Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote: dubious about Strike formations having a reduced logistics tail
Why? We can read (on the interwebs :) ) about what a Stryker bde needs - and importantly the fulfilment parts all belong, organically, to the bde when it gets deployed .
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)

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by jedibeeftrix »

and what does the interwebs tell us about the tail of a stryker brigade compared to an equivalent tank BCT?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SW1 »

I’m not sure you could compare a Stryker brigade to a strike brigade. A Stryker brigade is all wheeled and is still a medium weight vehicle. We’re as a strike brigade is a mix of tracks and wheels with vehicle weights more comparable to heavy armoured brigades without there firepower.

UKD
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 10 Oct 2020, 16:22
Poland

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by UKD »

SW1 wrote:I’m not sure you could compare a Stryker brigade to a strike brigade. A Stryker brigade is all wheeled and is still a medium weight vehicle. We’re as a strike brigade is a mix of tracks and wheels with vehicle weights more comparable to heavy armoured brigades without there firepower.
Without the firepower or the protection of heavy armour and without the mobility and logistical benefits of being fully wheeled. The worst of both worlds.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by whitelancer »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Why? We can read (on the interwebs ) about what a Stryker bde needs - and importantly the fulfilment parts all belong, organically, to the bde when it gets deployed .
Whatever logistic units are contained within a Stryker Brigade are only a small part of the total logistic effort that goes into supporting it within a theatre of operations. Its been mentioned that while a Stryker Brigade may need less logistic support than a BCT its combat power is much reduced. In some situations this is fine, the Stryker brigade is the right formation to use, but they should not in anyway be considered equivalent.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote: I’m not sure you could compare a Stryker brigade to a strike brigade
Agree, but we have to use the evidence base available. I have not seen any detail, yet, for the planned Strike bds.
whitelancer wrote:Whatever logistic units are contained within a Stryker Brigade are only a small part of the total logistic effort that goes into supporting it within a theatre of operations.
A wide statement; how does that compare with them deploying with 30 day self sufficiency? The ex-Soviet divisions had such small tail (ever wondered about the high number of them?) that they were to be taken out of line after 3 days of intense combat
- incidentally, when the 3 CDO was still to deploy as a (light) bde, the initial supplies were also dimensioned for 30 days. This equated to 11.000 line meters on the allocated shipping (though their vehicles being included means that the measure is an overstatement)
whitelancer wrote:may need less logistic support than a BCT its combat power is much reduced.
You and I both appreciate that 'horses for courses' dictates a force mix - getting the mix right is a 'million dollar' question (and million is an other understatement :) )
- this is in sharp contrast with some on these pages enthusing about us ASAP having 1000-3000 Boxers (and by implication, nothing else)
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)

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by whitelancer »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:A wide statement; how does that compare with them deploying with 30 day self sufficiency?
30 days was the standard NATO figure for its forces during the Cold War, not sure if that's still the case. It was however a total of all available supplies, rather than those available at formation level. Where you got the figure of 30 days self sufficiency for a Stryker Brigade I don't know but from what I have discovered the Brigade Support Battalion is very small and can only sustain operations for 72 hours. Over and above that higher level logistic support is required, including a LOC in theatre and ultimately reaching back to the US.

The Holy Grail is producing the maximum effect with the minimum effort. Their are many options for trying to achieve this, whether the Strike Brigade has a role in this I'm doubtful.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

whitelancer wrote:from what I have discovered the Brigade Support Battalion is very small
BSB has practically been doubled, by changing the self-service concept = customer, ie. manoeuvre units, come to you, to be more akin to what other types of BCTs have:
"Unlike other BCTs, SBCTs didn’t have FSCs. Without these critical units in the SBCT, the SBCT’s BSB faced a mission command challenge. The 2020 Concept of Support adds these companies into the SBCT giving the subordinate battalions better support. [...] also an FSC [forward supply company] was added to support the Brigade Engineer Battalion(BEB)" on par with manoeuvre battalions.
- from “Sustainment Concept of Support: Tactical-Level Sustainment for Army 2020”

The 3 days (72 hrs) you mention is a metric used for calculating airlift of such a supplies package... a mere 3500 tons.
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)

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by whitelancer »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:- from “Sustainment Concept of Support: Tactical-Level Sustainment for Army 2020”
I must admit the document I looked at was rather old, adding the additional supply companies will help, however they are not going to sustain 30 days of operations.* However long they can sustain themselves they will still need additional logistic support and a LOC to remain effective.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

whitelancer wrote:will still need additional logistic support and a LOC to remain effective.
Absolutely, hence the point about the 3 days and then to be withdrawn behind other the-then Soviet divisions
- that doc I mentioned deals also with the above-brigade level logs units in those echelons. The army (alone) has ten such aligned to divisions (which is not how the army deploys, but rather the Div. HQ puts everything together for those of its bdes that will deploy) plus three more that would be aligned to Corps (which I think do not even exist, until under one of their Joint Commands it becomes necessary to draw a Corps together)

Compare that with our lonely 101 (for 2 heavy, 2 medium and x light bdes), augmented by a mainly reservist Ports& Rail Rgmnt for getting any deployment actually on the way.

HENCE the more (not absolutely) self-sustaining, as with in-built supply train - not the supplies themselves - Boxer bdes must be a good idea... while recognising their relative fighting power.

Just to do a full circle and mention a further factoid about Stryker BCTs:
- the protection level of their vehicles is light/ medium
- adding reactive armour for those coming into direct fire zone was considered
- transporting all of that would have added 'only' a third (in weight) of the 3-days sustainment package
- the idea was killed, not because of the weight factor, but because of the additional day that putting them on at the unloading stage/ spot would have added to the bde being ready to fight
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)

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:Question is would you be willing to sacrifice the WCSP and a large part of Ajax, to have better equipped Mechanised Infantry component
The question is often being asked and is warranted as long as the fact that
1. to make do without an IFV, with Boxer/432 as an APC
2. would leave the tank force (Ch3) ineffective
... making this all (sorry about my paraphrasing; might not be 100% :) what was meant) a great 'money saving' idea, as
3. the Ch2s as they are would make fine infantry support tanks; Matilda Mk2 :!:
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)

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Cancelling the WCSP and retiring Warrior will only make sense if it is replaced by an IFV variant of the Boxer. Developing a IFV module for the Boxer would not be a long, complicated or costly exercise as IFV modules have already been developed including one with an unmanned CTA40 equipped turret. The CTA40 would be GFE and if done properly, like avoiding a bespoke feed system cost would be kept down.

Initial deliveries of the Boxer are going to be in the three versions already announced, but a ARV and Mortar Carrier are bound to follow soon. With the APC, we have the advantage in that this module can be reworked into other variants such as Signals but re arranging the interior which could be done a depot or by returning to the manufacturer. We would not need to equip each Mechanised Infantry Battalion totally with the IFV variant from the start, say two per Platoon as an initial target, but having the Infantry Battalions in both the Mechanised (Heavy) Brigades and the Mechanised (light) Brigades being organised the same would make sense. Initially the under armour ATGW capability would be provided by Javelin attached to the RWS and turrets, but eventually a heavy ATGW will need to be purchased and integrated on to the IFV variants at least. The Spike-LR2 is the obvious choice as it has already been integrated onto a number of Boxer IFV turrets entering service.

If we look at the Boxer programme being at least a six year programme and probably stretching to 2030 and beyond, additional variants are bound to appear, to utilise the support infrastructure, and this will only add the the saving the Army will make in the running costs of its AFV fleet. It may even be possible to produce a Recce variant using systems off the Ajax including the whole turret assembly, so that we can greatly reduce the Ajax purchase to around two Regiments plus integral Recce Troops in the Challenger Regiments, where as the Boxer Battalions would have the Boxer based platform as integral Recce.

An alternative re organisation, which I have put forward before would be to amalgamate the Armoured Infantry and Strike Brigade together and end up with jus three Mechanised Brigades each with a Type 44 Armoured Regiment with Challenger 3 and three Enlarged Mechanised Infantry Battalions. These would be support by an Artillery Brigade of two SP GMLRS/HIMARS Regiments and three Regiments of 155m Self Propelled Guns. At Divisional Level you would have Area Air Defence and ISTAR assets for example and the two Recce Regiments. This would basically be the make up of 3rd (UK) Division. 6th (UK) Division would cover SF and 16 Air Assault Brigade along with specialised ISTAR, EW and Cyber capabilities, with 1st (UK) Division providing Training Teams, Overseas Garrisons and mainly the Reserves for 3rd Division.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:have already been developed including one with an unmanned CTA40 equipped turret. The CTA40 would be GFE
An interesting POV.

However, to make sense of the whole post, it would take the combined intelligence of all of these folks

Vasily Smyslov
Mikhail Tal
Tigran Petrosian
Boris Spassky
Anatoly Karpov
Garry Kasparov
Vladimir Kramnik

as there are just, simply, too many moving parts.

Please clarify.
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 »

Lord Jim wrote:Cancelling the WCSP and retiring Warrior will only make sense if it is replaced by an IFV variant of the Boxer.
Which is why it won’t happen, as the latter option will cost too much.
Lord Jim wrote:Developing a IFV module for the Boxer would not be a long, complicated or costly exercise as IFV modules have already been developed including one with an unmanned CTA40 equipped turret.
But it is likely to be considerably more expensive that bringing WCSP into service. For a start you’d have to repeat the trials WCSP has completed to date.
Lord Jim wrote:The CTA40 would be GFE and if done properly, like avoiding a bespoke feed system cost would be kept down.
That would only help if you had a time machine.

It’s like sunk cost fallacy but for savings? A historical savings fallacy?

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

No you wouldn't, or at the very least they would be far shorter. Warrior is a legacy, per digital platform and hence the need to catalogue so much physical data using extensive physical trials. With Boxer many "Trials" can be conducted using computer modelling, and a lot of data is already known. Although I have been over this before, to start with:

We know the parameters the Mission Module can enact on the Drive module that the latter can safely operate in. They know the tolerances of the bolts that connect the Mission Module to the Dive Module.
We know the various forces that can be enacted on the Mission module buy turret mounting anything from a 5.56mm LMG to a 90mm Gun, firing 360 degrees.
Trials haver been carrier out already on the complete platform covering mobility and live firing, with add-on armour modules and various turrets mounts a large assortment of weapons.
The internals of the Mission Module are also modular, so installing equipment is verging on plug and play. WE have already purchase the CTA40 40mm Cannons and so their cost would not be included in any programme to develop a Boxer IFV Mission Module using such a weapon.
A Turret that would meet the requirements has already been designed by Nexter.

All of the above would mean that any physical trial would be main to verify the data already collected form the computer modelling. Just like what has happened with the Red Hawk AJT being produced by LM and SAAB for the USAF. The use of computer modelling allowed the first two prototypes manufactures to actually be the finished article and the test flight programme has been significantly curtailed as a result save s substantial amount of money, whic is why they companies were able to underbid their rival s by so much.

However I do agree for at least the short to medium term there will be no IFV Boxer, though we possibly could see an up-gunned version in the "Strike" Brigades.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:We know the parameters the Mission Module can enact on the Drive module that the latter can safely operate in. They know the tolerances of the bolts that connect the Mission Module to the Dive Module.
We know the various forces that can be enacted on the Mission module buy turret mounting anything from a 5.56mm LMG to a 90mm Gun, firing 360 degrees.
We know some of the parameters. The rest you would have to conduct a series of trials for.
Forces and bolts are only part of the picture. you need to prove how the whole system interacts and it is difficult, if not impossible, to do that by simulation.
Even then a force from a 90mm will have different dynamic characteristics to a 40mm beyond one-dimensional forces.
This is then multiplied by developing a new turret. You would be setting a lot of qualification back to zero.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:no IFV Boxer, though we possibly could see an up-gunned version
The latter would be more of a 'fire support' version, to mix in with its weaker ('APC') siblings
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)

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

mr.fred wrote:Forces and bolts are only part of the picture. you need to prove how the whole system interacts and it is difficult, if not impossible, to do that by simulation.
Even then a force from a 90mm will have different dynamic characteristics to a 40mm beyond one-dimensional forces.
This is then multiplied by developing a new turret. You would be setting a lot of qualification back to zero.
Computer simulations has moved forward in leaps and bounds in recent years which is why I mentioned the Red Hawk AJT. SAAB and LM were able to basically produce a production aircraft right off the bat knowing how it would perform etc.

The Mission Module on the Boxer has already been fitted with a unmanned turret (Nexter) fitted with a CTA40 and has test firings. It has also been tested with 30mm, 35mm 90mm and so on and not just firing straight ahead but 360 degrees rotation as well as positive and negative angles pf elevation. They have also test the whole vehicle with the above weapons. All of these have been stored on computer providing a substantial database from which to speed up the development of customer specified variants that have yet to be produced.

I am not saying there will be no need for testing, but rather the test would be to validate the simulation data rather that having to start from zero as had to happen with Warrior as it was a pre digital platform and everything had to be done physically, which as we have seen can be a slow and laborious process.

The whole point of Computer Simulation as it exists now is to reduce the need to carry out extensive real world testing. The first platform built are basically as they would be when they enter service, rather than prototypes as we have traditionally known. You go straight to testing the whole platform in the real world not the individual components, and these are validation tests.

On the issue of up gunned Boxers in the Mechanised Infantry, well they would probably be integrated into the Infantry platoons as even with a manned turret they could still carry 6 dismounts. There could also be a dedicated Fire Support version using the space vacated by any dismounts for additional 40mm rounds and reloads for any ATGW fitted to the turret. The two version would be a bit like the M2 and M3 Bradleys.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: The whole point of Computer Simulation as it exists now is to reduce the need to carry out extensive real world testing. The first platform built are basically as they would be when they enter service, rather than prototypes as we have traditionally known. You go straight to testing the whole platform in the real world not the individual components, and these are validation tests.
.
This is absolutely not the case in British Armoured vehicle development.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:Computer simulations has moved forward in leaps and bounds in recent years which is why I mentioned the Red Hawk AJT. SAAB and LM were able to basically produce a production aircraft right off the bat knowing how it would perform etc.
I am aware of the advances in computer simulation. I am also aware of its limitations.
Plus real-world testing does more than validate an idealised model, it exposes the system to the users and maintainers and time.
Lord Jim wrote:I am not saying there will be no need for testing, but rather the test would be to validate the simulation data rather that having to start from zero as had to happen with Warrior as it was a pre digital platform and everything had to be done physically, which as we have seen can be a slow and laborious process.
Even if the testing is less than that done for Warrior, it is very unlikely to be less than that remaining to be done for Warrior, and that’s the comparison you have to make.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

mr.fred wrote:Even if the testing is less than that done for Warrior, it is very unlikely to be less than that remaining to be done for Warrior, and that’s the comparison you have to make.
Valid point, I agree. But then again how much is actually left, and is it being done in a timely manner? The WCSP seems to have been carried out at a very sedate pace being polite.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:Valid point, I agree. But then again how much is actually left, and is it being done in a timely manner? The WCSP seems to have been carried out at a very sedate pace being polite.
Why do you think that a new turret for Boxer would be carried out more quickly?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SW1 »

Boxer 155mm firings


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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

mr.fred wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Valid point, I agree. But then again how much is actually left, and is it being done in a timely manner? The WCSP seems to have been carried out at a very sedate pace being polite.
Why do you think that a new turret for Boxer would be carried out more quickly?
Because there's no understanding there of what it takes to integrate a weapon system into a platform.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

"Next challenge is to demonstrate the mobility"
like does it fit into railway tunnels when loaded onto a carriage?
- there was this 'part project' about flattening the turret, to achieve this
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)

Post Reply