[Blindé] Victoire de l'Ocelot, le début de l'ère du "pod"?

[Serge]

Comme déjà annoncé ici, l'Ocelot de Force Protection vient de remporter le programme britannique LPPV.

Voici une réflexion de Think-Defence:

Ocelot - Light Protected Patrol Vehicle

Unless you have been on the moon you will by now be aware that the MoD has selected the Force Protection Europe Ocelot as the preferred bidder for the Light Protected Patrol Vehicle requirement.

FPE Ocelot Light Protected Patrol Vehicle

Let’s not be churlish, this is a great result but also lets spare a moment and think about the wasted opportunities, money, legs and lives that have preceded today’s announcement.  The vulnerabilities of the Land Rover Snatch have been known about since the early nineties, reinforced in Iraq in 2003 onwards and amplified in Afghanistan.

Of all the MoD programme we can get vexed about, this surely is one of the most shocking and by the time it comes into service will have taken nearly a decade to resolve.

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 is weight for weight, the best protected and most agile vehicle of its kind – capabilities that have been proved by more than 12 months of blast and mobility testing.

The Ocelot is comprises a 7.5-tonne vehicle including a 1.5-tonne payload. Earlier in the year, Force Protection officials also confirmed that there was a MoD requirement for a weapons mount on board the LPPV, most likely to be either a 7.62mm General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG), .50-calibre Heavy Barrelled weapon or 40mm Automatic Grenade Launcher.

As can be seen in the videos below, the turning circle is exceptional and a vital characteristic for the type of urban terrain these will be used in. It is a genuinely innovative ‘clean sheet’ design, its armoured ‘skateboard’ spine holds the transmission components and the interchangeable body ‘pods’ are fitted to it. The vehicle can be re-roled or easily repaired by simply swapping these modules and components.  Pods could include load bearing; fire support; flat-bed; troop carrier; ambulance and open-top vehicles.The Ocelot is also compliant with the MoD’s emerging Generic Vehicle Architecture standard to simplify future systems integration and maintenance.

Ocelot LPPV Modular Payload

The initial uses will be simply as a Snatch 2A/Snatch Vixen replacement, 200 as a UOR and an additional 200 to follow but given the modular nature and obvious growth potential we should be thinking seriously about fleet rationalisation. As a result of numerous UOR’s the Land fleet has grown like weeds, creating a number of serious training, maintenance and logistic challenges. The next obvious applications are as a replacement for the Land Rover WMIK, Ambulance and even GS types.

Only if we standardise, adapt the basic design and buy in quantity will we be able to realise the benefits of volume. Even 400 is nowhere near enough, the order should be in the thousands and not a piecemeal trickle. Give Force Protection Europe a long term contract and allow them to sub contract to other manufacturing locations, take advantage of the volume production skills and supply chains in the civilian industry and map out a long term strategy that provides a measure of certainty. this long term road map will support investment in cost reduction activities so that we don’t end up, yet again, with a boutique, niche capability that simply complicates and costs more.

The IED cat is out of the bag so the basic Land Rover in military service is going to have to be relegated to niche, low threat activities. The same could be said for many of the light logistics vehicles and command vehicles like Panther and Husky, what now for these vehicles?

The future is Ocelot.

That is of course, if we can progress from Preferred Bidder to In Service, remember the FRES UV debacle

Ocelot has also been short listed for an Australian requirement

What about huge quantities, high hundreds or even thousands, of Land Rover Snatch that are already in service and will no doubt be heading there way over to the disposal outlets?

Marshal Land Systems have suggested that surplus Snatch Land Rovers’s could be used as the base vehicle for a semi sacrificial unmanned mine/IED detection system. The MoD is reported to have released initial funding for a Technology Demonstration programme that could ultimately lead to the development of a number of unmanned vehicles for base patrol, logistics and Counter IED. It is also in discussion with G-NIUS about the possible use of the Avantguard unmanned ground vehicle. I suppose we could do what everyone else does and go and buy a Husky, where would the development contracts be though!

I have rounded up a few videos of the Ocelot below.

Ce qui m'intéresse ici, c'est la construction en différents modules, les pods", de l'Ocelot.

Cette voie me semble celle à privilégier pour l'avenir. Elle offre de nombreux avantages comme:

- la simplification de la logistique,

- la facilité de réparation et

- de modernisation par simple échange de module.

A l'heure où la France se lance dans le VBMR (Force-Protection risque de proposer son Ocelot pour le créneau léger), même si le budget est contraint, l'occasion d'entrer dans l'ère du "pod" doit être saisie.

[max]

C'est un concept séduisant  ;)

[Bechar06]

Ce qui m'intéresse ici, c'est la construction en différents modules, les pods", de l'Ocelot. ....

A l'heure où la France se lance dans le VBMR (Force-Protection risque de proposer son Ocelot pour le créneau léger), même si le budget est contraint, l'occasion d'entrer dans l'ère du "pod" doit être saisie.

Approche modulaire  ... N'est ce pas ce que l'on constate aussi sur cette résurgence du Mars-15  ? :

http://www.air-defense.net/forum/index.php/topic,14129.0.html

[Akhilleus]

la question  que je me poserais toujours est quel est l'impact en terme de protection d'un module amovible (laissant donc des charnières, trous et autres rigoles de montages) par rapport à une construction en "plein" ?

[P4]

Serge,

Le VBMR doit transporter un groupe de combat complet dans ces deux versions et l'OCELOT en est loin.

Il manque le montant du contrat.

[g4lly]

Ce qui est tres amusant c'est que cette logique de dissociation chassis / caisse remonte a la nuit des temps automobile. Elle est encore largement utilisé dans les automobile civile.

La construction d'une caisse porteuse avait pour interet d'alléger l'ensemble en faisant jouer au chassis au blindage et a la caisse les trois role en meme temps. rigidité de l'ensemble, blindage, support des élément annexe. Ca permettait d'avoir une caisse/chassis entierement blindée pour le poids d'une construction a l'ancienne.

En gros je vois pas ou est l'innovation, néammoins pour un vehicule léger et jetable pourquoi pas.

[Fusilier]

Ce qui est tres amusant c'est que cette logique de dissociation chassis / caisse remonte a la nuit des temps automobile. Elle est encore largement utilisé dans les automobile civile.

La construction d'une caisse porteuse avait pour interet d'alléger l'ensemble en faisant jouer au chassis au blindage et a la caisse les trois role en meme temps. rigidité de l'ensemble, blindage, support des élément annexe. Ca permettait d'avoir une caisse/chassis entierement blindée pour le poids d'une construction a l'ancienne.

En gros je vois pas ou est l'innovation, néammoins pour un vehicule léger et jetable pourquoi pas.

Ceci dit, cela correspond aussi à  une certaine évolution de l'automobile... Voir les usines,ou sur la même plateforme on sort une Lancia, une Peugeot / Citroen , Fiat....  (et il y a d'autres exemples...)

[g4lly]

Ceci dit, cela correspond aussi à  une certaine évolution de l'automobile... Voir les usines,ou sur la même plateforme on sort une Lancia, une Peugeot / Citroen , Fiat....  (et il y a d'autres exemples...)

Exactement le cout de la plateforme et de ses option moteur / boite est tellement élevé qu'on en produit qu'une avec des variante d'empattement pour une pleiade de modele. C'est purement économique, et ce mode de fonctionnement convient tres bien au contrainte des véhicules civils. Avec des contrainte militaire je suis plus circonspect de "l'innovation", car cela impose pas mal de sacrifice technos, qu'on a tot fait de reprocher par la suite. D'autant que le coté modulaire, n'est que transitoire, une fois construit le modele est définitif, l'intérêt principal réside donc dans la phase de production. A croire que c'est plus un choix du fournisseur que du client :)

[Philippe Top-Force]

Où est la simplification avec la logistique si les UK commande des LMV Iveco Panther, des Ocelot, des PB pour le FRES UV, des MRAP 3/4 catégories différentes, plus des Jackal et Coyotte...On s'y perd avec Londres.

[Fusilier]

Où est la simplification avec la logistique si les UK commande des LMV Iveco Panther, des Ocelot, des PB pour le FRES UV, des MRAP 3/4 catégories différentes, plus des Jackal et Coyotte...On s'y perd avec Londres.

Mon pauvre ami, pour essayer de comprendre un anglais, il faut jouer au rugby, boire le thé à 5 heures (minimum pendant 3 mois) comprendre que un anglican c'est en fait un catholique déguisé en city-men, rouler à gauche et aimer le rouge des cabines telephoniques et des bus à impériale (deux choses qui devraient être inscrites  au patrimoine de l'humanité à mon avis)

Gouter aux charmes de une décapotable basse sur pattes dans les courbes d'une route de campagne, sans oublier le Christmas pudding et la marmelade à l'orange  :oops:

Je dois oublier un paquet de trucs... :O

[g4lly]

Je dois oublier un paquet de trucs... :O

Le cricket voyons !

[Philippe Top-Force]

Où est la simplification avec la logistique si les UK commande des LMV Iveco Panther, des Ocelot, des PB pour le FRES UV, des MRAP 3/4 catégories différentes, plus des Jackal et Coyotte...On s'y perd avec Londres.

Sans compter que BAE et OMC sortent un RG Outrider pouvant aussi leur convenir.

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTEmGqVivIk

Moralité, en ce moment avec les anglais et les blindés ils s'y perdent eux aussi  :lol:

[Serge]

Think-Defence présente ceci:

Ocelot / Foxhound WMIK Pod

Mar 7th, 2011 @ 03:42 pm

Extending the concept of modularity, Force Protection have shown the Ocelot WMIK pod

Ocelot/Foxhound WMIK Pod

This is in addition to the cargo and protected patrol variants.

Ocelot/Foxhound Cargo

Ocelot/Foxhound Protected Patrol Variant

Seen here Ocelot is one of the two competing prototypes for the Light Protected Patrol Vehicle (LPPV) that have been specifically designed to withstand IEDs and was on display at this years DVD.

The two vehicles competing for the LPPV contract are the Ocelot produced by Force Protection Europe, based in Warwickshire, working together with West Sussex company Ricardo Ltd , and the SPV-400 produced by Supacat, based in Devon, working under an alliance with Coventry company NP Aerospace Ltd.

Both are competing for a contract to provide an initial tranche of 200 Light Protected Patrol Vehicles (LPPV) to meet the MOD’s requirement.

[xav]

aaaahhh

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Ocelot-WMIK-Pod.jpg

Je me suis demandai à Idex ce que c'etait que ce truc et on m'a répondu ''un concept'' (ça m'a pas plus avancé tu parles)

Maintenant je comprend avec cette histoire de POD et l'illustration plus haut

[Serge]

C'est un peu l'actualité phare de Force Protection ce truc.

De plus, ils risquent de le proposer pour le segment léger du VBMR.

[MontGros]

Mon pauvre ami, pour essayer de comprendre un anglais, il faut jouer au rugby, boire le thé à 5 heures (minimum pendant 3 mois) comprendre que un anglican c'est en fait un catholique déguisé en city-men, rouler à gauche et aimer le rouge des cabines telephoniques et des bus à impériale (deux choses qui devraient être inscrites  au patrimoine de l'humanité à mon avis)

Gouter aux charmes de une décapotable basse sur pattes dans les courbes d'une route de campagne, sans oublier le Christmas pudding et la marmelade à l'orange  :oops:

Je dois oublier un paquet de trucs... :O

L'anglaise bourée dans un pub. Ah non! On me dit dans l'oreillette qu'on trouve ca dans le vieil Antibes. :-X

[pascal]

L'anglaise bourée dans un pub

les pires sont les galloises et les irlandaises,

j'ai souvenir d'une java à Cardiff chez "Rosie O'Brien": de très grands moments de télévision  :'( quels souvenirs ma doué

[French Kiss]

L'anglaise bourée dans un pub. Ah non! On me dit dans l'oreillette qu'on trouve ca dans le vieil Antibes. :-X

Monsieur est un connaisseur  :lol: :lol:

[aviapics]

L'anglaise bourée dans un pub. Ah non! On me dit dans l'oreillette qu'on trouve ca dans le vieil Antibes. :-X

Rendez vous au Blue Lady Jeudi soir...

[Berkut]

Serge à voir les dernières images on dirait que la caisse n'est pas définitivement collée sur le châssis, me trompé-je?

[Serge]

En effet, l'habitacle est boulonné sur un support nommé "skatboard". Les modules sont interchangeables.

[Serge]

Billet d'un italien passionné par l'armée britannique comparant les coûts entre l'Ocelot/Foxhound et le Panther/Lince. C'est du simple au double:

100 more Foxhounds on the way

A new 400 million pounds investment in C-IED technology has been announced by the MOD, and this includes an order (still being negotiated with Force Protection, now a branch of General Dynamics) for making "around 100" more Foxhound vehicles available to the british army.

200 million pounds are going into C-IED technology, but the MOD is not announcing what this package will include: it could be new jammers, possibly body-worn, but it could also include drones with ground-penetrating radars and perhaps even portable, backpack-sized mine-clearance kits. These last are a soldier portable, miniaturized variant of the Pythoon of the Royal Engineers, so to speak, and include a rocket dragging a line charge through a mine field to detonate any weapon and create a safe path across the field. All of these devices are being used by US forces, and have been evaluated, at different times, by the MOD.

400 millions - 200 millions gives 200 millions, though, and unless the Foxhound just got more expensive (the order already in place, for 180 millions is acquiring 200 vehicles), something does not fit in. Where is the rest of the money going...?  In fact, 100 Foxhound should cost around 90 million pounds, and ideally less, since the rule should be that the more vehicles are ordered and built, the less they should cost.

It remains a good item of news, even though it would really help to know more about what kind of C-IED kit is being acquired, and it would be interesting to learn which Foxhound variants are being acquired: the current order for 200 should entirely be about the Patrol variant, a fully enclosed vehicle with a crew of 2 and seats for 4 dismounts seating face to face in the back. The Foxhound, however, has since demonstrated the Utility module, with a pick-up cargo bed at the back, and also the Fire Support module, which turns the vehicle in a much more protected and potentially even better armed Jackal (the FS Foxhound module offers two more weapon mounts compared to the Jackal or Land Rovers WMIK).

It was hoped that the first order for 200 Foxhounds would be followed by a second batch order, again of 200 vehicles, but i honestly had grown worried about the effective likelyhood of it ever coming, so that even 100 would be better than i expected.

DefenseNews reports that the 100 new Foxhounds are being funded from the core defence budget, and not anymore from UOR money, and it also specifies that the requirement for a third tranche of Foxhounds is being assessed.

It is likely, i dare guessing, that this third tranche will be evaluated as part, or in relation to, the effort that was, until Planning Round 2011, known as Operational Utility Vehicle System and has now been renamed the Multirole vehicle protected.  

The Australian army, which trialed the Foxhound for its LAND 1300 requirement, recently chose to pursue a national solution by continuing development of the Hawkei instead: this has been a bitter blow to the Foxhound, since the contract is worth 1300 vehicles in Australian planning, and a win would have been a massive boost.

The 1300 figure also gives an idea of the numbers that the British Army would actually need for the future (Foxhound has always been a "core" programme procured with UOR methods, not an Afghan-specific programme with a 2015 best-before date) to equip the infantry properly. But at 900.000 pounds each, the Foxhound is very expensive for thinking of buying thousands, especially if export orders do not come to help make the programme economically viable: for comparison, a Panther CLV comes at 450.000 pounds inclusive of Theatre Entry modifications and Remote Weapon Station on top, and around 300.000 pounds for a more basic configuration.

I know that the British Army has not been very happy with the Panther, and i honestly struggle to understand the reasons. Inside it is cramped due to the Bowman installation, but can it really be THAT bad as it is suggested on the internet, when the rest of the world loves the vehicle so much? The Panther is built on the Iveco Lince jeep, which offers NATO standard protection levels from 3 to 4 depending on configuration, and it has saved countless lives in Afghanistan, in particular with the italian contingent. The Lince is heavily used and has been hit by IEDs and attacks very frequently, but save for extreme cases (last October a Lince was destroyed and another heavily damaged with the death of 6 of the 10 Italian soldiers that had been aboard of the two jeeps, when a Toyota used as bomb and filled with an estimate 150 kg of explosives hit the convoy), it has protected the men inside very well. And better it would have done had the Italian army provided protected turrets and RWSs earlier: the gunners, horribly exposed to man machine guns without much of even a gunshield, have been injured frequently, but only in 2010 an order for 80 RWSs and enclosed turrets was finally placed.

The Lince has been produced in the thousands for Italy and has also been widely exported (401 to the UK, several hundreds to Belgium, Austria, Norwey and other european countries, and even 1755 to be produced on licence in Russia).

The Panther CLV was procured not as a patrol protected vehicle, originally, but as a command and scout vehicle. Contract was for 401 vehicles with options for a further 400. Of the 401 vehicles purchased (for 166 million pounds), 326 vehicles are fitted with a BAE Systems ENFORCER Overhead Weapon Station (OWS) (Group 2 Panther) and 75 are fitted for but not with the OWS (Group 3). Panther was the first British Army front line vehicle to feature a health and usage monitoring system (HUMS). The data gathered will help to increase vehicle availability and reduce support costs.

In April 2008 the MoD awarded BAE Systems Global Combat Systems a £28 million contract to guarantee spares availability and reduce cost of ownership to the UK MoD for a five-year period. Under it, BAE Systems is required to provide 90 per cent availability of spare parts plus technical support to field units.

In May 2009, the Panther CLV was pressed into service in Afghanistan after successful hot weather trials in Oman and in Afghanistan itself. These Panthers were given a Theatre Entry Standard update by BAE system, including larger roof hatches, a rear view camera for enhanced situational awareness, protected engine compartment, new rear cargo pod and electronic devices to counter improvised explosive devices, under a 20 million pounds contract. A standard Lince comes with seats for 5, but on the Panther this goes down to 4, and the Bowman takes away a lot of space making even these four seats quite cramped.

The upgrade began with the delivery of 73 TES kits, each made up by some 39 components. It is unclear if only those 73 vehicles were modified; some internet sources say that the upgrade was extended to "most" of the fleet, even though 67 vehicles received TES treatment in the first batch. The cost of TES kits would bring the total unit cost of fight-ready Panther vehicles with RWS, IED jammers etc at a total of around 700.000 pounds each (for 73 vehicles, long-term support cost excluded. That works out at around 14.000 pounds per year per each of the 401 Panthers).  

Panther originally was to be used in the following main roles:

Scout

Manoeuvre Support Battlegroup Close Reconnaissance

Manoeuvre Support Battlegroup Mortar Fire Controller and Forward Observation Officer

Battery Reconnaissance Officer

Utility

Liaison Officers for Armoured, Armoured Recce and Armoured Infantry Units

Commander’s vehicle for Engineer Troops, Anti-Tank, Mortar and supporting fire platoons

REME

Asset co-ordination

Rebroadcast on BattleGroup nets and Regimental Signal Officers

Route proving for Close and General Support Engineer units

Some 13 to 15 roles within the army are covered by Panther, and some vehicles went to the RAF Regiment as well. Indeed, when in 2009 it was first deployed to Afghanistan, the RAF Regiment and the Army's Close Support Logistics Regiment were the first users.

The fuel consumption of a fully kitted-up Panther vehicle when used on a surfaced road is estimated to be 6 km/ltr when travelling at a constant speed of 80 km/h. The off-road consumption is estimated to be 2 km/ltr.

During acceptation trials, the Panther was trialed against 6 kg AT mines, and it was verified that the crew would survive the hit. The requirement for Panther was to carry a crew of 1+3 plus kit.

The Iveco Lince in its standard variant carries 1+4. The Lince Light Multirole Vehicle is marketed in two main versions: the standard 3.2-metre-wheelbase variant that carries a 2.3-tonne payload and a new 3.5-metre, 2.5-tonne version. The latter can be fitted with either the standard four-door cab, with an extended rear stowage pod, or a short two-door cab that allows various modules to be fitted on the rear, such as Ambulance module, as ordered by the italian army.

Depending on the threat the LMV can be deployed as a soft-skinned vehicle or with one of three - light, medium or heavy - protection kits fitted to the crew cell or citadel. The modular armour system uses an innovative suite of applique panels, supplied by Germany's IBD Deisenroth Engineering, that are placed between the vehicle's inner and outer skins. The Light kit provides Stanag 4569 Level 1 (5.56 mm and 7.62 mm ball ammunition) protection while the Heavy kit boosts protection to Level 4 (14.5 mm AP ammunition). A multi-layered undercarriage structure beneath the crew citadel provides protection against mine blasts, and this can be enhanced by fitting a blast shield to protect against anti-tank mines. Iveco is working to further enhance protection against buried bombs. Trials have also been conducted with IBD's AMAP Active Defence System to defeat attacks from rocket-propelled grenades and similar threats.

The Iveco LMV in the trials was brought to Ballistic protection STANAG 4569 Level 4 (STANAG 4569 Level 3+ for the windows and windshield), with Blast protection STANAG 4569 Level 2b/3b underbelly and Level 3a/4a for the wheel house. At 140 kg, the AMAP-ADS installation includes sensor-countermeasure modules arranged all around the vehicle. A processor determines the type and the trajectory of the approaching target. Subsequently a countermeasure module close to the calculated impact point is activated. This countermeasure ejects "directed energy" destroying or disrupting the approaching threat so that it cannot penetrate the vehicle. The overlapping sectors of the sensor-countermeasure modules enable the system to defeat multiple-attacks (in the trials multiple RPGs were successfully countered) and its incredibly fast reaction time makes it possible to react to threats as close as 10 meters.  

For the Panther, Universal Engineering created a new high mobility trailer as well, the XM Panther, which uses the same wheels and tires. It is designed to provide a stable and safe high mobility base for use with a wide range of demountable bodies tailored for specific roles and payloads.

Mobility trials for a Panther with its trailer

The Foxhound, hopefully, will in time gain a share of the market and deliver even greater performance, but it is imperative that its price drops. It will be interesting, in this sense, to see the terms of the new contract for this second british batch. It will also have to live up to its promises: as it stands, the Foxhound is not yet in action, and all its awesomeness exists only on paper.

Another reason why i honestly didn't expect a follow-on order so soon.

A welcome news, but much remains to be known, verified, and there's much more work to do.

[Serge]

The Ministry of Defence is set to announce a £50 million contract for 50 new Foxhound light patrol vehicles in Afghanistan.

Defence Minister Philip Dunne is expected to confirm details of the new contract this afternoon during a visit to the British company that makes the vehicles - General Dynamics: Force Protection (GD:FP) Spares Facility in Telford, Shropshire.

The Foxhound, introduced to offer unprecedented levels of blast protection, replaced the Army's Snatch Land Rover, which proved highly vulnerable to roadside bombs used by insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Foxhound has enhancements including a V-shaped hull to give protection against the bombs which have been a common tactic of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.

The Army's most agile protected vehicle, it uses cutting-edge Formula 1 technology to provide unparalleled protection for its weight and class.

It can reach speeds of up to 80mph and drive away from an IED) strike on just three wheels, while its engine is so advanced it can be changed in 30 minutes and put back on the road.

The first Foxhounds were deployed to Afghanistan earlier this year and are now being used by soldiers who are mentoring and partnering with the Afghan National Security Force.

Today's announcement is part of an overall investment of more than £300 million by the MOD for Foxhounds since 2010, and will bring the fleet to more than 370 vehicles, to be used in Afghanistan as well as in future operations.

Speaking in September, when Foxhound was first operational in Afghanistan, chief of staff for the Bastion Force Protection Wing Squadron Leader Jim Stewart, said: "Foxhound is an enormous leap forward in capability; the off-road mobility, enhanced protection and night-vision systems that it offers to the troops on the ground are unmatched in a vehicle of this size."

Pas donné l'Ocelot

[French Kiss]

1 million (de livres sterling) la bete  :O , meme l'aravis est moins cher il me semble...

[Philippe Top-Force]

1 million (de livres sterling) la bete   :O , meme l'aravis est moins cher il me semble...

Je serai curieux de savoir à combien les saoudiens vont payer leurs Aravis  :lol: