|
25 Jun 08. Following the launch of The OPERATIONAL UTILITY VEHICLE SYSTEM (OUVS) on January 17th 2008, by Brigadier Hamish McNinch MBE, DEC ELS, after many years of wait, debate and specification changes following experience gained on current operations, more details emerged at the EC brief at DVD on June 25th.
We will be running a fuller Report about OUVS and other MoD projects from DVD in our final issue.
The January Industry Day
Brigadier Hamish McNinch opened the proceedings by setting the scene for what was to become, as observed by many attendees, the most professional Industry day for any MoD Project launch to date, “Thank you for attending the OUVS Industry Day. We hope that you will find the day both informative and enjoyable. During the course of the day you will have the opportunity to visit the Question and Answer stand. We will endeavour to answer all of your questions but please remember that should you have any questions after the event that the OUVS team is always available. Apart from this handout, the day is paper free. For your convenience copies of each of the presentations you will see today will be issued (by CD-ROM) to your EOI point of contact after the event.”
Project Overview
Mrs Annelies Look, Project Manager OUVS then gave a Project Overview. Major Paul Loader, Directorate of Equipment Capability in the MOD, then outlined the requirements for the new fleet of vehicles which will take the British Armed Forces for the next twenty five years up to 2030 at the earliest. Key User Requirements include:
1. Larger cab areas to accommodate the 95th percentile soldier/5th percentile female soldiers and their equipment.
2. A reduction in the vehicle variants - no more than 2-3 variants should be offered.
3. New safety and emission specifications to include extra crashworthiness and fewer emissions.
4. Vehicles to be ‘fitted for’ not ‘with’ physical protection such as armour. Crew compartment protection is the minimum requirement.
5. A payload which does not include mission support equipment (such as protection) – to position OUVS to fill the payload requirement below the Support Vehicle fleet. This would give useable payload with all mission equipment fitted of 4-4.5 tonnes at the top end and 2-3 tonnes at the lower end.
6. The vehicles would be NVG capable with 24/7 capability. An NVG compatible dashboard is required.
7. A NATO Standard pallet would have to be carried.
8. Airportability by C130/A400M was mandated.
9. The ability to operate with runflat tyres.
10. Given the large amount of sophisticated electronic equipment including BOWMAN radios and IED detectors, the vehicle would be ESM optimised to prevent reduce interference. ECM fits would be GFE by the MoD, but the ability fit ECM is mandated.
11. The vehicles must have good cross-country capability - electric drive has been ruled out at this stage.
12. Alternator and power requirements must accommodate 24/7 usage of a number of electronic systems – outline continuous power requirements have been set.
13. Bidders should look at powered trailers or the addition of an additional axle to provide extra space and payload without reducing mobility.
14. The vehicle should be capable of a Battlefield Mission of up to 96 hours.
All this would have to be achieved at the same budget as 2003 and could involve up to 16,000 vehicles. The motorbike fleet is being renewed through another project.
The Assessment Phase would last another year with manufacturers returning to Warminster for a second brief in 2009. An Invitation to Tender (ITT) would be issued in 2009 and a Design Authority for the current fleet established prior to any upgrades. Main Gate is expected in 2012.
A key part of the OUVS Requirement might include keeping part of the existing fleet, mainly Land Rovers, in service through to 2017. This could include redistributing some of these vehicles for non-warfighting roles. This would be achieved by the use of a Through Life Support Programme
It was emphasised that the OUVS requirement is different and those platforms would then not be optimised as protected patrol vehicles to participate in front line operations but would have enough flexibility and protection to participate in lower risk areas of the battlefield.
In his Closing Brief, Major General Tim Tyler CB, Director General Land Equipment, stated that any bidder must be required to be agile and to respond quickly to Requirements. OUVS would not be a ‘Big Bang’ approach but an incremental acquisition.
Delegates were then split into different groups to attend more detailed briefings.
Power and Mobility
Julian Bryan of Millbrook and Alan Cooper of Dstl gave an overview to the Power and Mobility Requirements for OUVS. Millbrook would be the testing centre for all OUVS vehicles and would be made available to those manufacturers wishing to trial their offerings. Rob Ward of Millbrook outlined the Safety Case Requirements whilst Robin Warwick of Dstl gave a brief on Mobility Modelling and the Requirement for NATO Mobility Standards.
* Power is not deemed to be an issue; there are a number of power generation devices currently available which are able to produce significantly more than the predicted power required for OUVS. However, the more power that can be supplied to the platform the better. It would be sensible to incorporate growth potential into the platform, as throughout the service lives of these vehicles, additional electronic equipment is likely to need to be installed. If the power is already available, then this will reduce costs in the future.
* The ability to export power is also considered to be beneficial as it can reduce the number of generators that need to be deployed/managed and maintained.
Weight
* The payload range for the OUVS capability is 0-6 tonnes. However, Support Vehicle has recently come into service which has a 6 tonne payload, and so is able to provide this element of the overall capability. The IPT is not looking for a 6 tonne payload vehicle, indeed the Support Vehicle has replaced a number of 4 tonne trucks and it should be borne in mind that the 6 tonnes is the maximum payload capacity of the SV 6 tonne truck.
* The current working assumption is that the kerb weight of the vehicle includes all communications equipment, physical protection including armour, full fuel tank and other liquids, electronic countermeasures (ECM), stowed CES items, and driver and co-driver. Assumptions will be refined further during the assessment phase.
* The Bedford M Series 4000kg truck has the required mechanical strength of a candidate OUVS platform, but is too large and is no longer manufactured as is the Leyland DAF. The IPT said that the Reynolds Boughton RB44 represents the appropriate physical size of an OUVS vehicle, but that vehicle lacks the mechanical strength to carry a payload of 4 tonnes and is unprotected.
* The current working assumption of the worst-case requirement for transportation of heavy equipment is a single 155mm Ammunition Unit Load Container (ULC) for the light variant of the OUVS fleet, and two 155mm ULCs for the heavy variant. This will be refined during AP1. Each ULC weighs approximately 1.8 tonnes, and has a footprint of approximately the same area as a standard NATO pallet.
* Some off-road vehicles have excellent off-road mobility, but do not perform well on the road. The IPT does not want this situation to arise with OUVS. The vehicle must drive well on roads, as well as achieving the necessary level of off-road mobility.
* The suspension system must be suitably sophisticated to provide good ride quality and mobility when both unladen and fully laden (including any armour variations).
Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next Page
|
