Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

[ArmChairCivvy]

re-equipping on the patria amv and Lithuania on a boxer ifv.

That is a very good point, but lets look into the 'logic' a bit deeper. Poland has achieved impressive results with their army, over a fairly short period - while leaving the AF and the navy to wait for their 'turn'.
- the marching order itself is logical (in light of the 'threats')
- an AMV is by far cheaper than a Boxer and also - importantly - by far cheaper than any feasible tracked alternative. Add to that the the in-country license production of AMV (as Rosomak, out of the AMV cumulative total of over 2000 vehicles delivered, has made up about one in every three: Poland 690 vehicles and counting), which in the big picture has paved the way to the rapid modernisation in a package that the economy can carry. Example: take the Hungary deal for Lynx, multiply it to the quantities required by Poland... and quite a difference would emerge (in the required investment).

Lithuania's rationale (this is pure guess work) is different as their one and only mch. bde in reality constitutes recce that needs to maintain contact, while running backwards, towards reinforcements.
- and we know that Australia qualified Boxer for the heavily engaging mode of recce (theirs not predicated on an orderly retreat, I presume)

[jedibeeftrix]

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

well, the gathering assumption is that the Cabinet Office demand for EP coherence - as opposed to the grinding incompetence of the BA's extend and pretend procurement plan - will see the cut of either ajax or WCSP, and the substantial reprofiling of the surviving tracked platform.
because:
the money does not exist to do both
the requirement for tracked vehicles may no longer justify two different platforms
and ajax in strike - if strike continues as available documentation anticipates - makes no sense

[mr.fred]

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.

I don’t think it would be so quick. At least two years of trials, maybe three, plus a year or two of contract negotiation for the trials, one or two years of design and you’re at between four and six years to get where Warrior is now, assuming no interference from budget or production of the Boxer for MIV.
It may not be so much, but what you are doing isn’t so much choosing jam tomorrow, but you are choosing to extend the life of the current configuration until you can get the new vehicle into service.

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,

What makes you think that computer aided engineering tools aren’t being used at the moment?

[SW1]

Boxer has already had the 40mm CTA integrated

[ArmChairCivvy]

What I cannot understand is why we did not pursue the above from the start for Warrior. All those IFVs with the turret and 1 in 4 Boxers likewise (but adding to for fire support weight & reach, a slightly different angle).

Ajax required a totally different turret, being in the recce function. Therefore from scratch; requires a larger turret ring ; etc ALL of it justified

Looks like my prediction about Warrior turrets ending up on Boxers is not likely to happen afterall (the invitation to negotiate a production contract is so recent that it being overturned by the IR conclusions would be another - and utter - farce).

[SW1]

re-equipping on the patria amv and Lithuania on a boxer ifv.

That is a very good point, but lets look into the 'logic' a bit deeper. Poland has achieved impressive results with their army, over a fairly short period - while leaving the AF and the navy to wait for their 'turn'.
- the marching order itself is logical (in light of the 'threats')
- an AMV is by far cheaper than a Boxer and also - importantly - by far cheaper than any feasible tracked alternative. Add to that the the in-country license production of AMV (as Rosomak, out of the AMV cumulative total of over 2000 vehicles delivered, has made up about one in every three: Poland 690 vehicles and counting), which in the big picture has paved the way to the rapid modernisation in a package that the economy can carry. Example: take the Hungary deal for Lynx, multiply it to the quantities required by Poland... and quite a difference would emerge (in the required investment).

Lithuania's rationale (this is pure guess work) is different as their one and only mch. bde in reality constitutes recce that needs to maintain contact, while running backwards, towards reinforcements.
- and we know that Australia qualified Boxer for the heavily engaging mode of recce (theirs not predicated on an orderly retreat, I presume)

Whatever the logic they clearly see them as competent for Poland’s needs in there terrain. They will have the added benefit of Streamlining of training logistics and deployed support rather than a hodge podge of small bespoke fleets. We in the UK seem to be content with paralysis by over analysis or in other words must refurbish bulldog again.

[Ron5]

Boxer has already had the 40mm CTA integrated

"Integrated" is an elastic term. Also that picture is almost certainly photoshopped.

Lockheed mounted their Warrior/Ajax export version turret on a Boxer too.

[SW1]

Boxer has already had the 40mm CTA integrated

"Integrated" is an elastic term. Also that picture is almost certainly photoshopped.

Lockheed mounted their Warrior/Ajax export version turret on a Boxer too.

Well if you take time to read the tweet it explains the image is a artist impression with the real images to be released shortly

[J. Tattersall]

Boxer has already had the 40mm CTA integrated

"Integrated" is an elastic term. Also that picture is almost certainly photoshopped.

Lockheed mounted their Warrior/Ajax export version turret on a Boxer too.

Well if you take time to read the tweet it explains the image is a artist impression with the real images to be released shortly

Nevertheless it raises interesting questions as to what one means by integrated? Also integrated is by no means the same as certified to national or international defence standards, not qualified to national safety regulations; all of which come with time, cost and risk attached.

BTW are those ATGW bins i see on the turret ?????

[mr.fred]

Probably.

[Lord Jim]

[Little J]

The smart play here would have been to design a tracked chassis around the Boxer modules... Then you could choose the chassis for the environment you are in and the module for the task at hand...

[J. Tattersall]

BTW are those ATGW bins i see on the turret ?????

Probably

I have a bit of a philosophical difficulty. For years we've been told that Warrior is out dated with one of the reasons given being out doesn't have a stabilised gun. It needs to stop to fire and then itself becomes too much of a target is how the argument goes.

However doesn't the same go for ATGW missiles fitted to an armoured vehicle. Unless they too can be fired on the move them surely it too becomes a target? Now I counted 5 or 6 seconds from firing of the Javelin missile in that video to it impacting. Even if it can fire on the move then that's a fair time from having exposed itself to be able to find cover! So I just wonder if integrated ATGW starts to become practical only of one has a fire and forget capability such as Brimstone? Or alternatively it might be practical if your ATGW truly outranges your opponents reach; this might well be true for the French in North Africa, but might be a flawed assumption against an eastern European opponent.

Any thoughts?

[ArmChairCivvy]

The smart play here would have been to design a tracked chassis around the Boxer modules... Then you could choose the chassis for the environment you are in and the module for the task at hand...

You are not thinking of SEP? The BAE Mktng Dept missed a letter from the original, which the acronym comes from.
- so Spitterskyddad Enhets (P for armoured = protected vehicle)
- all good with the E, takes a section (enhet)
- but the protection level turned from (against) 155 mm splinters... to spit (only)

[mr.fred]

However doesn't the same go for ATGW missiles fitted to an armoured vehicle. Unless they too can be fired on the move them surely it too becomes a target? Now I counted 5 or 6 seconds from firing of the Javelin missile in that video to it impacting. Even if it can fire on the move then that's a fair time from having exposed itself to be able to find cover! So I just wonder if integrated ATGW starts to become practical only of one has a fire and forget capability such as Brimstone?

Javelin is fire and forget, so the vehicle can be moving as soon as the missile is gone. With Javelin that’s balanced by the cool down and lock-on times, although the signature before firing is relatively small.
A command to line of sight missile like TOW or Kornet require little to no preparation but require guidance post-launch.
Most of the current crop of missiles require low speed/stationary vehicles due to the fragility of the deployable launcher and the need for precision pointing over a relatively long time* for the guidance.
Something like Spike and MMP make an interesting solution as they can be corrected mid course and therefore are independent of vehicle movement. If the launcher was up to it, you could fire those at any vehicle speed.

*Guns can be fired over rougher ground/higher speeds as modern fire control usually features decoupled sights (lighter, easier to stabilise) and the gun fired only when it lines up.

[J. Tattersall]

However doesn't the same go for ATGW missiles fitted to an armoured vehicle. Unless they too can be fired on the move them surely it too becomes a target? Now I counted 5 or 6 seconds from firing of the Javelin missile in that video to it impacting. Even if it can fire on the move then that's a fair time from having exposed itself to be able to find cover! So I just wonder if integrated ATGW starts to become practical only of one has a fire and forget capability such as Brimstone?

Javelin is fire and forget, so the vehicle can be moving as soon as the missile is gone. With Javelin that’s balanced by the cool down and lock-on times, although the signature before firing is relatively small.
A command to line of sight missile like TOW or Kornet require little to no preparation but require guidance post-launch.
Most of the current crop of missiles require low speed/stationary vehicles due to the fragility of the deployable launcher and the need for precision pointing over a relatively long time* for the guidance.
Something like Spike and MMP make an interesting solution as they can be corrected mid course and therefore are independent of vehicle movement. If the launcher was up to it, you could fire those at any vehicle speed.

*Guns can be fired over rougher ground/higher speeds as modern fire control usually features decoupled sights (lighter, easier to stabilise) and the gun fired only when it lines up.

Many thanks. So presumably it would have to stop, fire and then move straight away or fire from behind cover then immediately move.

[Lord Jim]

Thought I would put this here as the Boxer would probably be the platform involved. What it appears to be is a NLOS launch module for the Boxer housing between eight and twelve missiles vertically and networked in to the rest of the Battlegroup as well as other assets such as helicopters. Ignore the video images as mostly the do not match the dialogue though. The test vehicles are firing Hellfire but Brimstone could probably be used especially with the add on man in the loop pack that is being developed. Alternatively Extractor could be used, but Hellfire lacks the range such a system would actually require. The time frame is between now and 2030 and it would be an ideal platform to not only support the Strike Brigades but also the Armoured Infantry. Whether it would be integral to the Infantry Battalions or operated by the Royal Artillery, with Batteries assigned to units as needed is a future debate I have no doubt.



I still believe though that we need a heavy ATGW like Spike-LR2 on both Warrior 2 and Boxer with the later using the Lance-R turret with the Rheinmetall 30mm cannon. Obviously having all Infantry carrier Boxers so equipped is initially unaffordable but a certain number certainly could be. The same cannon is used in the Air Defence Mission Module Rheinmetall have developed for the Boxer, equipped with both radar and EO FCS and fires programable rounds similar to AHEAD.

What is certain though is having simply Boxer APCs for the Infantry does not match up effectively with how the "Strike" Brigades are intended to operate in my opinion. Other nations that initially purchased 6x6 or 8x8 APCs have realised that they provide insufficient firepower to support their Infantry as well as protect themselves. Fortunately nothing with the Boxer programme of the "Strike" concept is set in stone, initial plans mainly designed around available funding. With additional funding, which should be forthcoming due to the vital nature of "Strike" to the future capabilities of the Army, we are likely to see the situation improve somewhat as ideas from the "Nice to have", list make their way on to the "Must have", version.

[ArmChairCivvy]

initial plans mainly designed around available funding. With additional funding, which should be forthcoming due to the vital nature of "Strike" to the future capabilities of the Army, we are likely to see the situation improve

This could be reason for the contrast in Ajax/Boxer orders:
- the former was subdivided into versions (with the precision of "1")
- the latter has been (in that respect) vague all along

[ArmChairCivvy]

The test vehicles are firing Hellfire

jumping to the vertical launch, I wonder if the idea has been derived from the development for USN LCS vessels (12 to get them)?
"bringing to four the number of SSMMs on order.

The Naval Sea Systems Command awarded Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. a 10.7 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for two additional SSMM systems for delivery by November 2022, a Nov. 20 Defense Department contract announcement said.

The SSMM is a modular weapons system that fires Lockheed Martin-built AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire missiles from launchers built by Teledyne Brown Engineering. Each launcher houses a total of 24 missiles."
https://seapowermagazine.org/navy-order ... s-for-lcs/

[Lord Jim]

This could be reason for the contrast in Ajax/Boxer orders:
- the former was subdivided into versions (with the precision of "1")
- the latter has been (in that respect) vague all along

If the Army is brae enough it will reduce the number of Ajax on order, use some of the savings to improve the capabilities of existing variants and possibly fund additional ones. Create two Cavalry/Recce Regiments, initially assigning them to the first Strike Brigade, as well as assigning each Armoured and Armoured Infantry units a Troop/Section to provide integral Recce. For this and to replace existing CVR(T) variants still in use in the latter units we do not need more than 250 vehicles from the Ajax family.

Once Boxer production is up to speed and additional variants are arriving, the two Ajax Regiments would be detached from the Strike Brigades as become independent units to act in the roles they were originally intended to do.

[Lord Jim]

This is exactly what the British Army needs. Boxer with a remote turret holding a Rheinmetall 30mm cannon and able to take Spike-LR2, able to carry 8 dismounts, more then the Warrior, with almost the same cross country mobility and far greater mobility on roads. Cheaper to operate and requiring less logistics to support it in the field. Plenty of growth potential including an engine that still has around 20% load capacity left before there is any impact on the vehicles performance.

Then there is this very nice Rheinmetall Boxer SPAA platform;


And a large area air defence system superior to Patriot PAC3;

So we shall take a battery of these from the Army's Long Range Air Defence Regiment.

So lets create three Mechanised Brigades each with;
1x Type 44 Armoured Regiment (Challenger 3).
3x Mechanised Infantry Regiments (Boxer IFV plus additional variants).
1 Artillery Regiment (MAN 8x8/Archer).

Add to this;
2x independent Cavalry Regiments (Ajax).
Artillery Regiment (HIMARS).
Artillery Regiment (MAN 6x6/Land Ceptor).
Ix Royal Engineers Regiment (Trojan/Titan/Terrier)
1x Royal Engineers Regiment (M3 and other Bridging equipment)
Support Units, Logs, REME, Signals etc. (MAN 6x6 and 8x8)
Divisional Headquarters.

And there you have it, 3rd (UK) Division for 2030!

[RunningStrong]

Why would the British army take on a new 30mm calibre when they and MOD are so heavily invested in CTA40? Surely that's a backwards step.

[Lord Jim]

The money has been spent on the CTA40 so going forward there would be no development costs for a new turret for an IFV and we would actually end up the three times as many Rheinmetall 30mm that CTA40s. We would probably get a good deal on setting up the support infrastructure either in house of Rheinmetall would be contracted to provide it. Yes it would cost up front but having a fleet of Boxers would produce reasonable saving throughout their service lives compared to the tracked alternative, as well as money saved from cancelling the WCSP and reducing the Ajax purchase.

Well at least that is how I see things in my totally unbiased view, not being a fan of the Boxer at all.

[ArmChairCivvy]

money saved from cancelling the WCSP

To properly save money, we would of course put the Warrior turrets on Boxers and end up with a std autocannon for the army
- someone was postulating, though, that only the guns are under firm order and the turrets themselves not (yet)

[ArmChairCivvy]

with a std autocannon for the army

No one would try to push such a solution, these days, without an AB round available for it.

All AB rounds were not created equal, though, as this tidbit (40mm vs. 30 mm) shows
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/cased-te ... st-tracer/