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.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15276
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Only heavy and light; where did Medium disappear to? Or did we get Medium-heavy and Light-medium

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Apr 2021, 07:34

Can it be found in the Command Paper anywhere else than in the Recce - Deep Strike BCT (only as part of it), the function of which would seem to be to act as 'divisional' artillery for the other BCTs?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15276
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Apr 2021, 08:20

Lord Jim wrote: I would like us to follow the US Army though and issue shoulder launched Starstreak at Platoon level and have pedestal (3 rounds) allocated to head Quarters and support units.


Quite rightly you point out the bde-level and theatre BMD needs, but for these lower level assets to be effective they will need to be supported by a sensor network working in real-time.
- hence keeping it all under the RA, and spreading the assets out, as needed, would be better
- Starstreak (HVM) has a fighting chance (bcz of its speed) against pop-up attack helicopters even as a stand-alone, but why restrict its effectiveness (to one category only)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 2481
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Only heavy and light; where did Medium disappear to? Or did we get Medium-heavy and Light-medium

Postby Tempest414 » 07 Apr 2021, 09:04

Lord Jim wrote:I am now looking at the GM Eagle in both its 4x4 and 6x6 versions as the best option for the whole MRV(P) requirement. I think the JLTV is too big and too specialised, really being aimed at past requirement raised during the was in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Eagle seems a much more suitable platform and quite a few other countries seem to agree.


Cost will have something to do with it Eagle V is 812,000 dollars where JLTV is 465, 000 dollars so if we buy say 1000 vehicles Eagle V would cost 812 million dollars and JLTV would be 465 million dollars making it 347 million dollars cheaper with that money we could buy 290 Griffon 6x6.

and when talking money for the 50 Boxer CVR we could around 200 Jaguar CVR

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5188
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Only heavy and light; where did Medium disappear to? Or did we get Medium-heavy and Light-medium

Postby Lord Jim » 07 Apr 2021, 10:52

Is the Eagle V the 4x4 or the 6x6 variant?

Are you sure of the price differential between the Boxer CVR and the Jaguar CVR. I know the former is better protected and has greater mobility and load carrying capacity with the option of six dismounts but four times the price seems a bit strange given the amount of high end equipment on the Jaguar and this is where the majority of costs arise from?

But if those prices are correct then we should equip the two Light BCTs with both Jaguar and Griffin and scrap the MRV(P) as it currently stands. This also uses up some of the remaining CTA 40mm auto cannons

Then we just have to buy some Light Utility Vehicles, like those the US Army is purchasing for its Light Infantry, able to carry six Infantrymen, and that can be transported inside of Chinook along with more UGVs to allow 16AA BCT to be more mobile when not being ferried around by Helicopter, especially when it comes to their heavy weapons. :D

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5188
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 07 Apr 2021, 11:22

I agree that the RA/RHA should keep the main responsibility for air defence which is why I organised the Boxer SPAA platforms into such Regiments which would then be taken form the Support Pool and allocated to a Combat Team when it deployed operationally if required.

From what I have read Starstreak is also pretty effective against UAVs at low to medium level and the same Guidance Unit could also be used to fire LMM which should be even more effective, and which has been fired from the three round pedestal launcher or Light Weight Multiple Launch (LML) already. In fact there is no reason why at Platoon level there could not be a MANPADS Team with a LML, therefore having the option to either fire from the shoulder or if time allows from the LML. There is a pedestal mounted version of the Air Defence Acquisition Device (ADAD) systems for use with the LML already in service and this could easily be carried in the Boxer as well.

It should be possible to network both the Boxer SPAA platforms and the LML teams into an integrated sensor net together with Sky Sabre and other assets. At least one would hope such a system is already under development if all the talk of "Sunrise" capabilities is real.

Ideally any major deployment against a peer or near peer opponent should be protected by a layered Air Defence network ranging from Starstreak LML up to SAMP-T, something we have never had even though the need has been there for decades.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2213
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Only heavy and light; where did Medium disappear to? Or did we get Medium-heavy and Light-medium

Postby SW1 » 07 Apr 2021, 11:38

It’s a gd question about medium. The mantra for its need over the last 20 years has been around its deployability advantage. I guess though when the vehicles you ordered for it are now all touching the scales at around 40 tonnes you can only describe them as heavy.

The strike concept I’ve read remains how the army will fight, it was all about fighting in a more dispersed and spread out manner rather than a vehicle type.

It remains to be seen how the heavy brigade combat teams will be set up. Will they follow US formation of combined arms battalion and mechanised battalions or something else. But the question is how does these units get from the UK to Eastern Europe and in what timescales.

As for the light brigade combat teams there very like the US infantry brigade combat teams. The US appear to be dealing with a similar issue to us in that it’s unlikely infantry on foot have much mobility or relevance on a future battlefield and as such are looking at a variety of light vehicles to put them in.

At least here we have it would appear something in mind in that we’re told one will already be equipped with jacket and foxhound to form a light mechanised brigade hopefully the second brigade will follow along similar lines. The question of what equips the airborne brigade will be interesting thought it could be similar vehicles or supracat lrv.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 2481
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Only heavy and light; where did Medium disappear to? Or did we get Medium-heavy and Light-medium

Postby Tempest414 » 07 Apr 2021, 11:45

Lord Jim wrote:Is the Eagle V the 4x4 or the 6x6 variant?

Are you sure of the price differential between the Boxer CVR and the Jaguar CVR. I know the former is better protected and has greater mobility and load carrying capacity with the option of six dismounts but four times the price seems a bit strange given the amount of high end equipment on the Jaguar and this is where the majority of costs arise from?

But if those prices are correct then we should equip the two Light BCTs with both Jaguar and Griffin and scrap the MRV(P) as it currently stands. This also uses up some of the remaining CTA 40mm auto cannons

Then we just have to buy some Light Utility Vehicles, like those the US Army is purchasing for its Light Infantry, able to carry six Infantrymen, and that can be transported inside of Chinook along with more UGVs to allow 16AA BCT to be more mobile when not being ferried around by Helicopter, especially when it comes to their heavy weapons. :D


From what I can make out our Boxer order of 528 for 2.3 billion = 4.2 million each and this is not for the CVR but the APC.

The cost of 812,000 for Eagle V is based on the 4x4 with the Danish order with all there kit fitted coming in at 970,000 dollars each vehicle.

As for Griffon and Jaguar the Fixed contact is set at 1 million Euros each and Griffon , Jaguar and Boxer come with STANAG 4569 Leave 4 armour however Boxer comes in at 38 ton and Griffon / Jaguar at 25 tons

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 5255
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Ron5 » 07 Apr 2021, 14:00

Lord Jim wrote: Alternatively there is Rheinmetall's Sky Ranger turret mounting a 35mm revolver type auto cannon.


Recently RM announced a 30mm Skyranger turret that seems to be more Boxer sized.

Image

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/rheinmetall-air-defence-unveils-its-skyranger-30

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15276
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Apr 2021, 14:52

Sounds like a super shotgun
"Another key feature of the Skyranger 30 is the elevation, which can reach 85°, allowing engaging threats during their terminal dive. One key element in increasing the kill probability is the ABM round; leveraging the experience acquired with the 35 mm AHEAD ammunition the new 30 mm ABM round carries a total of around 160 tungsten cylinders for a total payload of around 200 grams. The concept is the same of the AHEAD: once the fire control system has established the intercept point, the ABM round leaves the muzzle being time-programmed to open up at the optimal distance in front of the target generating a lethal cone of high-strength metallic cylinders."
- loses a third of the range by going down from 35mm, but presumably quite a few more rounds can be carried
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1652
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Only heavy and light; where did Medium disappear to? Or did we get Medium-heavy and Light-medium

Postby The Armchair Soldier » 07 Apr 2021, 15:19

Merging this topic into the one for Boxer as it mostly relates to it.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5188
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 07 Apr 2021, 16:02

Ron5 wrote:Recently RM announced a 30mm Skyranger turret that seems to be more Boxer sized.

Well that fits the bill quite nicely, and could also carry a couple of either Starstreak or LMM as well, just gets better and better.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15276
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Apr 2021, 17:06

SW1 wrote:As for the light brigade combat teams there very like the US infantry brigade combat teams. The US appear to be dealing with a similar issue to us in that it’s unlikely infantry on foot have much mobility or relevance on a future battlefield and as such are looking at a variety of light vehicles to put them in.

At least here we have it would appear something in mind in that we’re told one will already be equipped with jacket and foxhound to form a light mechanised brigade hopefully the second brigade will follow along similar lines.

The Armchair Soldier wrote:Merging this topic into the one for Boxer as it mostly relates to it.


A pity as Boxers will (initially) appear in two BCTs - which is a super minority.

We were just edging closer to the answer as to "WHO will get the hand-me-downs"?

Of course (mainly) the other Light BCT, the one where cavalry Jackal/ protected mobility Foxhound was not specified... indeed NOTHING was specified. Not one word; to avoid embarrassment as what has been listed many times over for disposal will keep soldiering on - for most of this decade :idea: .
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5188
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 08 Apr 2021, 08:55

I am hoping that the second Light BCT will be equipped with variants of the MRV(P) programme as and when they are delivered, eventually the same should happen to the first, but that will have to make do with the Jackals and Foxhounds as mentioned in order to stand up sooner.
The second will either have hand me downs that have had a stay of execution or will be light role infantry awaiting its new mounts.

If this means that resources are going to be concentrated on the two Heavy BCTs then I would be happy with that, because they need them to create viable formations as a matter of urgency. It is these formations that will provide an land based deterrence by the their presence together with the Deep Strike BCT.

ACC mentioned three papers have been released, could someone link me to what came after the Command Paper if anything?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 2481
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Tempest414 » 08 Apr 2021, 10:10

so Lets say with the move to BCT's we had two heavy Mechanised BCT's with Boxer + two medium mechanised BCT's with Jaguar and Griffon and two light mechanised BCT's with JLTV and Bushmaster

I would say we would need an extra 500 Boxer's with 200 with the 40mm turret + 150 with the Skyranger 30 turret + 150 of other types cost 2 billion pounds

I would say the Medium BCT's would need 550 Griffon and 200 Jaguar cost 800 million pound

I would say the Light BCT's should get 300 JLTV and 250 Bushmaster 300 million pounds

Total cost 3.5 billion over 5 = 700 million per year

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2213
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby SW1 » 08 Apr 2021, 10:27

I’d be hoping that the mrvp program is more future variants of foxhound and jackal.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 2481
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Tempest414 » 08 Apr 2021, 10:51

SW1 wrote:I’d be hoping that the mrvp program is more future variants of foxhound and jackal.


I have to say I would like to see a 6X6 Foxhound with 8 dismounts and a RWS

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 5255
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Ron5 » 08 Apr 2021, 15:30

Tempest414 wrote:
SW1 wrote:I’d be hoping that the mrvp program is more future variants of foxhound and jackal.


I have to say I would like to see a 6X6 Foxhound with 8 dismounts and a RWS


It would probably be laying on its side :D

Personally. I'd like to see a 6x6 JLTV. Cheaper & tougher. Made/assembled in the UK with lotsa locally sourced parts.

Not much to ask although with all the UK automotive design expertise in the UK, a brand new 100% UK design would be trivial to develop. These vehicles are not complicated.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15276
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 08 Apr 2021, 15:36

https://www.army.mod.uk/media/11826/202 ... -final.pdf

This should logically be on the broader IR thread, but the request was on this one
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2213
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby SW1 » 15 Apr 2021, 18:13


bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2198
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby bobp » 15 Apr 2021, 19:56

Another view of same...


Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5188
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 16 Apr 2021, 20:26

Not having to deploy stabilisers before firing could be a capability that moves this option up the list of replacements for the AS-90. Whether this would out way the additional cost, which again we have no way of knowing, is therefore anyone's guess. But the Drive Module for the Boxer will be being manufactures in the UK so again that may be a positive. Maybe a Regiment of both Archer/MAN and the Boxer RCH155 could be the way forward, together with a Regiment of upgrades M270 GMLRS and one with HIMARS.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2198
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby bobp » 16 Apr 2021, 20:55

I never realised until earlier today that the Boxer turret could rotate, I thought it was fixed.


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 9 guests