UK Defence Forum

I'd forgotten about the Warthog tbh.
Ideally both platforms would be great & a batch for the RM Vikings as well

(Forces TV)

500 members of 2 YORKS have been preparing for their upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. The Catterick-based battalion will take over the role of the Kabul Protection Unit which is responsible for providing force protection to all NATO allies and mentors currently working to support the Afghan government and their security forces. In Afghanistan they will be using the foxhound to taxi mentors between police stations, army bases and government buildings, and of course provide protection if required. Formerly a pure infantry battalion, 2 YORKS have now become a light mechanised force.

Hadn't realised Foxhoubd was powered by a wr21, no wonder they were pricey...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41431507?oci ... e=facebook

Is the army ever going to purchase anything without regretting it immediately after...? It is getting unbearable.

An un-named army "source" from a single guy at the NCO level after almost a decade of the things operating with no such claims.

From the BBC.

Hmmmmm...

Maybe someone in the Army could tell us their first hand experience. Oh, wait.....

RetroSicotte wrote:An un-named army "source" from a single guy at the NCO level after almost a decade of the things operating with no such claims.

From the BBC.

Hmmmmm...

Considering the details provided by the BBC on the individual I doubt he will be un-named for long. Let the manhunt commence.

downsizer wrote:Maybe someone in the Army could tell us their first hand experience. Oh, wait.....

@Happyslapper

Who was amongst the first to use Foxhound in Kabul.

Lance Corporal Bruce gives a tour of the agile patrol vehicle packing cutting edge technology. Watch the Foxhound in the latest episode of British Army Cribs.

From the latest edition British Army Review;

"The Foxhound provides unprecedented levels of blast protection for its size and weight. It is an agile and versatile vehicle that will be a mainstay of the Army for years to come. Foxhound can protect against IED's due to its v-shaped hull"

Pongoglo wrote:From the latest edition British Army Review;

"The Foxhound provides unprecedented levels of blast protection for its size and weight. It is an agile and versatile vehicle that will be a mainstay of the Army for years to come. Foxhound can protect against IED's due to its v-shaped hull"

ARMYHQ-2018-125-XTJ-071.jpg

It still really bugs me that the MOD are going with the JLTV instead of the foxhound family as an arching replacement for huskie Panther and others.

I understand the foxhound family would cost more in upfront purchase but the ongoing surply chain is already set up. This is where other departments such DIT should step in and bridge the gap in purchase cost to allow foxhound family to be chosen and built here.

Jake1992 wrote: bugs me that the MOD are going with the JLTV instead of the foxhound

Jake1992 wrote:other departments such DIT should step in

Sounds a bit steep: £ 0.3m vs. £ 0.9 per copy. Which one is better?
- the MoD is really shooting into their right or left foot: the Chair of the body that in the Parliament is supposed to oversee their spending had to ask "why are they spending £0.8 on a 'foreign' product" when that was based on what ever outside sources and rumours
- no "propper" reporting, to focus the scrutiny?

However, this strategy is not unknown in Corporates: give them, in tis case the "Auditors" BS to peruse and as the billing (not relevant in Parliamentary proceedings) is based on time spent ( which v much is the currency as to how much any Committee can spend, on any single topic)... and, in the end, they will go away

JLTV's will not be replacing Foxhounds until the Foxhounds go out of service due to age.

The answer is given in the recent Select Committee meeting that was posted on here. When the MoD looks at purchasing a product, it cannot include many items that would benefit the country if an on shore product were selected. Its key drivers are value for money to the tax payer, does it meet the requirements and can it be delivered when it is needed. Unfortunately Foxhound fails the first and most important test that of value for money. As for the JLTV it appears a smear campaign has already been launched saying that the cost per vehicle is over twice what was originally thought. The MoD doesn't recognise this price increase stating it is still around the original price quoted. Foxhound is a great platform but so is the JLTV and the latter will serve the UK very well. What I now want to see is whether the MRV(P) 6x6 actually comes to fruition or becomes a victim of the MDP.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Jake1992 wrote: bugs me that the MOD are going with the JLTV instead of the foxhound

Jake1992 wrote:other departments such DIT should step in

Sounds a bit steep: £ 0.3m vs. £ 0.9 per copy. Which one is better?
- the MoD is really shooting into their right or left foot: the Chair of the body that in the Parliament is supposed to oversee their spending had to ask "why are they spending £0.8 on a 'foreign' product" when that was based on what ever outside sources and rumours
- no "propper" reporting, to focus the scrutiny?

However, this strategy is not unknown in Corporates: give them, in tis case the "Auditors" BS to peruse and as the billing (not relevant in Parliamentary proceedings) is based on time spent ( which v much is the currency as to how much any Committee can spend, on any single topic)... and, in the end, they will go away

From what read JLTV is around £350,000 per unit and foxhound family is around £1m per unit so big difference yes, but I think we could bring this down to around £800,000 through a large order.

The way I see it should be done is that the treasurey should take in to account tax receipt and compensate the MOD this up front, so this would be 33% off from the start bringing the price down to around £540,000, this is where I believe the DIT should cover the extra £200,000 odd as this would be strategic industry to the UK, just what the DIT is meant to help and encourage.

Things like tax receipts are exactly the type of thing the Mod is not allowed to take into consideration when awarding contracts. This is laid down in the rules they have to follow.

Lord Jim wrote:Things like tax receipts are exactly the type of thing the Mod is not allowed to take into consideration when awarding contracts. This is laid down in the rules they have to follow.

Oh I understand that it is not allowed at the moment but this is where I believe a change is needed to help benifit the MOD as well as give strategic UK industries such as ship building light medium and heavy armour building as benifit

I totally agree, especially that other departments should chip in if a more expensive on shore platform is to the selected as against a cheaper off shore one. Problem is the Government doesn't see it that way and I cannot see other departments volunteering to do so. Subsidies also upset other nations which can come back to note you if you try to export to said countries later. I think this is why they try to keep things simple and just say no.

Lord Jim wrote:I totally agree, especially that other departments should chip in

Like they did with Italy's carrier: I think it cost e 1.3 bn, but bcz the other Depts chipped in ("EU money" ) the cost is quoted @ 1 bn... everyone looking at the "marvel" in amazement... as it is a beautiful and functional ship. How did it come so "cheap"?

Some steps need to be taken, otherwise we'll never be able to compete with the Yanks (in any of our own competitions)...

Some of the varients of the foxhound alredy developed in to prototypes.

Plus the possibility of a 6x6 variant.

To me it's perfect for what we need with an already set surply chain in place and a understanding of it used in operations.
This is were HMG should sit up and say you know what it's create jobs and rebuild a important industry let's help the MOD cover the needed funds.

A good video by Army personnel regarding the Foxhound. Only spotted it recently but it has been around on You Tube since last summer. AS usual I hope this hasn't already been posted.

Good to have these vids by the folks doing the job... wasn't there some kind of initiative to support that (I guess the vids get screened as a bonus; for not 'leaking' any secrets)?

Regardless of the answer to the above, it becomes clear that 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

So, in the long run have these for one Coy of the ex- ,or for now, Light Role Bns and put the other companies into Boxers, or other protected, but perhaps less off-the-road worthy vehicles?
- what say the folks here?

Foxhound to me has always sounded too complex TBH - a monoblock engine a non steel chassis and four wheel steering. Reports of overheating problems in Astan, it seems more like a niche product for paras / SF.
Totally not convinced by JLTV though, yet another purchase without a contest.

I

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.