UK Defence Forum

From the Contract Notice

The provision and in-service support (including but not limited to spares, repairs, PDS and ad-hoc tasking) Protected Mobility (PM) vehicles capable of providing a ‘Troop carrying’ and Pre-Hospital Emergency Care (PHEC) and Medical Evacuation (MEDEVAC) ambulance capability of a modern design.

In addition, the Contractor will be required to integrate UK Armed Forces specific mission equipment with the vehicles.

Multi Role Vehicle — Protected (MRV-P) Troop Carrying Vehicle (TCV) and Future Protected Battlefield Ambulance (FPBFA) are intended to be based on a common base platform with sufficient flexibility to satisfy a number of roles. The TCV and FPBFA variants will support the rapidly deployable forces (i.e. first-in, airborne or amphibious capability) as well as the regular armed forces. TCV and FPBFA must therefore provide protected mobility against real world scenarios encountered by military forces conducting Global Operations.

As core equipment, TCV and FPBFA shall have an in-service life of at least 25 years.

It is intended that the TCV variant will provide the base platform to satisfy wider requirements which include but are not limited to EOD, RMP, Engineer Support, and Gun Limber. Any requirements for these variants will be completed via Ad Hoc Tasking, post Contract Award.

In order to achieve a Planning Assumption for Service Entry (PASE) date during 2019, the TCV and FPBFA capability is expected to be based on Military off the Shelf (MOTS) mature platforms of modern design capable of incorporating the required

Personnel and Medical mission fits.

Whilst a detailed requirements document will be released as part of the Invitation to Negotiate (ITN), the following should be considered as general characteristics of a vehicle suitable to meet the TCV and FPBFA requirement.

Occupants FPBFA:

1 x Driver;
1 x Commander;
6 x Personnel ( FPBFA) — Combination of permanent seating for 2 x Medical Attendants seated at the head of the stretcher and ability to transport 2 stretchered casualties or 1 stretchered casualty and 3 Seated Casualties and combinations thereof.
Occupants TCV:

1 x Driver;
1 x Commander;
6 x Seated Passengers (TCV).
Human Factors Integration (HFI)

FPBFA must allow Medical Attendants to carry out a number of medical tasks while the vehicle is stationary and in motion.

Capacity

Must have sufficient capacity to carry occupants and personal equipment, UK mission systems, Complete Equipment Schedule (CES) and appropriate medical equipment for FPBFA.

Dimensions:

Max width 2 500 mm;

Max width 2 500 mm;

Max Height 2 650 mm (transit mode).

Transportability:

Must be capable of being transported by land, sea and air (including but not limited to A400M and C17) with minimal preparation. There is no requirement to transport under slung by rotary wing aircraft.Mobility:

Mobility:

Must have ≥ Medium Mobility load carrying classification.Survivability:

Survivability:

To provide threshold protection to the occupants from ballistic threat at ≥ Stanag Level 2 and blast threat at ≥ Stanag Level 2.

Quantity or Scope

The Authority is considering the purchase of around 150 TCV and 80 FPBFA vehicles including 12 simulators initially (precise number to be finalised and advised in the tender documents) along with 5 years of associated support. The initial contract for delivery and initial support is expected to be of around 7 years duration. It is also expected that irrevocable contractual options will be required for additional vehicle quantities (in increments up to a total of around 300 TCV and 300 FPBFA) and support covering a period of 25 years. The ranging and scaling of support may vary through the life of the contract.

Estimated value excluding VAT:

Range: between 170 000 000 and 2 000 000 000 GBP

The Authority intends to seek irrevocable options to include:

Additional numbers of vehicles (to be defined) in batch buys but which may not run concurrently with the initial purchase;

Additional blocks of 5 yr Support Packages (up to a maximum of 25 years).

Exercise of these options will be at the Authority’s sole discretion and subject to the contract continuing to demonstrate best value and required performance against Key Performance Indicators.

shark bait wrote:I know what get my vote, I believe it fits all those requirements
[Foxhound]

RunningStrong wrote:GD also had the Eagle platform at DSEi with the potential for it to form part of the bid. Eagle already has the COTS variants and costs have been driven down on it.

Unsure whether Foxhound has made the same cost drive, and of the steel hull is enough of a benefit.

arfah wrote:Foxhound was designed primarily for urban operations in the "Snatch" role and only carries four occupants in the back.

marktigger wrote:to add the ambulance modules, crew kit and radios. mind you was the same with landrover with missile kit and command post kit

mr.fred wrote:Against a requirement of 6 dismounts. So it does not fit the stated requirements

shark bait wrote:Our version current version takes 4 dismounts, but I was under the impression there is space for 6 in the back with a modified module, is that not the case?

mr.fred wrote:Not so far as I am aware. Certainly the pictures posted are the 4 dismount version. Having nosed around a little in the back of a Foxhound, an increased dismount capacity would either require a lengthened chassis, or replacing the equipment bays and placing two occupants over the wheel wells, which I understand is undesirable in mine protected vehicle design.

PARIS – The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle could be in line to win its first export order even before the US Department of Defense makes a decision to order full rate production of the platform.

The UK’s Ministry of Defence has revealed it is in talks with the Pentagon, which might lead to a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) deal. The British Army is interested in acquiring the Oshkosh Defense vehicle, set to replace the Army and Marine Corps Humvees, to meet part of a requirement known as the Multi-Role Vehicle-Protected (MRV-P).

“We can confirm that we are talking to the US DOD regarding package 1 [of MRV-P], to inform our understanding of an FMS option for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle,” said an MoD spokesman.

In a separate move to the JLTV talks announcement, the MoD confirmed June 16 that it had drawn up a short-list of contractors to battle it out for a second element of MRV-P and had put a third piece of the requirement on hold for the time being.