Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

[Gabriele]

You are preaching to the converted in my case. I've been warning about the insanity of this whole "Strike Brigade" thing ever since it was first announced. And the more it goes on the more insane it seems to become.

[RetroSicotte]

Remember Mastiff series is one of the most heavily armoured APC's in the world...and in that respect Mastiff matches the best.

This is complete falsity.

It isn't even close the one of the best protected APCs in the world.

Does Mastiff have resistance to autocannons? No, it does not.

Does Mastiff have top-submunition protection? No, it does not.

Does Mastiff have APS? No, it does not.

Does Mastiff have counter-ATGW reactive armour? No, it does not.

Does Mastiff have a fully armoured frontal arc? No, it does not.

These are not subjective opinions, it lacks those capabilities flat out. That's just how it is.

The only thing Mastiff is the best in the world at withstanding is IEDs and mines. Its a world leader in COIN ops, but as someone else said, to put that thing against a peer foe would be asking for another example of what the above posted video told of what happened to the Ukrainians when they tried the same thing.

Thats why these replacements are so required. Both FV432 and Mastiff fall well below the requirements of either heavy armour or extremely fast dispersal rate. That's why Ares has those enormous panels on it and ERA. Thats why they upgraded the frontal armour and are developing APS. I'd fully expect to see the MIV focus on the "30 tonners" for this same reason. The game has changed since Afghanistan.

[Frenchie]

It depends on the context in which we use this vehicles, concerning Afghanistan, wheeled vehicles are more practical for this type of conflict, they are easier to transport and can cover large distances. They also require less maintenance and are easier to repair. But in developing countries, the infrastructure is in bad state, a vehicle like the Boxer is not an ideal solution because of its weight, and I wonder what will serve "Strike Brigades" with vehicles closely 40 tonnes. I think we will have more conflicts like Afghanistan in the future than an unlikely Russian attack.

[RetroSicotte]

Thats why you keep the Mastiffs in storage, and use the MIV. Mastiff and (say Boxer) are about the same weight as one another anyway.

[james k]

Remember Mastiff series is one of the most heavily armoured APC's in the world...and in that respect Mastiff matches the best.

No it isn't
This is complete falsity.

In certain respects it is
It isn't even close the one of the best protected APCs in the world.

What has this to do with armour protection and many vehicles mount only an RWS with machine gun
Does Mastiff have resistance to autocannons? No, it does not.

My understanding is that it does have top armour and more can be added
Does Mastiff have top-submunition protection? No, it does not.

APS can be added to any vehicle
Does Mastiff have APS? No, it does not.

Nor does Stryker and the other vehicles under consideration will only have it as an add on
Does Mastiff have counter-ATGW reactive armour? No, it does not.

It does have frontal armour and it could be increased
Does Mastiff have a fully armoured frontal arc? No, it does not.

Your conclusions are not correct
These are not subjective opinions, it lacks those capabilities flat out. That's just how it is.

If you were correct then the US Army would be actively seeking a replacement for Stryker as a matter of urgency and they are not
The only thing Mastiff is the best in the world at withstanding is IEDs and mines. Its a world leader in COIN ops, but as someone else said, to put that thing against a peer foe would be asking for another example of what the above posted video told of what happened to the Ukrainians when they tried the same thing.

The upgraded Bulldog (not the old FV432 on which it is based) is equal to the American M2/M3 and the US are not replacing those
Thats why these replacements are so required. Both FV432 and Mastiff fall well below the requirements of either heavy armour or extremely fast dispersal rate. That's why Ares has those enormous panels on it and ERA. Thats why they upgraded the frontal armour and are developing APS. I'd fully expect to see the MIV focus on the "30 tonners" for this same reason. The game has changed since Afghanistan.

. The Army cannot afford even routine training above company level for all its units. Some reserve soldiers are being asked to train without pay and overseas training has been slashed whilst there is increasing pressure on UK training areas. There isn't even enough for blank ammunition and ration packs in some units. The RN is in a equally dreadful state. To pay for these "desirable" but not absolutely essential vehicles what are you suggesting the MOD looses by pouring yet more money into the eu coffers?

[Frenchie]

Thats why you keep the Mastiffs in storage, and use the MIV. Mastiff and (say Boxer) are about the same weight as one another anyway.

Mastiffs weigh around 24 tonnes, so the weight of the future Griffons of the French army, which are supposed to be in service for a period of 30 to 40 years, the Boxer weigh around 36 tonnes, it's too heavy.

[RetroSicotte]

(On not being resistant to autocannons) What has this to do with armour protection and many vehicles mount only an RWS with machine gun

You're asking what the capability to not be torn to pieces by autocannons has to do with armour protection? Have you seen how many vehicles regularly mount them these days?

My understanding is that it does have top armour and more can be added

It does not have top armour, no. It's just a baseline Cougar up there. Submunition protection is a hell of a lot more complex than just having some RHA up there. Submunitions are either HV-FRAG or Hollow-charge guided rounds. Neither would be prevented by a few mm of RHA.

APS can be added to any vehicle

But its not on Mastiff, nor is there any developed program to integrate it on such a vehicle by any manufacturer of them.

Nor does Stryker and the other vehicles under consideration will only have it as an add on

That is incorrect, Stryker does have ERA packages, and APS development.

It does have frontal armour and it could be increased

Not it isn't. A few extra sheets of thin RHA will not make it a truly protected vehicle. For one it has a damn windshield covering most of the crew area, and the rest of it is a big engine under the hood that is designed to be taken out first.

Your conclusions are not correct

They aren't "conclusions", they are facts. It is a fact that Mastiff lacks these components. It is a fact that it isn't rated for certain things. Saying otherwise is like saying its an "opinion" that the Challenger is not a tank, or that the Typhoon is a helicopter.

If you were correct then the US Army would be actively seeking a replacement for Stryker as a matter of urgency and they are not

I take it you've missed the AMPV program then? The US Army is procuring a second fleet alongside the Stryker of much more heavier armoured vehicles based on the already tough Bradley chassis.

The upgraded Bulldog (not the old FV432 on which it is based) is equal to the American M2/M3 and the US are not replacing those

It most certainly is not equal to the M2. The M2's modern variant is above 30mm resistant on all sides by now, plus ERA and APS development. Even in its uparmoured state (which makes the Bulldog a lot slower), it doesn't come to an equivalent, its STANAG 4569 rating is much lower, as the Mk3 Bulldog upgrade does not include a passive armour increase to rate it any higher than 12.7mm, it was a purely ERA package for RPG-7s.

. The Army cannot afford even routine training above company level for all its units. Some reserve soldiers are being asked to train without pay and overseas training has been slashed whilst there is increasing pressure on UK training areas. There isn't even enough for blank ammunition and ration packs in some units. The RN is in a equally dreadful state. To pay for these "desirable" but not absolutely essential vehicles what are you suggesting the MOD looses by pouring yet more money into the eu coffers?

Then people can enjoy yet more years of unnecessary coffins draped in a flag coming home should the worst happen. I've spoken at length that I am opposed to the "this or that" approach. Both are required. And arguing FOR cuts to make one happen at the expense of the other, in either direction, will help no-one in the end.

Mastiffs weigh around 24 tonnes, so the weight of the future Griffons of the French army, which are supposed to be in service for a period of 30 to 40 years, the Boxer weigh around 36 tonnes, it's too heavy.

Mastiffs gained a lot of weight in theatre, they were approaching nearly 30 tonnes. The difference isn't exactly huge, especially when the Boxer has a lower ground pressure which brings as many advantages to moving across difficult infrastructure as its weight does disadvantage it. That one is give and take.

[Frenchie]

Thank you for your information

[RetroSicotte]

Not a problem. You definitely aren't wrong in many ways, and as stated I am in favour of keeping the Mastiffs around in storage anyway, to account for the very scenario that you speak of.

[james k]

(On not being resistant to autocannons) What has this to do with armour protection and many vehicles mount only an RWS with machine gun

Fire power and protection are separate issues. You were arguing that the Mastiff does not have a cannon. Are you forgetting that variants of the Ajax don't have a cannon either only an RWS Machine Gun?
You're asking what the capability to not be torn to pieces by autocannons has to do with armour protection? Have you seen how many vehicles regularly mount them these days?

My understanding is that it does have top armour and more can be added

I just checked Mastiff has an armoured roof against shell splinters and can be enhanced, the fact that it is not at present does not mean it can't be
It does not have top armour, no. It's just a baseline Cougar up there. Submunition protection is a hell of a lot more complex than just having some RHA up there. Submunitions are either HV-FRAG or Hollow-charge guided rounds. Neither would be prevented by a few mm of RHA.

APS can be added to any vehicle

That does not mean that it can't be, you could say that about any vehicle
But its not on Mastiff, nor is there any developed program to integrate it on such a vehicle by any manufacturer of them.

Nor does Stryker and the other vehicles under consideration will only have it as an add on

It does not, a package is available but is not in routine service
That is incorrect, Stryker does have ERA packages, and APS development.

Your conclusions are not correct

Now you're being silly. And your conclusions are still wrong
They aren't "conclusions", they are facts. It is a fact that Mastiff lacks these components. It is a fact that it isn't rated for certain things. Saying otherwise is like saying its an "opinion" that the Challenger is not a tank, or that the Typhoon is a helicopter.

If you were correct then the US Army would be actively seeking a replacement for Stryker as a matter of urgency and they are not

That is not a replacement for Stryker
I take it you've missed the AMPV program then? The US Army is procuring a second fleet alongside the Stryker of much more heavier armoured vehicles based on the already tough Bradley chassis.

The upgraded Bulldog (not the old FV432 on which it is based) is equal to the American M2/M3 and the US are not replacing those

The old base line FV432 was proof against 12.7mm and now you claim the additional armour adds nothing more?

It most certainly is not equal to the M2. The M2's modern variant is above 30mm resistant on all sides by now, plus ERA and APS development. Even in its uparmoured state (which makes the Bulldog a lot slower), it doesn't come to an equivalent, its STANAG 4569 rating is much lower, as the Mk3 Bulldog upgrade does not include a passive armour increase to rate it any higher than 12.7mm, it was a purely ERA package for RPG-7s.

. The Army cannot afford even routine training above company level for all its units. Some reserve soldiers are being asked to train without pay and overseas training has been slashed whilst there is increasing pressure on UK training areas. There isn't even enough for blank ammunition and ration packs in some units. The RN is in a equally dreadful state. To pay for these "desirable" but not absolutely essential vehicles what are you suggesting the MOD looses by pouring yet more money into the eu coffers?

I spent thirty years in uniform and those friends which I still have are still serving, far more importantly my son is still serving in a Rifles Battalion and to be frank your comment below is pretty insulting. That said I don't advocate a this or that approach but the reality is that the government does. Without the best equipment and having to make do our soldiers can manage, without adequate training they will die or fail. There is no "Battle Winning" equipment, it's men that win battles and they can do so with full and proper training and at the moment there are not the funds for that most fundamental essential

Then people can enjoy yet more years of unnecessary coffins draped in a flag coming home should the worst happen. I've spoken at length that I am opposed to the "this or that" approach. Both are required. And arguing FOR cuts to make one happen at the expense of the other, in either direction, will help no-one in the end.

[RetroSicotte]

You were arguing that the Mastiff does not have a cannon. Are you forgetting that variants of the Ajax don't have a cannon either only an RWS Machine Gun? [/b]

Eh? Not once have I said a thing about it not having a cannon. Read what I said again please. I said the Mastiff has no resistance to autocannons. As in, if it gets hit by one it's going to get perforated.

I just checked Mastiff has an armoured roof against shell splinters and can be enhanced, the fact that it is not at present does not mean it can't be

Then please link me to a source on the origin of these submunition resistant reactive plates that no other MRAP in the world has on top that apparently Mastiff can have even though the very manufacturer doesn't even have them as an option.

That does not mean that it can't be, you could say that about any vehicle

No, it does mean it can't be. If something doesn't exist, you can't mount it, can you? There has been no such program for the Cougar platform, or any of its relations, because you don't drive MRAPs into combat like that.

It does not, a package is available but is not in routine service

The difference is it does exist and is ready to go, which is a hell of a lot further along than a non-existent one that has never even been developed, let alone prototyped, let alone trialled or approved as the Stryker's has been.

That is not a replacement for Stryker

I never said it was, please don't put words in my mouth. I explicitly said "a second fleet alongside the Stryker", why are you misrepresenting this? They want it because they've realised the same thing everyone else has, that heavy armour is necessary in todays world.

The old base line FV432 was proof against 12.7mm and now you claim the additional armour adds nothing more?

ERA and Slat/Bar armour adds nothing to a passive kinetic resistance against weaponry greater than 12.7mm. Those are for stopping shaped charges, not 30mm APFSDS shells.

I spent thirty years in uniform and those friends which I still have are still serving, far more importantly my son is still serving in a Rifles Battalion and to be frank your comment below is pretty insulting.

Oh don't go for ad hominen. It's precisely because I'm sick of seeing people in service come home disfigured or dead that I have such a care for them getting the right money, the right kit and the right support in both manpower and capabilities available to them. Which is exactly what I said above. Don't try to cast me as saying something I'm clearly not and then attack that strawman instead.

[james k]

Just so I know who I'm talking to are you serving or ex military? and do you work in a defence related industry?

Also Cougar without additional armour reaches Level 3 and therefore so does Mastiff
Level 3
Kinetic Energy
7.62×51mm AP (WC core) at 30 meters with 930 m/s[1]

Angle: azimuth 360°; elevation 0-30°

Grenade and Mine Blast Threat
8 kg (explosive mass) Blast AT Mine:
3a – Mine Explosion pressure activated under any wheel or track location.
3b – Mine Explosion under center.

Artillery
155 mm High Explosive at 60 m

Angle: azimuth 360°; elevation: 0 - 30°

[RetroSicotte]

Just so I know who I'm talking to are you serving or ex military? and do you work in a defence related industry?

Also Cougar without additional armour reaches Level 3 and therefore so does Mastiff
Level 3
Kinetic Energy
7.62×51mm AP (WC core) at 30 meters with 930 m/s[1]

Angle: azimuth 360°; elevation 0-30°

Grenade and Mine Blast Threat
8 kg (explosive mass) Blast AT Mine:
3a – Mine Explosion pressure activated under any wheel or track location.
3b – Mine Explosion under center.

Artillery
155 mm High Explosive at 60 m

Angle: azimuth 360°; elevation: 0 - 30°

And you've just proven my own point. I said that Mastiff is not resistant to autocannons, submunition shaped charges or ATGW. Thus is it not suitable as an APC in an environment where they are common and abundant, as we've seen in Ukraine.

And your own data has just proven that point.

[jimthelad]

I think in reality Afghanistan was our Vietnam. What we need to do now is have a long hard look at our defence budget, have clear political directives with respect to intervention, readiness, and foreign policy (easier than you might think), and be pragmatic about the force structure. I agree with JK that training is essential: we regularly handed the OPFOR with gucci kit their assess even in the 90's with really shit kit but hours in the field. As for the body bags RS, nobody wants that; nobody. I lost friends in Vixens; that will live with us who came back forever. It is something that never leaves you, nor do the images of what your actions cause. They stay, surface in the small hours years after you leave, and eat away from time to time. Whatever we buy or not buy, we have to make our armed forces feel valued again. In the meantime we need to not get dragged into some dirt box for a few years and rebuild. As for Blair and Brown, a good line of sight and low wind is the best most of us can hope for. I will say one thing for the new DefSec, he does seem to have some balls, maybe he will get the Hamsterites to back down.
I am not a mod but might I suggest some collegiality and perhaps some acceptance of the opinion of those who are at or have been at the sharp end. Stormin Norman famously said to an Observer reporter in GW1 'which F****ng division do you command? Ok, none, then get the f**k out my tent'. As for me, i am fully paid up member of 'whores not wars' these days.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Grenade and Mine Blast Threat
8 kg (explosive mass) Blast AT Mine:
3a – Mine Explosion pressure activated under any wheel or track location.
3b – Mine Explosion under center.

Artillery
155 mm High Explosive at 60 m

As for the next one, the STANAGs for kinetic and other protection do not need to merge (and if they have to, we get slumbering giants, at a very high cost, that are good across all scenarios, but no good in any particular scenario).

So, for the MIV
- get one that matches the Blast (as per above)
- and does better than that (15? m) on 155 mm splinters
- and does not allow 30 mm autocannon rounds penetrate

which ones have we got left?

[Frenchie]

VBCI 2 has a protection level 5/4a/4b

[RunningStrong]

I'd rather trust the judgement of the soldiers using Mastiff, who like it and are confident in it than anyone in government, someone who works in the defence industry or someone sitting at home as an interested observer.

To be blunt, the spec sheet doesn't lie and soldiers are a fickle bunch.

Mastiff served well in the COIN oops of recent history, but to maintain them apart of a conventional force going forward would be a typical example of preparing the fight the previous war and not the next.

Stryker prior to Double-V hull upgrades was equally vulnerable to IED threats as most other armoured vehicles in theatre, the difference was it has the capability to be adapted.

Your belief that Mastiff "matches the best" is deplorable and will inevitably cost lives if we face a conventional opposition force.

[mr.fred]

To be blunt, the spec sheet doesn't lie and soldiers are a fickle bunch.

The spec sheet may not lie, but they are also somewhat economical with the truth. That’s made worse by unwarranted assumptions.
For example, it is hugely unlikely that Cougar only has a level 3 underbody blast protection. It’s equally implausible that ERA like that fitted to FV432 offers no additional ballistic protection against KE.

There are appliqué armour systems for bomblet protection, you could fit that to the roof of Mastiff in the space of weeks.

It may not be perfect, but it’s a lot cheaper.

[james k]

The Data sheet say's very clearly prior to the the additional armour package i.e a bare hull. We don't use it without that armour package which turns Cougar into Mastiff

Just so I know who I'm talking to are you serving or ex military? and do you work in a defence related industry?
Also Cougar without additional armour reaches Level 3 and therefore so does Mastiff
Level 3
Kinetic Energy
7.62×51mm AP (WC core) at 30 meters with 930 m/s[1]

Angle: azimuth 360°; elevation 0-30°

Grenade and Mine Blast Threat
8 kg (explosive mass) Blast AT Mine:
3a – Mine Explosion pressure activated under any wheel or track location.
3b – Mine Explosion under center.

Artillery
155 mm High Explosive at 60 m

Angle: azimuth 360°; elevation: 0 - 30°

And you've just proven my own point. I said that Mastiff is not resistant to autocannons, submunition shaped charges or ATGW. Thus is it not suitable as an APC in an environment where they are common and abundant, as we've seen in Ukraine.

And your own data has just proven that point.

[james k]

Exactly the point I've been trying to make. In the morning I'll try and dig out my notes on the vehicles we used with Med Gp when I was Sgt Major on their protection force.

To be blunt, the spec sheet doesn't lie and soldiers are a fickle bunch.

The spec sheet may not lie, but they are also somewhat economical with the truth. That’s made worse by unwarranted assumptions.
For example, it is hugely unlikely that Cougar only has a level 3 underbody blast protection. It’s equally implausible that ERA like that fitted to FV432 offers no additional ballistic protection against KE.

There are appliqué armour systems for bomblet protection, you could fit that to the roof of Mastiff in the space of weeks.

It may not be perfect, but it’s a lot cheaper.

[RetroSicotte]

For example, it is hugely unlikely that Cougar only has a level 3 underbody blast protection. It’s equally implausible that ERA like that fitted to FV432 offers no additional ballistic protection against KE.

The discussion was not about the under-belly IED protection. That's an irrelevant point in the context of the requirements for peer to peer combat not being met by any other aspect.

Simialrly, ERA does not provide a higher rated passive applique at all. All that rests beneath the Bulldog's panels is some steel. No composite, no NERA, not even any thickened RHA. It can't even resist modern 23mm shells, let along modern 30mm or greater.

There are appliqué armour systems for bomblet protection, you could fit that to the roof of Mastiff in the space of weeks.

Then where are they? There's not a single Cougar prepped roof submunition protection kit out there. This isn't just strapping some RHA on, it's vastly more complex than that.

Not to mention that you can hardly submunition protect the giant windscreens...it's similar to the problem I have with France's Griffin, but at least France has the modesty to know that isn't meant for peer-to-peer conflict, and its arguably even more protected and mobile than the Mastiff. Thats why they have VBCI to do that job. (Although if I may, I do believe not enough of them, but France has always prioritised COIN and African Intervention, which is their call to make.)

[Lord Jim]

I think we can all agree that the Mastiff has a role, but it is not on a peer to peer battlefield, peace keeping and COIN sure. We have kept ours simply because we bought them and there is nothing else to use. Given the report referenced in the video above, it does call into question AFVs with anything but MBT levels of armour, if you wish to survive the proliferation of sub-munition and Thermobaric ordinance potential adversaries are deploying. The current mantra of being flexible and so on could also be said to be defunct, if your opponent has access to surveillance assets ranging from hand launched drones to satellites right down to company level. If they can see you they can hit you. Equipping the Army with a fleet of MBT protection level AFVs is far beyond current spending levels and also does not match up to the UKs withdrawal from Europe. In fact it does not match up with any western military which is a bit worrying.

My own conclusion is that we cannot protect our AFVs to the level required so we have to be able to counter the weapon systems our opponent would use against us. We need to be able to take out their UAVs and UCAVs and as importantly their artillery. Our forces need to be able to redeploy rapidly, and also dig in rapidly, requiring more engineering assets. Our AFVs also need enhanced masking technology to reduce the ability of the other side spotting them. Active protection systems need to be standard on ALL vehicles not a nice to have accessory.

What this means is that traditional IFV like the Warrior, unless theri protection levels are greatly increased are just as vulnerable as an FV432 in peer on peer warfare. Modern 8x8s have the same level of protection, more or less, but are cheaper, both to purchase and maintain and far more mobile. An 8x8 that has a wheel blown off keeps going, losing a track imobilises a Warrior or Ajax.

All of this has rienforces my belief that the UK needs to concentrate on the MIV programme. This platform gives the Army he ability to operate across the spectrum of warfighting senarios if, and it is a big if the neccessary investment is made to ensure the MIV family includes all the varaints and related capabilities needed. It would replace all Warriors and the Ajax leaving only Challenger (or its replacement) and the heavy armoured engineering vehicles. The heavy armour is still needed but the Army's brigades should be configured so the heavy armour is the supporting element and they Brigades can be deployed an operate without them. We need to look and MIV based Artillery both 155mm and GMLRS and aquire ATACMS or its successor. The use of the MRV(P) as an APC also need to be reconsidered. In it 4x4 variant it has an important role to play but the 6x6 varinat should be scrapped and the MIV used instead.

Many will disagree with all of this, but what was reported from Ukraine in that video has shown that whilst the West was developing systems to fight wars like Afganistan, our potential enemies have been developing systems and tactics to fight us. Simply put how effective would the British military be is it lost access to GPS, the airspace was contected and our C3 unreliable or at worst compromised?

[RetroSicotte]

Just to add to your post, Jim. Bear in mind that report from Ukraine specified you either need to be heavily armoured (Not quite MBT level, the 40 tonne range seems to be what the US concluded on with Ukraine, or at least with heavily updated 30 ton range for IFVs) or you need to be very mobile to be able to disperse.

That later one is a morbid tactics. It's essentially an acceptance that artillery can and will cause casualties. Its a matter of reduction, not of immunity. That is a lesson that recent ops will make difficult to relearn.

You are correct though (and the video also supported this). Active countermeasures are the key. From APS, offensive EW, hard-kill counter-UAV all the way to counter-battery at range on a tactical basis. Simply talking about withstanding it isn't enough, artillery is the king for a reason. Defeating the attack requires much more aggression than the West has allowed itself to fall in to.

[mr.fred]

The discussion was not about the under-belly IED protection. That's an irrelevant point in the context of the requirements for peer to peer combat not being met by any other aspect.

That was an example about the inaccuracy of relying on published data and making unwarranted assumptions. In that specific case, assuming that a stanag level 3 specification for KE threats meant that the underbody blast protection was similarly a maximum of level 3.

Similarly, ERA does not provide a higher rated passive applique at all. All that rests beneath the Bulldog's panels is some steel. No composite, no NERA, not even any thickened RHA. It can't even resist modern 23mm shells, let along modern 30mm or greater.

And the panels themselves are made of what? Cream cheese? But this comes onto my point again. Just because it’s not stated doesn’t mean the additional KE protection isn’t there. In some cases it’s simply a case that they haven’t tested for it.
Although if one were to have a look at certain manufacturers websites then you would find that these days they are claiming additional KE protection

Then where are they? There's not a single Cougar prepped roof submunition protection kit out there. This isn't just strapping some RHA on, it's vastly more complex than that.

At the moment, there are designs for bomblet protection appliqué panels intended to go over vehicle roof armour. It is no more complex than cutting RHA to shape and strapping it on (although bolts would be preferred). Having to design and build to suit Mastiff’s roof is why it would take weeks* rather than days

Not to mention that you can hardly submunition protect the giant windscreens

Extend the roof protection panels forwards like some kind of awning to cover the angle submunitions are likely to come in at? Easy.
Unbolt the windscreens (big, heavy, inefficient glass) and replace with a different armour solution and indirect vision devices? More involved but not difficult.

Maybe the additional weight is too much, or the top mass over balancing, but altering the protection scheme to suit the scenario is not overly challenging.

*weeks assuming a UOR process.

[RetroSicotte]

And the panels themselves are made of what? Cream cheese? But this comes onto my point again. Just because it’s not stated doesn’t mean the additional KE protection isn’t there. In some cases it’s simply a case that they haven’t tested for it.

Although if one were to have a look at certain manufacturers websites then you would find that these days they are claiming additional KE protection

Not against autocannons. The ERA panels used on the Bulldog were of Israeli origin, based on their same designs. Its sheet metal with the reactive component beneath it, mounted on a thin steel panel. There is no high caliber resistant applique in the package, as its intended only for shaped charged resistance.

At the moment, there are designs for bomblet protection appliqué panels intended to go over vehicle roof armour. It is no more complex than cutting RHA to shape and strapping it on (although bolts would be preferred). Having to design and build to suit Mastiff’s roof is why it would take weeks* rather than days

So its not submunition resistant then, if it's just RHA. Submunition resistance consists of either composite materials, ERA or NERA. Modern submunition charges will puncture RHA like it wasn't there.

Extend the roof protection panels forwards like some kind of awning to cover the angle submunitions are likely to come in at? Easy.
Unbolt the windscreens (big, heavy, inefficient glass) and replace with a different armour solution and indirect vision devices? More involved but not difficult.

These do not exist, and would be horribly inefficient at that job by not having a chassis support below it for composite resistance, and still not solve the problem of the frontal arc being very weak against peer weaponry.