Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

[SD67]

What is there not to like about it?

1. Huge target
2. Thin armor
3. Vulnerable wheels
4. Not air transportable
5. Death trap if faced with any tank produced in the last 50 years e.g. a T55
6. Similar to US MGS, considered after service experience to be a disaster
7. Lack of rationale i.e. what's it for?
8. Can't do anything that an Ajax can do better apart from going 50 mph on a freeway
9. etc

I can get behind the idea of a Boxer IFV but not a Boxer tank. That be daft (IMHO).

If that's the case then there's not much point in the whole strike brigade concept is there? Because CR2 certainly isn't going to be able to keep up with it, and this is as lethal and well protected as anything else in the inventory bar CR2. The army need to figure out a way to do expeditionary warfare because BAOR is not coming back. Of course this is not a substitute for CR2, but then CR2 won't be there. Personally I'd like to see a whole range of Boxer variants - Boxer-Brimstone, Boxer-GBAD, Boxer turreted mortar etc

A Strike brigade cannot successfully go up against an armored formation. Adding Boxer with a big gun on top make zero difference except by supplying a larger target that's easier to hit.

BTW boxer will not be the most protected vehicle in the inventory after CH2. Not sure why you think that.

So no advantage at all over a towed 105mm light gun - currently the longest range in the strike brigade?

[RunningStrong]

Centauro: tank on wheels

Looks like a 120mm turret on wheels to me. But I guess it's a common civvy mistake to think anything with a turret is a tank.

[ArmChairCivvy]

no advantage at all over a towed 105mm light gun

The latter can at least airlifted quickly to where it is needed... and just read something I hadn't spotted before about also quickly going into action: the fitting of the Selex ES LINAPS artillery pointing system on the UK guns (the US has been upgrading theirs by borrowing from the heavier towed piece... none such here).

[Ron5]

What is there not to like about it?

1. Huge target
2. Thin armor
3. Vulnerable wheels
4. Not air transportable
5. Death trap if faced with any tank produced in the last 50 years e.g. a T55
6. Similar to US MGS, considered after service experience to be a disaster
7. Lack of rationale i.e. what's it for?
8. Can't do anything that an Ajax can do better apart from going 50 mph on a freeway
9. etc

I can get behind the idea of a Boxer IFV but not a Boxer tank. That be daft (IMHO).

If that's the case then there's not much point in the whole strike brigade concept is there? Because CR2 certainly isn't going to be able to keep up with it, and this is as lethal and well protected as anything else in the inventory bar CR2. The army need to figure out a way to do expeditionary warfare because BAOR is not coming back. Of course this is not a substitute for CR2, but then CR2 won't be there. Personally I'd like to see a whole range of Boxer variants - Boxer-Brimstone, Boxer-GBAD, Boxer turreted mortar etc

A Strike brigade cannot successfully go up against an armored formation. Adding Boxer with a big gun on top make zero difference except by supplying a larger target that's easier to hit.

BTW boxer will not be the most protected vehicle in the inventory after CH2. Not sure why you think that.

So no advantage at all over a towed 105mm light gun - currently the longest range in the strike brigade?

No, because, as far as I know, the Boxer 105mm is not capable of indirect fire.

[Ron5]

What is there not to like about it?

1. Huge target
2. Thin armor
3. Vulnerable wheels
4. Not air transportable
5. Death trap if faced with any tank produced in the last 50 years e.g. a T55
6. Similar to US MGS, considered after service experience to be a disaster
7. Lack of rationale i.e. what's it for?
8. Can't do anything that an Ajax can do better apart from going 50 mph on a freeway
9. etc

I can get behind the idea of a Boxer IFV but not a Boxer tank. That be daft (IMHO).

If that's the case then there's not much point in the whole strike brigade concept is there? Because CR2 certainly isn't going to be able to keep up with it, and this is as lethal and well protected as anything else in the inventory bar CR2. The army need to figure out a way to do expeditionary warfare because BAOR is not coming back. Of course this is not a substitute for CR2, but then CR2 won't be there. Personally I'd like to see a whole range of Boxer variants - Boxer-Brimstone, Boxer-GBAD, Boxer turreted mortar etc

A Strike brigade cannot successfully go up against an armored formation. Adding Boxer with a big gun on top make zero difference except by supplying a larger target that's easier to hit.

BTW boxer will not be the most protected vehicle in the inventory after CH2. Not sure why you think that.

So no advantage at all over a towed 105mm light gun - currently the longest range in the strike brigade?

No, because, as far as I know, the Boxer 105mm is not capable of indirect fire.

I think an indirect gun on a Boxer would be very useful. But not the RCH155, that looks rather unwieldy to me. Can't help thinking it wouldn't take much to tip one over and of course, any low bridge would be a tough barrier.

[Ron5]

Centauro: tank on wheels

Looks like a 120mm turret on wheels to me. But I guess it's a common civvy mistake to think anything with a turret is a tank.

If you watch the video, the manufacturer calls it a tank. The tweet is just quoting that. Jeesh.

[Tempest414]

With kit like Hero 120 which has 40km range and 1 hour loiter time and 2 can be carried by one man this 120mm gun on wheels is a soft target to any thing like RM raiding section

[ArmChairCivvy]

any low bridge would be a tough barrier.

Yep, turretless artillery arriving at destination (the impact, with the train making 60-100 km/h would make sure of that)
... how is this "make it 30-36 cm lower" project going, btw?

[Ron5]

any low bridge would be a tough barrier.

Yep, turretless artillery arriving at destination (the impact, with the train making 60-100 km/h would make sure of that)
... how is this "make it 30-36 cm lower" project going, btw?

Only seen a CGI of the lowered version. And a model I think.

[RunningStrong]

If you watch the video, the manufacturer calls it a tank. The tweet is just quoting that. Jeesh.

Of course they do, it help no end trying to convince politicians it's a cheaper alternative to an actual tank. They probably also called it the "most advanced" and "class leading", defence marketing isn't exactly known its accuracy or modesty.

[Ron5]

If you watch the video, the manufacturer calls it a tank. The tweet is just quoting that. Jeesh.

Of course they do, it help no end trying to convince politicians it's a cheaper alternative to an actual tank. They probably also called it the "most advanced" and "class leading", defence marketing isn't exactly known its accuracy or modesty.

They don't seem to have a monopoly on that.

[bobp]

A picture of Boxer fitted with a turret.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Rather than putting a 'proper' gun on a Boxer, why not see if the AJAX derivative for the US Light Tank gets anywhere... and then buy some, without any integration worries
- one thing that NATO standardisation drive has done a good job with is what you feed the gun with (no more 'exotica' that in the long run turn out to be exorbitantly expensive)

[RunningStrong]

A picture of Boxer fitted with a turret.

Could the British Army accept a turret Off The Shelf?

[ArmChairCivvy]

That same question goes for the GD Ascod/ AJAX derivative... by no means identical to the what the Ajax line is churning out.

BUT: the turret ( if it goes into production in the US) would be a fully integrated and NATO compliant piece to drop on top of hull of same dimensions (and GVA'ed on this side of the Pond).
- drag-and-drop needs defined interfaces, more than a 'mm fit' between metal objects

[J. Tattersall]

A picture of Boxer fitted with a turret.

Could the British Army accept a turret Off The Shelf?

Maybe, but has it truly been fully integrated and certified onto Boxer to the necessary standards? Driving around with a turret on doesn't necessarily mean it has. The reason I'm cautious is that to do full integration, testing and certification takes a lot of time and resource, and not sure even KMW/Rheimettal/Nexter would have the PV £€ to fully do this without a government contract. Hence my guess is that you've got a fully integrated onto Griffin turret that's not yet fully integrated, tested or certified on Boxer. If a government wants to buy it then they'll pick up the bill and own the risk (don't bet your pension on drag and drop) for all the non-recurring engineering.

[Lord Jim]

I suppose it is going to depend on exactly how much integration is required. The Turret itself is already certified and tested and in production so that is one less thing to worry about. The next is its integration into a Boxer Mission Module. This is the unique thing about the Boxer, you are not integrating the weapon system into the whole vehicle just the Module. There is already a set of parameters for the hull module interface so as long as the Turret/Module combination meets those you are good to go. The Module has been designed form the beginning to be very adaptable, as has been shown by the number of variants already either in service or planned and then there are the multitude of developmental designs. Without the actual data one can really only look to comparisons, but if you look at either the Australian Boxer FSV or the German IFV variants, both have similar weight turrets that would exert similar strains on the Mission Module and both have been developed with little of no issues. So yes there would be some developmental costs integrating the Nexter turret on to the Boxer Mission Module but probably far less than than it would cost traditionally to do the same to a legacy platform.

[Ron5]

So integrate one of the British 40mm turrets. Not like France ever buys british kit so eff them. Just read about them developing a competitor to brimstone. Whats that about?

And is this French turret compliant with uk architecture anyway?

[ArmChairCivvy]

So integrate one of the British 40mm turrets.

You mean there's plenty of them for now reserved for Warriors?

[RunningStrong]

This is the unique thing about the Boxer, you are not integrating the weapon system into the whole vehicle just the Module. .

I'm sure DOSG, DSTL and HSE would all agree that's complete dreaming.

[Lord Jim]

I'm sure DOSG, DSTL and HSE would all agree that's complete dreaming.

I am not so sure. The interfaces between the module and main hull is the same regardless of the configuration of the module for instance. That is the whole point of the modular approach. The tolerances of the module are well known by now, and how these affect the main hull is also. So integrating the Turret involves its installation etc. just to the Mission Module not the whole vehicle. Add to that the open architecture of the Boxer, both parts, and you are looking at a far simpler task then both the Ajax (modifying an ASCOD2) and the WCSP. You have a Box with the equivalent of universal fixtures and fitting installed inside, that plugs into the main hull regardless of what is in the box.

This is new territory for AFVs. Of coarse if you want to cover every single possible eventuality down to a Soldier breaking his or hers finger nail on a piece of equipment, then I am sure people will find a way to spend time and resources testing and retesting until the cows come home or the equipment has gone out of date.

[Ron5]

So integrate one of the British 40mm turrets.

You mean there's plenty of them for now reserved for Warriors?

Don't know which one is best for Boxer. I was thinking new.

[RunningStrong]

I'm sure DOSG, DSTL and HSE would all agree that's complete dreaming.

I am not so sure. The interfaces between the module and main hull is the same regardless of the configuration of the module for instance. That is the whole point of the modular approach. The tolerances of the module are well known by now, and how these affect the main hull is also. So integrating the Turret involves its installation etc. just to the Mission Module not the whole vehicle. Add to that the open architecture of the Boxer, both parts, and you are looking at a far simpler task then both the Ajax (modifying an ASCOD2) and the WCSP. You have a Box with the equivalent of universal fixtures and fitting installed inside, that plugs into the main hull regardless of what is in the box.

This is new territory for AFVs. Of coarse if you want to cover every single possible eventuality down to a Soldier breaking his or hers finger nail on a piece of equipment, then I am sure people will find a way to spend time and resources testing and retesting until the cows come home or the equipment has gone out of date.

Your complete lack of experience in this endeavour is showing. The safety certifying bodies are all interested to the weapon system integration all the way down to Terra Firma. You do not get to re-define that datum because "modular".

[Caribbean]

The safety certifying bodies are all interested to the weapon system integration all the way down to Terra Firma. You do not get to re-define that datum because "modular".

Interesting. Are you saying that previous certifications will be completley disregarded and that everying has to be re-tested ab initio? That would certainly put a different light on things.

[mr.fred]

Interesting. Are you saying that previous certifications will be completley disregarded and that everying has to be re-tested ab initio? That would certainly put a different light on things.

I think it’s more likely that you would have to be able to prove that a previous certification is still valid on a new installation. Assuming that the requirements are the same.