- Defence policy
- Equipment and support
- Modernising defence
- Aviation
- Marine
- Land vehicles
- Security
- HR and training
- Defence estates (DIO)
News updates
Twitter updates
Facebook
Email
Print
Army orders 25 more Foxhound vehicles
24 August 2012
The first of the 300 vehicles already ordered from Force Protection Europe arrived in Afghanistan in June, and they are currently undergoing final testing before deployment later this year.
Some 200 were purchased for £180m as an Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR) in November 2010 to replace the place the controversial Snatch Land Rover following a series of fatal IED strikes against British troops.
A further 100 were ordered in late 2011 as part of a £400m package which included counter-IED equipment for troops in Afghanistan.
In June, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said that the first 300 Foxhound vehicles had cost the MoD £270m, equating to a per-unit cost of around £900,000.
The latest order, at some £30m for 25 vehicles, is a third more expensive, equating to £1.2m per vehicle.
Foxhound is expected to be used extensively by 4th Mechanized Brigade, which will act as the lead formation during Op Herrick 17, starting in October.
Defence Equipment, Support and Technology Minister Peter Luff said: "Foxhound's cutting-edge technology gives our troops the ability to engage with Afghan civilians, as they must, whilst benefiting from a high level of protection. Personnel from 4th Mechanized Brigade will be amongst the first to use this outstanding new vehicle.
"This is another example of how the MoD, having balanced the budget, is now able to confidently spend money on the equipment that our personnel really need."
HAVE YOUR SAY
24 August 2012
So these are from the planned budget, not UORs? Hammond's "having balanced the budget" comment indicates that they're not funded from contingency and so were they in a PR12 Enhancement option, or are they really unplanned expenditure?
"The latest order, at some £30m for 25 vehicles, is a third more expensive" - a 33% price rise isn't very good Value For Money. Better to plan to buy these things in one go - why was there no requirement for a properly-armoured light vehicle before we went to war? Who slipped up? This illustrates how the doctrine, Resources and Programme divisions in MOD's Centre, not DE&S, keep slipping up. Privatising DE&S will make no difference.
AlMiles - Bristol, UK
24 August 2012
AlMiles - Bristol, UK
This is a bit like the Spitfire, developed in the UK, despite the MOD. This vehicle was developed with no MOD involvement, because if thay had it would have been delayed by a decade, respecified every 12 months and eventually cancelled. This is an example of what BAE should do, don't wait for a MOD spec or order, just develop the best that can be developed and bounce the MOD into buying the product. Very often the MOD don't have the expertise to even know what they want and it is the contractor with the know how. So BAE should charge ahead with the development of a productionised Mantis/Taranis UCAV system with their own money and not wait for the MOD to derive a spec and start a development program in a decade or so, by which time it will be too late becasue the rest of the world would have caught up.
Agree also, where the UK has a supplier with the right kit at the right time, why buy in dribs and drabs when fewer but bigger orders would a) make the purchase cheaper b) set up the UK based company [the city boys flogged it to a US outfit when it looked like they had a good product] for more large scale foreign orders.
Perhaps Hammond wants to make sure there won't be any large foriegn orders. Then next time round we will only have the option of 'buying off the shelf' from the US.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud
24 August 2012
No change here - dribs and drabs and never mind the value for money. £1.2m for a 4 wheeled armoured truck? They should rename it the Cashcow.
We know who slipped up - the FRES fanatics!
Chris - London
24 August 2012
There no business like MOD business. Same old story of botched defence procurement, as long as sun rises in the east every morning the MOD will never get defence procurement right in terms of value for money.
GB - Kingdom of Fife
24 August 2012
Martin Bayliss - Stroud
Good points; the AS90 howitzer is another example of a great Private Venture which provided a UK product the British Army / MOD could buy in to.
Chris - London
FRES is a medium-weight recce and specialist vehicle (ambulance, etc), not light weight; it was always intended to carry out different functions and roles, taking over from CVR(T) amongst others, not the likes of Snatch.
AlMiles - Bristol, UK
27 August 2012
Ref Martin Stroud
I agree with you, and you sure do know how the procurement game is played . but for the life of me I do not know how they can justify the cost of £1.2 million pounds per vehicle seems like £700,000 too much to me. But if this is what it takes to create jobs ok.
I had fifteen years infantry service with the good old Landrover ( farmers spec ) 4x4 and it coud`nt stop 'didly' and all the cheifs of staff knew it.
Shaun Army - South Devon
28 August 2012
Shaun Army - South Devon
The 1.2 million price tag might have something to do with ordering 25 at a time as opposed to 400+
As pointed out by AIMiles
Martin Bayliss - Stroud
28 August 2012
The only FRES connection is that you should be able to get a fRES UV for about £1.2M, with a much better spec. This lightweight vehivle order is not VFM and the Secretary of State knows it.
AlMiles - Bristol, UK
22 October 2012
The vehicle costs less than a quarter of the £1.2m, it's the bolt on electronics supplied by one of the so called UK system intergrators that adds the expense. The Vehicle is the first to enter service with the new digital electronic architecture and as this standard was laid down within a UK Def-Stan it allowed the prime to name it's price.
And did they name their price - you be the judge!
Darren A - Bristol