FRES SV has a contract

After years of hesitations, rethinking, changing of minds, messing of requirements, wasting of money, starts and stops, FRES SV is finally “the thing” after the signing of a production contract worth 3.5 billion pounds and covering the delivery of 589 vehicles in various configurations.

The history of FRES and of the programs that came before is a messy, sorry novel which has cost hundreds of millions and delivered nothing for it, but I want to focus on the good side of the news for this once. FRES SV has undergone the last major changes (to date) behind the scenes following the release of the SDSR 2010 (October 2010) and, moreover, with the three-months additional cutting exercise of 2011, which shredded several pages of the SDSR and generated the Army cuts known as Army 2020.

Prior to the Army cuts, FRES SV was a program meant to develop across three “RECCE” production Blocks plus a “Medium Armour” and “Manoeuvre Support” blocks totaling up to a maximum of 1238 vehicles, 10.000 jobs and with production in the UK. After the cuts of summer 2011, FRES SV has shrunk massively: the Medium Armour and Manoeuvre Support blocks were lost practically right away, and the Block 2 and Block 3 have looked increasingly unlikely, up to the point of being effectively reabsorbed into the sole Block 1. And production in the UK is, at best, highly unlikely, as the reduced quantities to be purchased mean General Dynamics will almost certainly want to keep work in its plants in Spain, or ask for quite a lot of additional money to step up an assembly line in the UK. Jobs realistically sustained in the UK will be no more than 1300 unless an assembly line is indeed started up. 

FRES SV as once envisaged. Quantities and number of variants were much higher.

The good news is that in the last few years the program has remained stable and has worked to reabsorb the main army needs into the sole Block 1, and the result, as it stands today, is reassuring in the sense that the numbers outlined appear perfect for Army 2020, with its three armoured infantry brigades. The variants announced also cover most of the needs, even if a few questions remain, in particular regarding what can be done to replace the Samaritan CVR(T) and the FV430 ambulances.

In fact, the contract calls for the production of:

245 “turreted” vehicles, with the CTA40 mm gun. 245 gun turrets were reportedly ordered months before the contract.

Of these:

-          198 Cavalry vehicles Scout

-          23 Joint Fires Control variant

-          24 Ground Based Surveillance variant

A further 256 vehicles are variants of the turretless Protected Mobility base vehicle, of which:

-          112 Command and Control C2

-          59 Protected Mobility Reconnaissance Support troop carriers

-          34 Formation Reconnaissance Overwatch vehicles

-          51 Engineer Reconnaissance vehicles

The final 88 vehicles are for recovery and repair, specifically:

-          38 Recovery

-          50 Repair

Most of these variants haven’t been properly demonstrated yet, as the Block 1 production run was once expected to include 589 vehicles, yet, but coming only in Cavalry Scout, Protected Mobility Reconnaissance Support, Repair and Recovery variants. The other variants have all been pulled forwards from later production blocks, and there have been only some basic feasibility demonstrations done over the course of 2013 to ensure that the Common Base Vehicle Hull could be adapted for the various roles.

Such demonstrations have been made for the ambulance variant as well, but an ambulance variant has not been included in the contract. 

The Scout in the latest CGI

 

There is consequently serious enduring uncertainty about how these variants will be configured. Very early graphics and information dating up to 2011 suggested, for example, that the Ground Based Surveillance and Joint Fires Control variants would be based on the turretless hull, but this has now changed entirely. I’m particularly impressed by the change of heart regarding the Joint Fires Control variant, since up to at least 2011 the Royal Artillery was planning to have this vehicle able not just to designate targets for artillery and air attacks from under armour, but also to carry a full 6-man dismountable Joint Fires Support Team. The use of the turreted variant appears to me to suggest that this second requirement has been dropped, because for what has been seen so far, despite deriving from an IFV, the Scout vehicle won’t be able to carry that many, if any, dismounts (early prototypes showcased only had a couple of seats in the back).  

The work done by the Royal Artillery to shape a way forwards for the FV514 variant of the Warrior will no doubt feed into the design of the FRES Joint Fires Control variant. One question waiting for an answer is also how many FV514s will be upgraded for Joint Fires Control for use in Armoured Infantry Formations. Will these vehicles also be permanently attached to AS90 artillery regiments, like once happened? And when will the RA be able to launch a formal upgrade program for the FV514? The Warrior CSP will only deliver mechanical, electric and protection upgrades to these Warriors, but the complex mission equipment will have to be selected and fitted separately under RA responsibility. Originally, FRES Joint Fires would come from the Block 2 production lot and would replace all Spartan vehicles used for Fire Control tasks: current situation is unclear.

The Ground Surveillance vehicle was also shown as a turretless vehicle variant with a very evident mast-mounted radar and, possibly and desirably, an electro-optic sight head as well. Currently, the news releases say that the GBS variant will have a “man-portable radar”. One would hope that, like it was for the Warrior artillery observation post with the MSTAR radar, this vehicle will offer the possibility to rise the radar antenna on a mast for use from stationary vehicle, with the possibility to dismount the radar and a number of operators. Again, the relatively small space available observed in the Scout prototype showcased so far suggests that in no way more than four, and more likely just two, dismounts can fit in the back, even without thinking of how to possibly store a man-portable radar set inside the vehicle.

The prototype seen in earlier shows, while not fully representative of the final Scout, is likely indicative of what kind of space is available, and it only had two blast-protected seats on the left side, with the right side occupied by a white box presumably containing some of the electronics.

 

Mast-mounted sensor heads combining radar and EO/IR are becoming increasingly common. One would hope that the future primary ISTAR platform of the British Army, at least in its Ground Surveillance variant, will be equipped with something resembling this combination offered by Blighter

Another variant which can only attract curiosity is the Overwatch variant for the Guided Weapon Troops within Armoured Cavalry regiments. Heirs of the GW Troops armed with the Striker vehicle, CVR(T) family, armed with Swingfire anti-tank missiles capable of 4000 meters engagements, the Guided Weapon Troops (3 in each Army 2020 Armoured Cavalry Regiment) are now making do with Javelin teams capable of 2500 meters engagements, moving around on simple APCs.

It will be very interesting to see if the Overwatch FRES SV variant is just a Protected Mobility vehicle with Javelin racks and slightly different seats arrangement, or if it finally restore a longer-range, vehicle-launch precision strike capability. In years past, particularly with the TRACER program, which came before FRES but was ultimately cancelled, the Overwatch variant had to have a turret with .machine gun and boxes of ready-to-fire Brimstone missiles (at least 4), giving it quite a formidable reach and punch. In more recent times, the MOD funded a 2-year study and demonstration for a lightweight multipurpose missile turret capable to employ both anti-tank and anti-air missiles, the Multi Mission System Technical Demonstrator Programme (MMS TDP), which might come handy for the Overwatch variant. Some experience in dual-role missile turrets comes through the 2011 capability sustainment programme of the Stormer HVM vehicles, which received integration of the LMM missile as well as the latest variant of Starstreak, and a sensors and thermal imaging upgrade to enable surveillance and engagement of ground targets as well as of airborne targets.

The LMM, while not a main battle tank killing missile, could have lots of uses against lighter armored vehicles and other targets. The anti-tank capability proper could come from Brimstone (but it is perhaps unlikely due to cost) or from Javelin, which has been demonstrated as a vehicle launched weapon and also proved to an extended range of 4700 meters.  

MBDA's Multi Purpose Combat Vehicle turret could be indicative of a possible solution for a vehicle-mounted launcher for the Overwatch variant. Here in "french" sauce, the MPCV is shown being used with MMP anti-tank missiles or with Mistral surface to air rounds. 

Worth of mention is also the high number of C2 vehicles to be acquired. 112 is a big number, and seem to confirm my expectation that, due to the high complexity of wiring the electronic and comms of a modern command post, new-build FRES SV platforms have been preferred over the rebuilding of Warriors or other as yet unspecified solutions within Armoured Battlegroup Support Vehicle programme, which should take a step forwards over the end of this year and early in 2015. Thanks to its greater capacity, the FRES Command vehicle should do more than just replace Sultan, also considering that some Sultan roles have actually already been taken up by Panther. The FRES Command post variant will be seen well beyond the confines of the Cavalry regiments: it can be expected to feature in tank, armoured infantry and armoured engineer formations as well, and perhaps in armoured REME units too, replacing Sultan and also, I would guess, at least a part of the FV432s and 436. 

The most recent CGI of the C2 variant.

 

Conversely, the absence of a FRES Ambulance variant suggest that there might be greater confidence in turning out a suitable vehicle from the ABSV programme, most likely by rebuilding surplus Warriors into new variants. The MOD, however, retains the option of purchasing a second block of FRES SV vehicles if it was to become necessary, and ambulances might enter the frame in this (very unlikely) case.

It will also be interesting to see how Engineer formations will reorganize if the Engineer Recce vehicle variant really carries no dismounts. I’m quite surprised by this, honestly, since the recce troop has always had dismounted teams moving around in Spartan or other armoured vehicles. I don’t see why the Engineer Recce would be unable to carry dismounts, being a derivative of the APC hull. What is the “specialist equipment” to be carried? At the moment, I honestly have no idea.

I’m left to wonder if the deletion of the counter mobility variant carrying Remote Delivery Mine System for the replacement of Shielder (which was silently withdrawn from service without replacement as part of SDSR cuts) has something to do with it. If not, it would be nice to understand if and how the army plans to recover a counter-mobility capability, which seems to me to be very important. 

Engineer reconnaissance variant. Reportedly, it will not carry any dismount: what will be carried in their place?

There is also an enduring need for medium-weight bridgelayers to support the independent manoeuvre of the new recce cavalry regiments. The british army is set to retain the 10 to 12 sets of truck-mounted Rapidly Emplaced Bridge Systems (REBS) purchased as UOR for Afghanistan, but this solution seems no more than a stopgap, besides with some serious limitations.

It is licit to wonder if the proposed Warrior Bridgelayer vehicle could find a place in the ABSV budget, and come to the rescue.

Warrior CSP and ABSV

As I’ve written several times in the past, with the way the armour programs of the british army have evolved, FRES SV can’t be considered in isolation from ABSV, as this second programme is needed to hopefully complete the replacement of FV430 in addition to CVR(T). Controversial reports have emerged in the public domain about the number of vehicles to be upgraded, and further confusion is generated by the recent decision to formally separate Warrior CSP and ABSV.

The NAO Major Projects report 2013 reported that the affordable fleet of Warrior vehicles numbers 565 machines, with 445 planned to undergo CSP, including 65 to be upgraded to ABSV. This was prior to the division of the two programs, and anyway always made little sense: 65 ABSV are far too few to respond to the ABSV requirement.

Press reports in more recent times have suggested that the MOD is looking at upgrading a minimum of 381 vehicles, of which 250 would be IFVs, with the turret and 40 mm gun.

Again, the numbers don’t quite add up, in my opinion: 131 recovery, repair and artillery observation post (the FV514 variant has the turret, but the gun is a dummy) appear too many, and yet too few to assume ABSV variants are counted in.

Originally, 788 Warrior vehicles entered service. An Armoured Infantry Battalion of the old ORBAT needed some 63 Warrior vehicles of which 7 between recovery and repair variants and 56 “turreted” ones, with gun. Even assuming a reduced allocation of vehicles to the Anti-Tank platoon, it is fair to assume that over 50 turreted Warriors are still needed for each battalion, and this makes it instantly clear that 250 such vehicles would totally insufficient for the 6 armoured infantry battalions that are supposed to be the hard core of Army 2020. At 56 turreted vehicles for battalion, and excluding reserve and training fleet needs, 336 turreted Warriors are required.

Compare the numbers with FRES Scout, where the 198 Cavalry vehicles slot in quite nicely with the requirement (estimate requirement 3 squadrons of 12 in each Cavalry regiment, plus one recce troop of 8 in each Tank and armoured infantry battalion = 180 versus 198 ordered, not including Radar and Joint Fires subvariants).

I would not want to invest in having all the recce vehicles I need, if then the main core of my brigades is insufficient and I can only scrub together 4 out of 6 battalions at maximum effort.  I would expect the Warrior CSP to deliver numbers more closely matching the requirement. 

Note that 380 + 65 gives 445: I’ve long suspected that the NAO and the press have been reporting their numbers and types the wrong way. 380 turreted Warriors and 65 between recovery and repair vehicles would much more closely match the requirement, and would still leave some 120 surplus Warriors available for conversion under ABSV. More, potentially, since the fleet is supposed to still include at least 643 vehicles, the original number planned for CSP upgrades.

120 vehicles could potentially suffice (albeit barely) to replace the around 20 FV430 vehicles in ambulance, APC, mortar carrier and command variants found in each armoured infantry battalion. The new ABSV programme is expected to generate an invitation to tender before this year ends, with Initial Gate hopefully to come next year, and entry in service desired starting in 2019 to keep the pace with Warrior CSP. An APC, C2, Ambulance and Mortar variant are envisaged, with the Army keeping open the door for the option of a vehicle-mounted anti-tank guided weapon system. If an ATGW vehicle was included in ABSV, the number of Warrior IFVs to be upgraded with the new turret and gun could decrease due to the vanishing need to provide a battle wagon for the Javelin teams.

Another way to reduce the number of turreted Warrior vehicles to be acquired would be to build sections including turretless APC vehicles coming out of ABSV: this could have some merit due to the fact that the number of dismounts on Warrior is to drop from 7 to 6 as part of the CSP upgrade. Replacing one or two of the four IFV in the Platoon with a simpler APC would restore the dismounted strength of the platoon, while potentially also saving money. It might be an option with enough merit to be considered.  

The clear implication is that the requirements are closely connected, and a change in one area can have impacts elsewhere.

Now that there is a signed FRES SV contract, it is fundamental to arrive to a final decision on the number of Warrior to be upgraded, and on the way forwards for ABSV: the use of surplus Warrior hulls is no longer described as the automatic way forward for the programme, but I continue to believe that it remains the most likely and most promising option. 

 

The Warrior Mortar Carrier demonstrator was shown with L16 81mm mortar, ENFORCER lightweight RWS and full suite of 360° situational awareness cameras

BAE systems seem to think the same, as it showed a notional Warrior mortar carrier variant at DVD earlier this year.

Considerations on FRES SV

There has been criticism in some areas about the weight and size of the FRES SV, which supposedly make it a vehicle unsuited for its role. I personally disagree. FRES Scout is a big vehicle, but this is only fair in view of its role, which is scouting for armoured brigades made of Challenger 2s, Warriors, Mastiff and heavy trucks and artillery. While there is some merit to equipping the reconnaissance unit with a small, nimble vehicle which can move on very soft ground and in very tight places, it must also be noted that this kind of mobility is not excessively beneficial in broad terms. The current Scimitar is an excellent, agile and easily deployable light scout which can move on bridges and routes that heavier vehicles won’t be able to use. But the question is: how much of a gain actually comes from this? The Scimitar is scouting ahead of a brigade made of Warriors and Challenger 2s, and these are the vehicles that determine where the brigade can and cannot go, in the end.

It is their weight and size that dictates how long the brigade takes to deploy, and how it moves on the battlefield. The Scimitars might get some benefit from being able to use alternative routes and gain positions precluded to heavier vehicles, but the benefit will be limited, as in the end the action will need Challenger 2 routes.

The FRES SV comes with excellent soft ground mobility thanks to large tracks and to the additional road wheel, giving it a ground pressure not distant from that of the latest Scimitar MK2: this despite being 38 tons in combat weight, versus 12. Tactical mobility will still be pretty good, even if tight routes and bridges that would be perfectly good for Scimitar won’t be acceptable for the Scout.

On the other hand, the Scout comes with much greater protection, much better sensors and communications, much improved armament and with a whole different level of comfort for the crew. All these are crucial factors in modern operations, as the Scimitar MK2, with its rebuilt hull, testimonies.

Despite the upgrades they received, the CVR(T) are well past their time as primary armour reconnaissance platforms of the british army. It is definitely time to see them replaced: an APC for four dismounts which struggles to actually fit two with how much kit soldiers carry today, and a recce vehicle at the end of its evolutionary path are not going to meet the long term army requirements.

There would be, however, still use for an armoured, tracked vehicle with excellent tactical mobility and the incredible ease of deployment of CVR(T). Something that can be loaded on a cargo plane with a full load of weapons and consumables, and roll out on the runway during Air Landing assaults. Something that can be airlifted by helicopters and that can go over almost any terrain. There would very much still be uses for it, even if the gun is the old RARDEN with all its limits. I do see this usefulness more as a niche role, however: an option to keep alive on a small scale, as a complement to heavier capabilities and as a support to air manoeuvre and special forces operations. 

The Scimitar MK2 offers increased protection and more decent spaces for the crew thanks to the use of remanufactured Spartan APC hulls mated to Scimitar turrets. Weight grows to over 12 tons from the original 8, though.

Under Army 2020, the Household Cavalry saw its connection to 16 Air Assault Brigade severed. The brigade no longer has a direct affiliation to a squadron of light armour, and despite the entrance into the brigade of other kind of capabilities as replacement (namely one STA battery from 5 Regiment RA, and one UAV battery from 47 Regiment RA) the truth is that some armour protection capable to go in from the air would very much still be needed. 

 

Air Landing assault: an A400 can carry a combat ready Scimitar, a WMIK with trailer and 60 troops onto a tactical landing zone. The Scout appears likely to only be A400 capable if in air transport configuration, requiring filling up for combat after landing.

That’s where CVR(T) could and should still have a role. In an ideal world, 16 Air Assault brigade would have a reconnaissance squadron riding the CVR(T) Mk 2 vehicles coming back from Afghanistan, and ideally, in the future, a more modern platform with similar perks. 

Assorted news; 23 february 2012

For the first time, a british pilot flew an F35C. The honor went to Squadron Leader Jim Schofield, Royal Air Force.
SNAFU has the video, enjoy. 




F35 starts to fly with weapons, internally and externally carried.

No weapons delivery yet, but flying has started with 2 AMRAAM missiles and 2 2000 pounds bombs carried internally and with the six external wing pylons installed and used to carry weaponry.
Defense News reports.

The F35 program has been confirmed once more, but the bad news is that a further US slow-down in acquisition in the next years is possible. Reducing numbers further will inexorably start to affect the unit cost in a bad way. It might or might not happen: the Pentagon will probably do its best to avoid further delays.


The cost of the F35

The cost of the F35 is still a mystery, but we now know that Japan is buying 42 F35A, and for them it has been promised a unitary cost of 112 USD millions, rising to around 125 millions when spares are included. That is on par with USAF FY2013 projections of an average cost of 120 millions per each F35A.
Japan has already made clear that if the promises are not respected, they will cancel their order.

The F35C is, of course, a bit more expensive than an A, and the B variant is even more expensive (the sole engine plant costing at least twice than that on non STOVL variants).
A 150 USD million cost for an F35C is not sci-fi. At current exchange rates, that would mean some 96 million pounds per airplane.
The UK hopes to stay between 90 and 100 million pounds in terms of unitary cost.


General Dynamics places further subcontracts for FRES SV

Defpro reports on this further contract assigned. General Dynamics has chosen BARCO to deliver the triple 8' head display for the FRES SV driver position. BARCO had already won another contract to deliver larger 13' displays for the crew positions in the turret.
BARCO will also supply the Video Processing Unit.

A small site on FRES SV is available from General Dynamics. It doesn't say much, but the Scout description offers some interesting details. It is worth a look into. 

A closer look at the Foxhound

Developed in the UK by Force Protection Europe (recently acquired in a 300 million dollars deal by General Dynamics) and by engineering firm Ricardo, with Thales, Qinetiq, Formaplex, DSG and Sula collaboration, is a wholly new design. The vehicle has been drawn on a clean sheet to increase current available levels of protection, mobility and modularity/mission configurability compared to vehicles already on the market.

The result of the design process is the by now relatively well-known “Skateboard” chassis type. Most, if not all readers interested in the British military have probably already read the name. This chassis, basically, is a V-shaped armoured element that acts as spine for the vehicle, like a keel in a ship. It sustains and protects the engine, the two fuel tanks (one main and one secondary tanks), the batteries, the electric generator and all elements of mechanical transmission. The only elements left outside of the armored shield are the torsion bar suspensions, but this is not to be considered a disadvantage: in most cases, as proven by the tests, a mine will blow off a wheel, but leave the Foxhound able to move on on the remaining three, and reach a safer area on its own. 

Foxhound on trials: note the absence of side door

Atop the skateboard pod sit the various mission-specific pods. For now, there’s a 2+4 seats Protected Patrol module, a Fire Support open-top Weapon Mounted Installation Kit WMIK pod and an Utility pick-up pod for protected logistics role, but more could be developed, and in particular an ambulance pod should be available soon. Each pod, regardless of its specific role, has sharply tilted inferior sides, which sitting atop the skateboard complete an ample V-shape perfect to reduce underbelly blast effects, venting the force of the explosion outwards.

The advantages of the Skateboard are: 

-          A low centre of gravity as all the heavy items are placed under the skateboard, improving mobility and stability  

-          The absence of any mechanical part inside the crew pod, ensuring maximum safety and leaving more exploitable space available inside the mission pods. 

The pods in this way could be built entirely in composite materials, giving it a good compromise in terms of weight and protection levels. The base protection level of each pod is STANAG 4569 Level 2+, with add-on armor kits available to overcome Level 3 and offer protection against RPGs and Explosively Formed Projectiles EFPs. I expect the UK Foxhounds on order for Afghanistan to be fitted with this additional layer of protection, but for now there is no evidence of it.

I also must say that I’m a bit disappointed: Level 2+ protection, or even Level 3, is far from revolutionary, even if, to be fair, the Foxhound is intended for a gross weight of 7.5 tons, which limits the amount of armor that one can put upon it. The French Aravis 4x4 vehicle offers Level 4 protection, but it weights over 12 tons. Blast and mine protection levels are not disclosed, but are certainly at least meeting STANAG Level 2a/2b, and hopefully exceed these significantly. 

A batch of Foxhound vehicles: again, no side doors.

The pods are installed with a fast linking system that allows the replacement of mission pods directly in the field. To replace a pod it is enough to remove the electric connectors, detach the steering system and open the hinges on both sides of the hull. At that point the module is detached and can be lifted off and replaced, in just 30 minutes of work. For normal maintenance, the operation is the same, but the hinges of the pod are opened only on one side, and the pod is gently pushed to tilt to the side with the help of, for example, another vehicle.

Very simple is also the replacement of the engine block, which has to be possible in any FOB, without sending the vehicle back to the main base.    

The Patrol Protected Vehicle module has two front seats (Driver and Commander), with the seats, provided with five-points harness, hang from the roof for improved blast-mitigation effect. Two bulkheads behind the seats separate the front compartment from the rear one, where four dismounts sit in seats attached to the walls, shoulders to the wall, sitting face to face. Further bulkheads separate this compartment from the last one to the back, which houses the radio and the electronics, on the two sides of the large double door at the back. 

Inside the Foxhound LPPV: note the empty space in the back, over the wheels. Here is housed the radio and other electronics, while the seats for the Dismounts sit in the middle.

Access to the vehicle is possible from this large door or from a large “Commander’s Door” in the side of the vehicle. This door is optional, however, since the absence of side openings is advantageous in terms of protection. Since the Mastiff 3 re-introduced side doors, it is probable that Foxhound vehicles will also have it, despite the detrimental effect on overall resistance of the safety cell. On the roof two large openings are provided: one hatch above the Commander’s seat, on the left, and a larger one in the middle of the roof, over the Dismounts compartment. This second opening is large enough for two men to stand and fire out of it at once with their personal weapons. In alternative, a ballistic-protected shielded turret for a machine gun can be fitted. Remotely-operated turrets should however be the preferred long-term solution, as they tend to offer the maximum performance and protection while generally impacting less the weight margin and centre of gravity.

The Protected Logistics variant sits only driver and “commander”, has a single top hatch over the commander’s seat and side doors, with the back made up  by the pick-up loadbed. The WMIK variant sits four men in an open-top pod with thick rollbars from which the blast-mitigating seats hang. Several weapon mounts are available, two more than on a Land Rover or Jackal: in addition to the top ring mount and the Commander’s swing mount, to the side of the driver, there’s a heavy machine gun mount in the back, aiming to the rear, and a further swing mount for a medium machine gun can take place on the passenger’s side.   

The Foxhound Protected Logistics variant: ideally, this vehicle will appear in the British Army and be a long term replacement for many Utility Vehicles, including the UOR procured Husky, which is inferior in protection (blast protection in particular) and payload (around 1300 kg).

Foxhound with WMIK module

  

The Foxhound is 5.4 meters long, 2.1 meters wide and 2.34 meters tall, with a gross weight of 7.5 tons, with a payload of nearly 2000 kg. In the Patrol Protected Variant this means that there is payload margin for 6 soldiers (for design purposes a soldier is a load of around 158 kg) and over 900 kg of further load, which could include a RWS turret (on the market there are models from 70 to 280+ kg. The Selex Galileo Enforcer, widely used by the British Army on the Panther, on the Bulldog and on some Challenger II vehicles, weights around 156 kg without ammunitions and weapon) or a shielded, manned turret ring (can weight well over 300 kg), additional armor and other kit.

At 7.5 tons, the Foxhound can be under slung on a Chinook helicopter and airlifted easily by C130, A400 and, of course, C17 and above. The Foxhound has a Steyr-Daimler Puch 3.2l engine. It is a six-cylinder, four-stroke diesel engine with turbocharger with a power of over 250 HP. The vehicle is also fitted with a ZS six speed auto-transmission and independent, lockable differential axles from AxelTech. The four-wheel steering provides it with a turning circle of just 12m. The Foxhound can reach a maximum speed of 110 km/h and accelerates from 0 to 80 km/h in 19.7 seconds on road. Cross country it can overcome a 60% maximum gradient and negotiate side-slopes of 30%, promising very good mobility on the field.

With the around 200 liters of fuel in the tanks, the Foxhound has a range of around 600 km.

Last, but not least, it is worth remembering that the Foxhound will be the first vehicle adopted by the British Army that meets the Generic Vehicle Architecture (GVA) requirement. Objective of the GVA is to affirm as unique vehicle standard for all electric and electronic parts, the DefStan 23-09. In practice, the wish is to have all new vehicles fitted with a common, open electronic architecture, so that any equipment developed for a vehicle is compatible with all the others as well.

To make this possible, it was necessary to rapidly select a stable base over which develop the system  and write the requirements in terms of hardware (which tension should the component use, which shape factors it needs to follow, etc). Key to this is the “Middleware”, the common software interface that allows components from different firms to work together and dialog without problems. As Middleware, the MOD selected the DDS (Data Distribution Service), and consequently made available to its suppliers a specific development software suite, called Land Data Module. A supplier that tomorrow will be asked by the MOD to design and provide a new component for a GVA vehicle will use the Land Data Module development suite to write software fully compatible with the DefStan 23-09.

In the case of the Foxhound vehicles on order, responsibility for design of the DefStan 23-09 components falls on Thales.

The Foxhound should soon make its appearance in Afghanistan, mainly as Land Rover Snatch replacement. Initially procured as UOR in the first order, placed in 2010 (180 million pounds for 200 vehicles and initial spares package) they have been brought into Core budget and are part of the long term Army plan for the future. A second order for around 100 more is being negotiated and has already been announced. It is expected that the actual contract will be signed soon. This news is however made a bit less happy and good by the awareness that, originally, it was expected that the second batch order would be for another 200 vehicles. It has effectively been halved.

Further orders are expected, but they will depend on the availability of budget for it – no more UOR money for Foxhound, most likely -, on its effective performances in Afghanistan, on its cost hopefully dropping (now it is still way too high) and on the decisions that will be taken on its long term roles within the new army structure. In particular, its future is likely to be closely connected to that of the ex-Operational Utility Vehicle System, now Protected Vehicle Multirole. Of course, the Foxhound/Ocelot aims to export orders as well, even though its first big occasion (a 1300 vehicles order from Australia) has been lost, with Australia deciding to locally develop and pursue the Hawkei vehicle.