Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

SD67 wrote: Taking a 30 year old hard worked platform and ripping out basically all the key systems, hoping the new bits work with the old bits, there's been reports of it needing a new chassis.
And it was 80% the way through reliability trials.
The US and Germans regularly do it with 40 year old platform.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

RunningStrong wrote:But the MOD now have over 200 CT40 weapon systems and no turrets. So either we have the most comprehensive spares catalogue known to man, or money has to be spent on a new turret integration. Modularity might make that easier from a design, but it doesn't make certification and test any faster.
Well at least there will be a reason to push the trials forward at a pace so that the vehicles could be in service by 2025. Then again we could go with something already cleared/certified for use such as the Lance-R remote turret by Rheinmetall. This would still allow the vehicle to carry between six and eight dismounts whereas installing a manned turret mounting the CT40 would reduce this ti four. This is what the Australians and Germans have accepted by their adoption of the manned version of the Lance turret. The alternative if we really want to have the CT40 on the Boxers to create an IFV would be to use the remote turret designed by Nexter which like the Lance can also hold two ATGW. However this has also not been certified for Boxer but it does actually work reliably, so probably a similar delay but we keep the higher number of dismounts. So;
1st Choice - Lance-R.
2nd Choice - Nexter remote CT40 Turret.
3rd Choice - LM Turret designed for WCSP.

We could then use the CT40 guns for a number of Sky Ranger SPAA turrets, again already certified on Boxer, and we are going to need around 120 of these to provide the necessary cover for our Ground Troops, so with spares etc the 200 we have should cover it.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:But the MOD now have over 200 CT40 weapon systems and no turrets. So either we have the most comprehensive spares catalogue known to man, or money has to be spent on a new turret integration. Modularity might make that easier from a design, but it doesn't make certification and test any faster.
Well at least there will be a reason to push the trials forward at a pace so that the vehicles could be in service by 2025. Then again we could go with something already cleared/certified for use such as the Lance-R remote turret by Rheinmetall. This would still allow the vehicle to carry between six and eight dismounts whereas installing a manned turret mounting the CT40 would reduce this ti four. This is what the Australians and Germans have accepted by their adoption of the manned version of the Lance turret. The alternative if we really want to have the CT40 on the Boxers to create an IFV would be to use the remote turret designed by Nexter which like the Lance can also hold two ATGW. However this has also not been certified for Boxer but it does actually work reliably, so probably a similar delay but we keep the higher number of dismounts. So;
1st Choice - Lance-R.
2nd Choice - Nexter remote CT40 Turret.
3rd Choice - LM Turret designed for WCSP.

We could then use the CT40 guns for a number of Sky Ranger SPAA turrets, again already certified on Boxer, and we are going to need around 120 of these to provide the necessary cover for our Ground Troops, so with spares etc the 200 we have should cover it.
You don't understand what certification is, do you?none of those are UK MOD certified. Sky ranger isn't based on CT40.

I agree a remote turret would make sense for Boxer as an IFV, but that's a big change in UK requirements and doctrine to have a remote medium calibre weapon without a head-out position. Possible, but acceptable? I don't know

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

They do not have MoD certification, but they have certification from the manufacturer which means the Army will not be starting from a cold start, but rather confirming the manufacturers figures and insuring it meets the requirements laid down in the programme. We are talking more fo Troop Trials the manufacturing trials here. No I do not have a comprehensive knowledge of these process for land equipment but have been trying to use common sense which might have been a mistake.

As for adopting a remote turret, the development of virtual situational awareness is moving forward rapidly especially in Israel. In addition to fixed cameras the Commander would have access to a 360 degree hunter killer sensor. The ideal set up would be to have room for three dismounts as usually carrier in the Warrior and a command crew of three, as before a Driver, a Gunner and A commander but all in the hull. With no need for a Turret basket etc. there would be sufficient room for these plus six dismounts and their various weapons.

And yes I was wrong, Sky Ranger uses a Rheinmetall 35mm cannot not the CT40. I was thinking of the land based version of Thales' Rapid Fire system, which has been displayed on a Boxer hull, and got it and the Boxer mounted Sky Ranger mixed up. Nobody is perfect. :)

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SD67 »

mr.fred wrote:
SD67 wrote: Taking a 30 year old hard worked platform and ripping out basically all the key systems, hoping the new bits work with the old bits, there's been reports of it needing a new chassis.
And it was 80% the way through reliability trials.
The US and Germans regularly do it with 40 year old platform.
Which 40 year old US vehicle is going to get a new gun, new engine new turret and new electronics architecture?

It's been "almost finished" reliability trials for years. M1s returning from Iraq are stripped down to the bare metal, Warriors didn't even get a new coat of paint.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Germans regularly do it with 40 year old platform.
like the good number of Marders ? - or is there a newer vintage of them being driven around
SD67 wrote:there's been reports of it needing a new chassis.
One report I saw attributed this (after inspections; the fail % was not disclosed) to the fact that added armour had been too much for the original aluminium construct that it was hung onto
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

SD67 wrote:Which 40 year old US vehicle is going to get a new gun, new engine new turret and new electronics architecture?
The Abrams was re-gunned fairly early in its life but more recently has had considerable electronics modifications (including most of the turret contents) and substantial armour rework. I think the latest modification included modifications to the gun and fire control to permit the use of smart fused ammunition.
Additions of APUs has happened as well.

Leopard 2 has been repeatedly and substantially upgraded, including regunning.

I didn’t think the WCSP included a re-engining.
SD67 wrote:It's been "almost finished" reliability trials for years
It’s been doing trials for only a couple of years and the trails were apparently a few years.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote: SD67 wrote:
It's been "almost finished" reliability trials for years


It’s been doing trials for only a couple of years and the trails were apparently a few years.
My understanding is that functionally pretty much everything has been a success, but the key thing (and that's why the trials were planned to be running over such a long period) was to establish the MTBF for setting the over-the-life budget
- while we do not know that interim (input) result, we do now know the end result
- is there a direct link? I would presume so, as cancelling a major prgrm at a 'whisk & whim' might otherwise produce a juicy court case

The ping-ponging of the responsibilies over the old hulls part of the prgrm can't have helped
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SD67 »

Getting the trials to technically work is one thing - you choose a couple of vehicles that are in good condition and lavish attention on them.

But replicating that over 250 vehicles? How do you know the condition of hull number 153? What other problems do you find once you've opened the tin? It's a big risk for a contractor to take on a fixed price basis and highly visible if it doesn't go to plan

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

SD67 wrote: Getting the trials to technically work is one thing - you choose a couple of vehicles that are in good condition and lavish attention on them.
That would be a good way of getting egg on your face later.
SD67 wrote:But replicating that over 250 vehicles? How do you know the condition of hull number 153? What other problems do you find once you've opened the tin? It's a big risk for a contractor to take on a fixed price basis and highly visible if it doesn't go to plan
I would have thought that the solution would not be to do what you suggested above. Your trials should be representative.
Inspecting assets prior to using them isn’t rocket science.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote:Well at least there will be a reason to push the trials forward at a pace so that the vehicles could be in service by 2025. Then again we could go with something already cleared/certified for use such as the Lance-R remote turret by Rheinmetall. This would still allow the vehicle to carry between six and eight dismounts whereas installing a manned turret mounting the CT40 would reduce this ti four. This is what the Australians and Germans have accepted by their adoption of the manned version of the Lance turret. The alternative if we really want to have the CT40 on the Boxers to create an IFV would be to use the remote turret designed by Nexter which like the Lance can also hold two ATGW. However this has also not been certified for Boxer but it does actually work reliably, so probably a similar delay but we keep the higher number of dismounts. So;
1st Choice - Lance-R.
2nd Choice - Nexter remote CT40 Turret.
3rd Choice - LM Turret designed for WCSP.

We could then use the CT40 guns for a number of Sky Ranger SPAA turrets, again already certified on Boxer, and we are going to need around 120 of these to provide the necessary cover for our Ground Troops, so with spares etc the 200 we have should cover it.
It is interesting that the Dutch are testing the M230LF 30mm fitted on a EOS/RWS on Boxer. This system and weapons fit is claimed by ESO to be able to hit moving targets from a moving vehicle at 2000 meters this RWS is also capable of taking 2 ATGW's

Now we know that the UK has gone for the RS4 RWS which is capable of taking 12.7 or 40mm AGL plus Javelin however if we were to also have RS6 as well which allows 30mm and 7.62 plus Javelin or Stinger at the same time this could allow a Boxer Battalion to look like

20 x APC fitted with RS4 / RWS with 12.7 mm Plus 2 x Javelin ATGW's
20 x APC fitted with RS4 / RWS with 40mm AGL plus 2 x Javelin
20 x APC fitted with RS6 / RWS with 30 mm and 7.62 mm Plus 2 x LMM
9 x 120mm Nemo
20 x fitted with 40mm turret

this would be a hard hitting force in my book with the APC still able to carry up to 8 dismounts

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:They do not have MoD certification, but they have certification from the manufacturer which means the Army will not be starting from a cold start, but rather confirming the manufacturers figures and insuring it meets the requirements laid down in the programme. We are talking more fo Troop Trials the manufacturing trials here. No I do not have a comprehensive knowledge of these process for land equipment but have been trying to use common sense which might have been a mistake.
I'm trying not to be rude, but you're somewhat out of your depth on this aspect.
Lord Jim wrote: As for adopting a remote turret, the development of virtual situational awareness is moving forward rapidly especially in Israel. In addition to fixed cameras the Commander would have access to a 360 degree hunter killer sensor. The ideal set up would be to have room for three dismounts as usually carrier in the Warrior and a command crew of three, as before a Driver, a Gunner and A commander but all in the hull. With no need for a Turret basket etc. there would be sufficient room for these plus six dismounts and their various weapons.
AJAX already provides 360 digital video day and night, independent commander's sight and commander's sight. So AJAX could do without the glass and mirrors, but nonetheless they are there.

Entirely practical to go unmammed, but it would take a shift in MOD/user wants and needs. Fitting more PAX in the back of the IFV might be the bait.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

RunningStrong wrote:I'm trying not to be rude, but you're somewhat out of your depth on this aspect.
I would seriously welcome any enlightenment on this subject to help any future posts.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:I'm trying not to be rude, but you're somewhat out of your depth on this aspect.
I would seriously welcome any enlightenment on this subject to help any future posts.
Best I can offer...

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/uk-defence-standardization

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:Then again we could go with something already cleared/certified for use such as the Lance-R remote turret by Rheinmetall. This would still allow the vehicle to carry between six and eight dismounts whereas installing a manned turret mounting the CT40 would reduce this ti four.
The Aussies fit 6 in the back with the RM turret, why do you believe that would go down to 4 with the LM CTA turret?

Curious, I can think of no reason why that would be so.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Only because an article on the programme in an Australian magazine quoted four dismounts as did an article in Defence Technology magazine. Now this could be a simple case of Australia choosing only to carry four dismounts, or any additional equipment for the Recce Role may have reduced the number neither article said.

If we can fit the LM turret onto Boxer and retain six dismounts then obviously that should be our first choice, accepting it will require trails, as has been pointed out to me, with option two being either version of the RM turret that would not require further trials except those carried but the Army to ensure the UK specific kit doesn't upset the rest of the platform.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

RunningStrong wrote:Best I can offer...
Cheers will do some digging around. I am more familiar with the aviation side so it will be interesting to see how the Ground Vehicle process differs. Unfortunately my MoD Password is well out of date by now. :D

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:Only because an article on the programme in an Australian magazine quoted four dismounts as did an article in Defence Technology magazine. Now this could be a simple case of Australia choosing only to carry four dismounts, or any additional equipment for the Recce Role may have reduced the number neither article said.

If we can fit the LM turret onto Boxer and retain six dismounts then obviously that should be our first choice, accepting it will require trails, as has been pointed out to me, with option two being either version of the RM turret that would not require further trials except those carried but the Army to ensure the UK specific kit doesn't upset the rest of the platform.
Just read the DTR supplement on the Boxer CRV, says 3 crew and 6 dismounts.

Given the Aussies typical size that probably means 8 poms in the backs. 10 if they're welsh.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

So just to be clear what would fitting a Warrior turret onto Boxer give us over say fitting RS6/ RWS with a M230LF 30mm , 7.62 GPMG and Javelin missile part from the hitting power and air bust of the 40mm

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote:So just to be clear what would fitting a Warrior turret onto Boxer give us over say fitting RS6/ RWS with a M230LF 30mm , 7.62 GPMG and Javelin missile part from the hitting power and air bust of the 40mm
An IFV.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Tempest414 wrote:So just to be clear what would fitting a Warrior turret onto Boxer give us over say fitting RS6/ RWS with a M230LF 30mm , 7.62 GPMG and Javelin missile part from the hitting power and air bust of the 40mm
Effective Range, anti-armour ammunition depth, the ability to serve the weapons from under armour.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote:So just to be clear what would fitting a Warrior turret onto Boxer give us over say fitting RS6/ RWS with a M230LF 30mm , 7.62 GPMG and Javelin missile part from the hitting power and air bust of the 40mm
Airburst Anti-aircraft capability, multiple anti-armour shots, NBC environment capability.

The warrior turret is fitted with a 7.62 chain Gun anyway, and the RWS integrated on AJAX can take a Javelin...

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

so as I said more hitting power and air burst rounds are the key things however a upgrade of some of the RWS's from RS4 to RS6 to allow standard APC's to carry the M230LF 30mm and 2 Javelin anti tank or 2 LMM for anti air could only be a good thing

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

CTA
Armour Piercing round
For armoured targets such as tanks
Velocity 1,500 m/s
Penetration 140mm
- of Hardened steel (RHA) at 1,500m.
Tempest414 wrote:the M230LF 30mm
compare
- with velocity 850, and
- much smaller AB 'carry' or payload
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Caribbean »

The AEI 30mm Venom LR sounds like it would be a good choice - can be used anywhere a 12.7mm can be fitted. 2000m effective range (3000m for area effect). Rate of fire either 220 rpm OR 1300 rpm (so possible use against UAVs). Qualified for Aden 30 x 113mm rounds

Oh and probably half the cost of the M230LF

Would make a good direct fire weapon in urban situations where lower collateral damage is needed. Both JLTV and Bushmaster should be able to mount it as well
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Post Reply