Foxhound in Afghanistan

A Foxhound Light Protected Patrol Vehicle on operations in Afghanistan.

The Foxhound is at the cutting edge of protected patrol vehicle technology and provides unprecedented levels of blast protection for its size and weight. These patrol vehicles underwent final testing in the dusty and hot conditions of the Helmand desert before being deployed on operations.

Foxhound has been specifically designed and built in Britain to protect against the threats faced by troops in Afghanistan. However, this is an agile and versatile vehicle that will be a mainstay in the Army for years to come.
Being lighter and smaller than other protected vehicles such as Mastiff and Ridgeback, Foxhound brings a whole new capability to the Army and is ideal for soldiers operating in mentoring and partnering roles.

General Dynamics Land Systems: Force Protection Europe (GDLS:FPE), who produced Foxhound, worked with engineers from the World Rally Championship, McLaren F1, Ricardo and BMW to incorporate motor racing technology. Foxhound has a top speed of 70mph but can still protect against improvised explosive devices thanks to its v-shaped hull.

Other innovative design features mean that the Foxhound’s engine can be removed and replaced in just 30 minutes and it can drive away from an ambush on only three wheels.

British Army Foxhound Light Protected Patrol Vehicle (LPPV) in Afghanistan 02

Foxhound
Foxhound

I think it might have been Jed that suggested reversing the driveline, placing the engine module at the rear and replacing the crew pod with a low profile version like the RG 35 family for a transportable and low(ish) noise recce wagon

RG35 Family
RG35 Family

Or a similar layout to the Fennek perhaps; take your reversed Foxhound, add in a handful of smoke dischargers, a mast mounted sensor package like the ROTAS, a demountable radar and a bit of clever electronics and that is starting to look like a lightweight replacement for CVR(T)

Fennek in Afghanistan
Fennek in Afghanistan

Selex Road Marshall

Selex Road Marshall
Selex Road Marshall

If you want extra firepower, there are a plethora of remote weapon stations that could have a 7.62mm GPMG, a .338 Medium Machine Gun, ,50cal Heavy Machine Gun, a 40mm Grenade Machine Gun, Nexter 20mm cannon or even a Javelin launch tube

Maybe even look at a Foxhound CRAB

Panhard CRAB

Not worth the effort?

There is always the Foxhound WMIK route

Foxhound WMIK Variant
Foxhound WMIK Variant

Or the most likely solution, that is none of the above and a cobbling together of Jackal, Wolfhound and Land Rover WMIK

Anyone remember this little number

Alvis Scarab
Alvis Scarab

At least it would be in Army Brown

 

52 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Simester
Simester
June 11, 2013 8:54 pm

Trivial question, but does anyone know if Foxhound has air-conditioning? I know they’ve retrofitted this to some armoured vehicles in Afghanistan, but don’t know if this is just considered a standard fit to new vehicles going over there now. Must be incredibly hot in there otherwise…

Mike W
June 11, 2013 10:01 pm

Think Defence

The last one. It’s not the Scarab from Alvis, is it? I’m not very good on vehicles that did not actually enter service.

Chris
Chris
June 11, 2013 10:47 pm

Mike – it is the Scarab. Well recognized. I had a cabby round the track at an early (Aldershot) DVD event – that’s the DPA/DE&S wheeled military truck expo – and it was a good deal smaller inside than I assumed from its fairly hefty external dimensions, but it did have the greasy bits from a commercial 4×4 lorry shoehorned into it, with the driveline and occupants sat at the same level. Obviously in the lorry the mechanical bits were downstairs and the cab upstairs. I suspect its protection package was better than the vehicle ultimately selected though.

Mike W
June 11, 2013 11:46 pm

Chris

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I saw one of the Scarabs (I don’t know how many were built) at a BAEE exhibition in the mid- to late- 1990s. Can’t remember where. Might have been Aldershot. Yes, it did seem small inside. Even had a word with the Alvis rep., asked him whether the British Army was interested and he said yes. That’s the last I really heard of it. I suspect that many in the Army would have liked it.

” I suspect its protection package was better than the vehicle ultimately selected though.”

Yes. and so do I.

jed
jed
June 12, 2013 12:28 am

Scarab would have been a cracking vehicle ! Based on the earlier Acorn, itself an Alvis license of a South African vehicle, the Scarab was over twice the weight due to much improved mine protection based on our Balkans experience, and if I remember rightly frontal protection rated to 14.5mm AP !

Engine and drive train were indeed Unimog parts, as were the drive train of our original Balkans era mine resistant patrol vehicle – the Alvis 8 aka Reumech OMC Mamba.

To think we could have gone into Stan / Iraq with Acorn, Scarab and Mamba – no Snatch, no need for Panther or Husky (there was a logistics version of Mamba). Ooh I feel an alternate history post coming on………

Yep, I think it was me that a back to front Foxhound as light armoured recce, but you recently convinced me OVIKS Meerkat would be good in an equivalent tracked role :-)

IXION
June 12, 2013 12:17 pm

Jed

Indeed; the Scarab was an object lesson in armoured weight.

I don’t recall if it was mine protected or not . However Alvis did state categorically it would stop 7.62 NATO 0 degree incident, 360 degrees. that one of the reasons it weighed 12 tons (I think). the contract was won by the Panther… That went well!

There’s a lot of B*llocks talked by vehicle manufactures, and by govt’s paying for vehicles, about ‘Armoured protection’. It costs in weight and size.

Several attempts later:- Jackel, panther, that Pinzgaur based abortion Vectra, snatch etc, a few dead bodies etc and finally Foxhound happened. Does that stop 7.62 nato armoured piercing at 0 degree incident? Or is that ‘Classified’?!!

x
x
June 12, 2013 1:53 pm

I had forgot about Panther. I am going off to see how much that wasted.

EDIT: Only £160 million. :( Are we still buying all 400?

Can’t remember any thing about it.

Jed
Jed
June 12, 2013 2:01 pm

Hi Ixion

Scarab was definitely mine protected. Based on a South African design, as noted above, it had a V hull to start with, but the main difference in weight between original Alvis Acorn and the bigger Scarab was the Balkans experience based requirement to roll over a double stacked Russian (Soviet) TM6/7 mine (I think that is the right one – Army Guide has a good page on Scarab, or did, as I can’t seem to get to it right now).

As an Command and Liaison vehicle instead of Panther, you can see how Scarab would have worked well in this role for tracked armoured formations, Chally and Warrior regiments, even CVR(T) equipped formations. Water jerry cans and bergens strapped on the outside – really a true replacement for the Ferret scout car in that role.

For infantry formations, the short wheel base version of the Reumech OMC Mamba, called the Kommanche – produced under licence by Alvis as the Alvis 8 (or Alvis 4) might have been a good starting point. Or sticking with the UK purchase of South African companies with their considerable experience and intellectual property on mine protected vehicles why didn’t we just go with the RG32, which continues to be developed and enhanced and was designed from the beginning as a light mine protected vehicle, unlike the Panther’s base vehicle.

We could have had a whole bunch of “right tool for the right job” mine protected vehicles all of which would have shared a common Unimog based suspension, drive train and engine – ooooh commonality…….. :-)

Chris
Chris
June 12, 2013 2:22 pm

If I remember right, Panther uses an – um – unusual approach to military vehicle protection. Most if not all others defeat blast pressure effects by straightforward resistance, as in the blast front is deflected as much as possible and that which will not deflect meets hard non-forgiving armour against which it (you hope) is unable to penetrate. Iveco for the Panther turned to the design examples of their sister company Fiat and determined the crumple-zone techniques used as crash protection in our humble motorcars could be scaled up into military blast protection. If this is correct, then the blast mitigation is by absorption of energy rather than deflection – the structure progressively deforms to soak up the impact. I presume the science is sound and the two approaches are equally effective at dissipating damaging energy. But I suspect that, where increasing the protection on conventional unyielding armour is a simple case of adding extra thickness in layers, when it comes to increasing the protection of something designed to crumple at a given stress level the solutions are difficult. A complete redesign of the vehicle structure would do it, but that might be seen as an extreme solution, otherwise I suspect appliqué equivalent to that required under an unarmoured vehicle would be needed. Very heavy.

All of the above might of course be untrue, but I’m sure I read somewhere that this blast absorption approach was used in this vehicle.

I have in the past found some pictures in Googlespace that show damaged Panther/Iveco vehicles that look like the front wheel triggered mines – the distortion of the bulkhead and windscreen structure would appear to support the theory.

x
x
June 12, 2013 3:05 pm

@ Chris

I meant more about the buying of it not so much the vehicle.

It overlaps Foxhound and Jackal quite a bit. But where both the former appear in the new ORBAT Panther isn’t mentioned I don’t think.

I don’t think Panther is a capable as Fennek. But I think it would be better vehicle to mount fancy sensors onto than Jackal. I don’t know 8 Jackal + 4 Panther squadron? Or 3 Jackal Squadrons and 1 Panther sensor squadron?

Who knows? :)

Jed
Jed
June 12, 2013 3:25 pm

x

The thing is Panther might not get an explicit mention as it is a Command and Liaison vehicle – i.e. an a lightly armoured, somewhat mine protected replacement for the RSM’s LandRover FFR.

It is absolutely not an equivalent to Fennek, and it may well overlap somewhat with Foxhound, but Foxhound did not exist when Future CLV competition was run, and it is bigger and carries 2 extra guys – which of course does not mean you could not build a new “pod” with only 4 seats, the comms gear, and a rear load area for the bergens !

If you wanted to mount fancy sensors on Panther, we would definitely have to buy more, there are have been many detractors of the vehicle on this site, based on the tight fit inside, the cost of development and each individual vehicle, and it’s lackluster off road performance when loaded up to Theatre Entry Standard.

Simon257
Simon257
June 12, 2013 3:29 pm

@ Panther

At the Tank Museum’s Afghan Battlegroup exhibition. They have a Iveco Panther which had been used by BAE systems, for Mine Blast Tests. It has had its front offside wheel blown off.

http://www.tankmuseum.org/ixbin/indexplus?record=ART2879&_IXMENU_=Exhibitions

Observer
Observer
June 12, 2013 3:31 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H26258,_Panzer_V_%22Panther%22.jpg

I so agree that the Panther would be a very effective protected mobility vehicle. :P

With more emphasis on protected than mobility.

Chris, the crumple zone concept works well, but it has a flaw further up the chain. A solidly built vehicle may not tolerate blast as effectively, but it is much, much easier to repair and return to the field than a vehicle whose basic frame is bent and crumpled. If a material’s stress tolerence is exceeded to the point where it deforms, even if you straightened it out, can you be sure that there is no structural deformation and loss of strength that will cause the vehicle to suffer even more if it ran over a mine again? Crumple zones work well in civilian cars where a serious enough crash is a ticket to the scrapyard, but military vehicles are repaired and sent back in to the field again and again.

Chris
Chris
June 12, 2013 3:48 pm

Obs – quite right I had overlooked the possible hidden weakness in the vehicle if returned to service after major damage.

But it is appropriate to repair this vehicle many many times – isn’t Fiat an acronym for ‘Fix It Again, Tony’? I read it on a computer so it must be true.

x
x
June 12, 2013 4:03 pm

@ Jed

I know where it fits in. But Foxhound was a replacement was a replacement for a Land Rover variant too. As in a way is Jackal; it does nothing more than the patrol variants of Land Rover. What differs between these three vehicles and a LWB Land Rover is protection levels. Let’s not forget it was the Balkan Wars that drove Panther’s spec’s; some anti-mine and extra smalls arms protection in an environment where our forces were widely dispersed, no clear front lines between antagonists whose level of armament made PIRA look like a small bore club. What dictates a formation’s role is its main infantry carrying vehicle not secondary role vehicles. Foxhound isn’t Mastiff; Jackal isn’t a proper cavalry vehicle. It doesn’t matter that Foxhound wasn’t thought of when Panther was procured. All I asked was where did it fit in considering it is comparable to both Jackal and Foxhound that are vehicles in the same class. As for purchasing extra I was talking hypothetically. Foxhounds may be destined for some slots originally intended for Panther who knows? Just because I float an idea on a website doesn’t mean SecDef isn’t going to high tail around to No 11 cap in hand. All I said was considering Panther is an enclosed vehicle it would be mounting sophisticated sensors than Jackal and then proffered some off the cuff ORBATS.

Swimming Trunks
Swimming Trunks
June 12, 2013 4:12 pm

Didn’t Peter Elliot(?) draw a rear engined armoured car based upon the Foxhound?

RE: Foxhound options. Did mention on another thread my problem with the Jackal was it weighed the same as a Foxhound but Foxhound had better protection. If you still want WMIK then swap the pods. Could you have ATGM pods to replace Striker? Ambulance pod? What other options?

Observer
Observer
June 12, 2013 4:13 pm

” I read it on a computer so it must be true.”

Hate to disappoint you Chris, but “Intel Inside” is false advertising. :)

On a more important note for consideration, I would actually suggest that a proper COIN vehicle should look something like this.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/08/53506vol_450.jpg

The current media situation makes calling out the army a fairly serious no-no, so running around in baby APCs might not be the best way to handle the situation.

And I said “look like”, not actually go use saloon cars in a live fire zone. Bullet proof glass, fill the doorspace with armour (can’t wind down the windows any more, but no big loss), hybrid electric drive in the back, hidden under chassis V-hull, run flat tyres. Make it look like the civil police are handling the situation. Last thing you want to look like is a military occupation.

x
x
June 12, 2013 5:27 pm

@ Swimming Trunks

With large vehicles with sufficient wheelbase and a traditional engine transmission layout, that is a discrete engine and gearbox mated longitudinally, it isn’t hard to do. Back in the 1980s and early 1990s (when I spent a lot of time “off-road”) there were at least custom transmission makers who sold a one to one transfer box. That is two gears of the same size in a small box. Turn your engine, geabox around so the engine is in the “boot”, then take the output from the gearbox fee it into the one to one box and then take the output from that into the transfer box (the bit that gives you four wheel drive.) All good fun. Lot easier if you are doing it with an automatic because of gear changes. And balancing prop shafts can be problem. All good fun.

@ All

The Dutch paratroopers operate this little beasty, the Luchtmobiel Speciaal Voertuig.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Luchtmobiel_Speciaal_Voertuig.jpg/1024px-Luchtmobiel_Speciaal_Voertuig.jpg

Google some images of it. Where is the UK version? Even the Belgian paratroopers operate a mini 4×4 built by some company called JCB……

Spec’s here,

http://www.defensie.nl/landmacht/materieel/voertuigen/ongepantserde_voertuigen/luchtmobiel_speciaal_voertuig

Now imagine it on a quad track system like Mattracks.

x
x
June 12, 2013 5:54 pm

@ All re quad tracks

This video 40 seconds on is why I think they are worth considering,

IXION
June 12, 2013 7:16 pm

Chris

(Read the makes downwards)
Fix
It
Again
Tomorrow

Fix
or
Replace
Daily

Bloody
Liability

Lots
Of
Trouble
Usually
Serious
(related to the LOTUS Position:- AKA bent over a desk being buggered by the bank manager for more money to fix it)

There were loads of these back in the day.

On a more serious note, did not some bigwig army type call the Panther totally unsuited to combat conditions, and weren’t they mostly to be used in uk for training? So they must be crap!

Brian Black
Brian Black
June 12, 2013 7:42 pm

Observer,
“Last thing you want to look like is a military occupation.”

Foxhound is quite an unobtrusive vehicle. Swap “army brown” for the non-eye catching dark sea grey dullness of the Northern Ireland snatch Landrovers, and people will hardly know we’re there in their cities. Or the peaceful shade of UN white to reassure the locals.

X,
“Where is the UK version?”

If you want a small 4×4, how about a swb Landrover?

Mike W
June 12, 2013 9:34 pm

Several contributors to this thread have hinted at other versions of the Foxhound being introduced to fill certain roles. Does anyone know the exact position on the variants? I know of two: the WMIK-type vehicle and the logistical truck version. I had thought that both were scheduled to enter service with the British Army eventually but an acquaintance of mine says no, they were never part of the plans. Anyone know anything?

x
x
June 12, 2013 10:09 pm

@ Brian Black

As an owner of Lightweight Land Rover you would think I would be suggesting such wouldn’t you?

But I am trying to avoid that suggestion as the traditional LR is due to die because of EU safety regulations.

@ IXION

http://www.mez.co.uk/lucas.html

Monty
June 13, 2013 12:39 pm

Jed,

Very interesting comments about Scarab. It was an interesting piece of kit that fulfilled the brief perfectly. If you wanted that level of protection, then you ended up with a 12 tonne vehicle. It was an absolute crime that we ended up with Panther instead of Scarab. It says everything you need to know about UK military vehicle procurement at the time. The similarity with the KMW Fennek shows that Alvis was on the right track.

Almost a generation later, I think Foxhound is an excellent solution. It probably has better IED protection, but not better all-round armour protection. I don’t believe that Foxhound can stop 7.62 mm AP or 12.7 mm rounds. Even so, Foxhound is a major step forward in protected mobility and a welcome addition to the BA.

No we have it, the Army is trying to get as many additional ones as it can. I just hope more and more Foxhounds don’t suck money out of the FRES UV budget.

Brian Black
Brian Black
June 13, 2013 2:51 pm

” the traditional LR is due to die because of EU safety regulations”

The bastards! I’m voting UKIP from now on. Landrover is as British as chicken tikka, they can never be allowed to take that from us.

Jed
Jed
June 13, 2013 5:40 pm

Monty:

Ref – “the Army is trying to get as many additional ones as it can. I just hope more and more Foxhounds don’t suck money out of the FRES UV budget.”

If we can bin Nimrod, then we can bin FRES SV and push the money to UV !! Use a combination of Chally 2, Scimitar MK2 and Husky for Armoured Recce regiments (post forthcoming).

Seriously though – do we know if OUVS is dead or not ? Could a stretched 6 x 6 variant of Foxhound fulfill the OUVS (or whatever it is called now) requirements ?

The ability to put the different body pods on the common running gear means we should absolutely maximise the use of this common platform – even if just “good enough” and not perfect for some (many ?) roles.

Mike W
June 13, 2013 7:09 pm

“(post forthcoming)”

Look forward to it greatly. No one has yet answered my question about variants of Foxhound (here breaks into uncontrollable sobs). Do you or Monty know whether the WMIK pod version and the logistic vehicle versions of Foxhound are scheduled to enter service?

Agree with Monty about Scarab. Seemed ideal. There was something distinctly odd about the decision to go for Panther instead. Was it a Blair decision to support a “European” vehicle and to go for standardization, or was it more to do with the procurement people? Very strange.

Brian Black
Brian Black
June 13, 2013 8:07 pm

OUVS is dead, Jed. May its soul rest in peace.
But don’t be sad, Jed, the MoD is now pregnant with MRV-P (multirole vehicle – protected). That’s the circle of life, death and rebirth with a whole lot of confusion in between.

MRV-P seems to be lacking specific requirements at the moment – at least publicly; probably they’re still working through all that.
I would hazard a guess though, that the fact that OUVS was cancelled but replaced by MRV-P means that MRV-P will encroach on the area originally occupied by FRES UV. And that idle speculation leads me to think that a Foxhound variant would be a bit too petite.

Jed
Jed
June 13, 2013 8:52 pm

Brian – thanks matey you jogged my geriatric memory ! I remember Gabby did a post on OUVS becoming MRV-P with the P for P R O T E C T E D ….. :-)

I thought MRV-P was supposed to be mid sized between Light Protected Patrol and “full size” FRES UV – but without any extant requirements, its all guess work eh !

Thanks again for the reminder

Radish293
Radish293
June 13, 2013 11:31 pm

Alas I believe landrover is dead. Recent reports state that the Defender replacement is effectively be dropped.
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/plans-new-land-rover-defender-shaken
The brand is moving increasingly up market and I fear there is no place for the next generation of military vehicles.
We need a general purpose utility vehicle but from who? I’d like to see a Briish design and Oviks have an interesting concept with STRIVE.
http://www.strive-vehicles.com/home.php
I’d like to think they are capable of pulling off the contract but I think ultimately we will go to one of the big players. My money would be on going German with the G Wagon.

Monty
June 14, 2013 6:23 pm

,

I totally agree with you that we should bin FRES Scout SV. I greatly look forward to your post on Scimitar 2 etc. I can tell you now that the Army evaluated BAE’s mash-up of a Spartan APC with a Scimitar turret attached to it. Two issues: not enough underbody protection and a bit top heavy. However, we really do need a proper lightweight tracked armoured vehicle in the recce role. I have always seen CVR(T) as a sort of spiritual successor to the Bren Gun Carrier. Now we need a spiritual successor to the Scimitar. Failing a a new CVR(T), the Armoured Recce role should be carried out with the Upgraded Warrior and then ultimately with whatever replaces warrior, e.g. KMW Puma.

I hope your post will look at what such vehicles should carry as a main weapon. I tend to think that one-man turrets with something like the 20 mm Nexter cannon would be ideal. I like CTA 40 mm but think it is too big and complex.

I love how the MoD has changed the name of FRES UV to MRV-P. It is a requirement for essentially the same vehicle. There are now so many different 8×8 choices that getting a good deal on a big order is highly likely. My money is on Havoc (Patria AMV), BAE / Iveco Super AV, or Terrex. We may also look at Iveco Freccia. I wonder if Boxer, Pirnaha or VCBI will get a second chance?

I very much believe in a three-tiered armour structure:
– Heavy armour: Ch2 and Upgr. Warrior
– Medium Armour: 8×8 tank destroyer with 120 mm gun and 8×8 APC
– Light Armour: Foxhound

@Brian Black

Thanks for confirming that OUVS is dead. I agree that it isn’t quite big enough for the MRV-P role. Irrespective of any MRV_P requirement, I wonder whether the Army will simply buy the six-wheeled Foxhound to supplement the four-wheeled version?

I have yet to see the proposed structure of a regular Foxhound-equipped infantry battalion. As is, each vehicle only accommodates six soldiers. So how many will we get per platoon and per section? I believe you will need a minimum of 6 or 7 per platoon. That means 2 per section and 1 for platoon HQ. Ideally, you want a vehicle that can carry 8 men. The 6 x6 Foxhound could easily do that.

As far as I know, the Army has no plans to replace Jackal with Foxhound open-top Recce vehicle. I personally believe that we should ditch Jackal altogether. Several IED incidents show that it has totally inadequate protection. Something along the lines of Fennek would be preferable IMO. How about a tracked Foxhound with a V-hull and enclosed crew compartment ?

Finally @Radish293

Land-Rover isn’t dead. No need to change something that works perfectly well. Land-ROver will continue to make existing Defender for as long as there is demand. Just as Merc still makes the G-Wagen.

Jed
Jed
June 14, 2013 8:02 pm

Monty

There are many things we dont agree on :-)

You will see no 8 x 8 “tank destroyers” from me sir !!

I dont think FRES UV has morphed into MRV-P – I thought they were supposed to be different weight classes ? FRES UV being bigger – i.e. your 8 x 8 or my favorite the 6 x 6 RG32.

If we have MVR-P and Foxhound families, surely we could just replace Landies with Ford F250 ?

Mike W
June 14, 2013 9:39 pm

@All

An interesting discussion is taking place. Maybe more light will be shed on the subject when DVD 2013 takes place next week. The theme of the exhibition is “Transforming support for land equipment to deliver Army 2020” and for the first time, DVD2013 will be jointly sponsored by the Army and DE&S Land Equipment, “recognising the new capability role taken on by the Army as part of Defence Transformation.”

Therefore a fair amount more should be revealed about the nature of the new formations and especially the equipment they will be using in the new force structure.

“I love how the MoD has changed the name of FRES UV to MRV-P.”

Can’t agree with you there, I’m afraid. Rather take Jed’s view that FRES UV is likely to be much heavier (30 tonnes plus), whereas MRV(P) was always planned to be a much lighter vehicle, probably lighter than Foxhound, which is 7 tonnes (?). Originally its predecessor, the OUVS, was planned to be in two weights , light and heavy, to replace the lowest end of the vehicle range.

Brian Black
Brian Black
June 14, 2013 10:03 pm

There is no 6×6 Foxhound, Monty.
Supacat are touting their SPV400 as a candidate for MRV-P, which comes in both 4×4 and 6×6. But the 4×4 version is essential the same as Foxhound – same weight, protection and looks – so unlikely to be a realistic prospect.

FRES UV didn’t become MRV-P, it got overtaken by events in Afghanistan. The UV program would or should have delivered a number of protected transports and command & control vehicles. Stuff like Mastiff, Husky and Panther have been placed into many of those FRES UV spots. Though the Afghan vehicles are obviously dissimilar to the original FRES UV candidates, there are a whole bunch of them and they cost a lot of money so they’ll stay.

Some of the Afghan vehicles are probably sat in roles that would have eventually been covered by OUVS too. I doubt there’ll be any clear criteria laid out for MRV-P until there’s been a full appraisal of the Afghanistan fleet and it’s known what will continue in service post-war.

I note though, that MRV-P is pretty much the same acronym as VBMR, just in a different language. Does that observation have any relevance, or am I seeing shapes in clouds?

Monty
June 14, 2013 10:20 pm

Thanks, Brian. I was confusing the SP400 6×6 with Foxhound. It certainly seems logical to make one though. I also thought you were implying that FRES-UV had become OUVS. R

Do you know how many Foxhounds will be issued per infantry battalion and what the structure looks like?

Radish293
Radish293
June 15, 2013 8:52 am

Sadly Monty I fear the Landrovers days are numbered, to quote from the Autocar article
“The current Defender will still be retired in 2015, however, partly because of the impossibility of meeting future legislation.”
It’s ageing design struggles to cope with today’s payload requirements. Landrover are also moving away from their traditional utility vehicle roots. At a recent specialist trade show I visited they dispaled not one Defender. The utility 4×4 being offerd by the Japanese brands, Oviks with an interesting armoured variant of the Strive and a 5 tonnes all wheel drive Metcedes Sprinter. When the exhibitor was questioned the responce “Landrovers just can carry the kit.”

IXIO
June 15, 2013 12:09 pm

If we are looking gor a landrover replacement. The how about what Clarkdon called ‘The chosen transport of thr enmies of the United States’ Toyota Landcruser pick up?

Or New Jeep c8 rated at 1.2 tons capacity apparantly doing well with the Egyptians and Isrealis….

Radish
Radish
June 15, 2013 1:33 pm

Sorry last comment should read “Landrovers just can’t carry the kit”

x
x
June 15, 2013 3:17 pm

@ IXION

Jeeps, even today’s modern variants, are primarily man movers. The Land Rover is a load lugger. Note the former’s open channel light chassis against (mobility) the latter’s closed box chassis (to carry weight). Look similar. But there are differences. Note the LR’s range of wheelbases from SWB to LWB to XLWB. As Radish says though it today’s modern defence market the Landrover doesn’t quite cut it. I mentioned somewhere else recently that Hi-Lux will fit in Merlin. If the MoD wanted a British light unamoured liaison vehicle there is another option,

http://www.ibexvehicles.com/

Radish293
Radish293
June 15, 2013 3:40 pm

I’m thinking along the lines of a soft skinned vehicle to replace the Landrover across many of the roles it fulfills.
A couple of options spring to mind.
As I already mentioned in a previous post the Oviks Strive is a novel concept.
They now produce their own chassis as the landrover one they previously used isnt up to it.
They recently delivered a large order of Pangolin armoured vehicles for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. http://oviks.com/pangolin_home.php
The next generation will be on their own chassis which is available in 4×4 and 6×6 configurations. With gross vehicle weights up to 6 tonnes for soft skinned this should give a payload of around 3 tonnes for the 6×6.
It also looks like a landrover so that famiiar shape and low profile would fit right in for humanitarian missions. More importantly it’s a British firm.
My second choice would be from the Austrian firm Oberaigner.
http://www.oberaigner.com/uploads/tx_sbdownloader/Oberaigner_Automotive_MB_Transporter_02.pdf
As a specialist engineering firm they provide the technical know how for all wheel drive to Mercedes and other manufactures. They also build their own products improving on the Factory Mercedes Sprinter 4×4. Where payloads and a big issue their 6×6 Sprinter has a Gross weight of 7 tonnes and a payload of the best part of four! Retaining the van driving position and low profile.

x
x
June 15, 2013 3:58 pm

I am familar with Pangolin. Back in the day our European friends would often field light commercial 4×4 in OD like Oberaigner’s products.

It is good that we have at least two British options if there is a need. :)

EDIT: I remember now they dreamt up this beasty,

http://oviks.com/news3.php#mid

which I thought would be an ideal vehicle for Mattracks.

x
x
June 15, 2013 4:47 pm
Frenchie
Frenchie
June 15, 2013 5:05 pm

I dont understand why you get attached with Land Rovers and Scimitars, of obsolete vehicles, you can carry your Warrior and FRES SV by sea, but for an airborne assault you need a transportable vehicles better than jackal.

jed
jed
June 16, 2013 6:27 pm

Frenchie _ what airborne assault ? We don’t even retain the capability to deploy a complete Battalion by air ! The days of Scimitars and Landrover WMIKS zooming out of the back of Herc’s at air shows to demonstrate the “air landing assault role’ are long gone……

Mike W
June 17, 2013 10:30 am

Jed

Just something that might conceivably be given a mention in your forthcoming post (if you are still planning to do it). I have mentioned on the Farewell Scimitar thread that the Fuchs CBRN vehicle might very well return. Front page news in the”Telegraph” today. So far I have had no replies but you might be interested. Well, it is recce, isn’t, albeit a highly specialized type of it!

Jed
Jed
June 17, 2013 6:21 pm

Mike W – NBCR recce is indeed a kinda “specialist” subject – but as we only bought 11 (?) Fuchs in the first place, they really dont seem worth the mention……. :-(

Opinion3
Opinion3
June 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Should we be retaining this airborne assault capability? Have we perhaps got a little too carried away with COIN capabilities?

jed
jed
June 22, 2013 6:39 pm

OP3 – its not really a question of whether we should, we have dropped the capability down to a reinforced Company size battle group, or SF.

Based on the ease with which even suitably equipped insurgents could bring down a C130 / C17 with MANPADS, I would say that potentially the only place these days for a parachute based assault is in COIN, as a manoeuvre tactic to introduce light infantry onto a identified concentration of bad guys flank or rear.

Mark
Mark
September 10, 2013 6:55 pm

We have a couple of new variants of foxhound unveiled

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aebc1cc49-e456-4872-a3e5-b064b2ad689d

In the new family, the Ocelot-S resembles the Foxhound, with an enclosed cab for a driver, commander and four soldiers, but the pod is steel — less costly than the Foxhound’s composite pod, for users facing less severe threats. The Ocelot-U is a logistics vehicle with a protected cab, while Ocelot-O is a classic special-forces “WMIK” (weapons mounted installation kit) vehicle with an open cab, rollover structure and weapons mounts.

Chris Werb
Chris Werb
September 10, 2013 7:39 pm

The Fuchs were retired prematurely a year or two back because it was decided that armoured ABC recce was something we could do without and doing without it would save a whopping £9M a year (if I remember correctly).