Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

[ArmChairCivvy]

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

V true for the US competition. But good leg work has been done (without a cost to us) and the next questions are (assuming that a direct fire platform makes sense for formations lacking MBTs):
- should we go for commonality in the fastest moving parts of the Strike Bdes? Like the US did, based on Stryker, and the resulting AFV has been far more "interim" then Stryker itself - that used to carry that moniker
- or build on that early prototype (should one stick to "concept" or demonstrator, for maturity of it?)?

The number of question marks in the above indicates that I do not have the answer, nor a strong opinion.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Strike Brigades with a regiment of artillery with 12 Light Guns but extra batteries of JTACs for air support direction

Goes well as a starting point for the discussion with Ron, right above.

if we'd stayed in the boxer programme from the start, could we have developed a tracked chassis?

We (BAE) did that with SEP. The protection level was only againts artilery splinters, whereas the Boxer has kinetic protection on quite a different level - AMV had to do a lot of catch-up on this front for the Ozzie competition.

For my ideas to work though there does need to be new money for the Army's re equipment programme to allow the Warrior 2 to be equipped with Javelin, and also ideally the Ajax. The over watch variant would be equipped with Brimstone which would be perfect for the role given the flexibility its guidance option give and the significant range especially with the 20% increase the Brimstone 3 will give over the existing Brimstone 2.

+

Brimstone is anther story, I don't think it's available as a vehicle launched weapon and would require significant funds to make it so. Not sure that it would offer any kind of upgrade over weapons that are available.

Agree with the latter opinion. The quick (and cheap?) alternative for filling this gap is to put Spike NLOS/ Exactor on a heavily protected platform. They could then protect several Ajax detachments "prodding" further out, forward... if there still is such a direction, as we are not the only ones building Shock&Awe capabilities.

[ArmChairCivvy]

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.

As for "sensor" rounds, Bonus or similar would be a great bonus in peer-to-peer situations?

Light gun and towed Exactor plus mortars for them.

Quite right, esp. for the RM as the mortars can arrive also in LCVP, not in the slow-slow LCUs that will come in later.

The previous page had a lot of discussion about counter-battery by light formations (half of our artillery is light and at a range disadvantage). However, rather than ditching that half, complement them en-masse (on the lines Mr. fred was suggesting) with Exactors
- this is exactly what S. Korea got their Exactors for: hitting well emplaced artillery/ rocketry positions (their SPGs lost one such match; we could take "lessons learnt" without having to learn them the hard way? Their SPGs are well protected and have an excellent 155 mm piece on them - did not change the result.)

Heliportable "insurance": as we have them now, on a light-weight trailer
For counter-battery/ anti-tank "gun line": https://cdn2.desu-usergeneratedcontent. ... 126372.jpg
Very mobile artillery (the more protected Apaches can do the scouting for them, and the Wildcats could finally come in useful for the Army, too): https://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz-wpen ... ildcat.jpg

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

Halfway house should be considered; eg. Nexter's 6x6 or the one using a Tatra 8x8 chassis: protected while in transit, not couped up while in a fire position, Ability to keep up with wheeled formations more than compensates for the drawback vs. turreted SPGs that can fire 360 degrees, without interruption.

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

+

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

An ATV can carry the 120mm (you would need a second one for meaningful supply of rounds)... this could be the "chinooky" special, with the most of them carried as per LJ, in the below:

the Coyote TSV can tow a 120mm "Rifle" and its ammo would be ideal, as would a sledge for the BV206 or BV210.

However the effects of 120mm [and 155mm] over 81mm

- no doubt about the artlilery comparison, but mortars (in the main) are area suppression weapons and from a ton of rounds you get twice as many splinters as from a ton of 120 mm rounds => hence, at the company level I would retain the 81 mm

[Ron5]

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

V true for the US competition. But good leg work has been done (without a cost to us) and the next questions are (assuming that a direct fire platform makes sense for formations lacking MBTs):
- should we go for commonality in the fastest moving parts of the Strike Bdes? Like the US did, based on Stryker, and the resulting AFV has been far more "interim" then Stryker itself - that used to carry that moniker
- or build on that early prototype (should one stick to "concept" or demonstrator, for maturity of it?)?

The number of question marks in the above indicates that I do not have the answer, nor a strong opinion.

You're quite right. Apparently the vehicle on display was assembled in double quick time by putting together spare parts they had lying around in the R&D warehouse. Not clear it could even move under its own power and noone was allowed to look inside. All just to see if it sparked interest anywhere.

Kinda like gluing together all those airfix bits left over from previous models

Must admit I liked the concept tho'

[ArmChairCivvy]

The one (older & not US requirements inspired) that is actually in service:
https://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz-wpen ... LTE-02.jpg

That is the direct fire support part ( a view on it).

Because this thread had a detailed discussion on our light formations' ability to do counter-battery, I spent 40 minutes writing a treatise on how the middle-weight formations (the raison detre for getting the wheeled APCs?) could be made to fare better... so that they would not need to disperse again, when coming under fire... just when the plan was to concentrate, in order to ... err... strike.

Will not type it again, but perhaps the question is worthwhile to consider? Or may be we differ, in thinking, from the US and from Russia (who both think artilllery to be the King of the Battlefield)?

[Dahedd]

Wee bit OT. What have the Army/MoD done with the Warthogs they bought for use in Afghanistan ?

Woyukd they not make a good platform for a mortar carrier/Exactor platform?

[mr.fred]

Wee bit OT. What have the Army/MoD done with the Warthogs they bought for use in Afghanistan ?

Woyukd they not make a good platform for a mortar carrier/Exactor platform?

Not if you either want a common vehicle with the rest of the formation, or to go by air

[Luke jones]

Wee bit OT. What have the Army/MoD done with the Warthogs they bought for use in Afghanistan ?

Woyukd they not make a good platform for a mortar carrier/Exactor platform?

Not if you either want a common vehicle with the rest of the formation, or to go by air

Wee bit OT. What have the Army/MoD done with the Warthogs they bought for use in Afghanistan ?

Woyukd they not make a good platform for a mortar carrier/Exactor platform?

They have probably already been sold for 200 quid each

[Caribbean]

Must be in storage somewhere - haven't seen them on the Witham SV site yet

[ArmChairCivvy]

They have probably already been sold for 200 quid each

Did see them offered about Sept time... whether it was @200, or something else; did not pay any attention.

They were designated to move the drones , close to the front line and in any terrain
... such a good idea
hence, bound to be killed, in no time at all

[Ron5]

Is this the Boxer thread? If so, why no comments about the recent Defence Committee reveals??

Expected purchase of 500 vehicles, budget 4.4 billion to include first 10 years of support, at least 60% by value from UK industry. Decision in 4Q19.

Between the lines: slim to no chance of turreted variants.

[Lord Jim]

Always amazed how quickly priority programmes progress.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Always amazed how quickly priority programmes progress.

Good yield for the astronomical £0.1 mln spent in 2017.

[RetroSicotte]

Is this the Boxer thread? If so, why no comments about the recent Defence Committee reveals??

Expected purchase of 500 vehicles, budget 4.4 billion to include first 10 years of support, at least 60% by value from UK industry. Decision in 4Q19.

Between the lines: slim to no chance of turreted variants.

Yeah, from what they said it sounds like APC, Command, Ambulance, Recovery/Repair.

And that's it.

Just as we'd suspected and feared. They care more about just being able to say "we have a new fleet to protect our troops with our rising defence budget" than actually acquiring something capable of winning wars.

[jimthelad]

They are not being bought as IFV or recce variants. They never were. They are modular and they can be retrofitted later but we need the actual vehicles first. The Strike brigade concept is been mooted as a casualty of the review with a general shake up based on preformed battlegroups and brigades- it comes down to manpower not the platforms as they are finding out; also they are now realizing that with UK basing the troops have to get to the action first. AFV would be nice but we need to finalize something before changing again otherwise we waste more money again.

[RetroSicotte]

They are not being bought as IFV or recce variants. They never were.

The problem is that would have been fine were they to operate in the area of things that could handle the blunt end, but they're not. Having to get Warriors and Ajax to constantly roll around with Boxer simply to have them not get outgunned immediately defeats the entire advantage of Boxer in the first place. There's a reason that every military worth their salt is putting credible firepower in with these types of units. Right now, Strike brigades will have at most a .50 gun, an 81mm mortar and some Javelins that have to be dismounted and stationary to use.

The French very clearly demonstrated and fed back that .50 alone will get you outgunned and outranged even by half equipped insurgent level forces in Mali, hence them suddenly starting to weld 20mm to everything they could from their sold stockpiles.

Against peer opponents, it gets even worse. Some form of firepower to keep up with the Boxers was a requirement for credibility.

They are modular and they can be retrofitted later but we need the actual vehicles first.

UORs are how they got into this mess in the first place, and planning around "we'll just start thinking about it when men start dying" has never been an agreeable approach for me. I realise that's a blunt way to put it, and I stress I am not accusing you of thinking that way, but I've spent enough time over the past fifteen years seeing this being how the Government does do it. Just once I'd like to know the Army isn't going in under equipped.

Unless there's a surprise and the APC variant comes with the M320 30mm and an ATGM (the option I always favoured due to commonality with Apache and Infantry, without any chassis penetration to fit), then these will be very weakly armed in an Army already struggling to get firepower in any form.

[PapaGolf]

Having to get Warriors and Ajax to constantly roll around with Boxer simply to have them not get outgunned immediately defeats the entire advantage of Boxer in the first place. There's a reason that every military worth their salt is putting credible firepower in with these types of units.

Surely the MOD are also aware of this?
The way I look at it (perhaps optimistically), the 500 is an initial batch to replace the UOR fleets and get the training, tactics and logistics in place. Once the Army get through the Scout SV, WCCSP and CSSP, they will, hopefully, look to purchase turreted versions. They may even transfer turrets from upgraded Warriors or replace Warrior in AI battalions...who knows? I'm sure they have a plan though.

I'm guessing we also don't have the industrial capacity to produce more turrets for the next few years anyway.

[RetroSicotte]

Surely the MOD are also aware of this?
The way I look at it (perhaps optimistically), the 500 is an initial batch to replace the UOR fleets and get the training, tactics and logistics in place. Once the Army get through the Scout SV, WCCSP and CSSP, they will, hopefully, look to purchase turreted versions. They may even transfer turrets from upgraded Warriors or replace Warrior in AI battalions...who knows? I'm sure they have a plan though.

I'm guessing we also don't have the industrial capacity to produce more turrets for the next few years anyway.

"Aware of" and "have the plan to avoid" are two tragically different things with the MoD.

[Lord Jim]

Having actually read through the evidence session held by the Select Committee on the MIV programme a number of flags have been raised in my mind. Firstly I was not aware how significant the re-joining of OSCAR and the Boxer programme actually was. It means that we have chosen the Boxer as the MIV, or more correctly it is the preferred platform pending the outcome of negotiations. This is the first red flag as does anyone else have a feeling of Deja vu here? Remember the FRES UV/Piranha V situation. And it is these negotiations that cause another flag to be raised. It appears the idea is to establish a full manufacturing facility in the UK, most importantly manufacturing the hulls. This is something we no longer do for any AFVs, those for Ajax are made in Spain. What we still do is assemble the kits. Tying this to the letting of a production contract for the Boxer is going to have a negative effect. Are we expecting the other members of OSCAR to build a plant out of the kindness of their hearts. The other issue is the amount of UK companies that are aimed to be involved in the manufacture and the percentage. There is already a full supply chain for the manufacture of the Boxer. Yes there are going to be certain UK specific items, but creating jobs that duplicate existing capacity again is going to affect the contract. There is also the idea that the UK will be able to export the Boxer itself, independent of the other nations, or at least that is the appearance the Minister gave. All of this seems to be too much to hope for and I really hope doe snot lead to a similar outcome as we had with the Piranha V.

This brings me to the next flag and that there is a finite pot of money and basically the number of Boxers purchased is directly related to the individual price together with the related ten year support costs. If the need for onshore manufacturing comes at a financial cost, we are not going to be able to afford the number we need. We have been here before.

So why was Boxer chosen. Well simply put it battered or at least equalled every other 8x8 on the market or in development. I like the way the MoD approached the assessment, relying on feed back from existing users and especially the Australian programme. This has saved a reasonable amount of money and is an approach, especially when trying to purchase a platform "Off the shelf", that should be followed in future. It is interesting that the Modularity of the Boxer is one of its key selling points. Comments have been made that once it has been used a bit it will no longer be possible to easily swap out modules. Well I You Tube video I poste a while back shows how simple this is, how it can be done by two men in half an hour. Sure it is done at the base workshop but being able to de this with basic tools at all is pretty impressive. The fact that the Australians are buying more Mission Modules than Drive Platforms is very interesting and shows they intend to utilise the platforms modularity as a matter of routine. This also bodes well for future capability growth.

SO the UK has given itself until the forth quarter of 2019 to conclude negotiation regarding the manufacture and purchase of the Boxer. That is plenty of time to work out what are the minimum number of variants to equip the four Mechanised/motorised Battalions currently planned, and to sort out the requirements for UK only kit. Hopefully the stars will align on this one and we will actually end up with a fleet of AFVs this time.

[Caribbean]

A quick question - does anyone know if our previous involvement entitles us to ownership of the IP associated with the project?

[Ron5]

Yes and the ARTEC consortium says that allows the UK to not only independently develop new variants but also export. I got the impression that the potentially low pound would make that an attractive option for them i.e. exporting from the UK.

[Ron5]

They are not being bought as IFV or recce variants. They never were. They are modular and they can be retrofitted later but we need the actual vehicles first. The Strike brigade concept is been mooted as a casualty of the review with a general shake up based on preformed battlegroups and brigades- it comes down to manpower not the platforms as they are finding out; also they are now realizing that with UK basing the troops have to get to the action first. AFV would be nice but we need to finalize something before changing again otherwise we waste more money again.

Evidence to the committee was very clear that both the choice of vehicle, and the timing of the order, was driven by the upcoming strike brigades.

[ArmChairCivvy]

to get Warriors and Ajax to constantly roll around with Boxer simply to have them not get outgunned immediately defeats the entire advantage of Boxer in the first place. There's a reason that every military worth their salt is putting credible firepower in with these types of units. Right now, Strike brigades will have at most a .50 gun, an 81mm mortar and some Javelins

I would have needed many more sentences to say the same; which I would have done... saved my effort

they will, hopefully, look to purchase turreted versions. They may even transfer turrets from upgraded Warriors or replace Warrior in AI battalions...who knows?

You say!

Are we expecting the other members of OSCAR to build a plant out of the kindness of their hearts.

The Dutch one is soon completing the production run; ever been to Latin America? The cars there look too much like VWs of two/ three decades back

I like the way the MoD approached the assessment, relying on feed back from existing users and especially the Australian programme.

Hey, the way to go.... NAO cites a whole £100k spent in 2017... that's the airfares then?
- just that they want a recce wagon (our Ajax); and we want... who knows?

the ARTEC consortium says that allows the UK to not only independently develop new variants but also export

-why not? The money has been spent... make the the thru-life, like the spares, cheaper for everyone

[jimthelad]

RS just to be clear, I especially understand the need for the right kit. I lost friends because of it. What we need is the bloody vehicles, now, and not another fucking arse fest competition. As for Strike, the new term is configurable brigade elements. They currently are 3800 men short of the previous aspirations.

[RetroSicotte]

RS just to be clear, I especially understand the need for the right kit. I lost friends because of it. What we need is the bloody vehicles, now, and not another fucking arse fest competition. As for Strike, the new term is configurable brigade elements. They currently are 3800 men short of the previous aspirations.

Aye, thats why I weas very specific that I wasn't specifically accusing you.

I do agree on that they just need them soon. What I'm more seeking is some sort of at least forward going plan from them to assure people (including potential recruits) that they have the intention to get these things kitted up at some point, rather than just vague statements endlessly.