Foxhound Protected Vehicle
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
JLTV didn't have a contest??? Say what? A very thorough, long lasting, extensive & expensive set of trials of real vehicles under public scrutiny and subject to legal challenge in case of unfairness
Now tell me again about the "contests" that declared Panther, Ajax, Piranha, Warrior WSCP winners????? Yeah, a bunch of political bullshit decisions hidden under layers of bureaucratic secrecy that's resulted in hundreds of millions of wasted UK taxpayer's hard earned.
And coming soon to a theater near you: the Type 31 program, another program in exactly the same mold. Given to a company with zero experience in building military equipment (see Lockheed UK & tank turrets), to be built at a site with no facilities to build complex military hardware, with no workers skilled in the arts of designing, testing and building said complex equipment (see GD UK & Ajax in their disused fork lift factory in Merthyr Tydfil). Selected purely on political grounds because the lords and masters didn't want the work going someplace else (see Bae & Ajax). Hurrah. I sure hope I'm wrong but would anyone care to make a small (or large) wager?
Now tell me again about the "contests" that declared Panther, Ajax, Piranha, Warrior WSCP winners????? Yeah, a bunch of political bullshit decisions hidden under layers of bureaucratic secrecy that's resulted in hundreds of millions of wasted UK taxpayer's hard earned.
And coming soon to a theater near you: the Type 31 program, another program in exactly the same mold. Given to a company with zero experience in building military equipment (see Lockheed UK & tank turrets), to be built at a site with no facilities to build complex military hardware, with no workers skilled in the arts of designing, testing and building said complex equipment (see GD UK & Ajax in their disused fork lift factory in Merthyr Tydfil). Selected purely on political grounds because the lords and masters didn't want the work going someplace else (see Bae & Ajax). Hurrah. I sure hope I'm wrong but would anyone care to make a small (or large) wager?
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
Panther was a POS in UK service. Long rumored to have been acquired due to corrupt practices as it neatly bypassed all standard rules to be chosen.Gabriele wrote:Was it truly without a contest...? It is... a complex case. MRV-P got where it is today after dragging its feet for years as OUVS. Between having operated Panther (so having a decent idea of how the Iveco Lince is), having run a competition for the requirement eventually fullfilled by Foxhound and having considered OUVS options, it is not like JLTV was chosen entirely out of the blue.
It's complex.
And frustrating. The Army needs to stop spending decades throwing money at dubious programs that then just end in nothing but a name change and yet more years of uncertainty. In all the years that have passed, it could have trialed every last vehicle in existence, had it wanted to.
Foxhound was not built to the same requirement being filled by JLTV. For a long time the MRV(P) requirement specifically excluded Foxhound missions.
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
And then the Power that be moved the goal post and MRV(P) will have a combat roll and capability creep begins to set in. JLTV is ahead of the curve a bit here but the platforms being looked at for part 2 of the programme, especially the APC variant will probably end up being built to a far higher spec than was originally envisaged. Add true mine protection, add on armour capability and so on and as I have already suggested, we might as well go for Boxer variants, which with existing orders for around 500 and a UK production line being set up could be a more sensible option.
JLTV covers the Part 1 requirements or most of them and should be the cheapest option and already have the most items on the manufacturers accessories list. Foxhound is a effective platform so maybe the RAF Regiment should get them to replace the Panthers and other vehicles it already operates. You could even take the RWS from those redundant Panthers and install them on some of the Foxhounds if needed. This leave the Army with the JLTV and Boxer as its main wheeled armoured platforms, just two fleets with all the benefits that beings.
JLTV covers the Part 1 requirements or most of them and should be the cheapest option and already have the most items on the manufacturers accessories list. Foxhound is a effective platform so maybe the RAF Regiment should get them to replace the Panthers and other vehicles it already operates. You could even take the RWS from those redundant Panthers and install them on some of the Foxhounds if needed. This leave the Army with the JLTV and Boxer as its main wheeled armoured platforms, just two fleets with all the benefits that beings.
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
I know. The point is that, despite it being born out of an urgent requirement, it came through a competition that had Supacat filing her design in. The MOD knows pretty well what other suppliers could put forwards, in other words.Foxhound was not built to the same requirement being filled by JLTV. For a long time the MRV(P) requirement specifically excluded Foxhound missions.
The PANTHER is a mystery. Apart from BOWMAN making it cramped like hell and other changes, it is difficult to judge the Iveco Lince. Belgium also hates it. Others love it, however, and it exported in thousands of units to a dozen countries. How opinions can be so black or white will always be confusing to me.
In any case, experience with the Lince, even in BAE-ized variant, is important because the Lince (the new Lince 2, specifically...) would be one of the few alternatives to JLTV if the competition was to be run. After all, the list of possible alternatives to JLTV isn't so long: the Supacat HMT-derivative with enclosed cab if it can actually become more than a piece of paper, the Iveco Lince 2, the Thales HAWKEYE, maybe the GD Eagle 4x4. Foxhound, if it was ever possible to cut down its cost to a quarter of its current one, which is unlikely.
Unless you want to consider Finland's Sisu Auto GTP or Turkey's Otokar Cobra, that's pretty much it...
I don't think so. Also, the Troop Carrier Vehicle is not intended to be a frontline vehicle for infantry battalions. More like a second-line protected mover.JLTV is ahead of the curve a bit here but the platforms being looked at for part 2 of the programme, especially the APC variant will probably end up being built to a far higher spec than was originally envisaged.
To be honest, the exact requirement behind this 2+6 vehicle is kind of unclear, but mechanizing light role infantry is not the aim.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
That appears now to have changed. Ok it isn't going on the frontlines against Russian Tank units, but in lower tier warfare it is now expected to be a front line vehicle, if that classification is still relevant with frontlines becoming ever more grey areas.Gabriele wrote:More like a second-line protected mover.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
+ArmChairCivvy wrote: Foxhound -despite the fact that the Patrol Version was never ordered- is a platoon level patrol (protected) vehicle:
- disperse the patrol, with good connectivity and sensors
- trade dismounts for more ammo and whatever it takes to stay... a bit longer than planned, plus space to accommodate any wounded
Agree.SD67 wrote: seems more like a niche product for paras / SF.
I wonder where the Salavation Army mentality of donations comes from every time the RAF Rgmnt is mentioned?Lord Jim wrote: Foxhound is a effective platform so maybe the RAF Regiment should get them to replace the Panthers and other vehicles it already operates. You could even take the RWS from those redundant Panthers
It did bypass, but I rather believe the 'official explanation' that in the days of Europe having finally woken up - with a little bit of American assistance - to the fact that there was a real war within its 'borders' and a hotch-potch of fleets having been deployed to FRY areas/ countries posed a real problem, so at least at the command & observation level (the types of vehicles going in first, short of an armoured thrust?) there would be some commonalityRon5 wrote:in UK service. Long rumored to have been acquired due to corrupt practices as it neatly bypassed all standard rules to be chosen.
- these sorts of deployments were seen as reoccurring
- as were the Afghan type of enduring stabilsations... which thinking almost gave us something far worse than the Panthers: namely MRBs, all bdes being turned into ones without any real combat power
... so what happened to the 700 that Russia ordered (but then refused the delivery)? Were they sold off at a discount?Gabriele wrote:The PANTHER is a mystery. Apart from BOWMAN making it cramped like hell and other changes, it is difficult to judge the Iveco Lince. Belgium also hates it. Others love it, however, and it exported in thousands of units to a dozen countries.
Sisu stands out with its more truck-like qualities, but what is more important is that - far off the the quarter mln target - it sets out a cost benchmark, how you can get all the goodies listed on this page for a mere half a million of smackers... even without US-scale mass productionGabriele wrote:the Iveco Lince 2, the Thales HAWKEYE, maybe the GD Eagle 4x4. Foxhound, if it was ever possible to cut down its cost to a quarter of its current one, which is unlikely.
Unless you want to consider Finland's Sisu Auto GTP or Turkey's Otokar Cobra
ExactlyGabriele wrote: the Troop Carrier Vehicle is not intended to be a frontline vehicle for infantry battalions. More like a second-line protected mover.
To be honest, the exact requirement behind this 2+6 vehicle is kind of unclear, but mechanizing light role infantry is not the aim.
I don't think so; what evidence do you base that on?Lord Jim wrote:That appears now to have changed.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
The list I made reference to in my above post:
= being amphibious to tick off the 'etc'Lord Jim wrote: especially the APC variant will probably end up being built to a far higher spec than was originally envisaged. Add true mine protection, add on armour capability and so on
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
I’m with you on Ajax but you cannot seriously think T31 is in the same mold, built by the site and workforce that’s just finished assembling the carriers, by the firm that does deep maintenance on our nuclear subs with full support of the design authority. And it’s a mature design.Ron5 wrote:
And coming soon to a theater near you: the Type 31 program, another program in exactly the same mold. Given to a company with zero experience in building military equipment (see Lockheed UK & tank turrets), to be built at a site with no facilities to build complex military hardware, with no workers skilled in the arts of designing equipment disused fork lift factory i?
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
[quote="Gabriele"][quote]
After all, the list of possible alternatives to JLTV isn't so long: the Supacat HMT-derivative with enclosed cab if it can actually become more than a piece of paper, the Iveco Lince 2, the Thales HAWKEYE, maybe the GD Eagle 4x4. Foxhound, if it was ever possible to cut down its cost to a quarter of its current one, which is unlikely.
Unless you want to consider Finland's Sisu Auto GTP or Turkey's Otokar Cobra, that's pretty much it...
[\quote]
Back in the day when I was in automotive, Sisu was renowned as the gold standard for extreme application trucks, the absolute best. We used to import their axles to Australia for very top end applications in the mining industry.
After all, the list of possible alternatives to JLTV isn't so long: the Supacat HMT-derivative with enclosed cab if it can actually become more than a piece of paper, the Iveco Lince 2, the Thales HAWKEYE, maybe the GD Eagle 4x4. Foxhound, if it was ever possible to cut down its cost to a quarter of its current one, which is unlikely.
Unless you want to consider Finland's Sisu Auto GTP or Turkey's Otokar Cobra, that's pretty much it...
[\quote]
Back in the day when I was in automotive, Sisu was renowned as the gold standard for extreme application trucks, the absolute best. We used to import their axles to Australia for very top end applications in the mining industry.
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
There was a link to an article posted on here that mentioned that the threat level the MRV(P) platforms were intended to be able to cope with was now greater than when the programme was started. As I said it is not intended to allow Light Role infantry to fight against a peer opponent, but like to venerable Saxon back in the day it will end up in situation where it is going to come under fire from small arms, RPGs and artillery and so has to provide a level of protection to deal with these threats, something the Saxon would have struggled with. It is no good saying it is not a front line vehicle, one thing that has been made crystal clear these past decades is that frontlines are fluid at best in modern conflicts. A vehicle with the level of protect of the Foxhound is now probably at the lower end of what is needed. We must not end up choosing a platform that leads to a similar situation we ended up in with the Snatch Land Rover ten yeas down the line. The Foxhound is good enough for now but in the future it may not be.
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
I seriously do, most of the carrier workforce was Bae and they joined blocks together that were built elsewhere. Now they have the much harder task of building a complex warship from scratch in a yet to be built facility. What other divisions of Babcock's do or don't do, is of no relevance.SD67 wrote:I’m with you on Ajax but you cannot seriously think T31 is in the same mold, built by the site and workforce that’s just finished assembling the carriers, by the firm that does deep maintenance on our nuclear subs with full support of the design authority. And it’s a mature design.Ron5 wrote:
And coming soon to a theater near you: the Type 31 program, another program in exactly the same mold. Given to a company with zero experience in building military equipment (see Lockheed UK & tank turrets), to be built at a site with no facilities to build complex military hardware, with no workers skilled in the arts of designing equipment disused fork lift factory i?
Ajax was a "mature design" too. That was how many years ago? and still counting.
Anyhoo, full marks for optimism in the face of decade after decade of delays and budget overruns.
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
Ajax wasn’t mature it is/was a hodgepodge of ASCOD, LM turret, CT40, GVA etc
As you say - to be built in a disused forklift factory by a new workforce! Sounds like a recipe for...
I’m not optimistic in the land domain at the moment, I just think T31 will do what it says on the tin.
As you say - to be built in a disused forklift factory by a new workforce! Sounds like a recipe for...
I’m not optimistic in the land domain at the moment, I just think T31 will do what it says on the tin.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
A pity we missed out when the Sisu Mammoths were sold off from the Kiruna mines, but once we'll get our theater ABMs that France and Italy already field - and in the same go we could buy the new longer ranged version for both ships (t-45) and land - then we can put them onto a 6x10 derivative vehicle https://sisuauto.com/en/sisu-polar-mini ... k-fielded/SD67 wrote:Back in the day when I was in automotive, Sisu was renowned as the gold standard for extreme application trucks, the absolute best. We used to import their axles to Australia for very top end applications in the mining industry.
- the 10x10s are used as bridge layers, to get the bridge to places that normally could only be reached by tracked versions (which, by road, would never get to where they are needed on time)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
https://defence-blog.com/news/army/brit ... ssion=true
The British Army has begun upgrading Foxhound armoured vehicles in the run-up to the deployment of its troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
“8 Parachute Field Company are the first workshop in the British Army to carry out the new civil order modifications on the Foxhound,” the Army said in a statement. “The project has successfully partnered regular, reserve, civilian contractors and industry to deliver equipment for 16 Air Assault Brigade.”
The British Army has begun upgrading Foxhound armoured vehicles in the run-up to the deployment of its troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
“8 Parachute Field Company are the first workshop in the British Army to carry out the new civil order modifications on the Foxhound,” the Army said in a statement. “The project has successfully partnered regular, reserve, civilian contractors and industry to deliver equipment for 16 Air Assault Brigade.”
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1352
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
Quite rightly, the Army are worried about being wiped out by Russian Artillery before they are anywhere near the front line. Hence platforms are going to have to be splinter-proof in order to offer any hope of being able to relocate troops even behind our own line.Lord Jim wrote:There was a link to an article posted on here that mentioned that the threat level the MRV(P) platforms were intended to be able to cope with was now greater than when the programme was started.
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
Is it just me or does anybody else have little faith in our powers that be for providing the correct kit too late if anything did kick off with a half peer enemy , personally I think we get our arses kicked in short order
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
Thanks for posting, they do look the business.SW1 wrote:https://defence-blog.com/news/army/brit ... ssion=true
The British Army has begun upgrading Foxhound armoured vehicles in the run-up to the deployment of its troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
“8 Parachute Field Company are the first workshop in the British Army to carry out the new civil order modifications on the Foxhound,” the Army said in a statement. “The project has successfully partnered regular, reserve, civilian contractors and industry to deliver equipment for 16 Air Assault Brigade.”
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1352
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
We could produce analogue, third generation equipment quickly and easily. But that's not what UK requirements want. AJAX, Foxhound, even WCSP and hopefully CR2 LEP, all heavily integrate equipment that is technologically superior to most things available in the world.inch wrote:Is it just me or does anybody else have little faith in our powers that be for providing the correct kit too late if anything did kick off with a half peer enemy , personally I think we get our arses kicked in short order
I'm not saying they are necessarily better than the alternatives for Value for Money.
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
I have a feeling quite a few of the "Power that be", still believe that there will be time to purchase UORs before anything did escalate to armed conflict with a Peer opponent. Modern thinking is that actual armed conflicts at this level in future will be short with limited gains, preceded by extensive "Grey" actions that will not cross the threshold of triggering Article 5 for example. It will be case of you fight with what you have. I cannot see our Government spending millions of pounds during that period for fear it would be money wasted if the possible aggressor decides to roll back things rather than escalating.inch wrote:s it just me or does anybody else have little faith in our powers that be for providing the correct kit too late if anything did kick off with a half peer enemy , personally I think we get our arses kicked in short order
On topic though I do think the modified Foxhound look the business. Are they leaving those areas black or will they repaint them?
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
Yes indeed looking at those pictures I wondered if purchasing a few more rather than the JLTV would do the business.Lord Jim wrote:On topic though I do think the modified Foxhound look the business.
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
Too pricey for one thing and more than a little under powered for another. Not even their own manufacturer believed in them enough to put them forwardbobp wrote:Yes indeed looking at those pictures I wondered if purchasing a few more rather than the JLTV would do the business.Lord Jim wrote:On topic though I do think the modified Foxhound look the business.
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
Yes they cost a bit to buy in the first place, I did not know they were under powered do you have a source on that?Ron5 wrote:Too pricey for one thing and more than a little under powered for another
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
Google it and check out the engine size and power vs the vehicle all up weight. Then compare against similar like Eagle or JLTV. It's a little buzy thing.bobp wrote:Yes they cost a bit to buy in the first place, I did not know they were under powered do you have a source on that?Ron5 wrote:Too pricey for one thing and more than a little under powered for another
One reason for the high cost is the expensive composite armor which one of the reasons is to keep the weight down because of the lack of power. The steel Foxhound had poor load carrying. Heavy, under powered.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1352
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
Ron5 wrote: Too pricey for one thing and more than a little under powered for another. Not even their own manufacturer believed in them enough to put them forward
Cracking bit of armchair engineering there! Never heard the FH described as underpowered by a user. Is your experience in spreadsheets?