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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:"Next challenge is to demonstrate the mobility"
like does it fit into railway tunnels when loaded onto a carriage?
- there was this 'part project' about flattening the turret, to achieve this
Or a visit to an A400M/C17 rig.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

As an aside, the idea of turning Boxer into a tank as pushed by Nicholas Drummond et al, seems remarkably stupid. Tank Boxer vs any real tank is going to have only one conclusion.

Not sure I buy that RCH 155 Boxer either. Looks way too tall and unstable even with the new lower design. I suspect it would be confined to roads in practice (with high bridges) which would raise the question of whether a gun on a truck like Archer wouldn't be more cost effective.

Image

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SW1 »

It does look quite tall to fit in a400m/c17.

Would say that if it’s acceptable for your air defence system to be fitted on a man truck then it should be acceptable for your long range artillery to be fitted to the same.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1469
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Ron5 wrote:As an aside, the idea of turning Boxer into a tank as pushed by Nicholas Drummond et al, seems remarkably stupid. Tank Boxer vs any real tank is going to have only one conclusion.
I agree with the sentiment. The usual proponents of such things would no doubt claim that it is a self propelled gun or some new acronym rather than a tank, but I fail to see how such definitions make it harder to see or deflect incoming fire.

A turreted gun-mortar seems a superior choice. By default in an indirect fire role and one that is needed anyway, they can still be rolled up for occasional direct fire tasks, but they are much less likely to be mistaken for real tanks.

The RCH 155 might be excessive for Strike and sub-optimal for Armoured, but it could come down to having a larger fleet of one platform that is not so ideal rather than two small optimised fleets.

One wonders if it is possible to use common ordnance and gun control equipment to equip both platforms optimised for mobility and those with more of a bias towards protection.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SW1 »

mr.fred wrote:The RCH 155 might be excessive for Strike and sub-optimal for Armoured, but it could come down to having a larger fleet of one platform that is not so ideal rather than two small optimised fleets
But it could well be better than what we have now

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

SW1 wrote:It does look quite tall to fit in a400m/c17.

Would say that if it’s acceptable for your air defence system to be fitted on a man truck then it should be acceptable for your long range artillery to be fitted to the same.
Beg to disagree! If your artillery is being hit with small arms then things are bad, but I your air defence radar is then things have really fallen apart. The SPG is likely to be in range of counter battery, I wouldn't expect your ADR.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Jake1992 »

Ron5 wrote:As an aside, the idea of turning Boxer into a tank as pushed by Nicholas Drummond et al, seems remarkably stupid. Tank Boxer vs any real tank is going to have only one conclusion.

Not sure I buy that RCH 155 Boxer either. Looks way too tall and unstable even with the new lower design. I suspect it would be confined to roads in practice (with high bridges) which would raise the question of whether a gun on a truck like Archer wouldn't be more cost effective.

Image
The latest figures I could find were from 2014 so most likely pre redesign to lower the hight but they where stating a hight of 3.5m to show that in context the AS90 is 2.94m and the G6 Rhino is 3.2m. After the lower redesign it’d most likely be similar to the G6 Rhino in dimensions.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SW1 »

RunningStrong wrote:
SW1 wrote:It does look quite tall to fit in a400m/c17.

Would say that if it’s acceptable for your air defence system to be fitted on a man truck then it should be acceptable for your long range artillery to be fitted to the same.
Beg to disagree! If your artillery is being hit with small arms then things are bad, but I your air defence radar is then things have really fallen apart. The SPG is likely to be in range of counter battery, I wouldn't expect your ADR.
Ok but would your force not be required to operate within the envelope of land ceptor for air defence, it’s going to have to be as close to the line as your long range artillery will, would it not

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

SW1 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
SW1 wrote:It does look quite tall to fit in a400m/c17.

Would say that if it’s acceptable for your air defence system to be fitted on a man truck then it should be acceptable for your long range artillery to be fitted to the same.
Beg to disagree! If your artillery is being hit with small arms then things are bad, but I your air defence radar is then things have really fallen apart. The SPG is likely to be in range of counter battery, I wouldn't expect your ADR.
Ok but would your force not be required to operate within the envelope of land ceptor for air defence, it’s going to have to be as close to the line as your long range artillery will, would it not
The missile element is similar range to artillery, but the radar range is far more.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:
SW1 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
SW1 wrote:It does look quite tall to fit in a400m/c17.

Would say that if it’s acceptable for your air defence system to be fitted on a man truck then it should be acceptable for your long range artillery to be fitted to the same.
Beg to disagree! If your artillery is being hit with small arms then things are bad, but I your air defence radar is then things have really fallen apart. The SPG is likely to be in range of counter battery, I wouldn't expect your ADR.
Ok but would your force not be required to operate within the envelope of land ceptor for air defence, it’s going to have to be as close to the line as your long range artillery will, would it not
The missile element is similar range to artillery, but the radar range is far more.
Not for low flying targets.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

RunningStrong wrote:Because there's no understanding there of what it takes to integrate a weapon system into a platform
No because how the integration process can be done on new platforms compared to legacy ones is a different ball game. yes trails and test are still carried out but these are more to confirm computer generated data rather than to gather the data in the first place. The amount of risk and unknowns are greatly reduced, you know how something should behave and the tests are there to confirm it. In the past you had to conduct test to see how something would behave, then make any necessary alterations, test it again and so on until it matched the requirements. Computer simulation does the repeated testing, alteration, further testing and so on digitally. you only need to conduct real world test to validate that the final computer solution actually meets all the requirements. This speeds up the process and therefore reduces costs. Unfortunately legacy platforms like Warrior do not have a digital database or trails, tests, modifications and such like compared to a new platform like boxer and so cannot so easily take advantage of digital tools. To do so would require substantial real world testing to provide the data which would mean there would be little difference in the time and cost to the WCSP. This argument is a bit like those in the distance past where Weavers said that they had made cloth using hand looms for centuries, it worked and produced the goods in a know timescale and for a know cost, and that there was no way these new powered looms would be able to reduce the costs and time taken. We know how that turned out.

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: We know how that turned out.
Yes, throwing sabbots into the machinery gave us a wholly new word :D .
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)

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:Because there's no understanding there of what it takes to integrate a weapon system into a platform
No because how the integration process can be done on new platforms compared to legacy ones is a different ball game. yes trails and test are still carried out but these are more to confirm computer generated data rather than to gather the data in the first place.
In what world? Because in the world of British AFV development that is not the case.
Lord Jim wrote: The amount of risk and unknowns are greatly reduced, you know how something should behave and the tests are there to confirm it. In the past you had to conduct test to see how something would behave, then make any necessary alterations, test it again and so on until it matched the requirements. Computer simulation does the repeated testing, alteration, further testing and so on digitally. you only need to conduct real world test to validate that the final computer solution actually meets all the requirements. This speeds up the process and therefore reduces costs.
Again, in what world? Medium calibre plus weapon integration into an AFV turret and hull goes far beyond the modelling available at industry levels to allow this level of confidence. Component level modelling is completely, but the dynamic response of multiple sub systems requires significant assumptions to be made and thus imposing significant safety factors. Add to that the limited capability of such complex fatigue modelling, and the reality is that FEA is sufficient only to inform the design team and not the certification team.
Lord Jim wrote: Unfortunately legacy platforms like Warrior do not have a digital database or trails, tests, modifications and such like compared to a new platform like boxer and so cannot so easily take advantage of digital tools. To do so would require substantial real world testing to provide the data which would mean there would be little difference in the time and cost to the WCSP. This argument is a bit like those in the distance past where Weavers said that they had made cloth using hand looms for centuries, it worked and produced the goods in a know timescale and for a know cost, and that there was no way these new powered looms would be able to reduce the costs and time taken. We know how that turned out.
All legacy platforms are digitally modelled through 3D scanning and reverse engineering. They are used extensively in upgrade programmes.

Again, I have to question where your supposed authority is on this matter because it completely fails to align with my own experience.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

If you are actually employed in the AFV design and testing field then I bow to your superior knowledge here, but having seen what SAAB and Lockheed Martin have achieved through Computer Modelling regarding a high performance supersonic military trainer, drastically reducing the design and testing programmes, bypassing the usual phase one flight trails with the first two prototypes in the process, I cannot see why a cutting edge AFV manufacturer such as Rheinmetall would not be capable of achieving similar gains when integrating a new turret on an AFV, a far less complicated task with far less safety implications as well as fewer forces acting on both individual and complex components.

Now if the MoD wanted to ignore all the data provided by the Contractor and start a series of trials from scratch as you are proposing then it is no wonder the UK seems to get far less for the amount it spends on defence.

Merry Christmas by the way.

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: the UK seems to get far less for the amount it spends on defence.
On the Boxer front, specifically, didn't the Oz competition stipulate the UK AFV integration architecture (of three letters, which ever they are slips my mind for now)?
- and as Boxer won, we bought 'it' sort of off the shelf, with no further cost (allow for minor tweaks between variants) to ourselves
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)

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by bobp »

When it comes to testing a product, the biggest set of regulations are health and safety along with electrical safety. then of course there is the technical specifications to be met. Most countries have their own set of standards, as well as ISO standards etc. It is a long process and each test has to be certified or verified often by an independant body. Some of the Boxers existing certifications may be acceptable to the UK, but others wont so will need to be done.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: I cannot see why a cutting edge AFV manufacturer such as Rheinmetall would not be capable of achieving similar gains when integrating a new turret on an AFV, a far less complicated task with far less safety implications as well as fewer forces acting on both individual and complex components.
You can't see why because you've no insight into the level of certification that is required by the MOD. And certainly no appreciation of the implications of a catastrophic failure in a direct fire weapon system

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

No not regarding AFVs etc., but I did work in programmes to design, develop, test and manufacture Ground Support Equipment for the RAF. This all started when I mentioned that modern computer simulation and engineering tools should be able to reduce the time and cost it would take to introduce a turret for the Boxer for UK use incorporating a CTA40 Cannon. I never said there would be no testing or that all the testing would be virtual rather than in the real world. Yes we are still looking at years for such a programme but it would fall within the current ten year programme if begin in the near future. Why I have argued the point is that it has been stated or at least inferred that the use of said computer engineering tools would have zero effect on the time and cost of getting a turret mounted on the Boxer and that we would have to start from ground zero and such a programme would take as long as the WCSP and therefore would not be worth pursuing. With this I strongly disagree.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1469
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:. I never said there would be no testing or that all the testing would be virtual rather than in the real world. Yes we are still looking at years for such a programme but it would fall within the current ten year programme if begin in the near future. Why I have argued the point is that it has been stated or at least inferred that the use of said computer engineering tools would have zero effect on the time and cost of getting a turret mounted on the Boxer and that we would have to start from ground zero and such a programme would take as long as the WCSP and therefore would not be worth pursuing. With this I strongly disagree.
I don’t think anyone is stating that it would have zero impact, rather that wouldn’t have as huge an impact as you suggest.
At the very least you’d have to repeat the two to three years of trials which simply cannot be covered by simulation.
You would have considerable repeated non-recurring costs and considerable delay, during which time the army continues with the old vehicles. It’s the same repeated story with UK AFV procurement that has led us to the current state of affairs. I am at a loss as to why you would seek to prolong 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 »

The senario I was trying to answer was what would happen if the Army was to head down the route of lightening its formations to make them more easily deployable as seems to once again be the trend. In addition the Army would also want to reduce the logistical train and if possible allow its units to self deploy rather than be reliant of transporters.

If the Army goes down this route an obvious casualty would be the Warrior, with the WCSP being cancelled. Further the Ajax programme would also be greatly reduced, with it being removed from the "Strike" Brigade concept and a number of independent "Cavalry/Recce" Regiments formed, more akin to the Regiments equipped with the CVT(T). The Challenger would be retained as there is no real alternative for it but the Brigades is was part of would be able to be deployed without it and still be effective, if the situation did not require their use.

If, and it is still an if, this senario materialised then the Boxer as currently being procured is not sufficiently armed and therefore there would be a need to up gun the infantry carriers at least. But as pointed out the development of a Mission module equipped with a turret mounting he CTA40 will take time, in he interim the units will have to make do with APC Modules. However it would be easy to return the to the manufacturer once the IFV Modules were delivered to have then reconfigured for other roles such as Ambulance, Command, Signals etc. as the Modules are also designed to be easily reconfigured. The work might even be capable of being carried out in MoD Workshops.

I agree it may require up to three years of trials, but that would still mean, if the decision was made next year, deliveries would still be around 2025 and would be completed well within the ten year programme to reorganise and reequip the Army's combat arm. Of course things could be speeded up by purchasing a IFV module that already exists such as those being purchased by the German Bundeswehr with the 35mm Cannon and Spike ATGWs, but this would leave the Ajax as the only platform with the CTA40 and add another weapon to the Army's logistic system, though it would be common with a greater number of NATO allies than the CTA40.

I still believe the use of modern up to date computer engineering tools would greatly help the integration process of a CTA40 Turret for the British Army, especially as Nexter have already designed and built one and fitted and conducted initial tests. Two to three years is still less than it has so far taken the WCSP which still has not completed its trials after taking a greater time period. With the computer engineering tools there should be fewer surprises and unforeseen issues leading to a smoother programme rather than the traditional stop/start practice of test something, find a problem, fix it and then test it again. These are the benefits modern computer tools brought to the SAAB/Lockheed Martin Red Hawk programme and allowed them to submit a bid that none of the established aviation companies could even come close to either on cost or programme timescale. I cannot see why the same type of tools would not bring similar benefits to a ground vehicle modernisation programme that they did for the development of a totally new supersonic airplane. It is radical change in how things are done, but is also being used to develop the USAFs replacement for the F22 and already that programme has progressed far faster then its predecessor and has cost less.

But I am not a engineering working in the AFV sector so it may be that what works for the highly technical aviation industry, which has I am sure has a far longer list of checks required to satisfy all those required to sign off and bring a platform into service, does not work for those testing whether a new turret can be fitted to a vehicle module, and that it can perform as required in a safe manner.

J. Tattersall

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by J. Tattersall »

Lord Jim wrote: If the Army goes down this route an obvious casualty would be the Warrior, with the WCSP being cancelled
.
Lord Jim wrote: The Challenger would be retained as there is no real alternative for it
I understand where you're coming from however I suspect it's a place the British Army just doesn't want to go. A tracked IFV is needed for tactical mobility on difficult ground to keep up with MBTs that's unsuitable for even the best wheeled vehicles (e.g.much of Poland and the Baltic states). The French solution of Leclerc MBT plus wheeled VCBI is perfectly acceptable if one sees tanks as there to provide direct fire support to mechanized infantry. It's not so good for providing infantry support to MBT operations on difficult ground. Of note the closer to Russia a country is, the more likely is its army to rely on tracks.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

J. Tattersall wrote: providing infantry support to MBT operations on difficult ground. Of note the closer to Russia a country is, the more likely is its army to rely on tracks.
Indeed. Russia itself reversed their mostly-wheeled strategy. And the T-15 is not a far cry (except that it is an IFV) from the 'Terminator... would not fancy pitching infantry in Boxers with .50 cal for fire support (other than that by the tanks) against formations containing either of the mentioned on the OpFor side. The infantry would have dismount far too much (compared to what is optimal) if their ride basically is an APC and the other side has well-protected IFVs.
-this has been recognised for a long time, and the main change is that IFVs (T-15, Puma, Namer)are becomig better protected... our Ajax, too, though it is not an IFV
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: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SW1 »

Poland must not of got the memo as there re-equipping on the patria amv and Lithuania on a boxer ifv.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by jedibeeftrix »

having some familiarity with the central region of poland, i'm not sure i understand the point that it is particularly unsuited to wheeled armour mobility...?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

Also will the UK not still have the Warrior MBT mix up to 2040 with the Boxer in the MI role

Post Reply