception the presence of the BV was commented upon with approval, several military types suggesting where it would be better moved to (while not making such detailed comments about the rest of the design). In the round, the presence of the little grey box provided a significant increase in appreciation for the team’s efforts. I have no idea if the Americans in the team recognised the value of the BV; certainly they never bothered to admit it was a good idea to fit it. Oh well.

Kent
Kent
February 18, 2015 6:30 pm

The only “food heaters” we had in the US Army were the armored vehicle heaters, squad stoves (also known as “arsonists’ delights”), and exhaust manifolds. (To my knowledge, one soldier wired a can of beans to an M60A3 exhaust just before unexpectedly being sent on a road march with the rest of the company. The can exploded somewhere along the way, and the soldier was tasked by his tank commander with cleaning the baked-on residue off the stack, the heat shield, the grill doors, etc. The same thing often happened if the driver forgot about the food he put in the heater.) When I became a company XO, my driver (a mechanic) built a rack on the back fender of the jeep for his tool box with room for my personal two-burner propane stove under it. On the other hand, in the aircraft my brother flew in the USAF, they had galleys, bunks, and a WC (something also missing in our tanks).

Mark1603
Mark1603
February 18, 2015 7:01 pm

As part of the UK Support Vehicle Program we supplied the “new” style BV (heating only. When we then did the vehicles as part of the UOR upgrades, we did try to convince them to have the “fridge” ones as well, but they weren’t interested in them. Not sure if they will look to upgrade over time.
Kiwi’s have also purchased the “heating” only BV as part of the MHOV program.
Strangely, the Australians aren’t going for anything in there trucks for L121 at this moment in time. Will have to try again to do an “up-sell”

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
February 18, 2015 7:18 pm

The need to protect the BV is by far the number one justification for any form of armour on a wagon.

Chris, the only thing Alvis did right with CVR(T) Scimitar and Scorpion was locating the BV in the wagon centre of movement, reducing spillage. By contrast, that on Spartan and Swingfire were on the inside of the back door, with the world’s most cheap, nasty and useless strap to “hold” it in place during movement. Except the strap never did hold it in place, and at the end of manoeuvre you’d find the BV on the floor, empty, boiled dry and broken. Just reason number 2638 why the CVR(T) series was completely shite.

Kent
Kent
February 18, 2015 7:34 pm

@RT – I always thought the Scorpion/Scimitar were nifty little vehicles (other than the de-rated Jaguar gasoline engine and the attendant fire risk on the early ones). At the same time y’all were using them, our scout platoons (armored and mechanized infantry battalions) were stuck with three M113A1s and three M901 ITVs. (ITVs didn’t have any place in a scout platoon since they were overweight, top heavy, and couldn’t provide suppressive fire.) What didn’t/don’t you like about the CVR(T)s? They apparently provided yeoman service in 1982.

whitelancer
whitelancer
February 18, 2015 10:13 pm

Who came up with the BV or more to the point who decided it should be fitted to AFV’s in the British Army?
That was one procurement decision no one could argue with.
How do other armies manage without it?

@Red Trousers
Have to disagree with you about CVR(T). Not perfect of course, but then what is? In my opinion, for its time, it was the best recce vehicle available. What was so bad about it? What was their that was better?

IXION
February 19, 2015 7:35 am

RT

Can I add my voice to ask RT for a breakdown on CVRTs err…….breakdowns.

Like NAB on ships, I love to hear from experts on subjects that interrest me.

I know you are a proponant of the combat unicycle, but apart from the ‘fuel bladder’ and a tendancy to remove the drivers front teeth I was unaware of any issues,

Btw the amx 13 would break the drivers neck/decapitate him in the same situation so thats one up for the brits!:))

Obsvr
Obsvr
February 19, 2015 7:39 am

BVs were in 432 when first issued (and other vehicle in the range such as Abbott). Not sure about Chieftain that entered service about the same time, but probably. The were not in Saracans (incl the 610 BCP variant). So that gives you about early/mid 1960s ISD.

Dfac Tourist
Dfac Tourist
February 19, 2015 8:40 am

Chieftain had a BV – Father in law was a Chieftain driver and regularly reflects on the cold war winning tactic of heating up tins (and getting an extra ration per crew)

Secundius
Secundius
May 14, 2015 5:36 pm

I’m surprised they just didn’t purchase the Sous Vide Supreme Demi Water cooking unit instead, A “Hell Of A Lot Cheaper” @ ~210-British Pounds…

mr.fred
mr.fred
May 14, 2015 7:10 pm

Secundius,
Is the “Sous Vide Supreme Demi Water cooking unit” rated for use in military vehicles and land environments?
Does it run on 24v DC?
Since it doesn’t actually boil the water, and therefore cannot make a good cup of tea, is it something we could, in good consciousness, inflict on our troops?

monsmoy
monsmoy
February 20, 2016 9:19 pm

The Old CVRT BV was one of the best pieces of kit ever invented.Of course it boils the water for a good cup of tea.Food was hot and if you ever had the misfortune to accidently cook a tin of jam ,i can tell you it was fucking scalding hot when i pricked the bloody tin with the old army can opener…had fucking in me face and all around the bloody turret. The water was boiling hot for a strip wash…brilliant bit of kit

@Ravenser
@Ravenser
February 22, 2016 11:20 am

I shudder to think of how many gallons of petrol/diesel I used over the years just to boil the kettle (BV) Notwithstanding the wear on the engine etc. If there had been an hours run meter on the J60 I’m sure it would have told a very different engine failure ES story as opposed to just recording the mileage in the AB413.