UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 590
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Postby RunningStrong » 15 Jul 2021, 22:18

J. Tattersall wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Have yet to see the mobile invisible power station that will follow units around to recharge all their batteries. :D

They use the same engine, it's just hybrid drive through electric motors. Effectively replacing the mechanical transmission, and added benefit of brake regeneration into a small battery.

Stop clouding the debate with facts and objectivity! You should know most UKDF contributers don't like that sort of thing.

Rather please select out of context information to reinforce existing biases, and then come out with comments to the effect that no one in FMC, FLC capability areas, DE&S etc. etc. knows what they're talking about and that only UKDF armchair Admirals, Generals and Air Marshals can save the armed forces from themselves. You'll get far less push back that way, especially if you add the occasional frisson like 'civil servants on 7 figure salaries, boo hiss'.

Oh yes, and if you could mention that we really need to up-gun the Batch 2 River class patrol vessels with Trident nukes then that would be the icing on the cake.

Should I not mention then that this work was done by UKDF's favourite company, General Dynamics UK, and completed by a "bunch of forklift truck fitters" in Merthyr Tydfil.

Heads might explode.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2425
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Postby SW1 » 15 Jul 2021, 22:50

I for one hope this leads to future development integration and orders to equip the light mechanised units among others.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5698
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Postby Lord Jim » 16 Jul 2021, 09:40

Ok so it is a hybrid which is a bit different from what the article seemed to be putting forward. Hybrids do make sense, and if they can opt for battery only they will be very sneaky indeed.

As for Civil Servants, having been one we worked bloody hard within a system that didn't work as it should. RAB dominated everything and we spent most of our days acting as accountants rather than getting kit ordered and out to units. I was one of the last batch to get old style pension, having been repeatedly harassed to change to the new one. As far as I know we were bloody good value for money for the MoD replacing SNCOs and being paid far less, but treated as expendable every time a reorganisation took place to save money, which is the only goal these every really had.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 5806
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Postby Ron5 » 16 Jul 2021, 13:56

RunningStrong wrote:Should I not mention then that this work was done by UKDF's favourite company, General Dynamics UK, and completed by a "bunch of forklift truck fitters" in Merthyr Tydfil.


Probably ex-Force Protection employees :D

Who are you quoting by the way?

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 590
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Postby RunningStrong » 16 Jul 2021, 15:50

Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:Should I not mention then that this work was done by UKDF's favourite company, General Dynamics UK, and completed by a "bunch of forklift truck fitters" in Merthyr Tydfil.


Probably ex-Force Protection employees :D

Who are you quoting by the way?

Yourself of course.

Ron wrote:Ajax, of course, is being built in what was a disused factory by workers who'd never built anything more than a fork lift truck before

Whoopsy.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5698
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Postby Lord Jim » 17 Jul 2021, 11:30

There does seem to be a divide happening on this Forum where one side is certain that the DE&S management as well as the MoD's Budget Holders have a handle on things and therefore regardless on what issues programmes my have they will be sorted out and the Armed Services will get the kit they need within the required timeframe, and for a reasonable price. This same group also believe that the equipment we have brought into service is also the right equipment at the right spec. level because it is what the MoD bought.

This is perfectly fine as a point of view and I respect that, but the MoD is far form infallible, and history provides many examples that are contradictory the this view point. This leads others to be sceptical of ongoing programmes as well as some of the platforms the MoD has accepted into service.

The argument that everything that is stated by the MoD and its industrial partners is also fact is often only half right as the MoD like all Governmental Departments has whole branches filled with people whose job is to produce statements that release only what the MoD believes to be positive news, rarely including anything negative and when pushed will minimise any effects the latter may be having. To this you can add the Treasuries legal team and the "Consultants" hired to support the Department's PR Cells, and what we are told nearly always needs to be taken with pinch of salt.

On the opposite side I admit there are plenty of sources that do not provide reliable information, which become obvious after minimal scrutiny, but there are sources that either have things partially right or actually do have information that is contrary to that published by the MoD. So to dismiss all non MoD or Industry based information as "Fake" news is rather short sighted.

And this is where the Forum comes in. Here we can use what information we believe to form arguments from our individual perspectives, and DISCUSS these on the relevant threads. Each side is entitled to their opinion but should also respect those of others who might disagree. Few if any on here will have all the facts on any given topic, and so making definitive statements that insinuate that all other opinions a wrong should be avoided. This is because these lead to an air of negativity and confrontation that will put people of from contributing, which could lead to the Forum not having interesting facts being added to the relevant threads.

So if people disagree with someone's opinion, carry on the debate by putting forward an opposing one rather than aim to shoot down a view point with with a single sentence of just a few words. Forums are built to discuss and debate subjects so can we Keep this one on track please.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 5806
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Postby Ron5 » 17 Jul 2021, 12:42

RunningStrong wrote:"bunch of forklift truck fitters"


So I didn't say that. Thought so.

What I did say about Ajax though was entirely accurate. GD purchased a factory that used to build fork lifts and re-hired much of its old workforce.

RunningStrong wrote:Ajax, of course, is being built in what was a disused factory by workers who'd never built anything more than a fork lift truck before


Truth seems somewhat in short supply at GD these days.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 590
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Postby RunningStrong » 17 Jul 2021, 13:13

Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:"bunch of forklift truck fitters"


So I didn't say that. Thought so.

What I did say about Ajax though was entirely accurate. GD purchased a factory that used to build fork lifts and re-hired much of its old workforce.

Ron5 wrote:Ajax, of course, is being built in what was a disused factory by workers who'd never built anything more than a fork lift truck before


Truth seems somewhat in short supply at GD these days.

LMAO. You're embarrassing yourself now.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1058
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Postby mr.fred » 17 Jul 2021, 13:44

Lord Jim wrote:There does seem to be a divide happening on this Forum where one side is certain that the DE&S management as well as the MoD's Budget Holders have a handle on things and therefore regardless on what issues programmes my have they will be sorted out and the Armed Services will get the kit they need within the required timeframe, and for a reasonable price. This same group also believe that the equipment we have brought into service is also the right equipment at the right spec. level because it is what the MoD bought.

I don’t think that is true at all. I doubt anyone takes the bizarre absolute position of uncritically believing everything official sources put out, instead there will be degrees of how much someone puts store in press releases. If you wished to create a divide, you could draw an arbitrary line and strawman either side, but I don’t see how that would be helpful, however many words you use to do it.

While the official sources will tend to try and paint any situation in the best possible light, we must also remember that controversy sell news copy, so journalists will tend to the sensational over the mundane.

I would note that setting up an adversarial position tends to be counter productive for both sides, on a forum or on a procurement contract, as generally you end up selecting for better adversaries rather than better product.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 590
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Postby RunningStrong » 17 Jul 2021, 14:18

Lord Jim wrote:The argument that everything that is stated by the MoD and its industrial partners is also fact is often only half right as the MoD like all Governmental Departments has whole branches filled with people whose job is to produce statements that release only what the MoD believes to be positive news, rarely including anything negative and when pushed will minimise any effects the latter may be having.

There is a huge gap between what the MOD and industry can publish ("no comments", deliberate omissions, positive language, etc) and what twitter accounts, confidential sources and red-tops can publish (outright lies and headline bait) without repercussions.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5698
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Postby Lord Jim » 17 Jul 2021, 14:52

But both aim to put out an incomplete picture that is often misleading.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 590
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Postby RunningStrong » 17 Jul 2021, 18:31

Lord Jim wrote:But both aim to put out an incomplete picture that is often misleading.

Completely agree that the whole story often lies in the unpublished facts in the middle (which is often the case in defence capability), but morally they're miles apart, IMO.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5698
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Postby Lord Jim » 17 Jul 2021, 22:02

Yes, what the MoD etc. do is far worse, as they take their time to work out exactly what they want to say in response to a given situation, whereas the other side is usually either stupid or ignorant of the facts.

J. Tattersall
Member
Posts: 357
Joined: 21 Dec 2016, 20:30
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Postby J. Tattersall » 17 Jul 2021, 23:55

Lord Jim wrote:Yes, what the MoD etc. do is far worse, as they take their time to work out exactly what they want to say in response to a given situation,
Yes, they spend a long time pulling the facts (not hearsay) together to ensure ministers and accounting officers can fulfil their constitutional duty to parliament.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5698
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Postby Lord Jim » 18 Jul 2021, 15:20

J. Tattersall wrote:Yes, they spend a long time pulling the facts

Selectively and presenting them in a way that can hide a multitude of errors in plain sight. It is one thing to post hearsay and rumours with little supporting evidence on You Tube, it is quite another to through deliberate and careful manipulation present reports that do not tell the whole story and hide facts that would be of key importance. With Ajax does anyone believe that the first time the MoD were aware of the issues with vibration and noise was the end of 2019, when GD had run the prototypes and pre production vehicles for nearly 60,000km? Was teh MoD sitting on the information hoping nobody would ask specifically about the subject, I mean why would they everything we going swimmingly at the time. I am sure it has only come out because they couldn't keep the lid on the issues after the Army's trials unit reported the effects to the crews health.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5698
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Postby Lord Jim » 18 Jul 2021, 15:33

Well I wasn't trying to create a divide, i just am of the opinion that there was one developing, apologies if I misinterpreted thigs and now back to the topic of the thread.

I know Foxhound is an expensive option with a few issues which may or may not be as severe as it has be reported, but if the Government want to support the UK AFV industry and increase the amount of kit manufactured in the UK, couldn't it come up with a cross departmental plan to maintain production of Foxhound for the MRV(P) programme, encourage the development of a 6x6 meeting Phase 2 and surely the cost saving of having the base platform already in service so no additional cost to support the platform. Could the Foxhound then be a genuinely cost effective alternative to the JLTV? Or is the JLTV a done deal with just the small print remaining before the contract is signed?

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 590
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Postby RunningStrong » 18 Jul 2021, 16:08

Lord Jim wrote:, couldn't it come up with a cross departmental plan to maintain production of Foxhound for the MRV(P) programme, encourage the development of a 6x6 meeting Phase 2 and surely the cost saving of having the base platform already in service so no additional cost to support the platform. Could the Foxhound then be a genuinely cost effective alternative to the JLTV? Or is the JLTV a done deal with just the small print remaining before the contract is signed?

There is no maintaining production of Foxhound. The factory is shut, the order book is zero. GD still provide the support for it.

So whilst I agree that building Foxhound in the UK would be a good thing, it's not much different to the prospect of building GD's Eagle under licence.

J. Tattersall
Member
Posts: 357
Joined: 21 Dec 2016, 20:30
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Postby J. Tattersall » 18 Jul 2021, 17:22

Lord Jim wrote:it is quite another to through deliberate and careful manipulation present reports that do not tell the whole story and hide facts that would be of key importance
In essence you're accusing those who presented the evidence your talking about of the offences of contempt of parliament and misconduct in a public office by wilfully misleading a select committee. Do you have evidence (not hearsay or opinion) of this? And if you do will you bring this evidence to the attention of the speaker's office and the police?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5698
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Postby Lord Jim » 19 Jul 2021, 00:55

RunningStrong wrote:So whilst I agree that building Foxhound in the UK would be a good thing, it's not much different to the prospect of building GD's Eagle under licence.


Fair enough, I am just looking at alternatives to the JLTV. It is a huge vehicle for just four crew in my opinion.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5698
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Postby Lord Jim » 19 Jul 2021, 01:02

J. Tattersall wrote:In essence you're accusing those who presented the evidence your talking about of the offences of contempt of parliament and misconduct in a public office by wilfully misleading a select committee. Do you have evidence (not hearsay or opinion) of this? And if you do will you bring this evidence to the attention of the speaker's office and the police?


No what I am mainly saying is that unless specifically about something, Governmental departments will not feel obliged to reveal anything beyond what is requested. And if you do not know about a problem then how do you question the reason for its existence, it would not be announced for the public good, hence why we have so many "Whistle Blowers" popping up. I am not say anyone does not tell the truth here but the MoD is well known for not being totally forthcoming with information. Blood from a stone has been mentioned in the past, even by the Defence Select Committee. If you do not believe such things go on you have led a very sheltered life. Do you honestly think the MoD was totally unaware of the issues regarding Ajax until the last year, even though they have been working with GD whilst the platform covered 60,000Km in trials?

tomuk
Member
Posts: 242
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Postby tomuk » 19 Jul 2021, 02:55

J. Tattersall wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:it is quite another to through deliberate and careful manipulation present reports that do not tell the whole story and hide facts that would be of key importance
In essence you're accusing those who presented the evidence your talking about of the offences of contempt of parliament and misconduct in a public office by wilfully misleading a select committee. Do you have evidence (not hearsay or opinion) of this? And if you do will you bring this evidence to the attention of the speaker's office and the police?


Are you seriously that naïve? Contempt of parliament is useless it attracts no consequences. Last time someone was fined for a contempt was in 1660 and the last time they imprisoned someone was in the 1800s. In recent times the government was found in contempt during Brexit using the humble address mechanism.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 590
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Postby RunningStrong » 19 Jul 2021, 07:27

Lord Jim wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:So whilst I agree that building Foxhound in the UK would be a good thing, it's not much different to the prospect of building GD's Eagle under licence.


Fair enough, I am just looking at alternatives to the JLTV. It is a huge vehicle for just four crew in my opinion.

2 crew, 4 PAX, and best in class survivability.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 5806
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Postby Ron5 » 19 Jul 2021, 13:42

RunningStrong wrote:
J. Tattersall wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Have yet to see the mobile invisible power station that will follow units around to recharge all their batteries. :D

They use the same engine, it's just hybrid drive through electric motors. Effectively replacing the mechanical transmission, and added benefit of brake regeneration into a small battery.

Stop clouding the debate with facts and objectivity! You should know most UKDF contributers don't like that sort of thing.

Rather please select out of context information to reinforce existing biases, and then come out with comments to the effect that no one in FMC, FLC capability areas, DE&S etc. etc. knows what they're talking about and that only UKDF armchair Admirals, Generals and Air Marshals can save the armed forces from themselves. You'll get far less push back that way, especially if you add the occasional frisson like 'civil servants on 7 figure salaries, boo hiss'.

Oh yes, and if you could mention that we really need to up-gun the Batch 2 River class patrol vessels with Trident nukes then that would be the icing on the cake.

Should I not mention then that this work was done by UKDF's favourite company, General Dynamics UK, and completed by a "bunch of forklift truck fitters" in Merthyr Tydfil.

Heads might explode.


As I found out last night, a contract for 3 million to do the conversion of Foxhound and Jackal was awarded to NP Aerospace located in Coventry, last August. NP Aerospace is the Engineering Authority for the vehicle fleet.

GD, Magtec, and Supercat are in a supporting role.

https://www.joint-forces.com/defence-equipment-news/35223-np-aerospace-pmets-electric-drive-foxhound-and-jackal

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2425
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Postby SW1 » 20 Jul 2021, 20:00

https://www.forces.net/news/army-hybrid ... l-vehicles

As defence looks to reduce its carbon emissions, the British Army vehicle fleet is being put forward for potential hybrid transformation.

The Jackal, the Foxhound and the MAN supply truck are all part of the experiment at Millbrook Proving Ground in Bedfordshire.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 5806
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Postby Ron5 » 21 Jul 2021, 14:47



Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests