Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

[Lord Jim]

The M777A2 would be destines for 3 Commando and 16 Air Assault. I mentioned the MIV as the tractor/ammo carrier as an option but believe the 6x6 MRV(P) would probably be a better match. Both Excalibur and the Precision Guidance kit are in service with the US Army and other nations. The latter is far cheaper being fitted to existing rounds in a similar manner to how Paveway kits were added to dumb bombs in the past. The accuracy isn't as good as Excalibur but a substantial improvement over standard rounds.

The more I look at how the Army is planning its future the lass it seems to be about improving gits warfighting capability and more like a game of misdirection to hide to growing list of capabilities being lost together with capacity. It works as long as we don't need to actually fight beyond the use of Special Forces backed by air power against lower tier opposition, but will be a national tragedy if we end up fighting a peer opponent. If that happens a number of Politicians and Senior Officers and Civil Servants would need to be prosecuted for criminal negligence for the large loss of life amongst UK Service personnel that would result form any such conflict as they bear the responsibility for NOT equipping the Army appropriately.

[RetroSicotte]

The more I look at how the Army is planning its future the lass it seems to be about improving gits warfighting capability and more like a game of misdirection to hide to growing list of capabilities being lost together with capacity.

The same goes for every branch. So long as the Gov/MoD can point to one thing and say "It does it!" then they consider that fine.

"Why no ATGMs in the Strike Brigade vehicles?" -> "We have Javelin infantry."

"Why no anti-tank guns in the Strike Brigade vehicles?" -> "We have Challengers."

"Why no autocannons in the Strike Brigade vehicles?" -> "We have Ajax medium tanks."

So on, so forth. So long as they have a soundbite they can point to and try to imply they DO have something, no matter the actual facts to anyone with half a bit of knowledge, then they will do it.

Capability in depth is a gone thing.

[Gabriele]

1st Strike
Household Cavalry Regiment
Royal Dragoon Guards
1 SCOTS GDS
3 RIFLES

2nd Strike
Royal Lancers
King’s Royal Hussars
4 SCOTS
1 YORKS

That's correct, as far as i know this is the current plan.

[benny14]

Army 2020 Refine 3rd Division. Accurate as far as I can tell.

[mr.fred]

The M777A2 would be destines for 3 Commando and 16 Air Assault. I mentioned the MIV as the tractor/ammo carrier as an option but believe the 6x6 MRV(P) would probably be a better match. Both Excalibur and the Precision Guidance kit are in service with the US Army and other nations. The latter is far cheaper being fitted to existing rounds in a similar manner to how Paveway kits were added to dumb bombs in the past. The accuracy isn't as good as Excalibur but a substantial improvement over standard rounds.

Giving towed 155mm and all its logistics demands to light formations is an even worse idea, IMHO. If the tractor for airmobile formations isn’t heliportable, is that a good solution? Light gun and towed Exactor plus mortars for them.

Maybe 155mm towed might find a home in motorised formation (i.e. not mech, Armd or light) with MRV(P) as its primary transport.

[Lord Jim]

Which is why, the USA, Canada and Australia have given M777A2 to light formations. But then again in my world both the UK formations I listed would also have 120mm Rifled Mortars at battalion level. Having a tractor like the MRV(P) is not an issue for either formation nor is the MIV. If you need the M777 on site from the very start you Heli-lift them in, if not they arrive with their tractors off the Bays of Albions. The logistics are not much greater but the capabilities you gain far outweigh them, and the 120mm RMs at battalion level are equal to the 105mm LG in most ways and exceed in some such as also having greater flexibility in munitions, a larger payload but at a slightly reduced range. It is only my opinion as I am a great fan of the Brandt 120mm Rifles Mortar. There also happen to be quite a few nearly new examples going cheap as the USMC are retiring theirs because they could get the towing and ammo carriers (called Growlers) to work reliably and so have got rid of what they towed as well. A mistake in my view, but designing such a systems that could fit in a MV-22 was a stretch.

[mr.fred]

Well the Americans have always believed in the destructive effect of artillery. Saves them getting their hands dirty, perhaps. They also have rather more resources with which to organise logistics.

If you heli-lift such a large gun without a tractor, how do you plan to relocate it? The helicopters can’t always be on call. How do you get the ammunition from the HLS to the guns?

120mm mortar vs light gun, the mortar does well with regards to shell weight and rate of fire (more logistical headaches) but “half” does not strike me as “slightly reduced” in terms of range. That would also be before you compare an infantry support sub unit and a dedicated artillery formation.

[Lord Jim]

There is a great difference between the stand 120mm Mortar and the Brandt 120mm "Rifled Mortar. The Max range of the 105mm Light Gun is 17 Km where as that of the Brandt 120mm "Rifles" mortar is 13 Km. However I am suggesting replacing the 81mm mortar at Battalion level which only has a range of 5.5Km, with the 120mm, and replacing the 105mm Light Gun with the M777A2 155mm. As for a tractor for the M777A2 well there are vehicles already in service with the UK that could be used and are able to be heli-lifted in. But then again the need to "Shoot and scoot", depends on the conflict you are in. The main thing is with the suggestion above both 3 Command and 16 Air Assault gain a huge boost in integral artillery support.

[mr.fred]

There is a great difference between the stand 120mm Mortar and the Brandt 120mm "Rifled Mortar. The Max range of the 105mm Light Gun is 17 Km where as that of the Brandt 120mm "Rifles" mortar is 13 Km.

Comparing like with like tells a different story. Standard rounds are 8km vs 17km. Extended range rounds are 13km vs 21km.

However I am suggesting replacing the 81mm mortar at Battalion level which only has a range of 5.5Km, with the 120mm, and replacing the 105mm Light Gun with the M777A2 155mm.

and you’ll need bigger tractors to move both (the 81mm can be man packed, if you’re a sadist) and more logistics to serve both.

As for a tractor for the M777A2 well there are vehicles already in service with the UK that could be used and are able to be heli-lifted in. But then again the need to "Shoot and scoot", depends on the conflict you are in. The main thing is with the suggestion above both 3 Command and 16 Air Assault gain a huge boost in integral artillery support.

and a huge boost to their training and logistics burden, and a large increase in the “danger close” distance at which you can apply artillery support. Do 3 Commando and 16 AAB need the extra weight of shell and is it worth the logistics cost?

And the M777 only has any more than 30% more range than the L118 using smart shells.

[Lord Jim]

I agree the 105mm out ranges the 120mm "Rifle" but as I mentioned it would replace the 81mm. Yes the latter can be man packed but what about the ammo. To be effective it needs transport and a jeep or my suggestion the Coyote TSV can tow a 120mm "Rifle" and its ammo would be ideal, as would a sledge for the BV206 or BV210.

Both the 120mm "Rifle" and 177", M777A2 have the ability to fire both smart and sub munition rounds something that is going to be essential in future conflict. The Precision Kits for the 155mm (and 120mm) are relatively inexpensive and so enable target to be prosecuted with far fewer round than in the past. This means fewer rounds required and so on. However the effects of 120mm and 155mm over 81mm and 105mm are substantial. Yes there would be an initial training spike on the introduction of these systems but this would drop to current levels over time. The skill sets for all are basically the same.

With the upgrade I am suggesting the gains are revolutionary for the Battalions and Brigades I am proposing to re equip. Both of these are currently light on fire power as are Light Infantry traditionally, but as first responders they need to be able to hit far harder than they can now or their usefulness is going to decline, in anything but peacekeeping duties.

[mr.fred]

The 81mm ammunition can also be man packed, again if you are feeling sadistic. One or two bombs per man in the battalion adds up.

Smart ammunition is useful if the target is something that you can prosecute with smart ammunition and is properly mensurated. Smoke, illum, suppressive and close support are more difficult. What target set is a light formation going to need submunitions for? If you need precision engagement, would an Exactor launcher not be a lighter way of doing it? Each missile is similar in weight to a 155mm shell and charge, has terminal, man-in-the-loop guidance so no need for precise mensuration, and the towed launcher is unlikely to weigh as much as a 155mm howitzer.


When a “revolutionary” plan is brought up, I always get suspicious. The “revolution” usually seems to revolve around the enemy cooperating in the creation of their dream engagement.

[RetroSicotte]

If you need precision engagement, would an Exactor launcher not be a lighter way of doing it? Each missile is similar in weight to a 155mm shell and charge, has terminal, man-in-the-loop guidance so no need for precise mensuration, and the towed launcher is unlikely to weigh as much as a 155mm howitzer.

Precision is one thing, but you definitely need weight of fire, via rate of fire, as well. Both are requirements.

Granted I haven't kept up with the discussion above much, so apologies if that is out of context of what you meant!

[mr.fred]

Precision is one thing, but you definitely need weight of fire, via rate of fire, as well. Both are requirements.

Granted I haven't kept up with the discussion above much, so apologies if that is out of context of what you meant!

I was thinking that a battery of Exactor and two or three of light gun would suit a brigade-sized light formation better than a regiment of M777. Covering both precision and weight of fire with as little logistics burden as possible.

I was also thinking about how much range artillery operating in support of light formations really needs?

[RetroSicotte]

My primary issue of the light guns would be range, personally. Putting multiple shots per minute out to long range for minutes on end is not something Exactor can do.

[jimthelad]

Light formations need to be able to move rapidly and then bring weight of fire followed by controlled disengagement. Yes, airborne forces in particular have strategic level entry mobility but then are limited by helo support or the Mk1 foot. Rate of fire is more important and to do this you need lots of bombs. We would usually carry a round or two as well as the Milan rounds but tried to ditch them asap to mortar teams the moment we went firm. Our lot used to be able to get 5 rds in the air at any given time so there was no need to worry about getting them back to carry.

If you are going long range precision fires then all that does is identify your batteries (and likely company positions) for fast air and counterbattery fire. It is better to let them close a well concealed position and then use a mix of direct and indirect fire to collimate, fix, and reduce the threat and be in a danger close situation for their own fire support. This is especially true when fighting artillery heavy formation such as those who adopt the former Warpac and modern Russian style of operations.

[mr.fred]

My primary issue of the light guns would be range, personally. Putting multiple shots per minute out to long range for minutes on end is not something Exactor can do.

No, but then Exactor, or any precision weapon, isn't supposed to engage in putting multiple shots per minute at long range. The precision is supposed to destroy what it is shooting at. Meanwhile, light guns operate out to 17km with normal ammunition, which is surely enough to support an infantry brigade. Going to M777 gives you 7km more range but everything weighs twice as much and takes twice as long.

[RetroSicotte]

My primary issue of the light guns would be range, personally. Putting multiple shots per minute out to long range for minutes on end is not something Exactor can do.

No, but then Exactor, or any precision weapon, isn't supposed to engage in putting multiple shots per minute at long range. The precision is supposed to destroy what it is shooting at. Meanwhile, light guns operate out to 17km with normal ammunition, which is surely enough to support an infantry brigade. Going to M777 gives you 7km more range but everything weighs twice as much and takes twice as long.

It's not just 7km extra, it's also the yield of the round. They can cover a hell of a lot more area to larger envelopes in a much shorter time.

If Ukraine has taught people anything, it's that artillery never ceased being the king of battle, and take note that the US (who have been involved in a deep way to the learning points in Ukraine) have concluded that range is the crucial element.

You can't counter-battery what you can't reach. And you can't counter-battery with a few precision strikes either. The US very conclusively saw the learning point. Range, impact power, and weight of fire is back in style, so to speak. They've been going nuts in their artillery programs ramping up the range of anything with a gun on it recently, even going so far as to cut other programs to make it happen.

[mr.fred]

It's not just 7km extra, it's also the yield of the round. They can cover a hell of a lot more area to larger envelopes in a much shorter time.

But your primary objection to the Light Gun is range?
Each round is more destructive, but each round is much heavier (logistics) the rate of fire is much lower and each round is more destructive, so you can't drop them as near to your troops, meaning your infantry would have to cover more distance following a barrage, your danger close range is much farther.

If Ukraine has taught people anything, it's that artillery never ceased being the king of battle, and take note that the US (who have been involved in a deep way to the learning points in Ukraine) have concluded that range is the crucial element.

True. but do you really want to put light formations up against someone with decent artillery support? 7km more range isn't going to be the decider in counter battery, not while your guns are effectively static for lack of effective tractors. You'll get one mission before your guns get plastered by the dedicated CB asset the enemy has been holding in reserve.

You can't counter-battery what you can't reach. And you can't counter-battery with a few precision strikes either. The US very conclusively saw the learning point. Range, impact power, and weight of fire is back in style, so to speak. They've been going nuts in their artillery programs ramping up the range of anything with a gun on it recently, even going so far as to cut other programs to make it happen.

And you can't counter battery (or avoid the same) with effectively static, unprotected, guns. You can't use longer ranged guns without appropriate ISTAR assets. More range equals fewer guns to nominally cover larger areas, so maybe that's a reason. If you can get off enough terminally guided missiles to about the right place you can conduct fairly effective counter battery fire, by means of flat-out destroying the enemy guns. And what are you doing putting a light formation in a situation where they need to conduct counter battery fires against heavy artillery with their organic assets in the first place?

[Frenchie]

In France we have this that will equip the Griffons, semi-automatic mortars, with potentially guided munitions.

https://www.tda-armements.com/sites/tda ... %20120.pdf

[mr.fred]

Not a bad choice for a mechanised force.

[Frenchie]

Yes, but there will be some in the Armoured Brigades and I do not know if it's a good idea. But in fact the British consider that what we call "Armoured Brigades" are "Mechanised Brigades", because the VBCI is a wheeled IFV, and we do not see the problem, it is a discussion that can be long and I go to sleep , good night

[Lord Jim]

I didn't realise their was a recoiled mounted version of the rifled 120mm. Great now we can give the towed version to 16 Air Assault and 3 Commando and the mounted version on the MIV to the Armoured Infantry Brigades. Everything is sorted and I am a happy man. Actually why not give 3 Command the SP version mounted on a Bv206 (or successor) or Bv210 chassis.

Also I am not suggesting that the M777A2s and 120mm Mortars are always airlifted in and just abandoned. I am saying both can be initially moved into position is needed and the situation allows it. They will have tractors and ammo carriers as their default set up and in the case of the 120mm these can be also lifted in. In fact this would be a strong case for yet again purchasing a light weight 8x8 with a trailer, a programme I believe is already in the evaluation stage for the Army as is the BV206 successor programme for the Royal Marines. Failing that the MRV(P) would be a good choice for 16 Air Assault.

[ArmChairCivvy]

to make strike work as it should there needs to be different varientd including a dicrect fire ( can't see it happening if it does it'll be base on Ajax not boxer ) and yes this cost but the economy of scale that Iv proposed will help some way with that.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk › Land says:

6 Mar 2018 - BAE Systems has submitted its proposal to the US Army to build and test the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) vehicle for use by the Infantry Brigade Combat ... the GD entry to the same contest, Griffon, which is based on the Ajax chassis and is rumored to be aimed at the UK requirement as well as the US.

[Ron5]

to make strike work as it should there needs to be different varientd including a dicrect fire ( can't see it happening if it does it'll be base on Ajax not boxer ) and yes this cost but the economy of scale that Iv proposed will help some way with that.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk › Land says:

6 Mar 2018 - BAE Systems has submitted its proposal to the US Army to build and test the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) vehicle for use by the Infantry Brigade Combat ... the GD entry to the same contest, Griffon, which is based on the Ajax chassis and is rumored to be aimed at the UK requirement as well as the US.

Not just a rumor, it was was stated at the conference where Griffon was first revealed to also be aimed at the UK requirement. Basically a lightweight Abrams turret with a lightweight US 120m gun on an Ajax chassis. In a very prototype form.

Lots of folks poured cold water on the proposal however. Deemed not likely to be produced.

[ArmChairCivvy]

With boxer my understanding is that the plan has been to order 500-800 units to replace the mastiffs and ridgebacks ( 500 unit would need to be the minimum for them alone ) these won't need the 40mm turret for the roll they'll play.
But yes I do agree that for the strike concept a good number ( 200-250 say ? ) would ideally need it to give the extra bang strike will need

That mix I have been promoting for years (1 in 4).

army built around five multi-role brigades.
look how fast that got binned!

Good things do happen, occasionally.

arm-inf brigades with no organic recce battalion looks a little odd.

What if the thinking is that when deploying a division (the only one!) for manoeuvre warfare, then one of the 2 Strike will be that recee/ flanking/ protective screen for own flanks "force"?

And when that scenario will not apply, it will be something close to Jake's n:o 1 below?

strike brigade needs to go 1 of 2 ways -

1 - be a fast moving low firepower unit that can get troops around urban areas quickly can safely to deal with less advanced adversaries and no more. ( similar to wgat France is doing in Africa )