Doc Summary
The UK MoD’s Light Protected Patrol Vehicle (LPPV) programme, launched in 2008, procured blast-resistant 4×4 vehicles to replace Snatch Land Rovers, selecting the Force Protection Foxhound
Light Protected Patrol Vehicle (LPPV) – Early History #
After entering service in 1995, the Snatch Land Rover Mk1 had seen service in Northern Ireland and Kosovo.
By 2002, it was approaching the end of its service life and a replacement programme started under Project DUCKBOARD. A draft statement of user requirement in January 2002 stated.
The current NI [Northern Ireland] patrol vehicles are essential for troop deployment, patrolling urban and rural areas and for administrative tasks. They were procured to counter the threat from low and high-velocity small arms, Improvised Explosive Devices (IED), anti‑armour weapons, petrol bombs and general hand‑held catapulted missiles. In order to afford the troops on the ground an acceptable level of protection, mobility and capacity to counter the threat two vehicles are currently in service, Tavern in the high-risk areas and Snatch in the lower-risk areas.
Work continued on a Protected Patrol Vehicle to replace Snatch and Tavern. Tavern was a heavier protected patrol vehicle based on a GMC cash collection truck with additional protection installed by Penman Engineering.
By mid-2003, the Protected Patrol Vehicle (PPV) requirement (to replace Snatch and Tavern) was progressing within the MoD. A July 2003 stakeholder workshop considered PPV would now cover three requirements:
- Northern Ireland
- Light forces when deployed on peacekeeping operations
- Protected mobility for RE/RLC EOD teams
Options considered included extending the lives of existing Snatch Land Rovers, military/commercial off the shelf vehicles and up-armouring existing vehicles such as the Pinzgauer. By August, the threat from IED’s in Iraq, especially remote control IED’s, was increasing.
A forces and resources review carried out in September 2003 articulated a need for lightly protected mobility vehicles in Iraq.
The threat posed to CF [Coalition Forces] within Basra City from IED, RPG and small arms attacks is currently being countered by the use of stripped‑down Land Rovers with top cover sentries.
This necessarily carries a risk to the top cover vehicles from attack, particularly from IEDs. Force protection will be improved by the provision of up‑armoured 4×4 vehicles that meet the broad definitions below. Replacing the full complement of this in the UK Bde [brigade] would require of the order of 420 vehicles.
The minimum quantity to provide essential protected movement in Basra and Maysan is 228. Any lower number will be put to good use in accordance with priorities.
The requirement is for: an agile wheeled vehicle capable of swift acceleration and speed in excess of 60 mph, a high degree of protection against small arms fire and blast devices, a cupola to allow top cover protection to deter attackers, particularly those deploying anti‑armour weapons and small arms, grills to give windows protection against thrown objects, both to enhance routine protection and to enable its use in public order situations where a Warrior [AFV] may be too threatening or unable to manoeuvre in small streets.
The PPV Working Group met again in September to discuss the requirement.
A footnote to the minutes stated
Due to the limited Tavern fleet and the expected high cost of procuring similar vehicles, the PPV protection requirement must be realistic in order to permit a timely and cost-effective solution to the UOR
Options considered included Snatch/Tavern, Land Rover Wolf/Pinzgauer with applique armour, refurbish existing vehicles awaiting disposal and purchase new. Because of the demanding timelines, Snatch was considered the best option although it was recognised a new vehicle purchase would be relatively low risk for the medium to long-term.
208 Snatch Mk1 Protected Vehicles were deployed to Iraq from Belfast in November 2003.
Saxon vehicles were also deployed to Iraq.
Meanwhile, the business case to modify the existing Snatch 1 vehicles already in theatre with more suitable environmental capabilities was approved at a cost of £2.2m, these were referred to as ‘Snatch 1.5’.
Project DUCKBOARD also progressed in parallel to the UOR Snatch modifications, although expected quantities were reduced.
Main Gate Approval for Snatch 2 was sought. 312 Snatch 2 were planned to be obtained, 208 to replace the Snatch 1.5 in Iraq. The value of this was £13m with funding drawn directly from the DUCKBOARD budget line.
Option D, considered but not taken due to cost and timescale to delivery issues, was for a COTS vehicle.
It should also be noted that Snatch 2 protection was ‘Standard equivalent to current SNATCH’
The In-Service Date was planned to be December 2004, with 80 delivered to Iraq.
May 2004 saw the first recorded use of an explosively formed projectile (EFP) IED against UK forces, against a Warrior in the Maysan province.
28 June 2004, Fusilier Gordon Gentle of the 1st Battalion Royal Highland Fusiliers was killed by a roadside bomb whilst travelling in a Snatch Land Rover in Basra.
In 2005, a reworking of the Protected Patrol Vehicle (PPV) statement of requirement resulted in a recommendation to convert the existing Snatch vehicles to Snatch Mk2 and order 100 Vector vehicles.
An update from GOC (MND(SE)) in August 2005 raised concerns about the use of IED’s and the inability of current vehicles and ECM to cope.
The threat from IEDs is worrying, with our electronic counter-measures unable to defend against the [redaction] and the use of [redaction] and (in the most recent attack) shaped charges able to penetrate armoured vehicles up to and including [redaction].. This technology has now been used across MND(SE) and indeed further north having first been seen in Maysan
Clearly, in theatre commanders were concerned about equipment issues in response to IED’s.
In the House of Lords, on the 12th of June 2006, Lord Astor of Hever asked the government about protected vehicles and the response from The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson) was;
My Lords, I am sure the House will wish to join me in expressing our sincere condolences to the families and friends of the soldiers killed and injured in Afghanistan yesterday. We do not comment on the level of protection of specific vehicles, for obvious reasons. Protected patrol vehicles are only one of a range of vehicles available to commanders to allow them to balance mobility, protection and profile based on the threat, the terrain and the task.
PPVs offer a level of protection commensurate with their weight, size and role, together with good mobility and a low profile.
My Lords, I do not accept that Snatch Land Rovers are not appropriate for the role. We must recognise the difference between protection and survivability. It is important that we have the trade-offs that we need for mobility. The Snatch Land Rover provides us with the mobility and level of protection that we need.
We had 14 RG-31s in Bosnia, which we took out of service some time ago due to difficulties with maintenance. We have looked at the RG-31 alongside a number of alternatives for our current fleet and concluded that the size and profile did not meet our needs. Size is important in the urban environment. The RG-31 cannot access areas that Snatch Land Rovers can get to
In this case, the RG-31s referred to were the Alvis 4 and Alvis 8 vehicles described further in this Knowledge Base Article
On the 26th of June 2006, Des Brown announced a review of armoured vehicles in Iraq:
As I have already said to the House, it is open for commanders to deploy vehicles that have heavier protection than the Snatch Land Rover … Other vehicles are available to them; there is a choice. However, commanders must be free to make decisions in relation to the operations for which they deploy soldiers. I have already said to the House that I am aware of the issue: I could not but be aware of it following my visit last week and, indeed, my earlier visit. I have asked for a review of what we can do in the long term and immediately. I shall see what we can do immediately to respond to the changing situation, although significant measures other than those in relation to the vehicle’s armour must be taken. We are at the leading edge of some of them, and electronic counter‑measures, in particular
Following a visit to South Africa in June, Brigadier Moore wrote that if a better protected PPV was required, RG-31 had the potential to meet the requirement.
It is now apparent that RG31 … has sufficient stretch potential to take the additional weight associated with protection against […]. In addition, LSSA [Land Systems South Africa] has a rigorous testing regime … and this is fully compliant with DSTL thinking. LSSA is innovative, front running and is at the leading edge of their trade. Should the Army want a heavier and better protected PPV, RG31 would be a strong contender.
This was quite an extraordinary view, especially given the MoD and government public rejection of the RG-31, both in response to questions from MP’s and Lords, media scrutiny and its rejection for the Future Command and Liaison Vehicle.
On the 24th of July 2006, the UK announced it had ordered 100 Cougar vehicles from Force Protection. The same announcement also detailed the Vector order from BAE.
At its Basra Palace base, we met the UK’s 20 Armoured Brigade. We were shown the equipment used on patrol, particularly the Snatch Land Rover. We heard that Snatch were very good vehicles, but they were old and could often break down. Many had previously been used in Northern Ireland. They were fast and manoeuvrable but not well armoured and were particularly vulnerable to Improvised Explosive Device (IED) attack. Similar concerns were voiced by UK troops at the Shaibah Logistics Base
After a company-funded prototype was completed early in 2006, the MoD ordered 62 Vector Protected Patrol Vehicles in a £35 million contract, these being based on the Pinzgauer 6×6 chassis.
General Houghton told the Defence Select Committee they were intended to replace Snatch in Afghanistan
Lieutenant General Houghton: Just on the specific question, the deployment of the Vector, virtually on a one for one basis, replaces the Snatch, so when they are fully deployed all the Snatch will then be removed from theatre
Snatch was gradually phased out from high-threat patrol roles as ew vehicles like Mastiff were more widely available, starting in late 2006.
Vector was deployed to Afghanistan in April 2007, it was not a success.
Light Protected Patrol Vehicle (LPPV) – Competition and Service Entry (2009 to 2013) #
The Light Protected Vehicle Competition was launched with a Pre-Qualification Questionnaire issued in June 2009.
Bids had to be in by the end of July 2009.
The requirement was described as:
Mastiff levels of protection in a 7-tonne vehicle, with a footprint roughly the same as a Land Rover
Several manufacturers responded to the bid, including Team Z (Creation UK abd Babcock) with their Specific Requirement Vehicle (SRV)
Force Protection Europe showed its Ocelot design.
And Supacat, with their SPV400.
Both clean sheet designs, both exploiting technology from the motorsport indusry, and both modular.
Supacat also showed a 6×6 design concept.
The Light Protected Patrol Vehicle (LPPV) contenders continued with their media displays, by April 2010, the competition had been whittled down to the Supacat SPV400 and Force Protection Ocelot.
Supacat SPV400
Force Protection Ocelot
As the design progressed, both matured their designs.
Force Protection won the Light Protected Patrol Vehicle (LPPV) competition.
The MoD announcement confirmed their status as the preferred bidder in September 2010.
The selection of Force Protection Europe as the preferred bidder means contract negotiations will now begin to provide an initial order of LPPVs through the Urgent Operational Requirements process.
The first vehicles are expected to be available to troops for training in 2011. The total number will be subject to negotiation and announced in due course.
The LPPV has been designed to provide unprecedented levels of blast protection for a vehicle of its size, and will be able to carry a crew of up to six people. It will add to the wide array of protected vehicles already being used on operations in Afghanistan, including Mastiff and Ridgback.
In November 2010, a £180 million order was placed for 200 Ocelots, to be called Foxhounds.
Designed, developed and built in the UK by Force Protection Europe and Ricardo plc, together with Team Ocelot partners Thales, QinetiQ, Formaplex, DSG and Sula, Ocelot was claimed to be, weight for weight, the best protected and most agile vehicle of its kind. Its turning circle is very small, a vital characteristic for the type of urban terrain these were to be used in. Foxhound was a genuinely innovative ‘clean sheet’ design, its armoured ‘skateboard’ spine held the transmission components and the interchangeable body ‘pods’ are fitted to it.
The vehicle could be re-roled or easily repaired by simply swapping these modules and components. Ocelot was also compliant with the MoD’s emerging Generic Vehicle Architecture standard to simplify future systems integration and maintenance.
Vector was withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2010 and 2011.
Trials continued in the UK as Foxhound moved from order to manufacture.
In 2011, an additional 100 Foxhound vehicles were ordered.
The package includes around 100 additional Foxhound protected patrol vehicles. Foxhound is at the cutting edge of protected patrol vehicle technology and will provide unprecedented levels of blast protection for its size and weight.
Today’s announcement will take the total number of Foxhound vehicles available to our Armed Forces to around 300.
The first of the 200 Foxhounds already ordered by the MOD are due to be delivered for military training over the next month, and will be available for deployment to Afghanistan during 2012.
The original £180 million contract to build 200 of the new Foxhound vehicles was signed with FPE in November last year. The second tranche, announced today, is subject to final contractual negotiation.
The first Foxhound vehicles were deployed to Afghanistan in June 2012.
An addition 25 vehicles ordered in August 2012.
The MOD made an initial order for 200 Foxhound vehicles in November 2010 and a further 100 were requested late last year as part of a £400m package. The latest 25 will be in addition to this at a cost of £30m.
Foxhound was shown in the UK in 2013, after being deployed to Afghanistan a year earlier.
The MOD has committed £270m for 300 Foxhound vehicles with General Dynamics Land Systems – Force Protection Europe, which will sustain around 750 UK jobs.
By the end of 2013, Foxhound had entered service and the MoD announced further orders, bringing the investment to £371 million and 400 vehicles.
If you found value in this article, help me keep Think Defence going.
Think Defence is a hobby, a serious hobby, but a hobby nonetheless. I have removed those annoying adverts, but hosting fees, software subscriptions and other services add up.
To help me keep the show on the road, I ask that you support the site in any way you can. It is hugely appreciated.
You can click on an affiliate link, Buy Me a Coffee at https://ko-fi.com/thinkdefence, download an e-book at https://payhip.com/thinkdefence or even get some TD merch at https://www.redbubble.com/people/source360/
Youtubers, if you are going to lift content from here, the decent thing to do would credit me
