Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

I'm sure it's just me but I find it annoying that WFEL's website hides away the fact that they are 100% German owned and wraps the union flag around pictures of Boxers at every opportunity. Not only that but the organization selecting the subcontractors, like WFEL, are themselves European. I must be paranoid. I expect the top level MoD contract specifies so much must be manufactured in the UK, nothing about where the profits end up.

At least RBSL is 49% British.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

And how much of the profits from the Ajax or Warrior programmes end up going abroad? We let our AFV manufacturing base wither and die through lack of investment and orders. You reap what you sow.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:I'm sure it's just me but I find it annoying that WFEL's website hides away the fact that they are 100% German owned and wraps the union flag around pictures of Boxers at every opportunity. Not only that but the organization selecting the subcontractors, like WFEL, are themselves European. I must be paranoid. I expect the top level MoD contract specifies so much must be manufactured in the UK, nothing about where the profits end up.

At least RBSL is 49% British.
You literally scroll to bottom of home page, click About and then it tells you quite clearly. I hope their armoured vehicle manufacturing is better than their "hiding" skills.

https://www.wfel.com/page/about/1006

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:I'm sure it's just me but I find it annoying that WFEL's website hides away the fact that they are 100% German owned and wraps the union flag around pictures of Boxers at every opportunity. Not only that but the organization selecting the subcontractors, like WFEL, are themselves European. I must be paranoid. I expect the top level MoD contract specifies so much must be manufactured in the UK, nothing about where the profits end up.

At least RBSL is 49% British.
You literally scroll to bottom of home page, click About and then it tells you quite clearly. I hope their armoured vehicle manufacturing is better than their "hiding" skills.

https://www.wfel.com/page/about/1006
Srsly?

Closer to the bottom of the "about" page after their stance on slavery??

Howabout upfront on their home page: "WFEL: a KMW subsidiary"

No such shyness on the RBSL site. Absolutely crystal clear on joint ownership between British and German companies.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:I'm sure it's just me but I find it annoying that WFEL's website hides away the fact that they are 100% German owned and wraps the union flag around pictures of Boxers at every opportunity. Not only that but the organization selecting the subcontractors, like WFEL, are themselves European. I must be paranoid. I expect the top level MoD contract specifies so much must be manufactured in the UK, nothing about where the profits end up.

At least RBSL is 49% British.
You literally scroll to bottom of home page, click About and then it tells you quite clearly. I hope their armoured vehicle manufacturing is better than their "hiding" skills.

https://www.wfel.com/page/about/1006
Srsly?

Closer to the bottom of the "about" page after their stance on slavery??

Howabout upfront on their home page: "WFEL: a KMW subsidiary"

No such shyness on the RBSL site. Absolutely crystal clear on joint ownership between British and German companies.
Have you ever considered the intelligence services?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

And here we have KFEL on Twitter announcing themselves as:

WFEL@WFEL_bridges
Established world leader in rapidly-deployable tactical military bridging, supplying 43 armed forces across the world for more than four decades. Stockport, England

No mention of being a KMW subsidiary. Their twitter feed is liberally sprinkled with retweets singing their praises from one Nicholas Drummond. A name not unfamiliar to many of us. Also someone who is a paid advisor to ... drums roll ... KMW.

Also lots of Union flags, seemingly de rigour when Boxer is being depicted. The UK program is supposedly being 60% manufactured in the UK. I wonder how much of that 60% is being manufactured by non-UK companies? Quite a bit, I expect. Still, better than JLTV eh? where the MoD can't even negotiate a local kit build. And then there will be the Bushmaster/Eagle program, and the wheeled artillery, and the ....

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Drifting off topic but continuing my last comment, Nicholas Drummond today said that if Eagle won vs Bushmaster, it would be manufactured in the UK in both 4x4 and 6x6 versions. That was news to me and presumably good news for the UK economy.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2677
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by bobp »

Small article in defence news about development of a Boxer bridge laying version

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/0 ... omer-base/

Andy-M
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: 01 Jun 2015, 20:25
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Andy-M »

New module for Boxer, a KMW Leguan bridge layer.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... ing-module

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2779
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Caribbean »

Another new module (apologies if posted before): FFG Armoured Recovery module

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... ion-module
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

military
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 08 Aug 2020, 23:15
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by military »

Think Defence has expanded a lengthy article on the UK's history with the Boxer programme and added an article on Boxer variants. They are worth reading if you have a few hours!

https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/boxer-ar ... tish-army/

https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/boxer-ar ... e-details/

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

The second article really shows the flexibility and growth potential of the platform. The variants that raised an eyebrow or two were the MLRS, Artillery Radar, Air Defence and those carrying Brimstone or possible ground launched SPEAR variants

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

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: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

A great article (Sept refresh) from TD again... my e-mail feed for those seems to have gone AWOL :cry:
- good news that even Challies can be supported across smaller gaps:
"a bridging module for Boxer that can use their Leguan bridge system to span a 13m gap at MLC100 or 22m at MLC50."
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: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: Boxer that can use their Leguan bridge system to span a 13m gap at MLC100 or 22m at MLC50
That should see to both Boxers and Ajaxes, and the AI bdes then will also need a capability
- when the bridging version was removed from the Ajax family there was talk of 36 Warriors to be converted
- on the Warrior thread the detail of numbers/ versions is scant: 265 the latest total. Assume no conversion of the already converted ambulances, so 265 minus the ordered turrets (number) leaves about half a hundred between ABSV (coming back from 'dead'( and any bridging ones, to ...err fill the gap.
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)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote: Boxer that can use their Leguan bridge system to span a 13m gap at MLC100 or 22m at MLC50
That should see to both Boxers and Ajaxes, and the AI bdes then will also need a capability
- when the bridging version was removed from the Ajax family there was talk of 36 Warriors to be converted
- on the Warrior thread the detail of numbers/ versions is scant: 265 the latest total. Assume no conversion of the already converted ambulances, so 265 minus the ordered turrets (number) leaves about half a hundred between ABSV (coming back from 'dead'( and any bridging ones, to ...err fill the gap.
I've seen a picture of an Ajax variant with a bridge but I can't remember where. And didn't GD list it as a hot next variant in their evidence?

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

No doubt it can be done.

The question is more like having the capability organically in each of the 4 bdes; Boxer does it for Strike bdes
- but what does it/ will do it for the AI ones, using a hull that their REME supports anyway?
- BTW, the one displayed for Warriors was a British one, exported to a couple of countries. Not sure how the MLC figures for it stack against the Leguan 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)

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Surely the Armoured Infantry Brigade will rely on the Royal Engineers heavy platforms, like the Titan(AVLB), Trojan(AVRE) together with the Terrier(CET) and M3 Amphibious Bridging Vehicles. After all that is what they were purchased for.

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: Titan(AVLB), Trojan(AVRE)
It is likely and we have plenty of them, practically new as well: 33 x Trojan and 33 x Titan, the deliveries of which to the RE commenced in late 2006

Visual scene: An AI bde commits one of its Warrior bns to the direct support of the tank rgmnt and allocates the other to a flanking move
... a Titan behemoth (or two) races up to the river/ gap obstacle with them

Sure, when gaps up to 60 mtrs need to be crossed there is no comparison of "medium" bridging to the heavies
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 »

I wonder if the M3s will be allocated to support the "Strike" Brigades to give them some river crossing capability?

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

They are (if not stored) with a joint UK/ German engineer bn
... which is strangely at odds with us having (eFP and NATO HQs excepted) 63 military personnel permanently stationed in Germany (someone keeping the aircon working for all those tanks in climate controlled storage + a few MPs patrolling the zip wire... even though we are within a German base, so perhaps there is no zip wire)
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: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

At least with that letter the nomenclature as for armoured cavalry/ armoured infantry/ mech. infantry are now clear (in the BA, I hasten to say).
- does recce thereby become a functional term, rather than being there in any unit designation?
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 »

The former seems to be the way things will be. Cavalry seems more sexy than recce even if the too are actually the same beneath.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2677
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by bobp »

Came across this whilst surfing through some stories...




What is there not to like about it?

Post Reply