Multidrive Vehicles

Multidrive Vehicles supplied a number of innovative solutions to the British Army but it was their failed Specialist Vehicles bid that was a real opportunity lost

Multidrive has a complex and multi-faceted history, but it is a fascinating history because from a UK defence perspective, they designed and produced a number of innovative products that many think were lost opportunities for the British Army and defence exports.

David J. Brown CBE established DJB Engineering and produced a number of off-road articulated dump trucks. This company (later called Artix) was subsequently sold to Caterpillar but Mr Brown then turned his attention to designing a similarly agile off road dump truck but one that would also be suitable for use on the road.

Thus, the Multidrive Company was formed in 1983.

Fuel and Water Tanker

The first defence use of the Multidrive concept was for fuel tankers for use in Operation Granby, the liberation of Kuwait. The MoD purchased 26 fuel and water tanker systems, based on Bedford AWD tractor units.

AWD was also formed by David Brown. The AWD brand continued with Bedford trucks, the TL and TM range were purchased by the British Army but in 1992 the company went into receivership and then purchased by Marshalls of Cambridge.

Combining the experience of dealing with the MoD through AWD and high mobility on road conversions from Multidrive an urgent operational requirement for the Army was rapidly fulfilled for operations in the Balkans, first Bosnia and then later, for Kosovo.

Both used Foden tractor units.

The 8×6 ‘Improved Mobility’ tanker trailer could hold 20,000 Litres of fuel or water with the ability to discharge from the left or right. Using the powered trailer and rear wheel steering, it was highly mobile, having a 17m turning circle for example. Other advantages were reported to be improved tire scrub, low chassis stress and increased safety, especially on gradients.

For the Kosovo deployment, the fuel tanker was joined by a water tanker variant that incorporated a heating system to prevent the water freezing.

They were subsequently used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[tabs] [tab title=”Multidrive Tanker in Kosovo”]

[/tab] [tab title=”Multidrive Tanker”]

[/tab] [tab title=”Multidrive Tanker Video”]

[/tab] [/tabs]

All three deployments demonstrated the value of the concept, the vehicles were highly mobile, low cost, safe and reliable.

Vehicle Transporter

Although none were formally introduced, the British Army and Multidrive designed and trialled a flat-bed version for transporting smaller vehicles, like the CVR(T) shown in the image below. Also proven, was the ability to adapt MOTS/COTS tractor units, both Foden and Bedford.

This image perfectly illustrates the propshaft arrangement for the powered trailer.

Future Cargo Vehicle and Flex Frame

The Future Cargo Vehicle (FCV) and Future Wheeled Recovery Vehicle (FWRV) projects afforded Multidrive with an opportunity to win a much larger contract with the MoD than the fuel and water tankers.

Future Fuel Vehicle (FFV) was advertised as a PFI in January 1998, with Future Cargo Vehicle (FCV) following in August 1998 and Future Wheeled Recovery Vehicle (FWRV) in September 1999. FFV and FCV went through a pre-qualification phase in order to select a shortlist of potential bidders who would be invited to submit outline proposals. There were three endorsed staff requirements for the trucks;

  • SR (SLA) 4100 for a 6-tonne truck, High Mobility (HM)
  • SR (SLA)4096 for a 9-tonne truck, Intermediate Medium Mobility (IMM)
  • SR (SLA) 4120 for a 15-tonne truck, Medium Mobility (MM)

Multidrive responded with a highly versatile concept that started from a clean sheet design, producing a number of prototypes between 2000 and 2001. Around this period, the USA also had a similar set of requirements and in 2002 Multidrive were awarded a 6 vehicle demonstration contract with the National Automotive Center, feedback was reportedly excellent.

The feedback from the NAC is that the US military is thrilled by it, it’s like an answer to a maiden’s prayer. We hope it will lead to our direct involvement in the provision of trucks to the US army

Chris Chambers, Sales and Marketing Manager

A decision was taken in 2001 to change direction on the procurement model and instead of the planned PFI, procure the vehicles under a conventional arrangement, using an international competition.

The subsequently renamed Multidrive Multi-Purpose Mobility Platform (MPMP) was then formally submitted for the Future Cargo Vehicle (FCV) requirement.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Multidrive Multi-Purpose Mobility Platform (MPMP) Features

Suspension and Steering

The independent active suspension system was designed by Davis Technologies and Arvin Meritor. Coil over shock absorber units were replaced with Davis struts that reduced the weight by half. They had an automatic and manual mode, including dynamic ride height and tilt and kneel functionality for cargo loading/unloading and tire changing. All wheel steering (both crab and contra) provided excellent manoeuvrability and a small turning circle of 9.7m, it also had a central tire pressure system.

Payload and Mobility

The base 4×4 vehicle was defined as High Mobility, with a 6 tonne payload.

Adding another 3 tonnes onto the same vehicle, for a payload of 9 tonnes, simply degraded the mobility to the slightly less ‘Improved Medium Mobility’ category.

Exactly the same vehicle could therefore be used for both the 6 and 9 tonne payload requirements.

[tabs] [tab title=”Mobility Video 1″]

[/tab] [tab title=”Mobility Video 2″]

[/tab] [/tabs]

Protection and Cab Design

Although the base vehicle had no protection it was designed to accept appliqué armour to improve ballistic and mine protection.

The cab could accommodate 3 personnel and was of a walk through design.

Reduced acoustic and radar signature were also integral to the design.


With a payload of 6 tonnes, the MPMP was still able to be underslung by a Chinook and was easily carried by a C-130.


Instead of a traditional ladder chassis, the MPMP featured a torsional stiff spine underneath which was mounted two slide out modular trays. One module housed the 275bhp Cummins diesel engine and transmission whilst the other, housed a fuel tank, cooling pack and spare wheel. The spare wheel module featured a slide out and ‘make vertical’ assembly that could be operated by one person.

Pulse Propulsion Load System

The integrated trailer was integral to the concept, designed to allow the same basic vehicle to meet the 15 tonne requirement, in addition to the 6 and 9 tonne requirement. This approach was unique, using the same vehicle for all three requirement would provide significant logistics commonality benefits.

Not only was it powered, but it had central tire inflation, self-levelling and was articulated in a manner that meant mobility did not suffer. This allowed payload to be increased to 15 tonnes whilst maintaining a turn radius of 10.7 metres.

The self-loading system was designed with both pallets and ISO containers in mind, and the self-unloading feature was also capable of meeting the DROPS requirement for artillery ammunition pallets. Extending the trailer allowed longer loads to be carried and this feature was also used for self-recovery.

[tabs] [tab title=”Pulse Trailer”]


[/tab] [tab title=”Pulse Trailer Video 1″]

[/tab] [tab title=”Pulse Trailer Video 2″]

[/tab] [/tabs]

With the Pulse trailer, two 20ft ISO containers could be transported, and for one quarter of the cost of the 6 tonne base vehicle, the same payload as that vehicle could be carried.

Flex Frame and Stewart and Stevenson

Although the MPMP was of undoubted capability and had a number of unique innovations it did represent some risk as the Army was considering the replacement for the venerable Foden, Scammel, Bedford and DAF trucks.

A more conventional truck layout was also developed that used an articulating and hydraulically actuated trailer mechanism called the Flex Frame, the frame also carried a prop shaft to carry power to the trailers wheels.

The advantage of this system was it allowed the vehicle to maintain powered contact with ground over undulating terrain, with 50 degrees up/down and 50 degree side to side movement. Rotation was a full 360 degrees (although it is hard to imagine this being exploited in use).

The image below illustrates this movement.

Both tanker and cargo (with hydraulic jib) variants of the Multidrive Flex Frame were produced.

[tabs] [tab title=”Flex Frame Tanker”]

[/tab] [tab title=”Flex Frame Cargo”]

[/tab] [tab title=”Flex Frame Video”]

[/tab] [/tabs]

Such a large order might represent a financial bridge too far for Multidrive, so they partnered with Stewart and Stevenson for the Support Vehicle and associated projects, replacing Future Cargo Vehicle.

The Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) was produced by Stewart and Stevenson, with production starting in 1991. This was a very large order, approximately 70,000 built to date. Although Stewart and Stevenson are now owned by Oshkosh, at the time, they partnered with Multidrive (and LEX and LDV) in competition with Oshkosh. MAN ERF and Daimler Chrysler.

With Multidrive providing the powered trailer technology and Stewart and Stevenson providing the well proven and conventional tractor truck, the FMTV Flex Frame concept was developed.

This allowed the advantages of the Multidrive system to be exploited by both a more conventional tractor unit and a larger company.

As we know, MAN eventually won the SV contract, and Oshkosh, the tanker and heavy equipment transporter contracts.

QinetiQ Hybrid Drive Demonstrator

At about the same time as the US demonstration contract, Multidrive partnered with QinetiQ on their Hybrid Electric Drive (HED) demonstrator vehicle. Under the Applied Research Programme (ARP) contract, QinetiQ was to act as systems integrator for the design and build of a 6-wheel, 18-tonne technology demonstrator, with individual wheel control. The 6×6 HED demonstrator built on the smaller High Mobility Demonstrator (HMD) vehicle.

[tabs] [tab title=”HMD and HED”]


[/tab] [tab title=”HED Video”]

[/tab] [/tabs]

Welcoming the new contract Defence Procurement Minister, Lord Bach said;

Building a hybrid drive demonstrator will allow us to closely study the claimed advantages of hybrid electric drive ( HED ) and its suitability for future military vehicles. The results of this wholly MOD funded evaluation programme will provide detailed data in key areas such as mobility, design flexibility, operating costs and fuel economy, which will lead to informed choices based on hard data and real experience.

QinetiQ have since gone on to secure a number of research and development contracts with hybrid electric drive systems.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Now, and the HALO Trust Mine Tractor

In 2004, David Brown was tragically killed in a car accident and in the same year, the MoD awarded the Specialist Vehicle contract to MAN.

The company would not recover from these twin blows and eventually, it was put up for sale in 2006. Multidrive was purchased by a private buyer and continues to work on supporting the existing user base in the construction, logging and mining industry, whilst developing licence build opportunities, especially for the M8 vehicle.

Read more at the new Multidrive website.

Multidrive Tractors are now part of the Kelland Group, producing a range of multi-purpose agricultural load carriers, including a specialist vehicle for the HALO Trust, used in mine clearance operations.

Multidrive technology, I think, represented a real opportunity lost for the British Army, a real shame.

Change Status

Change Date Change Record
 01/03/2017 initial issue
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The Other Chris
December 25, 2016 7:19 pm

What are the main advantages of multi-drive? Is it primarily AWD for trailer loads?

December 28, 2016 12:14 am

What a great piece on great British innovation and a lost chance indeed !

December 30, 2016 3:55 am

Thanks TD, fascinating read! The Multidrive/pulse trailer combination looks like a really useful bit of engineering. Presumably it lost out on the grounds of cost or risk?

Kibbitz Van Ogle
Kibbitz Van Ogle
January 2, 2017 3:03 pm

US Marine Corps has similar requirements to that of the UK Army. But the final result seems both less ‘mountain-goat’ agile, and technically more specialized, including fully-independent suspension all around, than the multi-Drive approach. USMC went for the 10×10 (=5 powered axles) Logistics Vehicle System Replacement (LVSR). See also
Over 2000 vehicles have been built.
The 3-axle trailers are non-powered.

Rocket Banana
January 3, 2017 11:06 am

Is the Viking or Warthog not classed as a multi-drive vehicle?

January 3, 2017 1:43 pm

To turn around on forestry roads would sure be more difficult than with MAN SX. The use of multi-axle trailers is restricted to ‘rear’ support services in land forces for a reason.

One COULD make a multi-axis trailer agile with a backward driving camera and individually powered/braked if nto even steerable wheels on the trailer (with driver in the cabin steering via monitor and sidestick when driving backwards), but that’s more complicated than to use a 15 ton 8×8.

January 11, 2017 3:33 pm

All these solutions appear to be direct drive from the tractor, has any work been done on hydraulic or electric powered trailers?


Peter Elliott
January 12, 2017 1:50 pm

It is worth noting that in modern articulated buses the engine and transmission lie in the rear unit and effectively push the unpowered cab unit along.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x