UK Defence Forum

Lord Jim wrote:I would say that the Foxhound is a very British solution to a problem, a good example of form and function with a strong well protected chassis that is lighter as a result of the use of carbon fibre and a light weigh engine and so on. Compare that to the JLTV that creates a heavily armoured box and then installs a whopping great engine to compensate for the weight. I agree the latter will be easier to maintain as well as cheaper to purchase but it is a muscle car compared to a Jaguar E Type.

The Australian army evaluated Foxhound and were not impressed. Poor build quality was one criticism I remember.

Well British sports cars form the 50s.60s and 70s we not really remembered for their build quality either. The Army has probably ironed out any bugs with its fleet as they were in use in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also when the were all overhauled on their return to the UK afterwards.

One of the reason we like the Foxhound is its light weight for the level of protection it has therefore ir does not require a huge engine. This is contrary to teh JLTV and teh new Australian 4x4 which use more traditional materials and require a bigger engine, though not as mush with the Australian platform.

If the Foxhound sent to Australian was found to have problems like build quality that it is the Manufacturer's own fault and heads should have rolled. Any vehicle you send for trials should be the best you can build and be meticulously test and scrutinised before being sent.

Lord Jim wrote:One of the reason we like the Foxhound is its light weight for the level of protection it has therefore ir does not require a huge engine. This is contrary to teh JLTV and teh new Australian 4x4 which use more traditional materials and require a bigger engine, though not as mush with the Australian platform.

What's wrong with a 5.9 litre engine? Especially if its affordable, robust, and a known quantity via CVRT. vs a Highly stressed Steyr monobloc which is fiddly to maintain and prone to over-heating.

You've got to love " British Engineering Ingenuity ". A carbon fibre patrol vehicle - double the cost to save a tonne and a bit. Global Customers = 1 (us). Though it should make a good test platform for electrification.

SD67 wrote:

Lord Jim wrote:One of the reason we like the Foxhound is its light weight for the level of protection it has therefore ir does not require a huge engine. This is contrary to teh JLTV and teh new Australian 4x4 which use more traditional materials and require a bigger engine, though not as mush with the Australian platform.

What's wrong with a 5.9 litre engine? Especially if its affordable, robust, and a known quantity via CVRT. vs a Highly stressed Steyr monobloc which is fiddly to maintain and prone to over-heating.

You've got to love " British Engineering Ingenuity ". A carbon fibre patrol vehicle - double the cost to save a tonne and a bit. Global Customers = 1 (us). Though it should make a good test platform for electrification.

Saves 2.5t. 25% lighter than the comparable MOWAG Eagle...

SD67 wrote:What's wrong with a 5.9 litre engine?

Absolutely nothing. I was just comparing how the UK often engineers a solution to a requirement compared to other nations methodology.

Lord Jim wrote:One of the reason we like the Foxhound is its light weight for the level of protection it has therefore ir does not require a huge engine. This is contrary to teh JLTV and teh new Australian 4x4 which use more traditional materials and require a bigger engine, though not as mush with the Australian platform.

The 'Australian 4x4', the Hawkei, also has the Steyr engine. When Steyr Motors went broke in 2019, Thales bought the company to ensure the Hawkei production line. You can thank them for your spares for the Foxhound.
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/bu ... nufacturer

Also, Wikipedia tells me Foxhound is 500kg heavier than Hawkei, not that I think it matters much. The mobility of each is much more influenced by wheelbase, CoG, clearance, etc and I doubt any of us could meaningfully compare...

Mercator wrote:Wikipedia tells me Foxhound is 500kg heavier than Hawkei,

Doesn’t it say that the Hawkei’s kerb weight is 500kg less than the Foxhound’s gross vehicle weight?
if you compare kerb weights or GVWs then Foxhound is 1.5-2.5 tonnes lighter.

Lord Jim wrote:

SD67 wrote:What's wrong with a 5.9 litre engine?

Absolutely nothing. I was just comparing how the UK often engineers a solution to a requirement compared to other nations methodology.

Totally agree, it is quintessentially British, and it is IMHO one of the reasons why we've lost much of our industry and market share. The hard reality is 95% of the time the conventional or "conventional + 20%" solution is the commercial winner. I find it frustrating we get dragged into so many cul de sac "promising development projects" while the French clean up the world market.

SD67 wrote:

Lord Jim wrote:

SD67 wrote:What's wrong with a 5.9 litre engine?

Absolutely nothing. I was just comparing how the UK often engineers a solution to a requirement compared to other nations methodology.

Totally agree, it is quintessentially British, and it is IMHO one of the reasons why we've lost much of our industry and market share. The hard reality is 95% of the time the conventional or "conventional + 20%" solution is the commercial winner. I find it frustrating we get dragged into so many cul de sac "promising development projects" while the French clean up the world market.

Like LM UK* insisting on a totally new ammo feed system for the CTA40 rather than using the one that Bae/Nexter had developed. Added years to the schedule and millions of pounds. For what? To be cancelled, that's what. Meanwhile the French used the original feed system and have their turret and gun in service.

And wasn't it supposed to be the same turret on both WSCP and Ajax to save costs? And that's why the turret contract went to one company? Well that got thrown away as well.

*of course it may have been the BA behind it, who knows.

I maybe wrong here but I think I remember that it was the BA who wanted a different feet system that was less vulnerable or more compact or something. Can anyone shed light on this or am I imagining thigs again.

Ron5 wrote:

SD67 wrote:

Lord Jim wrote:

SD67 wrote:What's wrong with a 5.9 litre engine?

Absolutely nothing. I was just comparing how the UK often engineers a solution to a requirement compared to other nations methodology.

Totally agree, it is quintessentially British, and it is IMHO one of the reasons why we've lost much of our industry and market share. The hard reality is 95% of the time the conventional or "conventional + 20%" solution is the commercial winner. I find it frustrating we get dragged into so many cul de sac "promising development projects" while the French clean up the world market.

Like LM UK* insisting on a totally new ammo feed system for the CTA40 rather than using the one that Bae/Nexter had developed. Added years to the schedule and millions of pounds. For what? To be cancelled, that's what. Meanwhile the French used the original feed system and have their turret and gun in service.

And wasn't it supposed to be the same turret on both WSCP and Ajax to save costs? And that's why the turret contract went to one company? Well that got thrown away as well.

*of course it may have been the BA behind it, who knows.

So many things wrong with this...

French CT40 isn't in service. LMUK don't get to insist on a new magazine, if MOD wanted to provide the magazine alongside the gun they were well within their rights to provide both to the programmes.

AJAX and WCSP turrets have always been different since day 1. For a start, WCSP was supposed to be a turret upgrade of existing, and never had the same race ring size.

RunningStrong wrote:

Ron5 wrote:

SD67 wrote:

Lord Jim wrote:

SD67 wrote:What's wrong with a 5.9 litre engine?

Absolutely nothing. I was just comparing how the UK often engineers a solution to a requirement compared to other nations methodology.

Totally agree, it is quintessentially British, and it is IMHO one of the reasons why we've lost much of our industry and market share. The hard reality is 95% of the time the conventional or "conventional + 20%" solution is the commercial winner. I find it frustrating we get dragged into so many cul de sac "promising development projects" while the French clean up the world market.

Like LM UK* insisting on a totally new ammo feed system for the CTA40 rather than using the one that Bae/Nexter had developed. Added years to the schedule and millions of pounds. For what? To be cancelled, that's what. Meanwhile the French used the original feed system and have their turret and gun in service.

And wasn't it supposed to be the same turret on both WSCP and Ajax to save costs? And that's why the turret contract went to one company? Well that got thrown away as well.

*of course it may have been the BA behind it, who knows.

So many things wrong with this...

French CT40 isn't in service. LMUK don't get to insist on a new magazine, if MOD wanted to provide the magazine alongside the gun they were well within their rights to provide both to the programmes.

AJAX and WCSP turrets have always been different since day 1. For a start, WCSP was supposed to be a turret upgrade of existing, and never had the same race ring size.

1. This article quotes LM saying they chose to develop a new feed system and as a consequence added time & cost to their turret development.

https://www.army-technology.com/feature ... of-delays/

2. The MoD were quite clear that they wanted one company to provide turrets to both the WSCP & Ajax programs Reason being commonality. Of course if Bae had won the competition, they would have.

3. The French Jaguar carrying the CTA40 was supposed to have entered French service at the end of last year. I don't know if it did or did not, I must admit to being lazy and not checking. My bad.

The point remains tho' that the UK tends toward re-inventing the wheel in the search for perfection. The French do not. The results speak for themselves.

Well if Nexter has worked with ARTEC to design and build a Boxer module with the Jaguar's turret it should be a no brainer regardless of what happens to Ajax. The Mechanised Battalions need integral Recce/Fire Support and this would fit the bill nicely.

If Boxer is canned everyone is going to be throwing crap around, hoping the blame will stick to anyone but themselves. Regarding the issue of the UK reinventing the wheel, the whole idea of identifying capability requirements rather than the older system of having a very tight set of requirements, was to move away from this and try to identify novel and cost effective way of meeting a capability requirement including buying off the shelf. The MoD never seemed to get a handle on this and also kept adding more capabilities to match the latest trends and to second guess future threats.

Hopefully with Boxer and Challenger 3 they have finally begin to learn the right lessons, for if they haven't the renaissance in the UK's AFV production capability will die a permanent death and we will be imparting all future AFVs with the minimum of UK content.

As for Foxhound, it was possible when £Bns were being made available to try to correct the errors in the provision of protect patrol vehicles but as a core vehicle it is not really cost effective compared to overseas offerings. We should keep it in service as long as possible, if necessary giving it to the RAF Regiment when teh MRV(P) Phase 1 arrives, replacing the Panthers they currently use.

Lord Jim wrote: If Boxer is canned

Why would Boxer be canned?

Lord Jim wrote:Well if Nexter has worked with ARTEC to design and build a Boxer module with the Jaguar's turret it should be a no brainer regardless of what happens to Ajax.

I don't think they have. I may be wrong but I've only seen the turret on the French Boxer - VBCI. Like for the Greek competition.

In my imaginary world, it would be nice if Bae could get the license to build the Nexter unmanned turret in the UK for Boxer. Bae & Nexter are partners on the CTA40 and partners with RM on Boxer so it's kinda feasible.

That'd be a neat solution. We could be looking at a core fleet of :

CR3
Boxer tranche 1 and 2 (including Nexter modules)
A modular MRVP in 4x4 and 6x6 (Eagle built at Merthyr Tydfil as part of the financial settlement)
Foxhound for SF and RAF regiment

CR3 shares main armament with Germany, Boxer IFV ditto with France.

If only life were that neat

Well we have the vehicles, now we should run them into the ground, using them as long as they last, because MRV(P) seems to have been quietly allowed to go into neutral and stall for all intents and purposes. I still cannot understand why what was stated as being an important programme was hardly mentioned in the Command Paper released as part of teh Integrated Review?

Courtesy of Drummond, on the GD UK stand ...



Not being designed or developed by GD UK, might actually work OK

I'm surprised GDUK never tried to push a 6 wheel or an economy varient of foxhound using steel instead of composites. It offers excellent mine protection and if it uses the same power train as other vehicles I'm not sure why wouldn't be as reliable as the rest. I'm guessing they must wanted to push eagle 4x4 and 6x6.

BB85 wrote:I'm surprised GDUK never tried to push a 6 wheel or an economy varient of foxhound using steel instead of composites. It offers excellent mine protection and if it uses the same power train as other vehicles I'm not sure why wouldn't be as reliable as the rest. I'm guessing they must wanted to push eagle 4x4 and 6x6.

There was a steel hulled Foxhound, but it was unsurprisingly heavier.

Which meant the suspension, engine and brakes all changed, causing the weight to runaway further or costs. Which somewhat defeated the point of commonality with the existing fleet.

And given MOD history (repeating itself), why any company would invest in a new platform (Foxhound 6x6) when there's an OTS option already (Eagle), is beyond me.

We have almost too many options to choose form for the MRV(P) programme. The Army and Governments could end up dithering for years trying to find the best package for the Army and British industry to secure jobs and skills. What may be slowing the announced JLTV plans is that the US does not allow FMS for licenced production, so to benefit from the former we would have to buy direct from the USA for at least the initial batch.

Looking closely at the photo, it looks like it still has the expensive composite armor. The crappy fit and finish is a clue.

RunningStrong wrote:And given MOD history (repeating itself), why any company would invest in a new platform (Foxhound 6x6) when there's an OTS option already (Eagle), is beyond me.

Explains why GD UK bought the company that made Foxhound and has since strangled it.

Before anyone gets too defensive, Bae Hagglunds did the same thing in the past. Inheriting Warrior (which had been developed to an excellent standard in Warrior 2000 performing very well in a Swiss army competition) but competing head on with their existing CV90 product, Warrior was sent to the trash heap.

Ron5 wrote:

RunningStrong wrote:And given MOD history (repeating itself), why any company would invest in a new platform (Foxhound 6x6) when there's an OTS option already (Eagle), is beyond me.

Explains why GD UK bought the company that made Foxhound and has since strangled it.

Before anyone gets too defensive, Bae Hagglunds did the same thing in the past. Inheriting Warrior (which had been developed to an excellent standard in Warrior 2000 performing very well in a Swiss army competition) but competing head on with their existing CV90 product, Warrior was sent to the trash heap.

I'm not sure why you would say GD strangled FPE when they funded the utility vehicle, WMIK, and C2 variants in 2014 and 2016 at DVD.

How much more should they spend before MoD write a requirement or put their hand in their pockets?