Thread by @nicholadrummond

BRITISH ARMY MRVP PROGRAMME (Thread)
The Army wants an inexpensive multi-role protected vehicle so that more of its troops can benefit from protected mobility. This remains an important programme that will ensure a larger % of the Army is deployable.
(1 of 10)

As things stand, the Army wants to acquire the Oshkosh JLTV for Package 1 (Command & Liaison / Tactical Support roles). And is holding a competition between GDLS Eagle V and Thales Bushmaster MR6 for Package 2 (Troop Carrying and Battlefield Ambulance roles).
(2 of 10)

However, MRVP has come under increased scrutiny and for good reason. JLTV is an excellent and inexpensive vehicle. But helping our post-pandemic economy to recover will require us to invest in military vehicles built domestically rather than imported from the USA.
(3 of 10)

Given the relative simplicity of this type of vehicle, developing a domestically produced MRVP should be easy. Plenty of industry partners would be willing to invest in UK production. This is great so long as the price doesn't reduce the total number we can afford.
(4 of 10)

But, there are other reasons to reconsider this programme. One is a concern about fitness for role. Maybe we need something with better off-road mobility and increased protection. Maybe this is something like Boxer Lite? Or the 17-tonne Iveco VBTP-MSR 6x6?
(5 of 10)

(Forget Boxer Lite. It was only ever a concept, is not production ready and would require massive engineering effort to bring to market.) Since so many light armoured vehicles are available off-the-shelf, we really ought to be able to identify a suitable candidate.
(6 of 10)

Other MRVP critics believe that Package 1 and Package 2 should be based on a common platform. General Dynamics, for example, has the Eagle V available as a 4x4 and 6x6. So we would benefit from shared components, simplified training and less expensive fleet management.
(7 of 10)

A further concern is the need for greater off-road mobility. Wheeled 4x4 platforms with Level 3-4 protection typically weigh 7-10 tonnes. This is not conducive to good off-road performance.
(8 of 10)

Other MRVP critics note that the Army already has a large number of other wheeled armoured vehicles. So why does it need more? Below are Foxhound, Husky and Panther. To be fair, many of these are old and worn out and running a fleet of multiple types is expensive.
(9 of 10)

If those responsible for the Integrated Review decide to re-boot the MRVP programme, it could help the Army to get a better long-term platform. The cost of Boxer and Ajax means that MRVP affordability will be vital to ensure adequate numbers can be acquired.
(10 of 10)