Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

Bear in mind scale is always extremely difficult to judge with military vehicles from pictures. It astonished me to learn how big the VBCI was, for example, when its sharp lines normally imply it's quite small.

How it looks might not always be exactly true.

Personally, I wouldn't mind ones that are compatible with developments on the Stryker variants of the chassis. Being able to hop on board with such developments would be very useful. Perhaps even those 105mm's now that the Challengers are getting gutted. (Again)

Quite true, VCBI is a bit of a beast too - perhaps even more so than it would seem the LAV 6 is. One potential thing that the VCBI has over the LAV 6 in both the capability and profile stakes is the existing integration effort vis a vis the CTA 40 concept,; achieved either through the manned turret or through 'TOUTATIS'.

If the UK were to follow the US' lead and endeavour to provide punch to our MIV's then TOUTATIS would be the way to go - minimal profile (it's certainly no bigger than the Kongsberg 30mm that is intended for the US' Strykers and has been demonstrated on the LAV 6), remotely operated CTA 40. Aside from the additional costs involved, there is very little downside to such a system from my POV and its integration has been both proven on, and is intended for, the VCBI. Match made in heaven.

My personal favourites for the MIV tender are either the VCBI (in spite of its considerable size for the reasons mentioned above) or the Piranha V once again.

[mr.fred]

I quite like the Patria AMV: It's in service as an APC, an IFV and a Mortar carrier (which would, IMHO, make a very good fire support vehicle) and with a number of different turrets.
I don't think Stryker/LAV 3 or DVH Stryker/LAV 6 is the way to go. Old technology, compromised design. The 105mm MGS hasn't been a resounding success (another compromised design for bad reasons and justifications that evaporated before it entered service).
Piranha V and VBCI both look like they are aimed at the high end, IFV role, which isn't what MIV is about, as far as I can tell.

[RetroSicotte]

I'd maybe have suggested VBCI until France once again completely dicked us over. The whole idea is that were supposed to buy from each other and get greater joint projects rolling since the UK and France are both tired of other nations dragging their feet in bigger projects.

Since then all they've wanted to do is take take take and have given us sod all in return. They pulled out of buying one of our carrier designs, they failed to buy the expected 30 Watchkeepers, the Terrier order never happened, they didn't pay up for Sea Venom and delayed the whole program, CT40 has had to be pushed ahead over here more than anything, Meteor needed more work here because of the dual-datalink, they never bought the offered Brimstone (Despite the French Air Force directly asking for it!) and repeatedly stated they'd only buy some stuff of ours if we made even larger orders from them...which they then rescinded on too and then dropped Telemos like a stone and went off to screw up the joint-EU one too. We endured barely supported VLS designs from them after they refused to work up a proper AAW destroyer with us and got stuck with the technology. We've done massive exercises going over to CENZUB with heavy armour, but when was the last time they bothered to bring such steel to our soil?

I'm just waiting for the UCAV to enter issues when the inevitable engine arguement comes up. Given them demonstrating their willingness to accept underpowered engines over superior Rolls ones (Not even just from my liking Rolls, the engines existed and had defined characteristics!) in the past I can only imagine what'll happen this time.

Frankly, I'm done with France and their complete lack of willingness to make any of this work, only seeking again and again to screw us over, attempt to take designs, sniff radar signals for tech theft instead of actually training (There is direct USAF statements as such during Red Flag) and general arrogance. 2010 was meant to signal something better and the start of new cooperation and they've completely dumped on it at every turn to the point that it's in writing only after 6 years with not a single thing to show from it on our end from them.

So no, I don't want to see the VBCI. If they think they can screw around so much and betray trust so often, then they can't accept billions of pounds for hundreds of AFVs from us. I'd much rather just buy American then. At least with them they're honest about being unwilling to buy foreign and admit it up front, not years later once they've tried to squeeze deals out of you.

(Bit of a rant there, but it's been building lately)

[arfah]

...............

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

It is a fair gripe, RS - and one that i share in a whole number of areas for that matter, particularly their non-commital attitude towards our joint complex weapon projects (munitions and unmanned programmes). That said, thoroughly unsporting/unreliable bi-lateral defence partners or no, i have a feeling VCBI might be desirable purely from a capability front.

If it offers something, which i think it might, and the guys and girls who will be using them seem to like it then i'd rather we didn't cut our nose off to spite our face. There are probably a dozen other ways we could make our displeasure known and i very much hope that one such avenue will be us laying down terms thick on this FCAS project, preferably with some legal backout penalty clauses worked in if possible.

I'm in agreement with mr.fred when we talk about things like Stryker. It's really rather a pointless design - simply an Americanised LAV III designed to placate their domestic military industrial complex from what i can tell. Aside from its developed family of variants, few of which we are likely to be of any interest to us owing to Ajax, i really can't see anything attractive about the design - certainly nothing that particularly sets it apart from either the regular Piranha III variants upon which it is ultimately based or the multitude of other 8x8 designs out there.

The LAV 6 is itself, to some degree, unproven and therefore one of the more risky options. Last time round that was the Piranha V which wasn't event existent in prototype form when FRES UV was awarded (strangely, GD still won all the same funnily enough). Personally i'd rather we stick to a slightly safer path on this occasion. The AMV and AV-81 are very much the outside hopes even though the former has a really rather impressive track record by all accounts - who knows, it might count for quite a bit, we'll see.

As ever, my long time personal, absolute favourite, is once again the Piranha V. Theoretically, it should be in an even stronger position this time round; now in existence as a working vehicle and with recent orders under its belt, not to mention having won last time round. Of course, we will have to see what the requirements are ultimately - they could have shifted massively and end up rendering Piranha V's history completely null and void on that front.

[RetroSicotte]

Piranha V from the "current choices" is definitely my personal pick, yes. (Also the one with the highest preexisting home manufacturing bonus.)

If I could have picked from any, I'd have said Boxer or AMV on a licence build (Even a partial one) oweing to their reputations, proven nature and that both have huge modularity already designed and created. No need to wait for an Ambulance, Command or Mortar version, they exist. No need to spend extra money to get them developed.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

I dunno about Boxer. Odd history on that one. We've turned it down twice now. Whether we were right to do so, i can't say. Perhaps we were wrong? I don't know.

[arfah]

".................."

[shark bait]

Shame, if we want a shed load of variants it would have been good, if not a little on the heavy side.

I always though this could be a good investment; I cant picture that on the back of a Piranha V

[ArmChairCivvy]

Here
http://tanknutdave.com/the-finnish-patria-amv/
is a good rundown of AMV versions.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

Boxer isn't in the competition.

Yep, you're quite right. Had totally forgotten about that. Even if it had been however, after two prior rejections, i'm not sure how good its chances would have been.

[mr.fred]

The Boxer modularity is a bit of a double-edged sword. Being able to swap out modules is all well and good, but how often would you actually do it? The rest of the time you're carting around all the connectors, double walls and extra space that it requires.

[shark bait]

Is the concept you can swap the modules around? I though it was more to make it easier to build new variants, which would explain the large number of variants available.

[mr.fred]

Does it make it easier to build variants? Even if it did all those variants are carrying about all that parasitic mass as a permanent fit.

[shark bait]

I believe so, the boxer is essentially an armored pickup truck where you can stick anything you want on the back, without worrying about other stuff getting in the way. It's a nice system, shame it didn't work out for us.

parasitic mass?

[mr.fred]

Parasitic mass is those components that wouldn't be needed in day to day use. You only need them to have the two components separate and then put them together outside a factory, but you have to carry them around the rest of the time.

[shark bait]

such as???

[mr.fred]

There's going to be the walls on the rear and upper faces of the chassis that are strong enough to make that strong enough to be a vehicle and the corresponding walls on the front and lower faces of the pod that are sufficient to make that a structure that can be moved around independently.
The connectors between the two components feeding air and power and the physical connections between the two parts are all things that aren't needed other than to separate or reconnect the two parts, which you'd do so seldom you might as well build them together in the factory.

[shark bait]

Whether its a module or not you still need to connect supplies. The plug socket for the module is negligible compared to the mass of the vehicle. Actually those connectors would still be there as part of modern modular design philosophy to ease maintenance. I still think its a very nice concept.

Just seen on my twitter feed the modules can be swapped in theatre in 30 minutes. Not sure what the point of that is unless you have loads of spare modules sitting around at your forward operating base. How would they even get there?

[mr.fred]

It's not like those connectors are like a USB lead. They're quite substantial (most vehicles are low voltage, high amperage so require large conductors) and in addition to the connectors you would have in a vehicle anyway. They take space, mass and cost that you could use for something else.

The concept is all very nice, but falls down a bit on practicality.

[arfah]

..............

[shark bait]

It's not like those connectors are like a USB lead. They're quite substantial (most vehicles are low voltage, high amperage so require large conductors) and in addition to the connectors you would have in a vehicle anyway. They take space, mass and cost that you could use for something else.

The concept is all very nice, but falls down a bit on practicality.

I know what industrial specification plugs look like, I design gas turbines for a living, but I'm not here for a discussion about plugs

Boxer doesn't fall down on practicality, a modular philosophy is about as practical as they come. Proven to decrease costs, both procurement and through life, and increase availability at the same time. Find me one modern product that doesn't adopt that philosophy. They all do because its the most practical.

The boxer does modular in a particularly innovative way, that makes extra variants very easy, its no coincidence it 12 variants

[jimthelad]

You didnt have a hand in the WR21 did you?

[shark bait]

You didnt have a hand in the WR21 did you?

Thankfully no. What a poor design that is. No wonder they have gone back to a simlle cycle this time around.


BTW Mr.Fred, sorry if you think I've come down hard on you, but you have just slagged off globalisation and modularity to major proven themes in all industry's.

[whitelancer]

CVR(T) had 8 variants excluding Stormer.