Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by shark bait »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:Interesting snippet here - according to the people over at defensenews a spokesperson for KMW has stated that they will not be pitching the Boxer in the new wheeled vehicle tender: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /72365238/
Because they're merging with nexter who build the vbci and are prioritising that.
Damn I need to decide on a new favourite now !
@LandSharkUK

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by RetroSicotte »

Darn.

I guess it made too much sense. Can't have that!

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

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:Because they're merging with nexter who build the vbci and are prioritising that.
Damn I need to decide on a new favourite now !
- sensible as such as the Boxer production line is more active. I think the French wheeled armour prgrm (Scorpion?) is stretched out over a v long period, for budgetary reasons. So some volume through the line would make the wagons cheaper for all (both) parties... from a starting point that they are cheaper than Boxers to start with.
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)

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

shark bait wrote:
~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:Interesting snippet here - according to the people over at defensenews a spokesperson for KMW has stated that they will not be pitching the Boxer in the new wheeled vehicle tender: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /72365238/
Because they're merging with nexter who build the vbci and are prioritising that.
Damn I need to decide on a new favourite now !
Yep - i think that is the most likely conclusion. As ArmChairCivvy adds, Boxer has something of an order book underway as it is too and the MkII VCBI has been allegedly developed/optimised with UK feedback specifically in mind. Makes sense that the decision would be taken to withdraw Boxer in that regard.

What i think would be interesting to know is as to whether or not this might be seen as an early indicator about the KMW/Nexter merger consolidating their range??? Afterall, they are two companies that offer more than a few competing products :/

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
Contact:

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Tony Williams »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote: Yep - i think that is the most likely conclusion. As ArmChairCivvy adds, Boxer has something of an order book underway as it is too and the MkII VCBI has been allegedly developed/optimised with UK feedback specifically in mind. Makes sense that the decision would be taken to withdraw Boxer in that regard.
And the MkII VBCI was shown at DSEi complete with 40mm CTWS, just in case...

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

^^ Do you happen to know if there are any pictures knocking about? Would quite like to see that one.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by shark bait »

Tony Williams wrote: And the MkII VBCI was shown at DSEi complete with 40mm CTWS, just in case...
Yep, there is clear intent shown there. If it has been modified in response to the armys feedback that makes it a Taylor made solution making it very likely to win. I'm advocate of stronger defence ties with France, I think they have the most similar military to our own, so the VBCI is a step in the right direction. If the british do take it then need to tippex over that horrible acronym first.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by shark bait »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:^^ Do you happen to know if there are any pictures knocking about? Would quite like to see that one.
I too wanted to see it, had this open on another tab then read your post!

Image

Also this video......... if you can stand the accent, I really struggled.

@LandSharkUK

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by RetroSicotte »

I would be astonished beyond belief if we saw a CT40 on this coming vehicle. Given Warrior and Ajax already act as it, budgeting it would be an absolute nightmare for such an advanced version.

What surprises me though, if VBCI can carry 9 troops. VBCI MkII can only carry 6, allegedly.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Interesting - thanks.

Agreed RS. Oddly enough though the US is beginning to look to up-gun its Strykers. Whether this is simply a US specific requirement or perhaps indicative of a more broad step change in the threat picture - one that would equally effect the UK - remains to be seen. There is always the TOUTATIS variant of the CT40???

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
Contact:

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Tony Williams »

RetroSicotte wrote:I would be astonished beyond belief if we saw a CT40 on this coming vehicle. Given Warrior and Ajax already act as it, budgeting it would be an absolute nightmare for such an advanced version.
Depends on how it is intended to be used. If wheeled formations are expected to operate on their own, then they might need the firepower - as mentioned above, the US Army intends to equip some Strykers with 30mm cannon for exactly that reason.
What surprises me though, if VBCI can carry 9 troops. VBCI MkII can only carry 6, allegedly.
The back door of the one at DSEi was open, so I took a look inside. There are only three seats each side. Obviously, the vehicle could carry more if that big turret basket wasn't filling the front section of the compartment.

Wrekin762
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: 30 Aug 2015, 21:48
Cayman Islands

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Wrekin762 »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:What surprises me though, if VBCI can carry 9 troops. VBCI MkII can only carry 6, allegedly.
Probably just this IFV version: Bigger turret ring = less space for dismounts.

An APC built on the same hull with an RWS in place of the turret (which is what the UK will be buying) probably has about the same amount of room for dismounts as the French one with a single-person turret, or maybe even room for one more.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by RetroSicotte »

Tony Williams wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:I would be astonished beyond belief if we saw a CT40 on this coming vehicle. Given Warrior and Ajax already act as it, budgeting it would be an absolute nightmare for such an advanced version.
Depends on how it is intended to be used. If wheeled formations are expected to operate on their own, then they might need the firepower - as mentioned above, the US Army intends to equip some Strykers with 30mm cannon for exactly that reason.
What surprises me though, if VBCI can carry 9 troops. VBCI MkII can only carry 6, allegedly.
The back door of the one at DSEi was open, so I took a look inside. There are only three seats each side. Obviously, the vehicle could carry more if that big turret basket wasn't filling the front section of the compartment.
Wrekin762 wrote:
~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:What surprises me though, if VBCI can carry 9 troops. VBCI MkII can only carry 6, allegedly.
Probably just this IFV version: Bigger turret ring = less space for dismounts.

An APC built on the same hull with an RWS in place of the turret (which is what the UK will be buying) probably has about the same amount of room for dismounts as the French one with a single-person turret, or maybe even room for one more.
The IFV VBCI in current service with the French Army can carry 9 troops, and it has a turret.

The entire point of the CT40 is it uses less space, so it makes me wonder just what needed compromised in there.

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

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Ron5 »

"The IFV VBCI in current service with the French Army can carry 9 troops, and it has a turret.

The entire point of the CT40 is it uses less space, so it makes me wonder just what needed compromised in there"

Maybe unmanned turret = 9 dismounts, manned turret = 6?

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by RetroSicotte »

VBCI with the original turret is a manned one.

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
Contact:

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Tony Williams »

RetroSicotte wrote: The entire point of the CT40 is it uses less space, so it makes me wonder just what needed compromised in there.
The CT40 uses up less space in the turret, but I suspect that the main problem with this installation is that there are still two crew members sitting in the turret bustle - that's presumably what requires the space.

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

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Wrekin762 wrote:Probably just this IFV version: Bigger turret ring = less space for dismounts.

An APC built on the same hull with an RWS in place of the turret (which is what the UK will be buying) probably has about the same amount of room for dismounts as the French one with a single-person turret, or maybe even room for one more.
One day folks (in the Br. army?) will realise that APCs and IFVs can be mixed. As TW says, how much of a need there is for an IFV depends on to what degree these formations would be required to be able to fight on their own, Surely, if the Famous New Light Bde emerges, that would become the case.

Two more things:
1. turret ring has something to do how much recoil is generated from the main armament. The fact that CT helps with within turret ergonomics and ammo load-up is a slightly different matter
2. Jackal and Coyote are not fighty enough for an airlanded bde. Most of the contenders listed are around 26t and thereby quite hefty for an airlift
- whatever happened to the 50-100 new build Scimitar2s and other versions;surely thy could provide the stop-gap until the CT transition is complete (v much doubt that they could take it... turret ring and other such things)
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)

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by RetroSicotte »

It's what leads me to question this things use as our selection with the CT40 then. These are primarily being bought as APCs, but if it just becomes an IFV we could simply upgrade more Warriors to have then it kind of defeats the purpose. 6 men is entirely inadequate to justify a second fleet.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by marktigger »

wheeled vehicles are considdered less aggressive. however on the plus side on roads and good terrain they can move faster. Hopefully the next Protected Ambulance will be ordered soon as part of this program!

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

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Would 3 x 9 plus 6 be a good number for a platoon, with a Javelin team added?
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)

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
Contact:

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Tony Williams »

RetroSicotte wrote:It's what leads me to question this things use as our selection with the CT40 then. These are primarily being bought as APCs, but if it just becomes an IFV we could simply upgrade more Warriors to have then it kind of defeats the purpose. 6 men is entirely inadequate to justify a second fleet.
I assume that the majority of any armoured 8x8 would be acquired in APC form with only a remotely-controlled MG, the gun vehicles being in a supporting role.

As marktigger indicates, the whole point of wheeled AFVs is that their strategic (as opposed to tactical) mobility is much greater than tracked AFVs. They are intended to cover long distances on roads to get where they are needed far more quickly than Warrior etc can manage. So if they want fire support with them, it has to be on wheels, not tracks.

If you are going to tie wheeled vehicles down to the same transit speed as Warrior, there's no point in having them since you're wasting their major advantage.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by marktigger »

If you put your Ambulance on wheels and protected you can avoid having to swap them into faster wheeled vehicles at AXP's and therefore evacuations can be speeded up

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by RetroSicotte »

Tony Williams wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:It's what leads me to question this things use as our selection with the CT40 then. These are primarily being bought as APCs, but if it just becomes an IFV we could simply upgrade more Warriors to have then it kind of defeats the purpose. 6 men is entirely inadequate to justify a second fleet.
I assume that the majority of any armoured 8x8 would be acquired in APC form with only a remotely-controlled MG, the gun vehicles being in a supporting role.

As marktigger indicates, the whole point of wheeled AFVs is that their strategic (as opposed to tactical) mobility is much greater than tracked AFVs. They are intended to cover long distances on roads to get where they are needed far more quickly than Warrior etc can manage. So if they want fire support with them, it has to be on wheels, not tracks.

If you are going to tie wheeled vehicles down to the same transit speed as Warrior, there's no point in having them since you're wasting their major advantage.
I have no disagreement.

But the budget would see this as a very very easy way to ask why we need all these Warriors then and retire them to tout this as a replacement instead for a massive downturn in numbers because "our latest generation vehicles are showing our continued investment into the Armed Forces that we are so proud of and want to grant them the best kit possible."

Let's be honest. We all know it'd happen. Especially now the Army is the most likely branch to get shafted these days.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by marktigger »

I think the Ukraine situation has changed that assumption sum what. And there is a realisation armour may not be an expensive luxury

Wrekin762
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: 30 Aug 2015, 21:48
Cayman Islands

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Wrekin762 »

RetroSicotte wrote:VBCI with the original turret is a manned one.
But it's a piddly little 1-man turret with a 25mm gun.

The turret being demonstrated on the VBCI-2 is a 2 person turret so the turret ring needs to be ~2x the diameter to seat an additional man inside.

Since for a circular turret ring, area = πr², doubling the diameter means the new radius R = 2*r, so area = πR² = π(2*r)² = 4*πr²

i.e. the turret ring for a two-man turret, takes up 4 times as much space as the one-man turret.

Post Reply