Thx, one more myth debunked.Ron5 wrote:The steel Foxhound had poor load carrying. Heavy, under powered
Foxhound Protected Vehicle
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
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://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTIC ... HTML&src=0
II.2.4)
Description of the procurement:
Manufacture and supply of capital spares for the Foxhound vehicle.
II.2.4)
Description of the procurement:
Manufacture and supply of capital spares for the Foxhound vehicle.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
RE:
Not sure the rationale behind the 2014 to 2016 gap in the data.
= the time when the UORs were brought back and most went thru the standardisation prgrm, ie. some fleets may have been mainly standing still for those years?
Not sure the rationale behind the 2014 to 2016 gap in the data.
= the time when the UORs were brought back and most went thru the standardisation prgrm, ie. some fleets may have been mainly standing still for those years?
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
Yes, the best bits right at the beginning:
Designing the Foxhound there were only five requirements:
1. Turning Circle
2. Size/Weight
3. GVA architecture
4. Composite for anti-spall
5. Mine/Blast survivable
3 functional, 2 non-functional. 5 total fits the old management span of attention rule> The sec, the 'self' => 5 to spare
Designing the Foxhound there were only five requirements:
1. Turning Circle
2. Size/Weight
3. GVA architecture
4. Composite for anti-spall
5. Mine/Blast survivable
3 functional, 2 non-functional. 5 total fits the old management span of attention rule> The sec, the 'self' => 5 to spare
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)
- whitelancer
- Member
- Posts: 619
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
Requirements 1 through 1,995: ignore costs & schedule, just remember anyone but Bae.whitelancer wrote:The WCSP has 2000 requirements to meet. Spot the difference!
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
They have been using civilian heavy lift to supplement the RAF for a good many years.Heavy Lift's Belfasts supporting the Falklands operation springs to mind.SW1 wrote:
Highlights also how little slack there is within the air transport fleets
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
Shown at DSEi in 2014...Ron5 wrote:A new version of Foxhound. That'll get the tongues wagging.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
Ron5 wrote:Army testing hybrid technology on two types of armoured vehicles
Foxhound and Jackal 2 will see gearboxs and drivetrains replaced with generators and electronics paired with the retained diesel engines
RunningStrong wrote:unless you're planning to have a rather large battery for regenerative braking (which is no bad thing on a vehicle that heavy).
Distribute not just the drive elements, but also the batteries... which can double as structural elementsRunningStrong wrote: Okay, perhaps you'll see 5% improvement in fuel efficiency around town
- a net weight reduction, less fuel consumption
"the battery has an energy density of 24 Wh/kg, which the team notes is around 20 percent of the capacity of today's lithium-ion batteries.
On the other hand, if this battery were integrated into an electric car in place of a typical lithium-ion one, that car would weigh a lot less and therefore require less energy to propel it across the ground. As for its mechanical properties, the team says the material has a stiffness of 25 GPa and can compete with other commonly used construction materials."
https://newatlas.com/energy/carbon-fibe ... l-battery/
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
How do these batteries react to coming into contact with high velocity metal projectiles? Is there a fire risk?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
You don't see this one too often - as I believe none has been ordered. Would basically redo Jackal, which we have plenty of
https://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz-wpen ... 59x240.jpg
https://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz-wpen ... 59x240.jpg
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
Never seen one but they have been at the same shows so one may be out there.Lord Jim wrote:Is there a photo anywhere showing a Foxhound next to a JLTV?
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
Have yet to see the mobile invisible power station that will follow units around to recharge all their batteries.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
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.Lord Jim wrote:Have yet to see the mobile invisible power station that will follow units around to recharge all their batteries.
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
RunningStrong wrote: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.Lord Jim wrote:Have yet to see the mobile invisible power station that will follow units around to recharge all their batteries. :D
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.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
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.J. Tattersall wrote:RunningStrong wrote: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.Lord Jim wrote:Have yet to see the mobile invisible power station that will follow units around to recharge all their batteries.
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.
Heads might explode.
Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle
I for one hope this leads to future development integration and orders to equip the light mechanised units among others.