19 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chris
Chris
September 30, 2014 7:49 am

OK – fun ra-ra video. But it makes definitive claims too. In particular I want to see the footage of the vehicle climbing a sustained 60 degree slope just like the video says it can. That would be something to watch.

Chuck
Chuck
September 30, 2014 8:07 am

I’m with you Chris. I’m always very dubious of mobility claims demonstrated by driving around on roads nicer than some of the ones round here.

I think the most difficult terrain in the whole video amounted to some poorly laid cobbles.

Radish293
Radish293
September 30, 2014 8:54 am

Pretty certain this was doing the course at DVD earlier in the year.
I got to drive a Factory Ford Ranger round the course followed by being driven around in an OshKosh M ATV.
Both very capable an impressive. Im sure the Fox hound could do that.

Chris
Chris
September 30, 2014 9:39 am

Radish293 – ref “I’m sure the Foxhound could do that” – according to my school trigonometry a 60 degree slope means a climb of 17 or so metres for every 20 metres distance on road. Its steeper than a steep thing. If GD promise that’s what the truck can climb, that’s just brilliant – but I’d like to see the evidence please…

Ace Rimmer
September 30, 2014 9:49 am

One of the great things about claims is that they never say whether its loaded or unloaded, how about taking on a 60 incline with a section of fully kitted, hairy arsed squaddies in the back.

My concern is the IED protection, never mind the dramatic music and action shots, I’d like the MOD to show me a picture of one with a wheel missing and a group of smiling faces from those who were sat inside, that would sell it for me!

Engineer Tom
Engineer Tom
September 30, 2014 10:09 am

Everyone keeps banging on about IED protection, which is all well and good but what happens when they change tactics, I would just weaken bridges so that anything over 4 ton will collapse them, just look at Ukraine how many IED’s are used there?
On point I mean we are making all these vehicles huge, so surely we are sacrificing something, probably mobility, not just the ability to cross some terrain, but also the MPG must be going way up, what does this do for the logistics train.
If the army do what we all normally feel is sensible and consolidates the number of vehicle types and we end up with only heavily armoured vehicles surely we are going to lose the flexibility we need to react.
I am coming to the conclusion that we need multiple fleets of vehicles for different conflicts, this will obviously drive up costs but how else do we get the flexibility.

Michael
Michael
September 30, 2014 10:14 am

At the end of the day, it’s still infinitely better than the Snatch it’s replaced!

Monty
September 30, 2014 10:47 am

I have spent some time familiarising myself with this vehicle over the Summer. Although, as with any new type of vehicle, there have been various teething troubles, overall Foxhound is an excellent vehicle. It goes well across country – all the more so considering it weighs 7.5 tonnes. In fact, I think with all the kit it carries it weighs even more than that.

As we wait for the Army to procure an 8×8 armoured wheeled utility vehicle, Foxhound represents a fine interim solution. How you divide the sections of a platoon between vehicles is a bit of a problem and means that an entire squad is required to crew the vehicles reducing the number of boots you can actually put on the ground. This explains why a larger vehicle with an increased carrying capacity makes sense. Even so, infantry battalions equipped with Foxhound can deploy autonomously over long distances (like AT105 Saxon) giving them a significant new ‘strategic mobility’ capability. We can also airlift two in a C-130 Hercules or three an A400M Atlas.

One thing is beyond doubt and that is Foxhound has defined a new class of vehicle that has utility beyond both Afghanistan and Iraq. We would be foolish to lull ourselves into a false sense of security about the level of protection it offers or about the degree of protection it provides, but as Michael says, it is infinitely better than the Land-Rover Snatch it has replaced.

It will be interesting to see how this differs from the new protected multi-role vehicle that the army intends to acquire.

IXION
September 30, 2014 12:39 pm

I am with others here about the mobility ‘displayed’ in this video.

Like a lot of these things that appear on YOUTUBE.

The formula is simple: –

1) Select a firm well drained area.
2) make sure part of it has water in in to depth that you know (as the course constructor) how deep it is, so you can barrel into the water at speed without ending nose deep in a sink hole.
3) Then storm round it at a speed that: –

a) Would make everyone inside a casualty. (The old landrover 2 a series ambulance was known as ‘the miracle worker’ by the dutch who used them. Because they could turn a driver a medic and 2 casualties into 4 casualties at the first corner).

b) Totally unobtainable when operating at anything like maximum weight.

to be honest the terrain shown would not trouble my Fiat Panda 4 x4

This kind of military video is really rather naff.. is the equivalent of draping naked bints over car bonnets in the 70’s.

mr.fred
mr.fred
September 30, 2014 5:55 pm

That’s probably Bovington training grounds.
Slopes are deceptive on camera, usually appearing much less severe than they are.
Also the video is wrong. It’s not 60 degrees (which would be 2m climb for every 1m travelled. Also known as impossible or a wall.) it’s 60%, which is 27 degrees from the horizontal or 10m climb for every 22m travelled, which is still damn steep. (in either case Chris, your maths sucks ;-) )
That, as given on the manufacturer’s website, is at GVW.

Chris
Chris
September 30, 2014 6:57 pm

mr.fred – ref “2m climb for every 1m travelled” – clearly impossible if the 1m travelled is vehicle distance covered compared to the roadway ‘cos nothing goes further in any direction than it goes in its motion vector – not in this universe anyway – so I’ll accept a 2m climb per 1m horizontal distance covered – hence we talk opposite over adjacent being 2, rumbling Tan backwards gives an angle of: 63.43 degrees, not 60 degrees. On the other hand, a 17m climb for a distance on road of 20m is opposite over hypotenuse so crunching Sine backwards gives: 58.2 degrees. Which is why I put ’17m or so’ because putting 17.3205m while correct is just too anorakky… Honest my sums aren’t to scrappy.

I had guessed the quoted 60 degrees should have been 60%. Sort of OK, 27 degrees. I have done more sums (!) to determine what’s necessary to provide the wheel torque to give my designs a 40 degree climb capability (wheel/track purchase permitting) which by my sums would be 84% slope. Some Russian/Soviet designs beat that (Wiki says so it must be true), and amazingly the South Africans quote climb gradients of 70 degrees for Rooikat and even Ratel is quoted at 60 degree climb capable. Must be something in the porridge in South Africa.

Jonathan
Jonathan
September 30, 2014 7:36 pm

I’m with Chris, I want to see a seven+ ton four by four climb a 60 degree slope. I, have gone down slopes in the low 50 degrees and feels more like falling down a cliff than anything else. I understand the best alpinists can manage a slope in the low to mid 60s before they end up in an un controlled plummet.

mr.fred
mr.fred
September 30, 2014 7:55 pm

This is why I usually draw out geometry to make sure I’m getting it right. Hoist by my own petard, indeed.
2:1 is, of course, the ratio of the hypotenuse to the opposite at 30 degrees, not opposite to adjacent.
Still, the tangent relationship would seem more appropriate than either sine or cosine, so 1.73:1 climb to horizontal travel for 60 degrees, or 0.51:1 for 27 degrees (60%). Using an older method of stating gradients, the latter is one in two (near enough)
Entertainingly enough the tangent relationship is roughly the same as the coefficient of friction so in order to climb a 60 degree slope, you would need a coefficient of friction of 1.73. As far as pure friction goes this is somewhat beyond the art of the possible. Momentum and chucking material out the back might carry you up steeper hills than mere friction can achieve, but it’s not reliable or safe. Short slopes could be tackled if you still have purchase on level ground.

IXION
October 1, 2014 11:01 am

Mr Fred

Have a look at what the Icelandic hill climbers get up to in what are in effect hill climbing dragsters.

Not serous military (or indeed any other type of) vehicles, but friction be damned, those things mess with the laws of physics like cats do if they think no one is watching.

familr
familr
October 1, 2014 4:51 pm

Where’s the spare tyre?

Chris
Chris
October 1, 2014 7:56 pm

familr – the following is my understanding of the current rules (Elf & Safety mate, ennit?) that decree that truck tyres are too heavy to be manhandled and must be moved with mechanical handling assistance. As fitting all the necessary mechanisms to every vehicle in the fleet would be expensive, drivers no longer are permitted to change a wheel on their own by the roadside. Try finding a spare bolted to lorries on the roads… If a truck has a puncture or shreds a tyre it now pulls to the roadside and waits for the lad from Kwikfit (other brands are available) to arrive in his van, complete with spare wheel and all the cradles hoists jacks etc the modern rules demand.

But. All is not gloom. I would expect Foxhound to be fitted with runflat inserts, which allows the vehicle to continue driving with totally deflated tyres for a considerable distance. The use of split rims suggests one piece Hutchinson runflats have been fitted. The current view would appear to be that its better to be able to keep mobile despite flat tyres and to deal with the problem at a suitably secure location with the aid of suitably equipped fitters. Two birds, one stone – more desirable from the operational perspective and is in line with modern H&S rules.

wf
wf
October 1, 2014 8:35 pm

In a previous life I was involved in producing mobile phone base stations. Could not be heavier than 25kg if memory serves: having two rather than one on call engineer for each job was a deal breaker for the average telco :-)

Alex
Alex
October 1, 2014 9:40 pm

wf: MSI?

wf
wf
October 1, 2014 10:01 pm

Nah, Motorola :-)