MoD troop carriers are U.S. rejects

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Skynet, Jul 11, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. "It all depends on how you define listening to Theatre; does the MoD talk to the blokes at the lower levels who are most likely to use these vehicles? Or is input restricted to senior officers who may have a vested interest in not asking for too many shiney new toys... !

    The requirements are drawn up in theatre in the first instance - there is a central point where the requirement is staffed in theatre (being a bit vague here intentionally), but its written at SO1 / SO2 level on the requests coming on from theatre. I regularly present on the UOR process and make the point that there is no 'good ideas club'. It doesn't matter if a private or a colonel comes up with the idea, if someone in theatre needs something, then it will be staffed up through the system into PJHQ and onwards.

    Speaking as someone who has a very good understanding of how the process works, and what is approved and not approved, youd' be surprised at just how junior most people are in the process. Senior Officers take an enormous interest in what has been approved, but will not interfere in the actual approvals process itself. The most senior person I know of involved in the approvals process is an SO1. Its very definitely not a case of "vested interests" or "senior officers and shiney toys".

    "Do any of the dull posters think the MoD would just buy off the shelf and put them out on the road? "

    Absolutely not - posters here don't seem to realise that if youbuy something off the shelf then it doesnt come with all the gizmos and widgets that we need to ensure it can work alongside UK forces. This includes things like radios, ECM, armour (where appropriate) and so on. The big challenge is integration, we can buy the UORs incredibly quickly - it averages 4 weeks from Pte Bloggs in a foxhole going "boss we need this" to the UOR Business case being signed off. Where things slow down is when you start the integration work of getting a standard vehicle and kitting it out with standard UK Theatre Entry Standard equipment. Even something as basic as Landrover WMIK has over a dozen sub UORs fitted to it to do various things.

    Couple of less than subtle adverts now:

    Firstly, for those of you still serving who want to understand why MOD does what it does with UORS, go and look up 2009DIN04/025 - you'll find it a very clear guide on the process and what goes on.

    Secondly, as someone heavily involved in overseeing the process, I'm often out briefing down to unit level on the UOR process and what it does well and not so well and the wider financial position we're in. If you are in a unit that wants to know how to do a UOR, or want your guys to understand the wider picture, then PM me. I'm only to happy to set up a chat, or if you are in Main Building, to spend an hour talking through the system and situation.

    One of my aims is to ensure that people understand that there is no 'smoke and mirrors' about the process, and I want people to realise that it is there to work for them. Do PM me if you want to come and have a talk about it in more detail.
  2. the british army hasnt got the money unlike our american cousins who can throw billions at the problem, this has always been the case.

    the media love playing devils advocate and stirring up a hornets nest, could you imagine the mod spending the same kind of cash on a few vehicles and then realising they didnt have enough money left over for fuel/ammo to make them worth the bother....
  3. So you are going to compare every procurement by the MoD to the Chinook? You'll be well out of your depth if you got any sensible reading about that under your belt - you're not going to understand that one.

    cheapseats - we have to put our kit into the vehicles - we can't buy BOWMAN-fit vehicles so they need integrating. We use different ECM so they need fitting - same with the armour which the UK believes is far superior. Also - most of the newly-procured vehicles have massive commonality - over 2/3 in many cases - actually better than you are painting.
  4. Apparently this was robbed from the expert on all things armoured - Dr 'I talk bollocks' Richard North.

    So the yanks didn't buy it as their APC - but then, neither did we.
  5. Myself and others (a lot of the time better than me!) have tried to explain the UOR process many times before.
    As has pointed out, HUSKY is not replacing SNATCH, if it is then ill be driving HUSKY in Oct to get from the accom to my place of work in BASTION!!!
    Apparently HUSKY failed some ballistic tests...well i wont confirm or deny but i have read papers on this. But did any piece of equipment pass every single test that the MOD require it to do? No.
    I can say this though, whatever needed improving would of been done, more than likely by the manufacturer before the MOD told them do so, after these tests were carried out.
    One of the problems of buying from the Americans is that they are VERY restrictive to who they sell to. Just because we stand "hand-in-hand" at times, we may as well be Iceland when it comes to buying equipment that is also being used by the Americans. Manufacturers over there, quite rightly, will supply and honour their commitment to their own forces before us. MASTIFF was a good example. I know that Officers that i have worked with on recent UOR stuff have had the recent experience to make the right decisions. At times though, its also better to have people that maybe are away from the coal face involved as well.
    Im soon to deploy to HERRICK, and will see 4 pieces of major equipment that i have been closely involved in and are being are due to be used this year(2 of which has my signatures on some trial reports). I know all those equipment will perform to the original need and in some cases exceed it.
  6. so what did the septics buy?
  7. Ok, just to take the thread slightly onto a different vehicle, If as you said all vehicles are product tested and all improvements are made before vehicle/kit goes into the field, why was MWMIK procured? I ask because of the reasons below:

    Having had more then enough experience of contact through IED's via Iraq, why was the decision made to purchase a vehicle whose front road wheels (and im sure we all know pressure plates are sooo this season) sit directly below driver and commander?

    Please correct me if im wrong but i believe we have suffered significantly higher casualties from occupants of Mwmik over Rwmik since its deployment?

    Or was it just because SF use them and it would save some dosh on trials+development as a derivative of the vehicle was already in operation use?
  8. You are right, having the point of the explosion below the wheel/driver will increase the risk of injury/death. But those type of vehicles are chosen for other reasons mainly mobility.
    MASTIFF's wheels are well away from the driver, in fact the engine etc acts as a form of sacrificial protection for occupants. Im sure you have all seen pics of the front half of MASTIFF/COUGAR with the engine laying 20ft away from the IED striked veh.
    But ask Inf what veh they want to go "off piste" and it wouldnt be MASTIFF. Is JACKAL 100% suitable probably not. But early on, yes. Now all you do as an insurgent is plant bigger IED's.
    Everyone should stop getting hung up on veh designs. No one is complaining about Quads, which are not armoured and will quite easily get stuffed no matter what size IED. But they perform a role which outweighs the protection aspect, which the riders understand.
    As for vehs with the driver over the wheel, i know of one recent incident where the veh went over a IED and apart from a minor injury, everyone was fine and it wasnt a small IED.
    By way, can anyone tell me what armour is given to the average Infantry soldier on foot patrol, to combat IED's? Or until they invent IED proof boots, we should stay inside FOB's???
  9. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    I would suggest that they swallow the financial cost of the contract, pull out and reap it back in savings made on purchasing the new vehicles. It might save millions, and will undoubtedly save lives.

    Why should we honour a contract that is twice the cost of other, better vehicles?

    Edited to add: many of us are acutely aware that contracts are not given out by the MOD purely on a fit-for-purpose basis. They are more often given out to companies with less suitable products because of the following reasons:

    They are cheaper.
    The companies that get the contracts often do so because of back-room hand-shake deals and old-fart networks.
    The political imperatives get in the way of a sensible choice.
  10. Those posters saying Husky is up to the job, does it have a V shaped hull?
  11. Does it matter?

    And before I get any irate replies, yes I am aware of the benefits of a vee-shaped hull, which are but one of the design principles used to protect vehicles against the effects of a underbelly blast.

    The vehicle failed to meet the protection requirements of one of the later MRAP-family buys, which is a pretty tough challenge to meet. It should also be noted that a number of contenders with vee-shaped hulls also failed.

    I can put my hand on my heart and tell you that the Husky does provide a very high level of protection - more so than most would expect for a vehicle of its size, and more than the Daily hate would have us believe.

    In terms of its ability to do its job - i.e. a tactical support vehicle - the Husky does all that is asked of it, and more besides. We could have purchased a vehicle with higher protection, but that wouldn't matter a jot to the soldier who hasn't recieved his replen because a more highly protected vehicle couldn't reach him, or couldn't carry the weight os stores required.

    The requirement for higher protection levels in some situations is recognised, for which the Wolfhound is being purchased (the TSV version of Mastiff), but this of course won't necessarily match the mobility of Husky...
  12. MWMIK was brought in, partly as you say, because of the SF factor, but partly because this was a vehicle that met an in-theatre requirement to provide a vehicle with much better mobility and payload than other (Landrover) WMIKS.

    There was simply nothing else out there that met the theatre requirement.

    Statistical data does not show MWMIK is any more dangerous than other WMIKs (in a like for like comparison of similar-sized threat), neither does hard trials data.
  13. Look this happens all the time you go out and buy something all nice and shiny only for by the time you get it home its been superseded by the next 2.0 version.
  14. superseded by what?, it had a known design failure when it was bought, or did no one think about pressure plates? during Herrick8 our FSGs used Rwmiks and our patrols got the first role out of Mwmiks, we suffered far more mechanical dramas however most of these can be attributed to overuse of the vehicles.

    No one take into account that SF callsigns spend little time in convoy/road moves or in the frequently used locations that our troops find themselves in due to repeat Ops, probably why IEDs were not a factor when they recieved them so if anyone says that alot of thought has gone into the procurement of this vehicle then they are way off

    What about perentie? surely an armour package similar to the Rwmiks could have been adapted for that, more load carrying ability with the same excellant armour from Rwmik and probably alot cheaper.

    just a thought.
  15. Perentie...not exactly up to date and correct me if im wrong but its leaf spring rear suspension. Ill eat my hat if it can beat a JACKAL x-country.
    When the original requirements goes out to industry, the manufacturers look at it and decide whether it can meet them, whoever (if they still do!) make the Perentie, maybe they decided it wasnt for them.

    And what is this "known design failure...."??