Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

[SW1]

That won't work . Skillsets are completely different for combined armour vs mech infantry in light role.

The French seem to make it work

Do they? In my experience of Conops, they rarely work well at all. You are asking a battle group to leave home the one instrument of tactical entry they have and either not have the troops at all or just use the tank crews as badly trained light infantry. If you have combined arms armoured battlegroups then use them or just have mech infantry battle groups. The skillsets are not interchangeable and would require several weeks of workup to re-establish.

These are not innate and are frangible. The reason why the BA is effective is training- often in single role and specialism. As for the French, my own experience of their mechanised units was not impressive. We held up at combined Franco-German brigade on exercise for 2 hours using 2 coy of Paras and a single coy of Ghurka's. The Black watch battle group came in from defilade and inserted a very unwelcome iron enema after this. Part of the reason for this was the use of a hybrid formation which had not properly worked up and did not exploit any favourable terrain due to the composite nature of their vehicle set and the unwilingness of the commanders to adapt their tactics.

They seem to be able to deploy elements of there heavy forces to Mali without main battle tanks. Sounds like your highlighting training issues and workup training before deployment I don’t know would it be different to how units trained before Afghanistan deployment in different roles.

[ArmChairCivvy]

deploy elements of there heavy forces to Mali without main battle tanks.

None of the forces were stripped of heavy equipment that they normally have [none]; the opposite does not hold, though: the same units can readily be used as building blocks in a wider hi-readiness force (that would include also heavy armour)

I have omitted HQs, signals, REME & transportation, army helicopter units
I have bolded light armour (all integral to the units fielded); though they all moved under own power, to understand distances also the location from which they were sent is shown
- and as usual, tables turn into a mess. Did some tidy up for readability

régiment etranger de cavalerie
Light armor One platoonAMX-10rC Chad

21e régiment d’onfanterie de marine
Mechanized infantrytwocompaniesVABChad

3e régiment artillery de marine
One platoon120 -mm mortarsChad

1 régiment de hussards parachististes
Airborne light armorErC 90 Côte d’Ivoire

1 régiment de chasseurs parachutistes
Airborne infantrytwocompaniesFrance

2e régiment etranger parachutiste
Airborne infantry (Foreign Legion) two companiesFrance

3e régiment parachutiste d’infanterie de marine
Airborne infantry

One tactical command post, ad hoc command, support and protection unit (around 100 men)Côte d’Ivoire

17e régiment du génie parachutiste
Airborne engineersOne platoonCôte d’Ivoire

1e regiment du train parachutiste
Airborne transportationOne platoonCôte d’Ivoire

régiment d’infanterie chars de marine
Light armor One squadronAMX-10rC France

2e régiment d’infanterie de marine
Mechanized infantrytwo infantry companies, one combat service support companyVABFrance

3e régiment d’infanterie de marine
Mechanized infantryOne companyFrance

11e régiment d’artillerie de marine
ArtilleryOne platoonCAESArFrance

6e régiment de génie
EngineeringOne companyVABFrance

1e régiment d’infanterie de marine
Light armored One reconnaissance squadron, one armored squadronAMX-10rC France

92e régiment d’infanterie
Mechanized infantrythree companiesVBCIFrance

126th régiment d’infanterie
Mechanized infantryOne companyVABFrance

68th régiment d’artillerie d’Afrique
ArtilleryArtillery command post, one platoonCAESArFrance

31e régiment de génie
EngineeringOne platoonVABFrance

[SW1]

None of the forces were stripped of heavy equipment that they normally have [none]; the opposite does not hold, though: the same units can readily be used as building blocks in a wider hi-readiness force (that would include also heavy armour)

I’m not suggesting units are stripped of heavy equipment. I’m suggesting that if you had an armoured brigade of challenger and boxer we may deploy a boxer equipped battalion from within that brigade, I believe the French have done that in Mali and I believe we did that with warrior in Afghanistan.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I believe the French have done that in Mali

Yes, from outside the 'good old' intervention brigades they had units drawn from the 3 Mech Bde (and 1 Logs Bde, which normally would serve the 'decision bdes' which are with heavy armour and allocated for Europe)
- from what would correspond to our AI bdes the following were drawn
2 sqdrns of AMX-10s
4 companies in VBCI/ VAB
1 artillery grouping with CAESAR
... so about a (strong) BG in our terms

More generally, what testifies for the lower logs footprint of wheeled AFVs is that in the early days intensive and continuous ops were sustained with a 3:1 tooth-to-tail ratio (the intensive airbridge is not accounted for in those numbers)
- when US forces were stationed in Europe in divisions, rather than in brigades as now is the case, that same ratio (for a much more compact area of ops) was 2:1

[Lord Jim]

All of the above only reinforces the argument that the Ajax needs to be removed from the "Strike" Brigade(s). and for the AS-90 to at least be partially replaced by a wheeled platform. The same goes for our non modernised M270 MLRS which instead of being upgrades should be replaced by HIMARS. Going further removing the Ajax and Warrior completely and having say three Mechanised Infantry Brigades each with one Type 44 Armoured Regiment and four Mechanised Infantry Battalions, backed up by a Artillery Brigade comprising of both HIMARS and Wheeled 155mm SPGs, 2 and 3 Regiments respectfully would be a better organisation for 3rd UK Division moving forward in my opinion. Again there will be a need to expand the number of Boxer Variants to provide the capabilities required, but it would give the UK a very potent and flexible "Combat" Division, easily able to deploy smaller formation if required.

[ArmChairCivvy]

three Mechanised Infantry Brigades each with one Type 44 Armoured Regiment and four Mechanised Infantry Battalions, backed up by a Artillery Brigade

I can see that you, quite rightly, avoid using terms armoured & AI
- for the former the ratio would be about 1 to 1
- so the division could muster three 'heavy combat BGs'
- and have 9 much lighter bns 'left over' for flanks manoeuvre, holding ground, securing the command & logs nodes. But other than artillery support (once we have other 'good ranged' assets than just the GMLRSs with unitary warheads) these bns do not exhibit many combined arms features, which ever way you want to aggregate them for emerging new 'schwerpunkts'

[Lord Jim]

That depends on how the Mechanised Battalions are organised and equipped. A mix of IFV and APC versions with a liberal spread of both heavy and medium ATGWs, integrated 120mm SP mortars and Air Defence assets as well as integral Engineering and ISTAR assets, bring high mobility, protection, firepower and other capabilities, not forgetting the Regiment of Challenger 3s the five Artillery Regiments as well as support from 6th Division assets. I would say that will do the job nicely and be cheaper to run in the process and have more boots on the ground. Ok some people will miss their beloved tracked IFVs, but there are very few areas that the Boxer cannot go that these can and in extreme terrain neither are mobile enough to be operationally effective, and the protection level s on Boxer are on the whole equal to Warrior even after its WCSP and in some areas like mine and IED resistance far superior. If we were to by a new IFV like the Lynx or Puma I might believe in retaining such platforms but the WCSP has the Warrior platform maxed out, and underpowered, so with the weight of all the additional kit it is now carrying it may have also lost some of that much vaunted tracked mobility.

[bobp]

Air Defence assets

This should be high on the list of must haves, especially with the increased use of drones in a conflict.

[ArmChairCivvy]

A mix of IFV and APC versions with a liberal spread of both heavy and medium ATGWs, integrated 120mm SP mortars and Air Defence assets as well as integral Engineering and ISTAR assets

Sure, but what has been proposed to be ordered stretches (in delivery) out to the end of this decade
... so all of the above would be how much extra?

[Lord Jim]

Well this is my issue with the whole Boxer and "Strike" Brigade programme. As it stands we will end up with toothless non viable combat formations for anything other than the lowest tier conflicts, and most importantly do not meet the core capability requirement of being readily and rapidly deployable over significant distances under there own power. Sure this is not stated in black and white but it is inferred repeatedly and the requirements for the new Artillery systems basically rule out any non wheeled platform by the distances it it required to travel under its own power both on and off road.

But we have a major opportunity with Boxer, thanks mainly to its Mission Module system. Though many disagree this allows the integration of weapon systems in a far simpler and timely manner. Just look at the number of options that have been integrated over the past few years. But the issue the British Army has is that the variants on order are simply insufficient to properly equip an Infantry Battalion nor support its operations. This could be solved if the Army pulled its finger out and announced that it was to purchase the desired variants in the very near future and this would not affect the programmes timeframe in a significant manner. Yes this will take additional resources, especially if the Army is unwilling to either reduce the number of Ajax purchased and/or cancel the WCSP. But without a major re equipment programme the UK will not have a viable Army to deploy anywhere leaving it with only a Navy and Air Force that are relevant. Army re equipment should come after CASD and Carrier Strike as far as defence priorities are concerned.

Well I am sure many are going to shoot this post down but I will stand by it.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Not me (disagreeing)
- my previous post was just looking at the financial envelope and the real constraints to the time line how things can happen

Though many disagree this allows the integration of weapon systems in a far simpler and timely manner. Just look at the number of options that have been integrated over the past few years. But the issue the British Army has is that the variants on order are simply insufficient to properly equip an Infantry Battalion nor support its operations.

To pick up, specifically, the point of organic fire power that moves with bns (like, at a higher level, the real plus with AS90s is that they have the mobility to move with the MBTs and IFVs they support).
- on this point there was just days ago a guest writer article on UKLandPower about what we could learn from other armies as to how they structure their formations
- the AMV/ Rosomak platform (not dissimilar when compared with Boxer) has a turreted mortar version and their bns have 8 (!) of those. If you like, each company could have some on call if they come up against any hardened positions ... and while that sort of thing is not happening, even in a distributed mode they can concentrate the fire for quite an area effect

Army re equipment should come after CASD and Carrier Strike as far as defence priorities are concerned.

Agreed. Tempest will be a bigger investment than Typhoon (for which NAO has the numbers) and there is scope to adjust at what speed we make that investment.
- if Mig41 comes around, we then 'step on the gas'
- looks like Ch3 will get there before Armata, if you know what I mean

[Ron5]

Well this is my issue with the whole Boxer and "Strike" Brigade programme. As it stands we will end up with toothless non viable combat formations for anything other than the lowest tier conflicts, and most importantly do not meet the core capability requirement of being readily and rapidly deployable over significant distances under there own power. Sure this is not stated in black and white but it is inferred repeatedly and the requirements for the new Artillery systems basically rule out any non wheeled platform by the distances it it required to travel under its own power both on and off road.

But we have a major opportunity with Boxer, thanks mainly to its Mission Module system. Though many disagree this allows the integration of weapon systems in a far simpler and timely manner. Just look at the number of options that have been integrated over the past few years. But the issue the British Army has is that the variants on order are simply insufficient to properly equip an Infantry Battalion nor support its operations. This could be solved if the Army pulled its finger out and announced that it was to purchase the desired variants in the very near future and this would not affect the programmes timeframe in a significant manner. Yes this will take additional resources, especially if the Army is unwilling to either reduce the number of Ajax purchased and/or cancel the WCSP. But without a major re equipment programme the UK will not have a viable Army to deploy anywhere leaving it with only a Navy and Air Force that are relevant. Army re equipment should come after CASD and Carrier Strike as far as defence priorities are concerned.

Well I am sure many are going to shoot this post down but I will stand by it.

It's just money and Boris has signalled that the army is third in line. I'm not sure that not being able to deploy a significant force overseas is seen as a negative. Such adventures have done the UK little good recently.

[Gtal]

You guys have got some pretty interesting ideas knocking about here lol.
Wasn't there an option for additional 500-800 vehicles included? Maybe there's some room for additional variants there. But I'm pretty sure the 500 ordered ao far will be delivered as contracted. Jst imagine the additional costs of opening up those contracts..
Plus it'll be good for morale and outside perception to get a program done on schedule and cost for once (more or less).
At least the company guy was very confident and factual in a commitee hearing not too long ago.

Btw Rheinmetall are pushing a mobile air defence variant pretty hard to the german government. Isn't that something the UK could use too? Maybe go in on a joint order or at least save on RnD costs.

[Lord Jim]

Yes the number on order so far was stated earlier as being the smallest number the UK would order, and is insufficient to cover both equipping the two "Strike" Brigades and replacing all the legacy platforms it is supposed to as well. As for new variants, a Mortar Carrier is a must and either the system chosen will also be installed on the Warrior or the Boxer variants will serve in both Mechanised and Armoured Infantry Battalions. A signal/EW variant is also essential to ensure this capability can be moved up just behind the combat units. Not all Signals units will be equipped with this Boxer variant , the remainder will probably end up using a variant of the Phase 2 MRV(P). As for Combat engineering, the Heavy platforms used to support the Armoured Infantry Brigades is totally unsuitable for working with the Strike Formations with the possible exception of the M3 Amphibious Ferries. If the Strike Brigades are not going to have their mobility badly affected they need engineering platforms that are as mobile as the formations they are to support, hence the need for platforms based on the Boxer. I would not be surprised if the Army has not already come to many of these conclusions whilst conducting its trials and so we could see quantities of the above ordered in the next year or two, once the future of the "Strike" Brigades is confirmed and safe.

Going back the the integration of new systems, this is what the Boxer was designed for form the start, hence the Mission Module. Installing a turret on this is in no way as complicated, costly or time consuming as doing so on the Warrior for the WCSP or on the ASCOD 2 for Ajax. A number of key factors are know and set such as the maximum weight a module can be as well as what forces the Module can exert on the Driving Module for example. So any testing really rest with the Mission Module as long as it stats rest within those that the Drive Module had Mission Module have already been tested and evaluated for. that is why Rheinmetall has been able to produce so many variants so quickly to meet customers requirements and for those to entice new and existing customer to order capabilities they didn't know they wanted until they see it.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the possible exception of the M3 Amphibious Ferries

Officially those are stored away, but in fact there is a joint Anglo-German eng. bn specialising in wet gap crossing, and they have some
- how that unit can exist? Officially (again) the Br. Forces in Germany were to go down to 63 (assume acting as security guards for half of our MBTs, stored there)
- but now, suddenly, the number is 200; any connection?

Talking about that specialisation, every 'Soviet' division used to have a such a regiment (when they still had divisions; Russia standing up 4 is a fairly recent development). The last such regiment (by then free standing) was stood down 10-20 yrs back.
- remember how the Americans got stuck for a week or so, in their drive to Baghdad, simply because such capability was not a 'std' thing for the commander to ask for

[Lord Jim]

Exactly. More substantial engineering support such as lorry carried bridges, heavy recovery vehicles etc would be held at brigade level using the Armoured Cab variant of the ubiquitous MAN 6x6 and 8s8 trucks in service.

The "Strike" Brigade concept came into being on the back of a fag packet during a meeting discussing the 2015 SDSR and what to do with the Ajax and MIV platforms with the reduction already underway in the Army. Now they need to sit down in a\ locked room and not be let out until they have a proper structure for the Brigades and a list of capabilities that are essential to make them viable combat formations in any level of conflict up to peer high intensity.

[mr.fred]

Going back the the integration of new systems, this is what the Boxer was designed for form the start, hence the Mission Module. Installing a turret on this is in no way as complicated, costly or time consuming as doing so on the Warrior for the WCSP or on the ASCOD 2 for Ajax.

I wouldn’t take that for granted. Boxer you design half of an AFV to be precisely and securely mounted on the back of another half of an AFV. Ajax/ warrior or similar vehicle not beset by modularity, you design a turret to fit into a hole in the roof, where a defined diameter and series of bolt holes allow you to fix it in place.

The Patria AMV seems to do well enough with turrets without the complexity of Boxer modules,

[ArmChairCivvy]

have a proper structure for the Brigades and a list of capabilities that are essential to make them viable combat formations in any level of conflict up to peer high intensity.

Seconded, adding for hi-intensity that they are of course not 'meant' to be there alone - though the marching speed they are designed for might make for that kind of situation arising

AMV seems to do well enough with turrets without the complexity of Boxer modules

AMV

Armoured
Modular
Vehicle
... just that no one has ordered the 6-wheeler. For that matter, no graphic has emerged yet for the joint Finnish-Estonian-Latvian vehicle; it will be 6 x 6, we know that much

[Lord Jim]

I agree the AMV is another current generation wheeled AFV that was designed from the outset to be easily configured to meet a customers requirements, but taking a different approach form the Boxer. The modular system of the Boxer added complexity and cost during the initial design and development phase but is now paying dividends.

The need for the "Strike" Brigades to engage in High Intensity combat operations means that for one they need to have sufficient integral firepower, then they need to have exceptional mobility to avoid being pinned in place so that they can be engaged by heavier Enemy formations, they need to have excellent ISTAR capabilities both offensive and defensive, to be able to ascertain the accurate location of Enemy formations whilst limiting this information to the Enemy and finally they need to be supported from the start by effective and numerous indirect artillery to both engage Enemy frontline formations and to suppress Enemy artillery. Liked to the latter the units that make up the "Strike" Brigades all need an integral capability to effectively control and direct the supporting indirect fire.

All of the above needs money of course and the Army is going to have to make the decision that even with new money it cannot acquire everything it needs, and so needs to look at what its role is to be over the rest of this decade and moving into the next. Maybe only one Armoured Infantry Brigade is upgraded as an interim solution until to true form of the "Strike" Brigade is realised, with the Warrior being Withdrawn and the Armoured Battalions rolled into the "Strike" formations giving them an option to take them if needed. WE will also need to see the size of the Ajax programme looked at through realistic eyes. Maybe only two Regiments worth plus enough to provide integral Recce Troops/Sections will be purchased, and these after a limited period of being part of the initial "Strike" Brigade will become independent formations held at Divisional level and deployed as required but with one permanently stationed on the Continent in Poland as one of NATOs forward screening units.

[bobp]

Australia is looking at a 120mm mortar variant...

[ArmChairCivvy]

need to have excellent ISTAR capabilities both offensive and defensive, to be able to ascertain the accurate location of Enemy formations whilst limiting this information to the Enemy and finally they need to be supported from the start by effective and numerous indirect artillery to both engage Enemy frontline formations and to suppress Enemy artillery. Liked to the latter the units that make up the "Strike" Brigades all need an integral capability to effectively control and direct the supporting indirect fire.

Let's look at this; what else than Boxer needs to be inserted, to make it work:

If we assume parity in recce capabilities (on the ground, a/c & drones,SigINt...), then the difference comes from air and tactical missile systems (not only for pin-point targets, but also with area munitions).
- troops in the rear are more vulnerable, and by their very nature, work in clusters: Logs, HQ...
- what to do? Reduce and disperse the tail, make combat units more mobile and have their (reduced?) Logs tails move with them, more quickly though the rear area, to the combat zone proper, where all the concentrated assets, such like GBAD, would apply
... AKA Strike?

A great idea; anything missing?
1. 'Air we've got, as in "the difference comes from air"
- but there's also strong counter-air to be reckoned with (mainly from the ground)
2. Missile type ranges (exceeding tube artillery) " also with area munitions"
- ???
3. "the combat zone proper, where all the concentrated assets, such like GBAD, would apply"
- Oo-key, let's get some!

Otherwise... fine and dandy

[Lord Jim]

One of the big bonuses of a Wheeled formation is its reduced "Tail" so to speak and with modern systems units know where they are and they know where the units are and when they are likely to be needed as consumption data is transmitted real time from the front line units. Therefore they can also be more readily dispersed.

The same goes for Headquarters, which can also be smaller these days. Dispersed and mobile comms nodes means they are also harder to pinpoint.

I believe we have a watching brief on the US Army's next generation Deep Strike Missile to be utilised by the M270 and HIMARS. There are also other systems in development that can be used by these systems such as the Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb, which is intended to be offered with all guidance and warhead option that are available to the air dropped version. It is basically a SDB warhead strapped to a MLRS rocket motor and can be fired from the M270 and HIMARs. But with the desire to increase mobility and reduce logistics the Army could do with re equipping its regular GMLRS Regiment with HIMARS and increase the number of firing units per battery or the number of batteries. The GMLRS would then be passed to the Reserve Regiment replacing their non modernised M270 MLRS.

As the air over any peer battlefield is likely to be contested by opposition Air and ground assets we cannot rely on friendly CAS and such like. We must improve the Army's GBAD capabilities. We have only one Regiment of Mobile Starstreak, the other comprises of pedestal and shoulder launch team Reserve Regiment. The number of Land Ceptor units ordered means there is likely to only be a single Regiments with between three and four Batteries, no where near enough to protect the Army at the front and rear areas locations like airfields etc.. We really need something in the same category as Patriot or Land PAAMS.

The list of capabilities the Army needs to urgently either improve or introduce is growing as new technologies come on line. But we mustn't forget the near term by being fixated on the latest shiny toys that exist only on paper or the Lab at present. Yes investment must be maintained but not at the expense of the next decades needs.

[ArmChairCivvy]

they can also be more readily dispersed.
+
The same goes for Headquarters

... Recce_Strike complexes are being built by both sides; the above applies to both, as well

I believe we have a watching brief on the US Army's next generation Deep Strike Missile to be utilised by the M270 and HIMARS.

Yes, been writing about it here: half price, for double the range. Somehow it is now in trouble/ late.

basically a SDB warhead strapped to a MLRS rocket motor and can be fired from the M270 and HIMARs

... or any old scaffolding frame - Oops, I seem to be talking about the test launches

As the air over any peer battlefield is likely to be contested by opposition Air and ground assets we cannot rely on friendly CAS

Now we are starting to read out from the same hymn sheet

[Lord Jim]

Question is would you be willing to sacrifice the WCSP and a large part of Ajax, to have better equipped Mechanised Infantry component and supporting assets in the "Strike" Brigades?

[Ron5]

One of the big bonuses of a Wheeled formation is its reduced "Tail"

Color me dubious about Strike formations having a reduced logistics tail.