Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Caribbean wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:I do wonder whether said RWS manufacturers have any interest in endorsing this integration in their already in-service hardware.
For Midguard, Venom LR is a major advertising point!
http://www.valhalla-turrets.com/products
The EOS literature doesn't mention it (yet?), but the RWS can handle a missile launcher as well
https://www.eos-aus.com/wp-content/uplo ... S-Dual.pdf
The UK RWS 'fleet' is almost entirely Kongsberg. Again, we're heavily invested in that interface already so we would need to accept a bespoke solution for Boxer which doesn't make sense in my mind.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RunningStrong wrote:I'd much rather see Boxer get a remote CT40 turret with airburst, or existing RWS equipped with Anti-tank or anti-structure guided munitions.
+
Caribbean wrote:the RWS can handle a missile launcher as well
Perhaps not every Boxer to have the two (combo) than just .50 cal?
RunningStrong wrote:The UK RWS 'fleet' is almost entirely Kongsberg. Again, we're heavily invested in that interface already so we would need to accept a bespoke solution for Boxer which doesn't make sense in my mind.
We would need to accept a bespoke solution for Boxer ... perhaps one in four?

Here we go back to Ajax vs. versions of Boxer
- they will be in different units
- therefore the mix of them might not be at the same place, at the right time
- so some Boxers witb Ajax turrets might be the 'right answer'?
... now, from the fixed overall Ajax order... what can we get - optimally - when the turrets will be 'whisked away'?
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)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2782
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Caribbean »

RunningStrong wrote:The UK RWS 'fleet' is almost entirely Kongsberg. Again, we're heavily invested in that interface already so we would need to accept a bespoke solution for Boxer which doesn't make sense in my mind.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:We would need to accept a bespoke solution for Boxer
Just because it hasn't yet been tested with the Kongsberg doesn't mean it can't be. AEI are the design authority for the ADEN 30mm (which this is clearly based on) and also make gun mounts (7.62mm-30mm), so they probably have a good understanding of what is needed to adapt a low-recoil 30mm for a 12.7mm mount.

Interestingly, they also manufacture a Carl Gustav look-alike, the AE84 recoilless Rifle
http://aei-systems.com/land/ae84-rcl/
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Gabriele »

The UK RWS 'fleet' is almost entirely Kongsberg. Again, we're heavily invested in that interface already so we would need to accept a bespoke solution for Boxer which doesn't make sense in my mind.
Almost entirely if you don't count in Thales SWARMLITE and Leonardo ENFORCER. There are quite a few of those... In fact, before AJAX deliveries truly kick in, i think the ENFORCER is actually the most numerous in service.

Moog has several good modular, multi-weapon RWS. For putting serious firepower with minimum expense on BOXER, they are the most obvious way to go.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

I cannot see any really problem with having more than one RWS in service. Given the planned size of the Boxer fleet, an order for the RWS to be installed would be big enough to gain the fabled economies of scale and most kit like this is now serviced by the manufacturer so no need to set up an in house facility. Having a single RWS for the whole fleet makes sense with then being equipped with everything from an L7 GPMG up to a M2 HMG plus Javelin. Having a number of support variants fitted with Ajax turrets, also with Javelin would also be a good idea (Yes the Ajax fleet should also have a number of vehicles so equipped), but as I have been saying above many times, the Army is evaluation what capabilities the Boxer and Ajax units will eventually need to maximise their effectiveness and allow the Mechanised Brigades to attain what they currently aspire to.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:most kit like this is now serviced by the manufacturer so no need to set up an in house facility.
MoD can strike deals with UK manufacturers for their staff to follow to... like was done in the Gulf deployments
- I wonder - just asking - how easy is it to come to the same kind of arrangement with others?
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: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Money can be very persuasive.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Gabriele wrote:
The UK RWS 'fleet' is almost entirely Kongsberg. Again, we're heavily invested in that interface already so we would need to accept a bespoke solution for Boxer which doesn't make sense in my mind.
Almost entirely if you don't count in Thales SWARMLITE and Leonardo ENFORCER. There are quite a few of those... In fact, before AJAX deliveries truly kick in, i think the ENFORCER is actually the most numerous in service.

Moog has several good modular, multi-weapon RWS. For putting serious firepower with minimum expense on BOXER, they are the most obvious way to go.
Isn't Enforcer on Panther (300 retired) and Challenger 2 (Limited TES kit, and awaiting upgrade). Anything else?

Figured with those out, plus Mastiff fleet (400+) still in and AJAX fleet (589) coming into service, that was a fair claim on "almost entirely".

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RunningStrong wrote:Mastiff fleet (400+) still in and AJAX fleet (589) coming into service
Do you see any reuse, as a component rather than 1:1?
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
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Gabriele »

RunningStrong wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
The UK RWS 'fleet' is almost entirely Kongsberg. Again, we're heavily invested in that interface already so we would need to accept a bespoke solution for Boxer which doesn't make sense in my mind.
Almost entirely if you don't count in Thales SWARMLITE and Leonardo ENFORCER. There are quite a few of those... In fact, before AJAX deliveries truly kick in, i think the ENFORCER is actually the most numerous in service.

Moog has several good modular, multi-weapon RWS. For putting serious firepower with minimum expense on BOXER, they are the most obvious way to go.
Isn't Enforcer on Panther (300 retired) and Challenger 2 (Limited TES kit, and awaiting upgrade). Anything else?

Figured with those out, plus Mastiff fleet (400+) still in and AJAX fleet (589) coming into service, that was a fair claim on "almost entirely".

The Panther is still in use, despite reports of a proposed sale. Much like the proposed sale of Bae 146, the quest for possible customers began but withdrawal from service is not happening yet and unlikely to happen for a while still.

ENFORCERs were also on quite a few Bulldogs and i've seen it on Ridgback too, although at least some of the turrets are probably moving around as and where needed.

Only a limited number of Mastiffs have the PROTECTOR, specifically the "Protected Eyes" and "Praetorian" variants, for all i know. The latter having been used by the RAF Regiment for force protection.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Boxer, looking surprisingly small inside.


User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by whitelancer »

Certainly showed how large Boxer is. Crew of three Driver, Gunner and Commander and 8 dismounts but only six seats in the rear compartment?

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by bobp »

whitelancer wrote:but only six seats in the rear compartment?
Interesting. I do see two large equipment racks in the back, is this maybe a command vehicle?

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by whitelancer »

Could be rigged up as something other than a basic infantry carrier I suppose but doesn't look like a Command set up.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by bobp »

Maybe just storage racks, for supplies. Also is the crew, all three of them? sitting in the front section. just done a quick google search and found a image with eight seats in back. So it must depend on variant.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

bobp wrote:
whitelancer wrote:but only six seats in the rear compartment?
Interesting. I do see two large equipment racks in the back, is this maybe a command vehicle?
Definitely not a C2 variant shown.

I suspect it's a 6 PAX fit with 96 hr supply racks (as alluded to in the video), which could be exchanged for an 8 PAX setup, without the stowage.

AJAX (Ares) suffers the same reverse-tardis, death by stowage racks.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Well here is the basic German APC configuration with the crew, dismounts and kit carried;
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... &eim=1,2,6

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Photo shown at this link suggests there aren't mineblast seats fitted?

https://www.army-technology.com/projects/mrav/

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by jedibeeftrix »

pioneer version:


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Yep "Note discussion of combat supplies endurance and range"
but the first two minutes into it puts to rest the long running argument about changes between mission modules.
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
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by whitelancer »

jedibeeftrix wrote:pioneer version:
That makes sense. The specification of the seating used will depend on what the Army wants and could vary between roles. Interestingly the original MCV 80/Warrior prototype had individual seating for the dismounts, unsurprisingly that didn't survive in the production models.
As for being able to replace the modules in the "field" I cant see that being a regular occurrence, most likely they will replaced in a Base Workshop or possible in an armoured delivery Sgn/Regt.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Yep "Note discussion of combat supplies endurance and range"
but the first two minutes into it puts to rest the long running argument about changes between mission modules.
Believe it when I see it!

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

So easy anyone could do it.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

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: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

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.

Post Reply