Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Quite impressive as is the apparent low noise signature of the vehicle compared to a tracked platform. IF our future tube artillery is aimed at supporting our troops and we leave counter battery fire missions to the M270 or hopefully HIMARS, then the RCH155 should be seen as a serious contender to replace the AS-90, together with the advanced munitions that are also needed.

Between now and 2030 the British Army should be doubling down on the Boxer, using it to replace all the FV430 series as well as Warrior and dependant on how Ajax fares, replace the CVR(T) variants that are in service.

The Boxer and even carry the M270's 12 round GMLRS launcher opening up other possibilities. About the only roles the Boxer cannot carry out are a recovery vehicle for the Challenger 3 nor can it carry a bridge strong enough or wide enough to support a Challenger 3. Rheinmetall seems happy to do the base development work on all manner of Boxer Mission Modules for numerous variants. WE should take advantage of this.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SW1 »


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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by whitelancer »

While I can just about see the utility of a self propelled mortar being able to fire on the move, for a long range artillery piece I really don't see the point.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

whitelancer wrote:While I can just about see the utility of a self propelled mortar being able to fire on the move, for a long range artillery piece I really don't see the point.
From an observers view it raises more than a few questions. I would have to assume it's for guided munitions only.

Firstly, it's going to play hell with the gunnery problem. Without smart rounds, what does it mean for your PEr and PEd? Can you adjust off the first round? What does it mean for your battery MPI? Can you even battery fire?

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

It’s certainly a neat trick.
While it may not be used for long range gunnery, it’s likely to mean that the into action and out of action times will be quicker, as it can start laying the gun before it has stopped and start moving the instant the last round is fired

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

It also appears that it doesn't require any form of stabilising struts to be lowered prior to firing even when stationary which should definitely help reduce the time for a fire mission. Definitely starting to warm towards this platform. Has anyone seen any pics of the reduced height version of this vehicle?

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:It also appears that it doesn't require any form of stabilising struts to be lowered prior to firing even when stationary which should definitely help reduce the time for a fire mission. Definitely starting to warm towards this platform. Has anyone seen any pics of the reduced height version of this vehicle?
Both videos show the lower configuration vehicle.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by bobp »

The same turret can be fitted to other vehicles...


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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Trucks too .

Image

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by tomuk »

Does it fit on a River B2? I hear they need to be a bit more spikey.

KiwiMuzz
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 06:20
New Zealand

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by KiwiMuzz »

tomuk wrote:Does it fit on a River B2? I hear they need to be a bit more spikey.
It certainly looks non deck-penetrating :P

andrew98
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:28
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by andrew98 »

Just going past warcop training centre, a66.
Just fought a glimpse of an 8x8 fitted with a turret.
Unfortunately didn't have time to stop or go back for a better look. So can only presume it was a boxer.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Could be the example fitted with the RT60 turret that has been mentioned earlier in the thread. Look a couple of pages back and you will see some pics and post regarding this.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SW1 »


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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:Could be the example fitted with the RT60 turret that has been mentioned earlier in the thread. Look a couple of pages back and you will see some pics and post regarding this.
Apparently that vehicle was prepared for a potential middle east customer and was "borrowed" by WFEL to get the UK salivating.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Although the Army says it does not see the Boxer as an IFV in public, what they actually think maybe the opposite, especially at unit level. Surely the cost of at least equipping part of the fleet with a decent turret cannot be that much, say two Battalions worth of APC variants upgraded so each Heavy BCT has one Battalion so equipped and another in the APC with Javelin added to RWS. We would be looking at a maximum of 120 upgrades to do this, and it should be a high priority as it would give deployable forces some back bone.

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Lord Jim wrote:Although the Army says it does not see the Boxer as an IFV in public, what they actually think maybe the opposite, especially at unit level. Surely the cost of at least equipping part of the fleet with a decent turret cannot be that much, say two Battalions worth of APC variants upgraded so each Heavy BCT has one Battalion so equipped and another in the APC with Javelin added to RWS. We would be looking at a maximum of 120 upgrades to do this, and it should be a high priority as it would give deployable forces some back bone.
Or do something similar to US Stryker battalion and equip two Boxers per platoons with remote turret. That would mean 6 per company, 18 for infantry and 8 recce per battalion for total of 26. For four battalions that would require 104 turreted versions, 32 recce and 72 for infantry.

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Rheinmetall will preset a Boxer with mortar mission module on DSEI. Seems like module was designed and built in the UK and is using Rheinmetall 81mm mortar weapon system, MWS 81.

Image

https://www.rheinmetall.com/en/media/ed ... tar_en.pdf

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by BB85 »

Interesting choice on the 81mm mortar. I'd assumed if it was mounted on a boxer the army would have gone for a 120mm option.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

BB85 wrote:Interesting choice on the 81mm mortar. I'd assumed if it was mounted on a boxer the army would have gone for a 120mm option.
It's a direct replacement to the ageing FV432 platform, so it makes sense to meet the current capability, and leave the up-sell to the (much needed) 120mm for a later date.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

It is just a shame we are not going with Nemo with its ability to fire on the move , direct fire 360 degrees and all from under armour it just seems a better way forward

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote:It is just a shame we are not going with Nemo with its ability to fire on the move , direct fire 360 degrees and all from under armour it just seems a better way forward
But somewhat overkill for armoured infantry?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

Really why ?

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote:Really why ?
Size (turret again atop a large 8x8), effect (120mm in fighting at infantry ranges increases danger close limits), training burden (an additional AFV crew member as gunner), supply chain (larger she'll resupply).

The additional range is great in many cases, but exceeds that of the current need for infantry engagements.

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »


Post Reply