Ocelot / Foxhound WMIK Pod

Extending the concept of modularity, Force Protection have shown the Ocelot WMIK pod.

Ocelot Foxhound WMIK Pod

This is in addition to the cargo and protected patrol variants.

Light Protected Patrol Vehicle (LPPV)
Light Protected Patrol Vehicle (LPPV)
Foxhound Light Protected Vehicle (Ocelot)
Foxhound Light Protected Vehicle (Ocelot)
Ocelot Foxhound Utility Vehicle
Ocelot Foxhound Utility Vehicle

Ocelot Foxhound

Ocelot Foxhound

 

27 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
paul g
March 7, 2011 4:13 pm

can’t really tell from the photo but looks a bit of a tight squeeze, for a bloke and equipment in the back

Marcase
Marcase
March 7, 2011 5:12 pm

I’m slowly starting to wonder if the IED threat will continue in the future as experienced at the current level in A’stan, and if we haven’t invested too much in MRAP-types and V-hull shaping.

Yes, I *do* believe the IED is here to stay, but if we’d intervene tomorrow in Libya or Sierra Leone for example, would the IED be still the major threat as it was in Iraq?

Interventions post-Afghanistan will probably be fast and short, denying the opfor time to place IEDs – or so the theory goes.

No doubt the Ocelot/Foxhound is a great vehicle and a smart design, but it’s still a heavy mother for “just” a 4×4 vehicle. Transporting it to the AO in significant numbers will be a tough job involving too many cogs in an ever-growing, complex machine.

Heavy armor is being slashed from most Western armies, but with the ever growing numbers of MRAP-types, western armies are getting heavy again.

Jed
Jed
March 7, 2011 5:19 pm

This is the version that should be rushed into service to replace the pile of pants that we currently use that sits the crew over an axle…. !

jedibeeftrix
jedibeeftrix
March 7, 2011 5:26 pm

agreed jed, and it should be made a permanent acquisition rather than a temporary UOR purchase.

Richard Stockley
Richard Stockley
March 7, 2011 5:52 pm

It may look and be the dog’s danglies, but has it been field tested in Afghanistan yet? Whether its through UOR or not, I’d feel better knowing it does what it says on the tin before spending umpteen millions.

Gabriele
Gabriele
March 7, 2011 6:12 pm

Is it a simulacre in reduced scale…? Because it really seems too small to be the real thing, especially considering that the WMIK pod graphics shows an additional MG aimed backwards, which currently isn’t even on the Jackal.

If this is the real thing, it never will fit. Judging from the two guys standing nearby, this seems a in-scale model. Great thing, anyway! The Foxhound is shaping up to become a true multi-mission platform.
Hopefully, it’ll make it to high positions on the army’s lists of “To Do”.

Tubby
Tubby
March 7, 2011 6:35 pm

Have to say TD you need to hurry up and post your first post on the Future of the Army, so we can all come up with our fantasy equipment lists for the Army.

I would kick it of but I do not really understand Army stuff all that well, and the best I can think of is get rid of our mishmash of kit in Afghanistan and use the Fox Hound and the proposed 6 wheel version as a basis of light vehicles, sort out FRES UV asap – preferably a straight purchase of a platform in service even it is Stryker, scrap FRES Scout and buy an off the shelf platform, say CV90, use UV and Scout platforms to fill all the other parts of FRES like Medium Armour. Then ensure we carry out the Warrior turret upgrade, and take all the Stormer’s and fit half with NEMO and the other half as ammo carriers for the 120mm mortar.

Mr.fred
Mr.fred
March 7, 2011 7:45 pm

I don’t really want to kick it all off now, but not Stryker. Really, really, really not a Piranha III with a stuck-on nose and false moustache.

That WMIK pod really does look very short. I wonder how much lighter it is than the full LPPV variant? Would it take a gunshield/turret and fold-down ballistic windows?

Peter Arundel
Peter Arundel
March 7, 2011 7:50 pm

I’m with Marcase on this one. IED’s are a feature of an occupied country. If you don’t occupy ’em, they don’t start an IED creating resistance . . .
The current Supacat vehicles are fast, agile, well liked by their crews. The Ocelot may turn out to be a great patrol vehicle but it’s compromised by it’s design brief. the need to keep the crew betwen the axles gives it a long wheelbase. Giving it four wheel steering helps to offset the unwieldiness this would cause but it still means that it’s break-over angle will be poor and it will be susceptible to grounding.
For many roles the oceleot will be a good choice including future peace-keeping missions for the UN but it is actually quite a specialised design.

Mark
Mark
March 7, 2011 7:53 pm

This shows we can do thing right and produce the right equipment. I hope very large orders are placed for these to preform similar roles to the humvee in US service. All our light formation should consider this as there only vehicle, light tank/viking excluded. Maybe a command vehicle to complete the set.

ming
ming
March 7, 2011 8:23 pm

IED’S are here to stay, it doesnt matter where we operate from now on , every single subversive element in the world will have the knowledge that AQ and the TALIBAN have now . Long live the INTERNET .Keep the heavy armour you never know when your going to need it .

Euan
Euan
March 7, 2011 8:30 pm

Marcase and others, I wholeheartedly agree we need to be mindful that chances are we will be getting the f*$k out of Afghanistan in a few years time. After that we won’t really be spending enough time anywhere for IED’s to become as much of a threat as they are in Afghanistan, perhaps a case of preparing for the last war. I worry that we will end up going too far and when we need to move somewhere fast we won’t be able to as the whole force has bulked up to protect against the IED threat.

Tubby
Tubby
March 7, 2011 8:30 pm

I with Ming on this – Afghanistan has shown the utility of IED’s for fighting regular forces. As an aside we should be sending loads of fertiliser, mobile phones, blasting caps and copies of the anarchist cook book to Benghazi, then watch how long it takes for pro-Khadaffi forces to retake East Libya.

Jed
Jed
March 7, 2011 9:01 pm

Euan: “After that we won’t really be spending enough time anywhere for IED’s to become as much of a threat as they are in Afghanistan” – perhaps, perhaps not, although I certainly hope so.

However, as far as this vehicle is concerned, the IED protection is baked into the design and that is fine. It means it also protects from cheap scaterable mines, because not everyone we may ever fight will have signed onto the various conventions. So for this size / class of vehicle I don’t think its a big deal.

As for massive 6 wheeled MRAP “armoured trucks” it might be different, but I agree the mine / IED threat is never going away.

Alan
Alan
March 7, 2011 9:48 pm

Just for the record (not that it matters) I’m all for a decent armoured car in the armoury (or out on the roads as it happens!)

Mike
Mike
March 8, 2011 12:38 am

A agree with most lads here, it looks rather too small and cramped, as useless as the current one sometimes seems, it looks more adaptable than this…

But do we really want to invest in these when in a few years we’ll be withdrawing? Well, if it saves lives between now and then, then I think its worth it.

DominicJ
DominicJ
March 8, 2011 7:38 am

Marcase
I’ve been saying the same thing for a while.
IEDs are just mines.

Mines have existed for several wars, and were overcome fairly easily.

The only reason they’re so deadly in the present conflict is we allow the enemy to mine our roads on a daily basis.

RW
RW
March 8, 2011 8:19 am

@DJ
I don’t think IED’s are just mines..
Sometimes they are larger and therefore much more powerful
Sometimes they have shaped charges.. as caused such troubles in Iraq
Sometimes they are remotely detonated for maximum effect
Sometimes they have more sensitive trips (for their size) than might be expected ..such as in an anti tank mine
Sometimes they are rapidly evolved to counter attempts to trigger them prematurely
And they are not placed for area denial (field) or in a recorded pattern making them less easy to remove.
The effort to demine the Falklands would have been much harder if the devices had been IEDs – where do you start and when do you know you’ve finished?
Yes there are similarities but the mass produced nature of mines means that they are used in volume which then leads to certain patterns of use.

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
March 8, 2011 8:36 am

Hi Euan,

I am with you. “I worry that we will end up going too far and when we need to move somewhere fast we won’t be able to as the whole force has bulked up to protect against the IED threat.”

South Africa had huge numbers of mine resistant vehicles for their bush wars. They have been replaced by more conventional models, even though you could say that the locally produced and mine-blast reinforced Patria AMV shares the heritage.

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
March 8, 2011 8:41 am

Hi Jed,

I read an article on this “it also protects from cheap scaterable mines, because not everyone we may ever fight will have signed onto the various conventions.” – and of course did not retain the link.

There are absolutely huge numbers of such in the arsenals outside Europe. At least in theory, Europe should be “clean” by 2016.
– but in theory Gaddafi did not have those 9.5 tonnes of mustard gas, either

Brian Black
Brian Black
March 8, 2011 11:19 am

Has there been any interest in Foxhound from any other countries?

I’ve only heard glowing reports about this thing (notwithstanding its lack of operational use, as pointed out by Richard S), but I’ve not heard about any other potential buyers.

baboon6
baboon6
March 8, 2011 11:40 am
ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
March 8, 2011 12:10 pm

Hi baboon6,

Interesting that… I guess the previous phase of the programme (before Ocelot being trialled for the next) refers to their own Bushmaster? The Dutch UOR’ed that one for their contingent in A-stan.

DominicJ
DominicJ
March 8, 2011 1:38 pm

RW
They’re devious mines.

But their strategic employment has not changed since we air dropped them to the French Resistance.

Bigger and Better is hardly a rational for an entirely different class.

Pete got where I was going before me
“I’m with Marcase on this one. IED’s are a feature of an occupied country. If you don’t occupy ‘em, they don’t start an IED creating resistance . . .”

A mine is only a viable weapon if you know the route of an enemy movement in a timely manner.
If you do, then its an effective weapon.
If the enemy insists on using the same road at the same time every day, its a devestating weapon.

I quite like the Ocelot, but we have to keep a solid grip on why we need MRAPs.

Wstr
Wstr
March 9, 2011 8:02 pm

Ref comments on size. It looks full scale to me, you need to image the blokes on the right sitting down, as even with Jackal you’re exposed from the waist up if you stand up in the back. The angle is bad for showing the width but Ocelot can comfortably take two side-by-side for a 3-4 man crew.
Short length is of course what you get if the entire compartment is behind the engine not over it – you takes your survivability money and you makes your choice; even Jackal 2 has a crew/fighting compartment not that much longer.
What you are really missing out, relative to Jackal, is the storage area at the rear. It won’t take more than a comms and ECM fit here and your out of luck for jerrycans, javelin reloads and the like, so a new Foxhound cargo variant will probably be needed to sustain a long patrol – luckily enough! ….

Monty
June 7, 2013 12:32 am

I don’t think an open top Foxhound is a good idea at all. It totally, undermines the increased protection offered by the chassis by denying the crew a decent level of blat protection. Instead, I’d rather see an enclosed Jackal, with relocated crew positions. Actually, I really like the Foxhound as is. It is a brilliant bit of kit. It also shows that we can get vehicle procurement right.