UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 248
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby RunningStrong » 30 Nov 2019, 12:55

Lord Jim wrote:So easy anyone could do it.

As per usual discussion on this, that's clearly not a battle-worn platform, and that's clearly not a battlefield swap.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 30 Nov 2019, 22:43

There has been this argument before, that armoured vehicles warp over time more than an old Rover Metro. If that was the case then it wouldn't be possible to change the engine on any AFV because the engine mounts would be out of alignment. Yes running over an AT mine might have some affect, but I have to believe that the designers and engineers who have built the Boxer realised it was actually gong to be used and therefore subject to some wear and tear. The module systems allows variants to remain in service and makes the upgrade and refurbishment work far easier. We are not going to be swapping out modules left and right on the front line. We could but we won't.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 703
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby mr.fred » 02 Dec 2019, 21:37

Wherever you are , you're not going to be able to change the modules unless you've got some way to clean the mud out of the wheel arches.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 02 Dec 2019, 21:51

Very true, and the same goes for changing a wheel, mud gets everywhere and into everything. Maybe they will issue some hi tech spades, screw drivers and wire brushes to the REME Sections in addition to the bloody great wrench required.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11074
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 03 Dec 2019, 05:24

Lord Jim wrote:Very true, and the same goes for changing a wheel
One or two don't matter... after that the cleaning job can't wait

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 359
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby jimthelad » 03 Dec 2019, 19:46

Good article by Gab on his site re MIV

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 03 Dec 2019, 22:49

Good video from Force's TV on the "Strike" Brigade.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3685
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Ron5 » 04 Dec 2019, 00:53

jimthelad wrote:Good article by Gab on his site re MIV


Not really. Just moaning minnie going on and on and on how wonderful the French and Italian armies are and how lousy the Brits are. You'd think he was Patton or Shwarzkopf by the way he writes.

Always amuses me to see the centauro labelled a tank killer. Yeah right.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 04 Dec 2019, 16:35

The Centauro 2 with its 120mm could be termed a Tank Destroyer as it has the historical qualities of being fast and carrying a big gun, like say the M18 Hellcat from WWII. It is however a big vehicle and so fails on the third criteria of low observability, and so it likely to get a lot of unwanted attention once it fires for the first time. Maybe it would be better to call it a Mobile Gun System, which is better than many out there.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 04 Dec 2019, 16:42

In that video from Forces TV, one of the lethality increases mentioned for the Trials "Strike" unit was an increase in anti tank fire power. To the best of my knowledge our longest range weapon in that class is Javelin. Is there a need for a heavier Anti-Tank weapon to compliment the Javelin, with a bigger warhead, longer range, higher speed and a man in the loop function? Does Extractor 2 have an AT warhead or a more general purpose type? Would have an AT version, namely the original Spike NLOS variant, either trailer mounted or on the back of a Boxer be looked upon as essential for the "Strike" Brigade?

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1495
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Jake1992 » 04 Dec 2019, 16:55

Lord Jim wrote:In that video from Forces TV, one of the lethality increases mentioned for the Trials "Strike" unit was an increase in anti tank fire power. To the best of my knowledge our longest range weapon in that class is Javelin. Is there a need for a heavier Anti-Tank weapon to compliment the Javelin, with a bigger warhead, longer range, higher speed and a man in the loop function? Does Extractor 2 have an AT warhead or a more general purpose type? Would have an AT version, namely the original Spike NLOS variant, either trailer mounted or on the back of a Boxer be looked upon as essential for the "Strike" Brigade?


Wouldn’t brimstone fit nicely here as we’ve seen the prototype style vehicle of this put forward earlier this year. Brimstone would kill any tank and offer an overwatch capability in one while keeping commonality with existing stocks ?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 04 Dec 2019, 18:36

Possibly by Extractor/Spike NLOS is a well established weapon system already in service in trailer form with the British Army. But I myself strongly believe that both the Strike Brigades and our other combat Brigades need a system in this category, providing precision strike over a large area, both against AFVs, and soft targets and with a man in the loop if needed. Of course Brimstone with its existing guidance modes would also be very good against multiple targets so if an EO option was added it would probably be the perfect fit.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1972
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Gabriele » 04 Dec 2019, 21:11

Always amuses me to see the centauro labelled a tank killer. Yeah right.


At least it has the hitting power. The British Army is calling "medium armour" the AJAX Scout, without any change to the vehicle.

I'd rather be in the Cavalry regiment with the 120/45 smoothbores and SPIKE LR missiles than in the one with AJAX if i have to race ahead and deal with a well armed adversary, thank you very much.

The Centauro was originally born specifically to race ahead of heavy armour on semi-trailers, exploiting road mobility to get quickly in any point of the italian Adriatic coast to stop soviet amphibious forces from achieving their objectives. It obviously cannot quite take on tanks face to face, but it has the firepower to employ effective delaying action, especially now that it works in conjunction with well armed IFVs with SPIKE missiles.

So long as the British Army continues to claim it can do similar, or indeed more ambitious missions with AJAX running on tracks and 38 tons modern-day SAXONs with .50 HMGs, i'll keep saying it is a demented proposition.

And it demonstrably is, even without being Patton. Who, by the way, i hold in no particular esteem.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3685
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Ron5 » 04 Dec 2019, 21:20

Good luck with that plan son.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11074
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 Dec 2019, 12:20

Well, had to read the piece, to be able to 'partake' in the discussion.

I think there is something to this... difficult to say, though, as the BA has not spelt out the variants and their users in full: "currently aiming for a grand total of 8 (small) battalions with some form of mechanization (4 on WARRIOR, 4 on MIV as of today’s plans). Wouldn’t it be better to reserve BOXERs for frontline roles, and have less expensive vehicles for supporting roles wherever this is reasonable?"

There is also the good idea :idea: to
"Use the WCSP budget to procure some 245 new hulls (in theory at least the cost would be exactly around a billion pounds) and have the [already contracted] turrets installed onto those.
Then spread those 245 turreted vehicles spread across 8 battalions, mixing them with the cheaper APC variant..."
- such a a mix would conform with the 80/20 rule; which is less applicable, say, in A2A combat

Now, time permitting, will also need to read the "Boxer for everything" part, at the end

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 248
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby RunningStrong » 05 Dec 2019, 14:47

Gabriele wrote:[
So long as the British Army continues to claim it can do similar, or indeed more ambitious missions with AJAX running on tracks and 38 tons modern-day SAXONs with .50 HMGs, i'll keep saying it is a demented proposition.

And it demonstrably is, even without being Patton. Who, by the way, i hold in no particular esteem.

I don't believe that Centauro is more effective than a well equipped mechanised ATGW team. This could be more mobile, more covert and provide a similar level of protection.

There are benefits in bringing a big gun to a firefight, but if you're also a big, soft target then you're also incredibly vulnerable.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 05 Dec 2019, 15:16

As near as damn it the British Army is starting with a clean piece of paper when it comes to the "Strike" Brigades. Unfortunately the Armoured Infantry Brigades are suffering as a consequence, shrinking to what appears to be one Armoured and two Armoured Infantry Battalions and all of these are losing their integral Recce units leaving them dependant on the Ajax units in the Strike Brigades to provide a screen in front. I can understand the thinking behind this, that being the "Strike" Brigade will get into position first with the Armoured Infantry providing the heavy support when they arrives, but to me it is another "Back of a fag packet" solution, doing things the wrong way round. Instead of thinking "This is the threat now how do we deal with it and what do we need", we are say "This is what we have, now lets try and organise a force to deal with the threat".

My hope is that the power that be realise that the "Strike" Brigades do not need two Ajax Regiments but would do better with a third Infantry battalion mounted in the Boxer. I have already gone over how I believe the Boxer Battalions should be equipped and organised, in order to form multiple self contained Battlegroups of Platoon size and up. These units would have a far higher number of Javelin and other hand held AT weapons and should be provided with a long range Over Watch/Precision Fire capability as well as integral artillery (120mm Mortars) and Air Defence (30-40mm Cannon with optimised sensors and optics) and so on. Priority though should be to provide both the Boxer and Ajax with an under armour Javelin capability, with the former both having a RWS with .50 HMG and single Javelin and the same turret as either Warrior or Ajax with two to four Javelin.

This would allow each Armoured Infantry Brigade to both receive a Ajax Battalion which in turn could allocate assets to the other units in the Brigade. In addition Boxer variants such as Mortar Carrier would be used in the Armoured Infantry Battalions, replacing the FV430 series still in service and compliment the Ajax variants replacing the remaining CVR(T) vehicles in the same units.

With the Armoured Infantry, having a number of upgrades warriors with two to four Javelins installed in their new turret would reintroduce the under armour ATGW capability n to the Battalions, which they historically had.

Given the small size of our Ground Forces they need to be given the best kit available and be able to deliver the biggest bang for the pound as well as increased ISTAR, C3 and Logistical capability. Both the RAF and RN have shrunk but the Government has said their increase capabilities have mitigated this. I do not agree with this train of thought but the Army should have spoken up and pointed out that it needs greater capabilities if it is to remain effective whilst being reduced in size. It didn't and now faces the worst situation being smaller and still using large amounts of legacy equipment that is either obsolete of in effective. Things are improving at a very slow pace and the introduction of new kit hamstrung by inadequate annul budgets, but if programmes like Ajax, Boxer, WCIP and the Challenger CSP can be kept moving and ideally speeded up we will be in a far better place. But the Army must identify and justify the capabilities it still needs, and ensure it has sufficient personnel and equipment to form a balanced fighting force based on well thought out plan that identifies the most likely threats and how we are to combat them.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 05 Dec 2019, 15:27

RunningStrong wrote:I don't believe that Centauro is more effective than a well equipped mechanised ATGW team. This could be more mobile, more covert and provide a similar level of protection.There are benefits in bringing a big gun to a firefight, but if you're also a big, soft target then you're also incredibly vulnerable.


Having a big gun as against ATGWs has advantages. The growing number of passive and active protection systems being introduced as going to make it harder and harder to use ATGW effectively. The Russians already practice volley firing ATGWs against a single target to overcome both any protection system fitted as well as any reactive armour. ATGWs are expensive where as a 120mm round is a fraction of the price. If you have the option to use a mix of large calibre guns and ATGW you probably have the best combination offensively. Unfortunately for us we will only have the gun on the Challenger 2 in that class and so the "Strike" Brigades will have to rely on ATGWs to deal with the heaviest threats which is why a heavy ATGW like Spike NLOS is needed. These type of weapon are far harder of APS to deal with as they get zero launch signature to alert them and the near vertical approach makes latter detection also more difficult. We will also have to bite the bullet and increase the number of man portable and under armour Javelin and other anti-tank weapons.

Now I wonder if we could dig out the blue prints for the Merlin 81mm Guided Mortar AT Bomb for out lighter units? :D

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11074
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 Dec 2019, 16:06

Lord Jim wrote:a heavy ATGW like Spike NLOS is needed. These type of weapon are far harder of APS to deal with as they get zero launch signature to alert them and the near vertical approach makes latter detection also more difficult.

A good point> Javelin replicates some of that, but the Armata ' looking like a Xmas tree' with all of its sensors is back to/ on the drawing board
... and having volleys of such weapons available for launch, from further away than the sensor zone (restricted by line-of-sight, in the theoretical meaning of it) would be a v good new definition for 'AT overwatch'

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 248
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby RunningStrong » 05 Dec 2019, 19:26

Lord Jim wrote:Having a big gun as against ATGWs has advantages. The growing number of passive and active protection systems being introduced as going to make it harder and harder to use ATGW effectively.

Completely agree, however, trying to conceal a 30ton 8x8 with a 120mm manned turret isn't easy either in a world of advanced electro-optics, thermal and acoustic systems.

And let's not forget that acoustic gunshot detection systems are a reality and LRF detectors. All issues for gun systems.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 07 Dec 2019, 16:27

A video by ARTEC for their tender for the MIV programme, proposing Boxer and what it can bring to the British Army and so on.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 248
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby RunningStrong » 07 Dec 2019, 17:00

Lord Jim wrote:A video by ARTEC for their tender for the MIV programme, proposing Boxer and what it can bring to the British Army and so on.

How can you claim 15 module variants when the majority are shared (driver trainer, C2, Ambulance) or a small variation on the same idea (Lithuanian IFV)?

I do love a good marketing video though!

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3570
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 08 Dec 2019, 12:53

I suppose is each countries Ambulance module are not the same, each could be classed as being a different module for numbers purposes. However what has been shown it that it is easy to adapt the modules to individual requirements of customers whilst retaining high levels of commonality between nations.

The Boxer night not be everyone's cup of tea, but it has proven to be very popular with its current users, it is the best protected wheeled platform currently in service, has very good cross country mobility in all terrain, is highly adaptable and had plenty of growth potential going forward. Is it the cheapest, certainly not but the support package Rheinmetall usually attaches to a programme and the nature of the modular system, should mean its through life costs will be very competitive compared to similar platforms.

But to be honest I am just greatly relieved that we have finally placed and order for the MIV requirement, and we will end up with a good platform able to meet almost any role asked of it.

Monty1985
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 27 Jan 2019, 13:42
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Monty1985 » 08 Dec 2019, 15:47

My only real gripe with the Boxer is that it's troop carrying capabilities is no better than a Bradley, aka crap and with far less firepower. I can only hope as the procurement develops we order modules with a bit more 'punch'.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3685
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Ron5 » 08 Dec 2019, 16:17

Personally I would prod a little at the Boxers cross country ability. I was under the impression that a low pounds per sq footprint was an indicator of good performance. Certainly would be on soft surfaces like snow and mud. But isn't the Boxer's loading the highest of all the current crop of 8 wheelers?


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests