Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

[mr.fred]

Which is just like the fact no UK companies producing Armour-grade steels like Armox. You're not comparing like-for-like.

And that's not a slight at any of those companies, but they have a significant capability gap compared to what is available at GD ELS and RLS. That's not to say it couldn't be done, but the British (and Welsh) government weren't going to stretch to that.

If you were to go looking, you'd find that MTL are producing AFV hulls for someone. It isn't the particular vehicles we are looking at (probably) but the capability is there.

It's not GD ELS selling the vehicle to MOD, it's GD UK. And Piranha comes from the old Mowag site, not SBS.

Even if it is GD UK, it's not GD US. And ex Mowag is part of GD ELS, which is... Headquartered in Spain.

[Ron5]

The dude on the Boxer stand in front of the Union Jack Boxer (copied from Bae), said Boxer would be assembled in the UK with majority of components sourced from the UK.

Not sure that's correct but sounds good. Add the Lockheed UK turret to a few of them would make it even better.

[RunningStrong]

If you were to go looking, you'd find that MTL are producing AFV hulls for someone. It isn't the particular vehicles we are looking at (probably) but the capability is there.

I looked. I found they were building something for someone of some unknown amount and of some unknown standard.

Care to enlighten me with more?

[mr.fred]

If you found that, then you know as much as I do.

Announced over DSEI

[ArmChairCivvy]

Add the Lockheed UK turret to a few of them would make it even better

Too many turrets, too little time. The German LANCE... by any chance?

[StrategyTed]

General Dynamics Land Systems UK does not report to GD ELS. It reports to GD LS Canada.

But it's GD ELS who makes and sells the Piranha V. GD LS Canada licenses the Piranha III from GD ELS and has made modifications via the Stryker programme to make the LAV 6. Which isn't being put forward so Spain it is.

It's not GD ELS selling the vehicle to MOD, it's GD UK. And Piranha comes from the old Mowag site, not SBS.

It would have inevitability been cheaper to build the vehicles at an already established production facility, that should be obvious to anyone and clear to anyone that is aware of the lack of facilities still standing in the UK.

I don't know. I think anyone "who is aware of the lack of facilities still standing in the UK" is wrong. Might I suggest searching for:
Pearson Engineering
MTL Advanced
William Cook

They've all been in the news recently

Which is just like the fact no UK companies producing Armour-grade steels like Armox. You're not comparing like-for-like.

And that's not a slight at any of those companies, but they have a significant capability gap compared to what is available at GD ELS and RLS. That's not to say it couldn't be done, but the British (and Welsh) government weren't going to stretch to that.

I wouldn't put likes of Marshall, Dytecna and a few others out of the equation either as they all have credible facilities to be doing this type of work, Dytecna might of gone into administration but the facilities are there for the taking.

[Lord Jim]

Don't know if this has been posted before, but an interesting look at the Boxer and its modularity.

[Ron5]

Enjoyed that video. Thanks.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Me too; there has been misinformation around the modules topic. That by far surpasses the aMv (no one has bought the 6-wheeler, which I presume is the origin for the name: 6 or 8, any way you like it...)

[bobp]

I too enjoyed that video, shows how easy it is to change modules. Realistically though how often would it be done, would any UK buy include additional modules.

[andrew98]

More like the UK would buy insufficient drive train units and just enough modules to cover the roles, but not all at the same time.
I. E. 450 drive train units
550 modules. Or however many the real number will be.
More capable, thus less required in treasury speak.

[Ron5]

I was more thinking that if the dimensions of the modules were generally available, any company could make one to fit.

So, for example, Patria has made a bunch of mortar carrying vehicles: NEMO & AMOS on tracked and wheeled chassis. Could they use that expertise to construct a Boxer Mortar body that would just plug into anyones drive module? I'm thinking that would be a lot cheaper than asking Artec to start from scratch.

Similarly could Lockheed UK made a module with their Warrior turret?

[mr.fred]

It looks like they've fitted one of their turrets to a Boxer already.

Seems to have two missiles ..

LM-Datasheet-009-v1-40mm-Turrets-08-2016-SMALL-1.jpg

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/d ... -SMALL.pdf

[shark bait]

Still not sure whether that level of modularity is actually useful, or just engineering masturbation.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I. E. 450 drive train units
550 modules. Or however many the real number will be.
More capable, thus less required in treasury speak.

No, no

They are financial folks by training. The probability of the drive train unit taking a hit is the same as for the back "module. The joint probability for both is much smaller (unless a 155 mm hits ... both goners)

Hence the fleet stays in the fight longer; except that the ambulance module fitted in place of something else won't be able to shoot back

[Ron5]

It looks like they've fitted one of their turrets to a Boxer already.

Seems to have two missiles ..

LM-Datasheet-009-v1-40mm-Turrets-08-2016-SMALL-1.jpg

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/d ... -SMALL.pdf

I don't know enough to tell which vehicle was which from the photo's but written reports just mention the Patria AMV trialled with the Lockheed turret.

[mr.fred]

The green one is a Boxer and the yellow one is an AMV

[RunningStrong]

Still not sure whether that level of modularity is actually useful, or just engineering masturbation.

Or whether it's just as easy to do on a chassis that has seen a bit of stress, torsion and perhaps a even a spot of mud...

[Lord Jim]

Why is it whenever a platform is developed that is modular, many decide that it is impossible to do anywhere but a sterile clean room. Don't people realise that the Manufacturers would have has to put the design through tests involving bashing the chassis about to ensure the modules could still be changed. Yes it would probably not be carried out literally in the field but certainly could be done in a field workshop. It is not just swapping roles but also damage repair and so on. Give the designer the credit they are due for once.

[shark bait]

There's a big difference between a modular design, and 'hot swappable' modules. The former clearly has an advantage, but the value of the latter is questionable.

[Ron5]

Not to be forgotten is the fact that it comes with a price. Having a detachable module at the least, adds weight and cost.

[Lord Jim]

I agree it is a capability that will not be to everyone's taste or be needed but there are advantages. Any additional weight should not be too much as to affect its performance against similar vehicles and the increased cost will already have been absorbed by the programme as a whole. One of the pluses is that if the British Army only purchase the APC variant initially, if it is decided that alternative variants are needed then only new modules need to be purchased or a number of the existing modules converted. You have to look at the total package though. As always there is a trade off between capability and cost. If you want the most flexible and best protected vehicle in it class you have to pay the extra, but it has already been stated by the manufacturer that the British Army would get a good deal with the Boxer. there are cheaper alternatives like the AMV and Piranha V so we shall have to see which we end up with.

[Pongoglo]

It looks like they've fitted one of their turrets to a Boxer already.

Seems to have two missiles ..

LM-Datasheet-009-v1-40mm-Turrets-08-2016-SMALL-1.jpg

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/d ... -SMALL.pdf

A good find - would have the advantage of commonality with Warrior 2 too. I wonder how many dismounts you would lose if you fit the turret ?

[shark bait]

Other options to Boxer are still modular and very flexible, as an example the AMV has more variants than Boxer in service, its just they are not swappable module.

The Boxer concept is brilliant, but I'm left wondering if its worth paying extra for engineering brilliance, that brings little extra operational value?

Its not just financial cost either, there is a weight penalty, Boxer being almost 10 tonnes heavier, that's a pretty big cost for a vehicles that will presumably deploy by air, that's the difference between lifting 2 at the same time in a C-17.

[RunningStrong]

Why is it whenever a platform is developed that is modular, many decide that it is impossible to do anywhere but a sterile clean room. Don't people realise that the Manufacturers would have has to put the design through tests involving bashing the chassis about to ensure the modules could still be changed. Yes it would probably not be carried out literally in the field but certainly could be done in a field workshop. It is not just swapping roles but also damage repair and so on. Give the designer the credit they are due for once.

Can you point me to the Def Stan, Milt Std or anything that says they have to test the Modular swap? And to what duration and severity?

There's also the air gap in between engineering and marketing departments, it's a big one.