Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

[Gabriele]

MIV us expected to only be armed with a .50 HMG. Same as Mastiff. Unless that changes, it'll still stay well back from the fight, dropping Infantry a fair distance away from target and picking them up again later. Yes, it is more mobile and somewhat more survivable but it is no revolution. In current Strike experimentation it is Ajax that is supposed to stay close and fight. Unsurprisingly, writing in Tank magazine, one of those involved says that the whole thing starts struggling very quickly in a Ukraine scenario. Works well for Mali. It is why i will never support this whole madness. It is not meat, it is not fish. It is only ever something half finished. Like every army programme in at least the last 20 years.

[RetroSicotte]

Like most programs in general in that time, really.

Very rarely do the forces get a fully optimised platform.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

Like most programs in general in that time, really.

Very rarely do the forces get a fully optimised platform.

I would say there is no such thing and that it is our pursuit of such, both hypothetically here on this forum, and in reality within the MoDs procurement process, that has been scuppering the Army's major acquisition programmes for the past 15-20 years.

Frankly, the Army is much overdue a step change in the way it thinks about its ongoing role. Carter was briefly on to the right track a few years ago, IMO, but that thinking has since been warped into the bizarre Strike Brigade arrangement we now find ourselves with.

There has to be a root and branch review of the Army's role going forward, its organisation and its equipment and the funding needs to be put in place to support the findings of any such review. We need to be realistic about our defence needs, our contributions to the NATO alliance and the equipment and manning levels we might need to fulfill these obligations. No doubt the kind of shake up i personally have in mind would ruffle many a feather here and elsewhere but i don't think this is the right thread to discuss the details.

[james k]

An APC is essentially a battlefield Taxi. It moves people under protection of armour to the place they need to fight, withdraws and acts as fire support with whatever weapons systems it has. It then moves in and picks up the infantry and moves them to another place, be that in advance or retreat. It can also act as a comcen for the section it supports and has some capability with IR, thermal imaging to support the sections situational awareness.

But it is primarily a taxi and the Mastiff does that pretty well (so too does the FV432 Bulldog variant and Warrior)

I'm still left wondering what people think the role of an APC is, wheeled or otherwise.
My take is that it is a method to move infantry around, protected from the sort of light threats that would fix soft vehicles or dismounted vehicles in place long enough to be malleted by artillery. Things like harassing artillery fire and small arms.
What I see calls for is something different. Something that tries to be all things at once. Possibly trying to make a 'cheap' solution with fewer vehicles and fewer men?

I think that is is a good question to ask, what can an 8x8 do that something like Mastiff can't? Is it worth going for a sublime solution when something that we already have does 80% of the job at 20% of the cost? Is it better to have one battalion in MIV or two in Mastiff? They're both tin boxes on wheels, protected by appliqué armour. Should we be expecting them to be able to fight main force enemy armour?

Then there are other things to consider. As a nation we have tended to focus on using aircraft for air defence rather than ground based systems. Should that change? Do we need a slack handful of sublime AD assets or would we be better off putting that funding into more aircraft or something a little more austere that can knock down the sort of drones that aircraft can't target?

[mr.fred]

The Warrior is a bit different as it has a turreted weapon system and is an IFV. I see that as being able to operate in the direct fire zone, carrying a firepower nature that the tanks don't have and being able to dismount the infantry on, or at least near, the objective.

There does seem to be a drive to make the MIV not only an IFV, but one intended to operate without tanks. I don't agree with that, because turrets are expensive - you're down to a couple of companies rather than a battalion or two of APCs. At that stage you're getting into the realm where the bulk of the infantry force is back in four tonne lorries.

[Lord Jim]

Which is where the British Army has historically been. The reason I am so pro MIV is that it can be used as BOTH and APC and IFV with reasonable effect. If the UK makes its initial but as APCs and associated variants to equip four Infantry battalions, half of those will have had a step change in their capability for "Light" Role which is a good thing. The next batch replace the Warrior, using the turret already designed for the latter's upgrade and together with the variants already in service with the Motorised Infantry, equip the Armoured Infantry battalions, effectively turning them into Mechanised Infantry. Ajax would be limited to one or two Recce Regiments and replacing the CVR(T) variants within the Armoured Regiments.

What will evolve is basically an ongoing drum beat procurement of the MIV over a decade or so. This enables the Army to equip itself with a far more flexible and effective AFV fleet, which will have considerably reduced support costs. What the Army will gain far outweighs any disadvantages, and it would end up with two Mechanised and two Motorised Infantry Brigades to go with 16 Air Assault and the Guards Brigade. The latter concentrating on the defence of the UK mainland and supporting other agencies, and equipped like 16 Air Assault with variants of the MRV(P), the Household cavalry being equipped as one of the Ajax equipped Recce regiments.

I agree their is still a role for the Mastiff, but not on the front lines. Convoy protection would be one example of a future role, which is actually where it started, and also where it will be of most use. Of those who argue we must retain the Warrior and hence an Armoured Infantry capability simple look to France. Have they got it totally wrong? What I am suggesting actually give the Motorised Infantry a superior platform to what France is planning to do, and fitting a 40mm CTA to the IFV provides better firepower than many 8x8 currently in service or planned.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The next batch replace the Warrior, using the turret already designed for the latter's upgrade

Ahh, a convert to my "conspiracy" theory about the turret Plan B if the Warrior programme turns out to be too "complex" - quoting here the previous DefSec.
- let's see what comes out of the testing of those half a dozen plus units just handed over
- and also how far the £ 1bn will go as for the number of units; despite the cutting of those numbers the ABSV conversion is still looking for its own budget (with no firm indication of even what number of units is being sought... since that prgrm was uttered, initially as part of the Warrior upgrade, the force structure has morphed to quite a different one, as for what is now being targeted)

[Gabriele]

Which is where the British Army has historically been. The reason I am so pro MIV is that it can be used as BOTH and APC and IFV with reasonable effect. If the UK makes its initial but as APCs and associated variants to equip four Infantry battalions, half of those will have had a step change in their capability for "Light" Role which is a good thing. The next batch replace the Warrior, using the turret already designed for the latter's upgrade and together with the variants already in service with the Motorised Infantry, equip the Armoured Infantry battalions, effectively turning them into Mechanised Infantry. Ajax would be limited to one or two Recce Regiments and replacing the CVR(T) variants within the Armoured Regiments.

What will evolve is basically an ongoing drum beat procurement of the MIV over a decade or so. This enables the Army to equip itself with a far more flexible and effective AFV fleet, which will have considerably reduced support costs. What the Army will gain far outweighs any disadvantages, and it would end up with two Mechanised and two Motorised Infantry Brigades to go with 16 Air Assault and the Guards Brigade. The latter concentrating on the defence of the UK mainland and supporting other agencies, and equipped like 16 Air Assault with variants of the MRV(P), the Household cavalry being equipped as one of the Ajax equipped Recce regiments.

I agree their is still a role for the Mastiff, but not on the front lines. Convoy protection would be one example of a future role, which is actually where it started, and also where it will be of most use. Of those who argue we must retain the Warrior and hence an Armoured Infantry capability simple look to France. Have they got it totally wrong? What I am suggesting actually give the Motorised Infantry a superior platform to what France is planning to do, and fitting a 40mm CTA to the IFV provides better firepower than many 8x8 currently in service or planned.

In other words, a gigantic fantasy fleet exercise that assumes that Warrior CSP can be terminated and replaced with more MIVs; than an IFV variant of MIV does come along, that the Ajax contract itself can be renegotiated and changed, etcetera, etcetera.

Yes, on those terms it does make a lot more sense. But those are not the terms we are actually looking at.

[Lord Jim]

Well yes it is a" what if", but then the current plans are a "What the F###". The Warrior after CSP will be great if we want to reconstitute a mini BAOR as will the Ajax. The choices made by the MoD would have made sort of sense if the hardware had been delivered over a decade earlier but now we are in a situation where to have a sustainable and balanced force we have to choose what we want it to be. At the moment it is still a bit of everything but lacking key capabilities and resilience. This is going to limit us to deploying at most a fully balance Brigade at most. IF that is what the plan is in reality, NOT what the MoD aspires to then god help out troops if the balloon goes up because no one else will.

[james k]

There seems to be a very fragile grip on reality emerging here.

This is how it works in practice -
You have 4 of something which you need to replace with 4 of something else - You get a committed aspiration for 4, an order for 2 and a delivery of 1.
You have 10 of something but really need 20, what you get is a reduction to 5.

That's the reality, now try working with it.

[mr.fred]

There seems to be a very fragile grip on reality emerging here.

This is how it works in practice -
You have 4 of something which you need to replace with 4 of something else - You get a committed aspiration for 4, an order for 2 and a delivery of 1.
You have 10 of something but really need 20, what you get is a reduction to 5.

That's the reality, now try working with it.

If that really is the reality then the only sensible answer is to give up and go home.

[Lord Jim]

That could be an option for the future if we stay on the current path. As is well publicised there is a hole in the MoD's financial bucket of around £2Bn for the next ten years. As we stand now, the UK is incapable of conduction sovereign operations and has been for some time, and before anyone jumps up and shouts "Falklands", we couldn't have done that without a lot of help from the USA amongst others. The Army has to decide what path it wants to follow and fully commit to it, excluding 16 Air Assault and Special Forces. It can either go heavy, reconstituting its AFV fleets with tracked platforms suitable for operations in central and eastern Europe but difficult to deploy and support elsewhere, or go medium, which nowadays seems to cover anything les than 50 tons, but more importantly wheeled, giving its formations more manoeuvrability, range and lower operating costs. With Ajax and Warrior we again have a bespoke AFV fleet the burden of which is borne by the UK alone. By choosing any of the 8x8 MIV options we become part of a multi national logistics chain, and if we source from Germany for example, you even get warranty covering peace time ownership for god's sake! But we have this sacred cow about building the Army's vehicles in this country. Great when you have an industry that is viable and supports itself, not so when the MoD has to support that industry by paying above the market value to gain some level of UK manufacturing. Both the Warrior and Ajax are the result of outdated programmes that should have delivered years ago when they were still relevant. The MIV programme should deliver and platform that is both relevant and far more suited to how the UK should be operating in the future. It will also deliver a platform nearly as well protected and either Warrior or Ajax and more so in certain areas. If fully embraced it could match or exceed the firepower of both, and certainly exceeds both on battlefield and tactical mobility. To say we are committed to both programmes and cannot renegotiate if cancel is to have a very short term memory. The Warrior CSR production contract has yet to be signed and reducing the Ajax contract down to two regiments worth plus the variant to equip the two remaining Armoured Regiment is also possible., especially if one or more of the contractors for the latter are chosen as the winners of the MIV contract. We could see the Army sink to as few as six brigades (19 Infantry battalions in total) over the next decade or so, with the loss of the Light Role battalions. The plus side is that all would have some sort of protected/armoured mobility be it MIV or MRV(P). IT would still retain the two Armoured Regiments, notionally attached to the two Mechanised brigades, and one or two Recce Regiments. equipped with the required capabilities. So what happens in my utopian world;

Phase 1: There is no contract for the production of the Warrior CSP or the BASV conversions. This funding goes, together with funding already earmarked, into accelerating the purchase of sufficient MIV to equip one Motorised brigade with all variant required. Initial Ajax purchases are to equip the Armoured regiments replacing all the current CVR(T) and FV432 variants.

Phase 2: Sufficient MIV's equipped with a turret housing the 40mm CTA, either that developed for the Warrior CSP or the Ajax, to equip three Mechanised Infantry Battalions to convert the first Armoured infantry brigade to a Mechanised structure. In additional sufficient Ajax are purchase to form a Recce regiment, preferable the Household Cavalry, with the 6x6 MRV(P) be purchased to equip the five, now smaller Guards battalions and provide a limited number to 16 Air Assault.

Phase 3: The second Motorised brigade is equipped with MIV and additional MIVs are purchased to replace remain FV 430 series vehicles in other formations such as Signals, Engineers and so on.

Phase 4: The second Mechanised brigade is reconstituted, and if desired a second Recce regiment is also reformed using Ajax.

If it were possible I would limit the Ajax purely to Armoured regiments. For close Recce in the Motorised battalions I would aim for a variant of the MRV(P) 4x4, and in the Mechanised a further variant of the MIV, equipped with a 40mm CTA but with additional sensors similar to what the Canadians did with their LAV(R).

Another key issue here is that all of the above formations would be at full strength, and have all their assigned equipment and vehicle, a nice change from having to run around at numerous levels begging and borrowing kit before being deployed, or being the youngest sibling and having to use hand me downs as they rotate in theatre which are worn out form over utilisation.

So in my view the MIV (and MRV(P)) are the way forward and the Warrior and Ajax are the past, but the latter case is where the Army has its head stuck.

[mr.fred]

Where are the tanks and artillery in all this?

[Lord Jim]

AS mentioned, each Mechanised brigade has an Armoured regiment attached. Each Infantry battalion would have a battery of tower rifled Brandt 120mm mortar towed by MIVs and each brigade would have an Artillery regiment attached, self propelled in the case of the Mechanised and towed M777A1s in the case of the Motorised. The Guards brigaded would only have 81mm Mortars and no Artillery regiment. Held at "Divisional" level would be an Artillery regiment with GMLRS and the Artillery regiments, one with CAMM and two with Starstreak HVV, one self propelled on the MIV, on motorised in MRV(P). On top of this would be higher level ISTAR other supporting elements but units down to company level would be able to input and receive data from the communications net allowing them see and expand the big picture. This is as far as I should go on this thread as it is for conversation on the MIV not the re-organisation, but I do think the MIV is key to this.

[james k]

You've not noticed the decline of the UK forces then? Odd that it's been going on as long as I can remember

There seems to be a very fragile grip on reality emerging here.

This is how it works in practice -
You have 4 of something which you need to replace with 4 of something else - You get a committed aspiration for 4, an order for 2 and a delivery of 1.
You have 10 of something but really need 20, what you get is a reduction to 5.

That's the reality, now try working with it.

If that really is the reality then the only sensible answer is to give up and go home.

[Frenchie]

If that really is the reality then the only sensible answer is to give up and go home.

I do not know exactly how it works, but logically the Chancellor is not autonomous, it is under the direction of the Prime Minister, so arbitrations are not only economic but political, if there is a political will, the MoD can to be favored

[mr.fred]

You've not noticed the decline of the UK forces then? Odd that it's been going on as long as I can remember

I’d not disagree, but for the magnitude of the problem as you present it.

[Lord Jim]

Yes IF there is political will things could change, but then we would get the expected leaks and official announcements say that money was not available for the true political sacred cows of Health and education, and everyone would be up in arms demanding the treasury find more money and so on. On defence, and regarding the blame game, the mud sticks to everyone, form the MoD always trying to stay at the top table, yet having programmes that run too slow, constantly being revised and costing £Bns without delivering. The Government not providing stable funding to many programmes and up being stop start, again costing £Bns and not delivering, Industry, relying too much on MoD work and not investing enough to make them truly competitive on the export market. And the public for not giving a damn about defence spending and it doesn't affect them and they have never agreed with going to war except to defence the UK. The list goes on and on getting longer and wider but the result is the same. Nothing I can think of will change this now, even body bags at Brize Norton didn't cause a change.

Russia invading the Baltics won't, in this case there would probably end up being a settlement where they are demilitarised and become neutral, and Russia agreeing to reduce its presence in Kaliningrad or whatever it is called. The Germans would lead the negotiations and be well pleased with themselves. This will piss of the USA who will decide that most of Europe will get what it deserves and pull back 90% of what little remains. NATO will start to fracture, despite the efforts of the UK and a few others and the idea of an EU army will gain momentum.

The UKs only significant power it retains is its seat and veto on the UN Security Council, but this organisation is probably less effective now that during the cold war and both Russia and China are now playing a far more clever and long term game, re-writing the rules without tells everyone else until they have.

So the lack of a strong UK military and CASD is irrelevant in all this, had meant our voice is getting less and less when it comes to defence matter in Europe and elsewhere. Even if the tem year plan actually delivers, the Armed Forces will NOT have the kit they really need and will not be able to act effectively if needed on anything but a small scale. No political party will change this or has the will to. "Give up and go home", will eventually be the only option unless the enemy only has clubs and spears and then we just might be able to do something, but will still mess it up by having ridiculous ROEs.

RANT OVER

[Tempest414]

well that covers most of it as lord West said just a few days ago defence dose not win votes and as I said until HMG stops their playground messing about nothing will change it is time for HMG to grow up stick their hand down their shorts and if they find anything get a grip

[james k]

Give it time

You've not noticed the decline of the UK forces then? Odd that it's been going on as long as I can remember

I’d not disagree, but for the magnitude of the problem as you present it.

[james k]

It's all about priorities, or at least it should be. Rather than dicking around with shopping lists and trying to make the service more inclusive, liberal and weakening the very fabric the priorities should be -
1. Manpower, retention, recruitment.
2. Training. Individual/Platoon/Company/Battalion and Higher formation
3. Personal Weapons, personal equipment then unit equipment and weapons systems and then support weapons systems and equipment including ISTAR/Signals/Engineer
4. Establish working practices for the equipment in service
5. Replace only that equipment which is in need of replacement

Public service contracts, defence storage and distribution, H&S SHEF, and industry support should come a long way down that list of priorities.

[james k]

In short no. The last Prime Minister to actively support the MOD was Tony Blair who saw them as a way of winning votes and overturning the negative public image of the Labour MOD relationship. He genuinely tried for a while but the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, kept the MOD critically short of funds throughout Blair's premiership. Very few of the plans announced by Blair were financed by Brown and when Blair realised that wars didn't bring votes he rapidly lost interest as well. Please don't read into this that I am or was any supporter of Blair

I do not know exactly how it works, but logically the Chancellor is not autonomous, it is under the direction of the Prime Minister, so arbitrations are not only economic but political, if there is a political will, the MoD can to be favored

[Frenchie]

In short no. The last Prime Minister to actively support the MOD was Tony Blair who saw them as a way of winning votes and overturning the negative public image of the Labour MOD relationship. He genuinely tried for a while but the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, kept the MOD critically short of funds throughout Blair's premiership. Very few of the plans announced by Blair were financed by Brown and when Blair realised that wars didn't bring votes he rapidly lost interest as well. Please don't read into this that I am or was any supporter of Blair

Thank you for your explanation

[benny14]

Should we take anything away from the fact that Soldier Magazine March edition has an advert for VBCI with a whole page dedicated to it? Suppose it is just VBCI saying hey guys, we are still here if you dont wanna buy boxer.

[Frenchie]

Should we take anything away from the fact that Soldier Magazine March edition has an advert for VBCI with a whole page dedicated to it? Suppose it is just VBCI saying hey guys, we are still here if you dont wanna buy boxer.

I would have chosen the Patria AMV, but in no case the VBCI which is not a vehicle that exists in several versions.