Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

[ArmChairCivvy]

even European countries do not buy our equipment, except the material that we manufacture in common, European countries prefer to buy American equipment. It is a fact.

Belgium? They used to follow the British way, then went over to Piranhas and are now "harmonising" with the French formations.

[Frenchie]

Belgium? They used to follow the British way, then went over to Piranhas and are now "harmonising" with the French formations.

I forgot Belgium, my apologies to all the Belgians of the forum.

[Ron5]

Let me answer my own questions. Seems the turret in question is a derivative of the Warrior turret. My bad. There was a Lockheed online brochure at one time that waxed lyrical but seems to have been removed.

http://www.janes.com/article/74127/dsei ... den-depths

Still leaves my original question, why not stick a few of these on some Boxers? The US is up gunning its Strykers. Australia is buying turreted Boxers. What does the BA know that others don't?

Lockheed Martin currently have 3 turret designs in their catalogue: AJAX, Warrior and Export. The latter has been fitted on Patria and various other platforms to highlight its ease of integration.

The issue that integration can mean a whole lot of things these days.

What's going through your turret RBJ? Power? Data? RF? Air? Or can you fit everything (including full radio set) into the turret?

Seems you are saying there's a range of capabilities/options with fitting a turret. Some more expensive than others. So why not fit the simplest & cheapest? My only, perhaps naive, point is that without a decent gun on at least some of the Boxers, it wouldn't take much in the way of opposition to stop one of these new brigades.

[MikeKiloPapa]

Belgium? They used to follow the British way, then went over to Piranhas and are now "harmonising" with the French formations.

I forgot Belgium, my apologies to all the Belgians of the forum.

Not the only ones you forgot
http://www.nexter-group.fr/en/press/748 ... caesar-8x8

[Frenchie]

My apologies to everyone sorry

[Lord Jim]

The more I look into the whole "Strike" Brigade programme the more I think the foundation the Army and MoD are working from is flawed. If we proceed with the Boxer we will be getting a very capable platform, and as an APC it is probably the top of its class. We need to experiment with what is the best way to utilise these platforms though. The current "Back of a fag packet" idea of forming each brigade with two Ajax Regiments and two Boxer equipped Infantry Regiments, supported by Artillery and Air Support controllers is laughable and totally not fir for purpose against most opposition. They lack boots on the ground to be effective at COIN warfare and the Ajax lacks theatre mobility and has the same heavy logistics tail all tracked AFVs bring to the party. Why are the Ajax here, well it appears the Army, having finally let a contract for the fruits of the FRES SV programme, are now trying to work out what exactly they want to do with them. Instead of initially issuing them to the Armoured and Armoured Infantry units for close Recce and forming a "Prototype" Recce Regiment, they have decided to team this tracked platform with Boxer, which has a major impact on the theatre mobility of the units equipped with the latter, an the former are tasked with providing the fire power of the Brigades whist supposedly still being Recce units. So we end up with a formation consisting of tracked light tanks armed with 40mm cannon working with medium wheeled APCs armed with either a 12,7mm or 7,62mm Machine gun, and reliant on other formations for Artillery and about every other support function. But to the Army the "Strike" Brigades sound sexy and are their name loos and sounds good when mentioned in PR exercises.

What we should be doing now is seriously looking at how other nations use their 6x6 adn 8x8 platfroms and how they have organised the Battalions and Brigades so equipped, ideally forming an experimental Battalions to try out different ideas and if neccessary borrow plaforms needed for roles we currently hav no confirmed requirement for. This is roughy what the US Army did when forming the "Stryker" Brigades, borrowing Italian 105mm armed 8x8s to see how to use them within the planned formations. In fact lets take a closer look at the Stryker Brigade.

At present this comprises of;
3 Infantry Battalions.
1 Recce Squadron.
1 Field Artillery Battalion.
1 Support Battalion.
1 Engineering Battalion.

From what I have been able to gather the main combat variants in the Infantry Battalions are split 50:50 being armed either with the new Kongsberg ProtectorMCT-30 RWS armed with the Bushmaster II 30mm Cannon or the Kongsberg Protector RWS armed with a 12.7 HMG or 40mm AGL. Some of the later appear to also be fitted with a launcher for the Javelin ATGW, and being capable for firing this from under armour. In addition each Battalion has six 120mm SP Mortars with two attached to each Rifle Company but often combined into a single battery. The Main firepower of the Brigade comes from the Recce Squadron which is now equipped with 9 TOW armed AT platforms and 12 105mm MGS. To this additional variants are being hurridly developed to enahnce the Brigade including a SPAA variant. Rounding out the Brigades Firepwer are the three batteries of M777A2 155mm Howitzer in the Field Artillery Battalion, able to fire various guided and sub munition rounds.

Now let us look at how the UK's "Strike Brigades could be similarly equipped. In the three Infantry Battalions I propose. it would be logical to fit Javelin to the Boxers currently earmarked to recieve a RWS with a 12.7mm HMG. Further firepower could be achieved by adapting the Kongsberg MCT-30 RWS to house the CTA 40mm. The latter is actually slightly smaller as is the ammunition. AS the RWS does not enter the main hull the number of dismounts would remain the same. Whilst I am an advocate of the British Army adopting the 120mm to replace the 81mm, especially when vehicle mounted, retaining the 81mm would still rpovide useful fire support. With regards to the Artillery, we could continue to use the RO 105mm LG, giving the Brigade a Regiment of three batteries, but the 105mm is out gunned by many possible opponents, and is limited in the ammunition it can fore, all being "Dumb". Turnong to the Recce Squadron eqivilent, most needed woul dbe a long range ATGW or other precision weapon system. Brimstone 2 in a ground launched configuaration woul dbe my choice, as its mulitipe guidance options would allow it to provide a superbe overwatch capability for the Brigade, both direct and indirect, and able to take its cue from various sources. Finally Air Defence and here the UK is fortunate. We already have hte excellent Starstreak HVM in service, with the SP variants currently mounted on the Stormer. If the Army transferred these systems to the Boxer Chassis it would allow the integration in to the "Strike" Brigades without affecting their mobility in theatre or increasing their logistics train. Being as the Boxer could also replace some platforms in the Armoured Infantry Brigades, they would be able to integrate with these easily. The one category I have not covered is a Boxer equivalent to the Stryker MGS. I have not done this as the vehicles armed with the 40mm CTA have the ability to provide support to the infantry, being able to easily breach the walls of buildings and deal with opponents behind cover using airburst rounds. The Brimstone 2 will provide the Brigade with sufficient anti tank capability and more given the systems flexibility.

The above offers a graduated list of solutions to making the "Strike" Brigades far more capable, with the simplest option being very affordable and using much existing equipment. The two areas requiring development would be the 40mm CTA RWS based on the Kongsberg design and the creation of a ground launched Brimstone 2 and the relevant launcher for the Boxer. These two Brigades would be able to provide heavier support for the UK's Rapid response formations, namely 3 Command and 16 Air Assault Brigades, or supplement the two Armoured Infantry Brigades. Of course by themselves they would be effective in many scenarios.

Hopefully under the UL's current Modernising Defence Programme, the glaring inadequacies of the current plans for the "Strike" Brigades will be realised and the necessary changes can be made.

[ArmChairCivvy]

adapting the Kongsberg MCT-30 RWS to house the CTA 40mm. The latter is actually slightly smaller as is the ammunition. AS the RWS does not enter the main hull the number of dismounts would remain the same.

In addition to the ready rounds, at least 200 "Coke cans" would be needed under armour (ideally fed to the RWS, rather than someone jumping out, to do the replenishment).

Now, I don't stock Coke, but could imagine that the stack would easily fill a generously dimensioned fireplace; make that minus 2 dismounts?

[mr.fred]

In addition to the ready rounds, at least 200 "Coke cans" would be needed under armour (ideally fed to the RWS, rather than someone jumping out, to do the replenishment).

Now, I don't stock Coke, but could imagine that the stack would easily fill a generously dimensioned fireplace; make that minus 2 dismounts?

The rounds themselves are 255mm long at 65mm diameter. Should be easy enough to quantify how much space you need. Then you could go on to why 200 rounds in addition to ready rounds in the turret.

Further firepower could be achieved by adapting the Kongsberg MCT-30 RWS to house the CTA 40mm.

Well it could, but why would you want to mandate converting the MCT-30 as a base when it has been designed around a gun with a completely different feed system. Either picking an existing CT40 prototype remote turret or developing a new one would be much more sensible.

The one category I have not covered is a Boxer equivalent to the Stryker MGS. I have not done this as the vehicles armed with the 40mm CTA have the ability to provide support to the infantry, being able to easily breach the walls of buildings and deal with opponents behind cover using airburst rounds.

You are equating the effects of the CT40 with those of a 105mm L7-type gun? That seems like a less than rigorous comparison.

With regards to the Artillery, we could continue to use the RO 105mm LG, giving the Brigade a Regiment of three batteries, but the 105mm is out gunned by many possible opponents, and is limited in the ammunition it can fore, all being "Dumb".

Yeah, our artillery hasn't aged well. Though a SPG module combining the M777 and the Boxer would be a better solution for the highly-mobile strike concept than a big, heavy, unprotected towed piece. IMHO.

Whilst I am an advocate of the British Army adopting the 120mm to replace the 81mm,

About the only good case for that which I can see is the use of turreted breech loading systems (I favour the NEMO) that can also be used in the direct fire role as a substitute for most of what the US army uses the 105mm MGS for.

Brimstone 2 in a ground launched configuaration woul dbe my choice, as its mulitipe guidance options would allow it to provide a superbe overwatch capability for the Brigade, both direct and indirect, and able to take its cue from various sources.

As an alternative runner, the continuing use of Exactor would, at the very least, provide a stop-gap until you had such a system proven.

inally Air Defence and here the UK is fortunate. We already have hte excellent Starstreak HVM in service, with the SP variants currently mounted on the Stormer. If the Army transferred these systems to the Boxer Chassis it would allow the integration in to the "Strike" Brigades without affecting their mobility in theatre or increasing their logistics train.

If the SP HVM system is also capable of firing the Lightweight Multirole Missile, then it's worth pursuing, otherwise it would very much be back-burner if at all. Precision HE out past 5km would be most useful in a most situations

[Lord Jim]

I wasn't specifically mandating the use of the MCT-30 as such, but rather advocating the use of a RWS that did not intrude into the hull and reduce the number of dismounts the platform could carry. This is the problem with fitting either the Ajax or Warrior turrets. Regarding ammunition stowage, the MCT-30 with the Bushmaster II 30mm carries 78 ready round in the turret magazines and a further 260 are carried in the hull, but importantly the turret can be reloaded from inside. Again given the greater internal volume of the Boxer over the Stryker, even with a RWS fitted with a 40mm CTA and the internal ammunition stowage, it would still be able to carry up to eight dismounts.

What I was trying to do was use the Stryker Brigade as a template for the "Strike" Brigade. With the 105mm MGS, I believe its main role is to provide direct fire support for the troops etc. The 40mm CTS has proven very effective in trials in doing this and in urban environment sis actually more effective due to reduced collateral impact. I was also trying to keep costs down as I am sure it would be possible to develop a mission module with the same sort of system as the MGS.

I agree Exactor would be a good interim until as replacement such as a ground launched Brimstone 2 could be developed, but with the Army only purchasing 16 systems mounted on ex IDF M113s under a UOR and the majority of the missiles purchased having been used, whilst being ideal for any experimental formation, I still think the Brimstone option would be best. The two Brigades would each require between eighteen and twenty four Boxers equipped with what even system was taken forward, and would provide a far more versatile system than the TOW carried by the Strykers.

Cost was also the driver for retaining the current 81mm for the Boxer Mortar Carrier. As 120mm would be more effective across the board, but unless the British Army moves in this direction in other units it will be hard to justify. Mind you if the Boxer is also in line to replace FV430 variants in the Armoured Infantry Brigades, then equipping these with a 120mm armed Boxer Mortar Carrier starts to turn the argument around.

Just having integral Artillery for the "Strike" Brigades would be an improvement over what is currently planned. Yet again retaining the 105mm LG is cost based. The Stryker Brigades use the M777A2 which bring a host of advantages to the table and is a proven effective alternative. This is a good example of why I suggested forming an experimental unit, that would borrow a number of M777 to see how they would fit in with the British Army and compare them to the existing 105mm. Developing a SP variant beyond what ARTEC have already done would be too expensive, and if this route was taken, any advantages in other lighter formations also adopting the M777A2 would be lost.

There are a multitude of this that could be done to the Boxer and to the "Strike" Brigades, but I think the US Army's Stryker Brigades are a good template to start form. They seem to be effective formations, and the troops involved seem to like the kit they have. The Boxer is a far more capable platform than the Piranha III which the Stryker is based on and so would put the British Army in a good position moving forward, especially as the Boxer has both modularity, being able to change mission modules in the field if required, in under an hour, and growth potential.

In the end as I have said before, the current planes for the "Strike" Brigades are a disaster waiting to happen and should have been left on the white board in whatever room the brainstorming session was held where they came up. There is time to correct this folly but the Army seems to think it knows what it is doing even if it is going down a path it has not done so before unless you count the Saracen in the 1950s and 60s.

[ArmChairCivvy]

could go on to why 200 rounds in addition to ready rounds in the turret.

Indeed: The main weapon system of the Boxer is riding in the back... in multiple copies. More about that below. All autocannons are mainly suppression weapons; the CTA40 was needed as the IFVs it might meet were developing into "difficult patients" - with a thick skin . Having the 40 then (further) improved suppression capability markedly as the payload for AB becomes to be of meaningful quantity.

a gun with a completely different feed system.

While I am still staring at my fireplace, over the screen of my PC, does the cubic of 200 internally carried rounds (even much bigger manned turrets are limited to 70-ish ready rounds) with a feed system equate to losing 2 dismounts? Or more? Or less?

combining the M777 and the Boxer

A much better idea than the Portee that was trialled years ago; the gun was so hefty, relative to the vehicle, that broken axels resulted when going x-0country.

the use of turreted breech loading systems (I favour the NEMO)

... me, too

As an alternative runner, the continuing use of Exactor would, at the very least, provide a stop-gap

If a Humvee can take several. then a Boxer should have some pointing through both sides (a joke)
- yes, a good idea as the uses would not be limited to anti-tank/ other IFV, but would give medium units with that artillery that hasn't aged well a counter-battery capability and not have dispersal as the only remedy - how do you rapidly concentrate striking power, if you need to keep dispersing every 15 minutes?

[ArmChairCivvy]

I was trying to do was use the Stryker Brigade as a template for the "Strike" Brigade. With the 105mm MGS, I believe its main role is to provide direct fire support for the troops etc

Very much agree with using tried and tested templates
- also, that integral direct fire seems to have worked out so well that a medium tank is in the plans for units that are neither heavy nor Stryker

even if it is going down a path it has not done so before unless you count the Saracen in the 1950s and 60s.

Even then the formed units didn't have both Saracens and (the gunned) Saladins... which is not to say that they were never used together.
- both with roughly equal mobility characteristics

[mr.fred]

I wasn't specifically mandating the use of the MCT-30 as such, but rather advocating the use of a RWS that did not intrude into the hull and reduce the number of dismounts the platform could carry.

That may not have been your intent, but you did specifically state an intent to "adapt an MCT-30 to house the CTA 40mm"
The MCT is a pretty interesting turret, but using it as a base or reference for a CT40 wouldn't work, as the feed mechanism takes the place of one magazine and the other would be unusable as it is on the other side of the gun to the feed mechanism. Perhaps the Toutatis remote turret that CTAI developed a while ago might be a better reference for feasibility, if you can find the relevant information.

I agree Exactor would be a good interim until as replacement such as a ground launched Brimstone 2 could be developed, but with the Army only purchasing 16 systems mounted on ex IDF M113s under a UOR

I was pretty sure that they were towed these days.

Developing a SP variant beyond what ARTEC have already done would be too expensive, and if this route was taken, any advantages in other lighter formations also adopting the M777A2 would be lost.

I shall remain of the opinion that any advantage of M777A2 for the light formations would be entirely outweighed by the crippling logistical burden they would impose. A "motorised" force in lighter wheeled vehicles than the MIV could quite easily use MIV-based SPGs without greatly affecting their mobility. If you were particularly clever, you could find a way of fitting modules to the trucks used by lighter formations to make a lighter SPG.

[Ron5]

I was always intrigued by the 105mm Denel gun that GD put on top of a LAV for a demonstration some years ago. I know 105mm is not the flavor of the month but the Denel gun had/has some pretty attractive features like oodles of range. I think the combo carried upwards of 50 rounds and charges in a semi-auto magazine that filled the LAV. As a proposal it went nowhere. It would look better on a Boxer

105 mm LEO-LAVIII-02.jpg

[Ron5]

I've just been reading about the Australian win for Boxer. If I read it right and did the right math, they will be buying 200 Boxers with most, not all, with turrets for roughly 3 billion UK pounds.

Given the UK desire to buy (and support for 10 years) 500 Boxers for 4.4 billion, it's real easy to see that UK turrets are just not affordable. Sigh.

[Lord Jim]

If money were no object then developing and fielding a 8x8 SP 155mm for the Strike Brigades would be a great idea as would fielding a 105mm or even 120mm MGS, but I am trying to keep one eye on affordability. Halving the Ajax order would free up some of the funding for the improvements I suggest, especially as these would not be part of these Brigades, leaving the requirement only for those needed for the six Close Recce Sections and one or two Recce Regiments.

The Denel 105mm is an interesting weapon, with great range for a weapon if its size, I would be a possible compromise able to provide indirect and even direct fire support should the need arise. Though not delivering the weight of a 155mm, it is definitely an major improvement over the 105mm Light Gun.

I do however fail to see this "Crippling" burden the M777A2 brings to light and medium formations? Have so many other nations got it wrong. 155mm is a far superior calibre compared to 105mm, with its access to effective guided projectiles and sub munition dispensers. Add to this its range advantage and these outweigh the increased weight in ammunition. Also if you can take out a target with one shot from one gun, compared with multiple rounds form an entire battery there are some advantages. The M777A2 is as mobile as the 105mm Light Gun, can use similar tractors, and both the Merlin and Chinook can transport it easily.

As for the turret, using the MCR-30 example was a result of trying to de a direct comparison to he Stryker Brigade upgrade. Any actual RWS that can handle the 40mm CTA should be in the picture as long as it does not reduce the dismount count and can be reloaded form inside the vehicle.

The cheapest version of the Strike Brigade I propose would comprise;

3 Infantry Battalions each with:-
Boxer APC with 12.7mm HMG and Javelin ATGW
Boxer Mortar Carrier with 81mm Mortar
Boxer Fire Support with Exactor
Boxer Command
Boxer Recce. with improved sensors possibly mast mounted.
Boxer Engineer.
Boxer Ambulance.

1 Artillery Regiment with:-
Boxer Tractor with 105mm Light Guns
Boxer SP Starstreak HVM.
Boxer Artilery/Air Fire Control and Observation (Is this called Smart Fires or something like it ?)

This is not the best solution but is better than what we have now in the pipeline. It is also a true Motorised Infantry Brigade and should be used as such. Obvious spending more money adds capability and more options as to their use. With this the British Army would go from six Armoured Infantry Battalions to four but would gain six mobile Battalions able to suppliment these and also provide heavier support to the army's lighter brigades such as 16 Air Assault and also 3 Commando.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Any actual RWS that can handle the 40mm CTA should be in the picture as long as it does not reduce the dismount count and can be reloaded form inside the vehicle.

Or we could do a "proper" turret for every one Boxer in four; the specialist versions excepted?

[Frenchie]

The concept of a Strike Brigade is to have a rapidly deployable brigade in a distant operation theater.
How do you get a Boxer with its turret into an A400M ?
Then the Boxer must enter in a C-17 but the Royal Air Force has only 8 C-17.
Then there is the price, a Boxer is very expensive and I do not know if the MoD has the money to buy a whole fleet of Boxer, with, in addition, the development of variants that Lord Jim has listed.
I am not convinced that the choice of the Boxer for Strike Brigades is relevant.
Even disregarding the price, this is a bad idea.

[mr.fred]

I do however fail to see this "Crippling" burden the M777A2 brings to light and medium formations? Have so many other nations got it wrong. 155mm is a far superior calibre compared to 105mm, with its access to effective guided projectiles and sub munition dispensers. Add to this its range advantage and these outweigh the increased weight in ammunition. Also if you can take out a target with one shot from one gun, compared with multiple rounds form an entire battery there are some advantages. The M777A2 is as mobile as the 105mm Light Gun, can use similar tractors, and both the Merlin and Chinook can transport it easily.

Everything about it is more. Twice the weight. Twice the crew, twice the setup time, three times the ammunition weight, half the rate of fire, twice the minimum safe distance.

Submunitions? Who are you sending light forces up against that they’ll regularly need submunitions shells?
Range? Why do you need so much range to support an infantry formation? Do you have the targeting capacity to utilise that range?
Other countries? It’s either being used by the US who have rather more logistics than we do, Canada or Australia who are replacing other towed 155mm guns and do not have SPGs, Saudi Arabia who have rather different requirements to many people. ???

There is some work between BAE and the Emiraties developing a SPG using the M777 ordnance.


Mix tube artillery with guided rockets (Exactor) and you cover both precision and area roles with weight to spare.

[Lord Jim]

We could, if the Ajax order was reduced, or at least the number of hulls, possibly add a Company/Squadron of say twelve Boxers each equipped with the in used Ajax turrets, upgraded with the a round Javelin launcher. These could be allocated to the Infantry Companies as required whist the Boxers in the actual Infantry Companies are fitted with a RWS with M2 12.7mm HMGs and single Javelins. Again a definite improvement on current plans.

Back to the M777A2, which I am a fan of, though you would never of guessed. Well it may be twice the weight, but the formations that use it don't seem to have an issue. I have seen footage with the gun being serviced by a crew of seven compared to the six for the Light Gun, and the rate of fire was pretty impressive. The targeting systems were very accurate and basically tablets, using data form various feeds including the guns themselves which were GPS linked. This allows the guns to set up in only a few minutes, roughly the same as the 105mm Light Gun, rapidly fire two rounds each of any type of round and be gone in another few minutes. You cannot sit around even in an SP gun these days and fire away. The opposition have a good chance of out ranging you and having more guns. With the Regiment one battery would be in action at any on time at least so the brigade would have constant indirect fire support. The minimum safe distance may be greater but that also works against the guy on the receiving end. With the Precision Guidance kits fitted to the standard HE round the increase accuracy greatly reduced the chance of a round falling short as well.

Also my suggestion was for the M777 to go initially to the "Strike" brigades, but mentioned that it would also increase the firepower of the UKs Rapid Reaction Brigades, something they desperately need and that all three formations having the same bit of kit would save support costs. The latter would not be overly burdened logistically operating the M777A2, basically what we use now to support the Light Gun could do the job at a pinch but platforms already exist such as the Coyote that would make an excellent tractor for ruse by 16 Ait Assault and the all terrain vehicles used by 3 Commando could do like wise. Yes the rounds are heavier, but are far more effective, more accurate so you need fewer.

But going back a bit, my initial suggestion for the "Strike" Brigades was to simply include an Artillery Regiment with 105mm Light Guns in each, as the cheapest way for the them to have some integral artillery support. The M777A2 was the next level up if funding was available, and of course if money was no object, then a bespoke SP 155mm Mission Module for the Boxer.

How are we going to use the Brigades is a whole different topic and I am sure many in the Army would actually like to know. At least we know things have moved on from the idea of flying the formations around the world fighting low intensity interventions. I believe the idea taking shape is more along the line of a high mobility formation able to get to the battle front quickly and then operate over a far larger area then the current Armoured Infantry and having far more punch that the light Brigades such as 16 Air Assault. AS I see there creation, they would be true middle weights, able to effectively support the Armoured Infantry Formation in high intensity warfare and provide heavier support to light formation in other types of operations. This is the capability the British Army has been after for decades, but has been its own worst enemy when trying to realise this need. The "Strike" Brigades are an opportunity to achieve this but at present the Top Brass are truly screwing it up, if you will pardon the language.

[mr.fred]

I’ll definitely agree that the strike brigades will need supporting arms, with artillery being high on the list, along with logistics and targeting capabilities.
105s for cheap and quick, M777s if the costs make sense, but not to hamstring the mobile medium units with towed just so you can hamstring the logistics of the light formations with an overly large gun.
Buying an off the shelf turreted mortar system ought to be considered as the first step towards an SPG as it would also permit use in the direct fire role. Towed 120mm mortars are neither fish nor fowl, IMHO.

I wouldn’t want to sell the mechanised infantry brigades as anything other than what they are, which is highly mobile infantry. All this dispersed formation business sounds a lot like what the “Top Brass” were planning with FRES. These vehicles are protected mobility for infantry and should not count on the cooperation of the enemy in the creation of a dream engagement.

[Frenchie]

I have nothing to sell but the VAB Mark 3 supported by the Caesar 6x6 is a good idea for your Strike Brigades, it's not as sexy as a Boxer but it's cheap and it's more flexible.

http://www.renault-trucks-defense.eu/co ... _EN-BD.pdf





And the Aravis is a very protected medium weight vehicle who may be interesting for the British Army.


http://www.armyrecognition.com/aravis_n ... uncti.html


You will not want it, I think, but it's a good equipment.

[Lord Jim]

Would the VAB Mk3 be an option for the MRV(P) 6x6 I wonder?

[Mercator]

Should the Bushmaster be selected for MRV (P), there is a dual cab gun towing version that was specially designed for you guys several years ago. Gabriele actually wrote about it in 2012:
http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot ... ected.html

[ArmChairCivvy]

There is some work between BAE and the Emiraties developing a SPG using the M777 ordnance.

Interesting as the UAE artillery and SP mortars have all been built around the Denel dispersed FC system. BAE getting in, to the party, would be great (the munitions side of Denel being now controlled by Rheinmetall).
- we might get an M777 SPG for the Strike Bdes "on the deal"?

I have seen footage with the gun being serviced by a crew of seven compared to the six for the Light Gun, and the rate of fire was pretty impressive.

The limited arc of fire immediately ups the crew requirement to 10 (that's based on the USMC where most recruits have been eating beef raised with hormones, not just visiting the gym once a week )

With the Regiment one battery would be in action at any on time at least so the brigade would have constant indirect fire support.

This is a very good point and goes back to why on earth do we penny packet artillery... who are the formations with such supprt supposed to fight?

operate over a far larger area then the current Armoured Infantry and having far more punch that the light Brigades such as 16 Air Assault.

- that is exactly it
- and consider the preallocation of the Apache Rgmnts to support the Reaction Force (for how long will that name survive?) and/or a force spearheaded by the 3 CDO
- both, of course, might not be in action simultaneously, but it is the Apaches that are/ were the "punch" in the 16X

[Frenchie]

Would the VAB Mk3 be an option for the MRV(P) 6x6 I wonder?

The Aravis is based on an Unimog U5000 chassis.








With an exceptional level of protection for a vehicle of this weight, I think it has all the qualities concerning the MRV-P program https://www.army-technology.com/project ... -armoured/