The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has issued a Contract Award Notice for the Foxhound Command Variant project, with a budget allocated ranging from Ā£10 million to Ā£20 million.

The contract, identified via Contracts Finder, spans 15.5 months, starting on 18 December 2023 and concluding on 31 March 2025.

The primary objective of this contract is to modify up to 50 Foxhound Light Protected Patrol Vehicles into Command Variants. This task has been assigned to General Dynamics Land Systems UK, located in Gwent. The notice states, “The Authority has identified a need to generate 50 Foxhound Command Variants.”

This project aims to upgrade the vehicles for improved command and liaison operations.

Key aspects of the vehicle conversion include the integration of advanced communication systems. “The conversion will provide enhanced VHF, HF, and UHF capability, whilst providing the users with a working environment suitable for operating BOWMAN data terminals,” as described in the notice.

The upgrade also encompasses vehicle performance enhancements like mission battery improvement and the addition of crew display systems.

General Dynamics UK, as the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) and Design Authority of the Foxhound Platform, was selected due to their unique qualifications. The notice explains, “As the Design Authority, and only contractor to have access to the design for the modification, General Dynamics UK is the only contractor which is able to perform the requirement, for technical reasons.” They are also the sole UK-licensed company by the US Department of Defense, under ITAR, to install BOWMAN on a new variant of Foxhound.

The awarded contract value to General Dynamics in Gwent is Ā£9,985,030. This contract is categorized under CPV Codes 35412500 – Command and liaison vehicles and 35712000 – Tactical command, control, and communication systems.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

83 COMMENTS

  1. Makes a mockery of competition criteria I guess when choice is limited to 1 and that 1 has anything but a stellar history. But surely they canā€™t bugger this one up, can they.

    • Would you return to a garage that buggered your vehicle? I thought for one moment these were all new units but no such luck, just warm-ups of existing models.

  2. “This task has been assigned to General Dynamics Land Systems UK…”

    The same General Dynamics that can’t build an APC without deafening the soldiers it’s carrying? That General Dynamics? Why on earth are we placing MORE contracts with these clowns?

      • The Former Defense Support Group now Babcock assembled the first batch of Foxhounds , no longer have manpower for this extra workload .

        • They might’ve assembled it, I think MTL made the cabs, it still isn’t Babcocks vehicle, GDUK owns the IP.

          Babcock assembles Jackal, it’s still Supacats vehicle.

          • MTL manufactured the V shaped Hull (Not the Cabs) The cabs were made by Formaplex (Southern England).

        • DSG / Babcock did not assemble any FHD’s, this was done by Ricardo Special Vehicles. How do I know ? I ran the plant and oversaw the programme.

          • The first batch of foxhounds were assembled by the MOD Defence support Group at Bovington which is now Babcock. Parts supply was a shambles with days of no work. It took over a year to design and supply the rear door flimsy locking mech, why, also the pod to cab plug looked flimsy . A couple of the composite pods had threaded inserts bonded in the wrong place Ha Ha !

    • What’s wrong with Foxhound, though? Well proven MRAP selected & produced to UK spec in Wales? Wales was the original nomination for Ineos Grenadier, but that went to France.

      I suppose Jaguar Land Rover (now Tata) could have designed & tendered for the MRAP requirement, (if they wished, though don’t know) based upon decades of off-road i.e. since Foxhound was an ‘offshoot’ of that requirement, I understand. Plus they’d already had many years with the erstwhile Wolf version Defender in terms of military upgrades, which I believe the Army, who still appreciate it, are looking to keeping relevant as regards power train.

      Even now, it is possible JLR could re-enter in the military market (there seems to be increasing ‘scope’), perhaps under their SVO section, but that’d be from scratch.

      • Didn’t it have all sorts of reliability issues when it was first deployed, engines overheating etc. Have they all now been fixed?

        • This may be bit of a dit, but I need to say it. Personally, I owe a lot to Foxhound. It saved me and my team on a number of occasions. On one of my tours in Afghan. We were embedded with the Canadians, initially with a pair of Landrover WMIKs. As a weapons platform they packed a lot of punch. Carrying a 50 cal, a Gimpy and a few Javelins. Plus all the ammo to keep them in the fight for at least an hour.

          However, armour was pretty scarce. As they were completely open, all your kit, radios etc got caked in dirt and sand. After every outing, ammo had to be stripped and cleaned.

          Then we got a pair of Foxhounds. Admittedly they looked well used, as both had been used by the trials team. Both had teething problems after we collected them from Khandahar airfield.

          One had its engine overheating, which was caused by a nicked head gasket. We replaced it in the FOB and it was fine for the rest of the tour. The other kept burning out a relay, after we turned on a jammer. After replacing it with a higher rating relay, it worked fine.

          Apart from that, the only other issues we had were caused either by the terrain of by Terry. As we operated from Khandahar city, getting spares was not a problem. Plus we bodged a few repairs just keep things moving.

          Our pair of Foxhounds came with early versions of Kongsbergā€™s remote weapon system (RWS) fitted with a Gimpy. This included a day/night camera, sadly without a thermal capability. Though it did have a 10 times magnification. The RWS combined with the camera sighting system, was very stable. Allowing you to establish the target and to place shots very accurately.

          One of the downsides of the RWS was where it was fitted on the roof. It was too far forward of the rear hatches. So to reload it or clear a jam. You had to get on top of the roof to service the weapon. Was a bit hairy when Terry had you under fire.

          The Canadians we operated with used Nyala MRAPS. These got hit a lot and sadly they lost quite a few lads and lasses. We all agreed that this was down to them having windows down the lengths of each side. Yes, it was pretty thick armoured glass. But you could see who and what was been carried. Which I guess helped make them a bullet magnet.

          From first hand experience the Foxhoundā€™s composite armour was a godsend. For starters it worked, even against 7.62mn armour piercing rounds. One even took a number of hits from a 50 cal DShK. Thankfully nothing penetrated. We were targeted by RPGs and a recoiless rifle, which came close but didnā€™t hit. Similarly we narrowly missed being hit by controlled IEDs. The Canadians we were with werenā€™t so lucky.

  3. With all communication equipment including Bowman data terminals, will work on the Foxhounds include the protection of said equipment like ballistic paneling and a Faraday cage ?

  4. Are we still operating Bowman? I thought it was going to be replaced with a system called Morpheus after the MoD lost track of where the Bowman assets actually were

  6. SO after messing up Bowman and Ajax; and failing totally on Morpheus after six years with nothing to show (other than a healthy GD bank balance; GD are rewarded with another contract????
    Parliament, MoD trumpet ‘lessons have been learned’ Obviously not.
    Morpheus in Ancient Greece was the god of Dreams. Friedrich Serturner the man who discovered morphine, derived the name Morphine from the name of Morpheus.
    This is appropriate, MoD seem addicted to giving more & more money to GD for nothing in return. Perhaps one day MoD will look to support sovereign capability and British owned companies? Perhaps there will be a meaningful Land Industrial Strategy??? We can all dream

    • So, Lord B, how is Bowman ā€œmessed upā€? Iā€™m interested to hear your take. Mod have a fixed price contract with GDUK, producing AJAX vehicles at a fixed, non negotiable price. They have gone to the sole UK provider of Foxhound to have a small number of vehicles modified to C2 variant, who would you pick to do the job? Bowman is a sovereign capability ( with a smidge of ITAR).
      Cheers
      Ian

      • On the land rover there is a warning sticker saying do not loiter within 1.5 m of the Bowman antenna. On the CR2 an antenna is located next to commanders hatch less than 1 meter. Many Bowman earths did nit have the crimped metal ends , being only dipped in solder they split . The pressed metal springy opening limit catches on the two small Comms hatches on CR2 turret have rubbish spring opening retainers they break at 90 the degree bend or loose springy-ness. Gps and key board cable plugs flimsy.

        • Hi Peter, I presume youā€™re responding to my question on how Bowman is ā€œmessed upā€? On the Landrover (and other platforms) the stickers warn crew about the dangers of high power RF radiation from some of the radios used, not all. If an antenna is close to a hatch it will be for a low power system. As for the ā€œspringyā€ thing on CR2 hatches (I admit Iā€™m not familiar with this item) how is that a Bowman issue? GPS receivers (DAGRā€™s) are normally US supplied so again not a Bowman issue.
          Cheers
          Ian

          • CRARRV has a high rf power amp under side armor with antenna close to radio operator hatch will he get radiated , no warning sticker !

          • No, the amp is double insulated and the antenna is outside the armour. Unless there are issues with the connector leaking RF. Those inside will be fine.

          • You are implying no transmitting when heads out of hatches? Min distance for 25 watt output 1 m, safe distance for 150 w 3.98 m . If the antenna has gain distance increases. Exposure is also based on duration of transmission in time period . Think Bowman transmits data without human input required.

          • Bowman can have an automatic rebroadcast function. It can be turned off, though it does rebroadcast by default.

            Ideally, yes it would not be transmitting when you stick your head out. The HSE do have a time/output wattage limit. Though most of their warnings are advisory. Very high power radios greater than 1kw can cause minor burns like sunburns if you within 30cm of the antenna.

            You can quite easily be safe working within 1.5m of Bowman. It doesnā€™t transmit at a high enough power output.

            You can definitely get very serious burns from RF, particularly radars. As they concentrate their transmission into a narrow beam. Which can not only burn your skin, but also cook you from the inside. RF burns are horrible, they generally donā€™t heal that well and can start weeping for no reason at all. People normally get these if they touch a transmitting antenna, especially HF. This is due to HF being capable of world wide communications, so they normally operate at much higher power levels. VHF, UHF and SHF comms, as they are line of sight (ok very low vhf does have surface wave capability, but itā€™s fairly limited), operate at lower power levels.

    • They didn’t love Panther command vehicle , extra armor made it unreliable and wallowed off road making some sea sick -Blair’s folly !

    • Foxhounds just in 7 LMB Inf Bns and nowhere else? That is five light mech bns.

      Assuming Pl Comds have a C2 veh – that alone would account for 45 C2 Foxhounds across five bns – so that can’t be right – perhaps they have CIKs.

      Start again!:
      Rifle Coy Comds – across five bns – 15 vehs
      Coy 2ICs – 15 vehs
      Bn 2ICs – 5 vehs
      COs – 5 vehs.
      Then additionally C2 Foxhound vehs might be held by each OC & 2IC Fire Sp Coy, OC Recce Pl, OC A/Tks, OC Mor Pl. [Probably not QM, QM(T), MTO etc]

      Then there are wagons for the Trg Org, Attrition Reserve etc.
      Not sure 50 are enough!
      Why didn’t they have C2 variants before?

      • Morning Graham.
        I’m unsure, I’m not aware of it being used by any of the attached CS CSS or elsewhere.
        Would be interesting to find out.
        Think I read the RAF Reg had some?

        • From armyrecognition website: “Foxhound will be used for troop movement on dismounted operations, mobile patrolling, convoy protection, quick reaction force, route protection and cordon and search operations”. 
          I always considered it was solely an infantry tool – not heard about RAF Regt using them.

      • 1 Royal Irish also have Foxhound in 16 Air Assault Bde. They were one of the first Bns to trial Foxhound on role out and love it to bits. Suits their Celtic flair. 1 Welsh Guard also had it when I was serving at Pirbright and they were at Elizabeth Barracks just down the road . They too did a lot of the early work developing the light Mech concept ,tactics etc and we’re great fans too – all those skills being lost when they were rotated out to take their turn on.public duties , the stupid way we do these things.

        • I’m glad the Foxhounds have proved popular; I was involved in supplying the Mission Batteries.
          Not surprising that sometimes 1WG have to do some Public Duties!

  9. There have been examples in the past whereby the OEM/DA has not been awarded the contract for later upgrade/modification. WCSP is an example of this – Warrior OEM/DA was GKN Sankey (taken over by BAE). The contract for the revised turret went to Lockheed Martin UK, not BAE.

    The real reason is the ITAR one. ITAR is a complete pain – ideally we should never buy any US kit!

      • Thanks for the update. ITAR was a pain when I was serving (to Sep 2009) and then working for Abbey Wood as a civvy contractor (to 2011).
        It was puzzling that a fellow 5 Eyes nation like UK was treated the same as everyone else buying US kit.
        Glad to hear it has become more sensible.

        • Sadly you still have to be really careful with ITAR. Falling foul of the rules can still land you in the cak personally as well as for the company.

      • Must be more likely such ITAR amelioration will prove wise.
        Linked, but different subject: AUKUS. Hearing US now planning to gift Virginia Class to Australia in shorter timeframe?
        Something Serious Suspected Sooner? šŸ¤”

    • The fact that GKN (now BAE) produced a warrior 2 prototype with new turret, digital fire control system and 30 mm bushmaster cannon in 9 months makes LM look really bad !

      • Very good point. It helps that GKN knew their own vehicle back to front!
        So why did LM get the WCSP Lethality Improvement contract?

        If GKN/BAE had got the contract, we would probably have had the upgraded Warrior in service some years ago, notwithstanding the fact that the actual production job required the stabilised 40mm CTAS cannon.

        • Would have been better with 30 mm bushmaster and spike anti tank missile pod. CTA 40 expensive and required strengthened turret ring and muzzle brake due to high recoil forces which caused delays.

          • If I remember correctly, the CTAS 40 round contains some 30% more propellant than the Bofors 40mm round. Hence its significantly higher muzzle velocity. Thus the need for a beefed up turret ring.

  10. I’ve read up on the cancelled Morpheus programme.
    Cancelled after Ā£630 million spent.
    That’s 2 extra frigates or entire C2 fleet updated to C3 with all getting APS and some IFv boxers .
    Huge waste of public money with zilch to show for it.
    Anyone going to prison or losing their jobs because of this?
    I ask because if I caused my employer to lose Ā£630 million you can bet I’d be getting a knock on the door.

    • Seemingly lots, judging by the number of C2 in the Boxer and Ajax orders vs pure infantry or recc types. Which is why I commented further up.

      • Yes with the increasing digitalisation of the battlefield and particularly the increasing importance of RPAS/UAS we do need a lot it’s one of the lessons we’ve learnt from Ukraine . You’ve all seen the footage Ukraine Coy/Bn Comds fighting the war from a cellar or wherever and staring intently into a sea of laptops/notepads along with their staff. I saw an interesting piece on Sky when they were still interested in Ukraine about a Ukraine tank company ( yes they call them company’s not squadrons ) who no longer fought his Coy from a tank as is tradition with us but from the back of an APC command vehicle where he could get instant feedback from the live feed of his drones and in addition to seeing the enemy could also see exactly where all his C/S were on the ground. Even in a Brit light role Inf Bn the Coy and Bn CP has always been in the back of a hard top LR , now days a Wolf . Yes in extremis even the CO can sling on his bergan and get out and tab along with his signallers , protection team etc but in most instance it is no way to fight a modern war . The Coy CP brings a lot more to the fight than just projection from the rain, excellent battery charging capability being key – it chain charges batteries not just for it’s own radios Bowman/Clansman/Larkspur whatever but also for the dismount signallers it supports as well. In this day and age it is not just the map board in the back from which the Coy Comd, 2ic , CSM will fight the war but a bank.of laptop/IPAD screens such is now the way we do such things and they all eat up a lot of battery power. Yes – we do need a lot of command vehicles and they need to be protected too.

        • IMHO Foxhound is exactly the right platform for this role and it’s solely UK produced so good news all round but I I agree – would rather they were new build too – in short we simply don’t have enough.

    • An armoured or mechanised infantry company in an armoured brigade (BCT) will need 6 – ie. 3 for Pl Comdrs, 1 for OC and 1 for Coy 2IC and one for the REME Tiffy – although the Pl Comdrs would have a slightly less complex radio set up – and could manage with a section vehicle with extra radios as a Clip In Kit (CIK). I am generalising and not beng specific about a vehicle type. The Tiffy would also make do with a standard vehicle (ie not a bespoke command vehicle) with a CIK. There are 3 rifle companies.

      Fire Support Company might need 5 – OC Mortars, OC A/Tks, OC Recce Pl, OC Coy, 2IC Coy.

      So thats 23 so far, a mix of specialist command vehicles and standard vehicles with a command function and the relevant radio(s). Then there is Bn HQ – CO and Bn 2IC – they are definitely specialised C2 vehs.

      Not forgetting in the B Echelon: QM, QM(T), MTO, OC LAD all need radio(s) to command with in their wagon…..although they would use a ‘standard’ vehicle with a CIK.

      I am sure I am out of date here and there – but that is a general picture for a mechanised/armoured inf bn.

      Then there are all the other units in the armoured bde – and the other armoured bde and the Deep Strike Recce bde and then the rest of the div (HQs and Div Tps)……

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here