JLTV/OUVS Patrolling not part of OUVS so no joint programme!

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Salvador, Dec 22, 2008.

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. I want to start a new discussion thread on the OUVS project. I have been following this programme (still in its relative infancy for a few months). At first it seemed encouraging; for the following reasons:

    1: It was going to replace the vehicles in the Army's inventory (RB44, Pinzgauer and LandRover) who’s various derivatives (WMIK/Snatch and Vector) that have suffered more than most on operations. This is mainly due to the fact that the British Army has a very bad habit of taking utility/4x4 vehicles, which are fine for farms or mountain rescue teams (even military duties if they are not subject to ambush and mine threats) but so often these vehicles make up the vast majority of vehicles used on operations and due to combination of tactics military doctrine and what is actually available them proceeds to use them for fighting !!!!!!

    2: The MoD was making lots of noises about OUVS being designed with Armour and/or being able to take armour very easily, should the need arise!!!

    When you see the use to which the basic utility vehicle is then used for the second factors has added significance.

    What was even more encouraging was establishment of the USA/UK Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV)/Operational Utility Vehicle System (OUVS) Working Group in July 2008! The JLTV (Joint Light Tactical Vehicle) being the Us equivalent of OUVS and was going to replace their “Humvee” with a range of vehicles designed around a common design for utility and patrolling (see links below).


    I believe the OUVS programme is probably the single most important vehicle programme that the Army has, much more important than FRES, as these will be the vehicles that most of our troops will end up going to war in, be it conventional or asymmetric/COIN (Counter Insurgency)!

    What has made me really angry and signals that start of this programme being cocked-up is the following excerpt from Hansards (link below)


    “The JLTV capability is a replacement for HUMVEE and performs both a utility vehicle and patrol vehicle role. It therefore goes beyond the requirement for OUVS and the two parties have agreed that there is not enough synergy to warrant collaboration on the acquisition of vehicles at this time. The Working Group does however, continue to share research and development between the two programmes.”

    SORRY! How the FCUK can they say that OUVS is not intended for Patrolling? They use the Landrovers and Pinzgauers for patrolling now and OUVS is supposed to replace those two vehicle types. This is plain crazy. What are they saying?

    That OUVS vehicles will never perform those roles, even though the current vehicles DO?

    Are they going to setup a different programme just for Patrol vehicles?

    This is madness or have I got it totally wrong??

    Comments please, I think I am losing the will to live over this

  3. Gassing-badgers but that's the problem. unless they do combine the two requirements we are going to have more of the same. It appears they cannot fund enough bespoke fighting/patrol vehicles, so inevitably we end up using utility vehicles that were never designed for that role. In addition with asymetric warfare you are leaving the utility vehicles totally unprotected. We do the same with the logistics vehicles. They are only now startying to get any form of protection. Its insane! Soory this is wrong, its madness!
  4. And it boils down to cash-it's madness to think every 'runabout' for the army will be armoured. Not only would it entail massively enhanced purchase prices. but whole-of-life costs (servicing, wear and tear, fuel) would go through the roof too.
  5. meridian

    meridian LE Good Egg (charities)

    The genie is out of the bottle, insurgents the world over now know how vulnerable conventional truck/4x4 derived military vehicles are and aren't going to stop targeting them any time soon. But we also need something for running around in, moving stuff and generally carrying our operations in a permissive environment.

    Can you realistically have one vehicle that can do the general purpose stuff but then be transformed into something that can get you safely to a forward operating base or go out on a fighting patrol in a high IED/mine threat environment?

    Would too many compromises have to be made and would the cost of trying to make it do everything just mean we end up with too few.

    I think there is an argument for a range of 'pick ups' and light trucks that are basically painted green and not much else. Cheap as chips, probably something from Nissan, Ford or Toyota. These would be complimented by a range of vehicles that provide high degrees of protection, have all the ECM and weapon fits etc that would be used for operations in these high threat environments.

    Salvador does have a good point though, we won't find the funds for this so compromises will be made, utility vehicles will be pressed into service in wholly innapropriate theatres and lives will be lost. We have a track record here and it would be naive to think it wouldn't happen again. The US programme offers us the real prospect of leveraging someone elses research budget.

    It looks like FRES UV is gone and good riddance, I would much rather we had a two tier capability with sufficent numbers
  6. Meridian

    Yes, I believe the genie is indeed out of the bottle - but not for the reasons you give.

    Terrorists the world over now know that EFPs are the way to go to destroy ANY vehicle their opponents can throw at them. Therefore the way ahead is not to design a vehicle which can survive an attack but to find a way to defeat the threat - the EFP. Whether this is by designing a new armour, doing it electronically or something simpler is up to the boffins.

    The Israelis removed the threat of SAM when they attacked Iraqs burgeoning nuclear facility by flying remote controlled aircraft in front of the attacking force and then bombing the SAM sites as they reloaded after using up their missiles on the drones. Perhaps we should think of driving r/c vehicles at the front or mixed up in our patrols.
  7. a utility vehicle does'nt need a programme the yanks brought off the shelf pick up trucks when they realized hummers were slightly excessive for day to day use.
    land rovers a bit broke at the moment so could do with the order :twisted:
  8. Brighton hippy et al, surely there is NO place for a general run-around vehicle on COIN / Asymmetric operations? Fighting takes place everywhere, so where is this cheap and cheerful run-around going to be used? On base! We don't need a multi-billion programmed to design that as you say just go and buy a load of Landies or Toyota pickups. However, that is not the point; this programme has already stated that the vehicles should be fitted for but not with armour. My point is, knowing the way the Army works and the funding and availability issues, what ever OUVS ends up being they will be used for patrolling and fire support etc. just like the existing vehicles are now. If you don’t do what the yanks are doing with JLTV we will be condemning our troops to decades more of avoidable and totally unnecessary death and serious injury! That CANNOT be right!