The Department of Cheaper Ocelots

General Dynamics have released a few interesting images of their Ocelot-S range of vehicles, the Ocelot of course being the GD name for the British Army Foxhound.

S stands for Steel which is much cheaper than the composites used on the Foxhound, it also adds nearly 2 tonnes which illustrates just how composite materials can save weight.

It was also shown at the recent DSEi exhibition with a fully GVA compliant systems fit.

Ocelot S - Stretch
Ocelot S – Stretch
Ocelot S Logistics
Ocelot S Logistics
Ocelot S - Ambulance
Ocelot S – Ambulance

The logistics variant can carry a couple of NATO standard pallets up to a total of 2 tonnes in weight, the ambulance variant can carry two stretchers and there is a 6.5m Long Wheel Base version shown in the images above.

Other suggestions include a military working dog carrier, 105mm Light Gun Limber, fuel bowser and protected shelter carrier. A 6×6 version is also reportedly possible.

This makes obvious sense, to build up the 400 Foxhound fleet to include other variants could potentially displace various versions of the the Land Rover, Duro and Pingauer fleets.

H/T Janes

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest

16 Responses

  1. the four wheel steering on the troop carrier variant is interesting, is that a standard feature i have just missed?

  2. Wonder what the use of steel does to it’s performance and cross-country ability?

    And now that JLR [Jaguar Land-Rover] have, rather pleasingly, become the experts in aluminium frame technology for vehicles (including building a f-huge[f**king-huge] production facility), are they missing a trick?

    Or are JLR?

    Or have JLR got something interesting in the Special Projects shed?

  3. To Dave Haine

    I guess from what has been quoted on other sites that the GVW stays the same hence the decrease in carrying capacity.

    Interesting point you make about Land Rover, I have thought for a while that the Discovery 3 litre V6 turbo diesel and SDV8 4.4 litre engines could make perfect power units for up to ten tonnes gross military vehicles, being light, very powerful, compact and mass produced, so off the shelf with no logistics problems and relatively cheap. They probably wouldn’t fit a Foxhound being much wider than a straight six but fine for other future vehicles.

  4. I noted that in the DSEI round up that KMW had a CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear) mungo vehicle, so if they can fit the necessary electronics into something that small, carry on the chassis commonality theme, bin the old fuchs (apparently in a shit state already) and get it in one a ocelot, probably easier to easier to airlift 2 or 3 of those as well.
    A 6 wheeled “crew cab” version would be ideal as a gun tractor so ammo could be carried rather than relying on a 2nd vehicle IMO, maybe best to stick with the shorter 4×4 for 7 (para) RHA though

  5. So does the increased base vehicle weight / reduced payload effect its potential flexibility AND how much cheaper is it ?

    Because if its cheap enough does this become the Light end of Mult-role Vehicle (Protected) and cheap enough for us to buy a 1,000 to equip the infantry battalions of the Adaptable Force ?

  6. @Jed – Thinking along similar lines, which is why I’m wondering how many troops the stretched version can take.

  7. IMHO we should be all over vehicles like this.

    All of the worlds major armed forces are struggling about what to do at the light truck end of things.

    Jeeps or landrovers were cheap light largely cots designs that answered a whole lot of questions.

    However the IED cat is out the bag, snipers armed withuch better sights, a proliferation of guided and non guided weapons including 50 cal with everthing means landrovers are just not survivable any more.

    As a seperate point much of the kit we want them to carry puts the millitary utillity vehicle firmly into the 2 ton payload catagory.

    Simply put we need something like this in large numbers.

  8. “Simply put we need something like this in large numbers.”

    I must say that agree wholeheartedly with every single word of Ixion’s comments here.

    @paul g

    When Ocelot/Foxhound was first publicized to any extent, we were told that there would be at least three variants of the vehicle: a patrol (LPPV) version (to replace the Snatch-Vixen Land Rover); a fire support version (to take over from the existing WMIK vehicle) and a protected logistics vehicle. ( The Foxhound/Ocelot has a modular design, which means that it can be reconfigured within two hours to become another version). The logistics version, I suppose, could very well meet the CBRN requirements. By the way, who told you that the Fuchs were in rag state?

    I don’t know why the British Army appears not to have looked seriously at the fire support version yet. Probably financial.


    “Because if its cheap enough does this become the Light end of Multi-role Vehicle (Protected) and cheap enough for us to buy a 1,000 to equip the infantry battalions of the Adaptable Force ?”

    Rather like the question/suggestion. It would probably be in the right weight range for the light end of MRV(P) but I haven’t heard anything about the programme recently. Is it still around?

  9. I must agree with most people here, this looks like a ideal vehicle for a lot of roles. Maybe this what we should be looking at this for the TUM (Truck, Utility, Medium) and TUH (Truck, Utility, Heavy) roles as well as the more fighty ones. Think of the flexibility, and cost savings for a large fleet.

    Although we are coming to the end of a campaign requiring MRAPS, it does make sense to have a similarly capable vehicle… We never know when there will be another need.

    And it looks really ‘nails’ as well!

  10. Daft Question time. Is it 2 tonnes heavier to give it the same protection as a standard Foxhound? Or is the protection different because of the steel structure and despite the increase in weight? If the former, then standard Foxhounds probably become only justifiable for Air Mobile use and SF. Everyone else can have the Ocelot-S.

    If the latter, then “teeth” corps will need the standard ocelot with the “S” version only being of use for second line units who currently use TUM/TUH. But as they look so similar, operational confusion might become an issue.

    Lastly, by how much would the cost come down if we just ordered shedloads of standard ocelots (Foxhound) in a variety of types? Would the unit cost begin to match a purchase of Ocelot-S for TUM replacements?

    Right, back to lurking! :-)

  11. Has the drivetrain, suspension, brakes and ‘everything’ being upgraded to suit? Or has the overall load carrying capability just been reduced by two tonnes? More weight means less stability in the corners and lower life clutches etc.

    If so, what happens to commonality with the composite derivative?

  12. So I believe from perusing the GD site that use of steel is for the crew / payload module, and it sits on top of the standard drive train / running gear in its composite armoured “skateboard” which remains common to all variants; and therefore the payload weight is reduced by 18ooKg and the gross vehicle weight remains unchanged.

    Technically I suppose they could offer an Aluminium armoured pod that weighs less but offers consummately less protection, or even completely un-armoured pods !

  13. As awesome as Foxhound is, and it is awesome, compare its £900,000 unit price to the $400,000 cost the US Army is currently expecting to pay for JLTV.

Comments are closed.