Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:I thought people were saying AJAX was fundamentally too big for recce? And now people are saying Boxer (which is the same height without turret), would be a suitable recce replacement?
Not really. Pretty sure "people" are saying Ajax is not fit for purpose and should be cancelled.

Of course there's other "people" say that Ajax doesn't have any noise or vibration issues.
I might be wrong, but I thought this was the Boxer thread?

Online
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7248
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Another picture of the RT60 turret on a Boxer

Image

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Well all we have to do is wait for the Army to decide to get its shit together and come up with an order of battle that will actually work by being balanced and including capabilities it actually needs rather than dreaming of what might happen in ten or more years.

Its a nice turret but I would prefer with the turret form the German Puma IFV which has already been tested on the Boxer or the Rheinmetall Lance-R, the unmanned version of teh one fitted to the Australian Boxer CVR. Both have been fully developed and are in service or will be imminently. Remember the Boxer was designed to be easily fitted with a nations systems like communications and so on. Even better we have taken the latest version with addition capabilities such as increased electrical power, a more powerful engine and greater all up weigh capacity so greater growth potential without straining the vehicle.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Also interesting, showing Nexter's latest RWS with a CTA40 Cannon, ATGW and additional RWS with a 7.62mm FM MAG, fitted to a VBCI as an entry into the Greek Army's competition for a new IFV. IT also has some other interesting reveals that Nexter are making at the show.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

CT40 plus MBDA missile system sounds like a good political winner.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by whitelancer »

SW1 wrote:Think the manned turrets for warrior ect are too heavy for boxer. But they need to decide if there going all in on cta40. They have a habit or changing there mind
I cant see why the Warrior turret would be too heavy for Boxer, as for the CTA40 as I understand it we have already bought enough for Ajax and Warrior so we may as well use them, other wise it means throwing away another chunk of money for no gain.
RunningStrong wrote: Firstly, there was never a production contract so there aren't a pile of turrets, and secondly it was a fully integrated turret like AJAX, so all the C4I equipment would have to change anyway.

Their may not be hundreds waiting to be fitted but it has been thoroughly tested so the Army already know whether it does what they need it to do. I don't understand why the C41 equipment would need to change and any integration problems would be no more than with any other turret.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

We don't have a stock pile of Warrior turrets, which is why there were articles about the MoD sells off CTA40 that were now surplus to requirements after the WCSP was cancelled. There are a fair few Ajax turrets though, which have the same Orion sights as the Challenger 3 will have as well as other C4I systems like directional shot detection for example.

It is the Orion sights though that are the core to Ajax's capabilities as these as superb pieces of equipment and cutting edge. It is this linked to digital comms and GPS that provide the target detection, and location that can be instantaneously passed to out units on the network. The turret works and if married to a Boxer Mission Module would produce an effective Recce Platform. It would not be a good fit for an IFV version of the Boxer though as it would more than half the number of dismounts the vehicle could carry.

Online
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7248
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Two nice things about the French unmanned CTA40 turret are that it's low profile once the RWS is taken off (I assume that's for OOTW) and it doesn't impinge on the space inside the vehicle so that as many dismounts can be carried as before.

If the RWS stays on all the time because there are no other all round EO sights then I'm less enthused.

Personally I'm thinking of a Warrior replacement not reconn.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

The Nexter turret would be a good choice for an OFV version of the Boxer for all the reasons stated. In my opinion a manned turret should be used for any Recce version, and we seem to conveniently have one that has been extensively test already and we know it works. We just need to integrate it on to a Mission Module for the Boxer and bingo you have the wheeled near equivalent in capability of the Ajax, but we also know the hull module works as well in this case.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by tomuk »

Lord Jim wrote:The Nexter turret would be a good choice for an OFV version of the Boxer for all the reasons stated. In my opinion a manned turret should be used for any Recce version, and we seem to conveniently have one that has been extensively test already and we know it works. We just need to integrate it on to a Mission Module for the Boxer and bingo you have the wheeled near equivalent in capability of the Ajax, but we also know the hull module works as well in this case.
Lets fire up the plasma cutters and do a quick cut and shut. Chop the turret ring out of Ajax and weld it into the top of a Boxer module job done. :thumbup: :lol:

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Them whole idea is you build a module that included the turret ring required for the Boxer's turret, but it is cheaper because you are not doing it to a whole vehicle, JUST the Mission Module like they had to do on the ASCOD to fit the turret in the first place.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

As much as I want to see a turreted Boxer I still think the first stop should be 1/3 of the APC's fitted with 30mm on the RWS meaning of the 14 vehicles that make up a company you would have one in each Platoon i.e each platoon would have 2 x 12.7 , 1 x 30mm and 1 x 40mm GMG mounted RSW's

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Well if you look to the future around 203 I would like to see the Infantry APCs armed with a RWS mounting a .338 Norma LMG, a H&K 40mm AGL and a mounting for a AGTW such as Spike-LR2. Give each Battalion a Cavalry Squadron of say ten Boxer CRV with a manned turret mount a CTA40 with twin launchers for Spike-LR2 and also have the Battalion equipped with around nine Boxer/Nemo 1200m SP Mortars and nine Boxer/SPAA with a 35/30mm cannon and suitable sensors and FCS. Add a few specialist versions such as ambulance, Command, ISTAR, Engineering Support, Bridging and Combat Engineering together with a number of MAN 8x8 protected logistics platforms and you have the basics of a reasonable Mechanised Infantry Battalion. Of course the Infantry also need to gain improved as well as new capabilities but we do have ten years to get things sorted out.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

We are not that far apart you have just added the other working parts of a Battalion where I was just looking at the rifle companies

Online
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7248
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote:As much as I want to see a turreted Boxer I still think the first stop should be 1/3 of the APC's fitted with 30mm on the RWS meaning of the 14 vehicles that make up a company you would have one in each Platoon i.e each platoon would have 2 x 12.7 , 1 x 30mm and 1 x 40mm GMG mounted RSW's
Isn't a 30mm on a Boxer just adding an unmanned turret with no protection?

"Any volunteers for clearing jam??? Oh come on lads"

Online
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7248
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

This is the one being viewed/tested at WFEL ..



As one contributor to that thread says, Kongsberg has offered to integrate the CTA-40 gun into its turret for the UK.
“The RT60 is designed to be the complete turret for infantry fighting vehicles, both tracked or wheeled, and we have one prototype version, armed with the MK44 30 mm cannon, that has already been test-fired,” Kongsberg’s VP Business Development says, adding that the turret is available for demonstrations. With the cancellation of the Warrior CSP programme in the UK, the Boxer being considered the vehicle that will replace the tracked platform, it is to be seen which calibre will be selected; should the British Army chose again the CTA40 cannon with its 40 mm telescoped ammunition, Kongsberg is ready to integrate it into its RT60, Arne Gjennestad underlining that once the integration is done on one turret it can be easily done on the other ones, definitely on the RT40. The top turret of the RT family can be fitted with an RWS, following the turret-on-turret concept, i.e. an RS4, while it also features a 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun, a twin missile launcher being also fittable. Add-on armour kits proposed can increase the protection level one notch higher than the RT40 and RT20, baseline armour being itself one level up, the overall weight reaching 3,500 kg.
Image

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

CT40 integration would be interesting given the gunnery sight is where the CT40 rounds enter the breach, and the missiles where the magazine goes...

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SW1 »

The army needs to get boxer into service ASAP and start getting experience with such a vehicle, turrets can wait. There appears to be institutional resistance to both the wheeled vehicles and unmanned turrets so it will be interesting to see how it plays out but it will greatly depend on what happens with Ajax.

A high end turret like the kongsberg one will be expensive and I don’t think there’s budget for it and challenger and Ajax only two. The army needs to decide how it will configure there two heavy brigade combat teams and there deep strike one and which vehicle to build its high end around Ajax or boxer then if it’s going to stick with cta40 or not.

The one thing it can’t do is start all over again. It can’t keep investing hundreds on millions in different systems then walking away half way thru needs to go all in on its chosen sensor and gun systems.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote:Isn't a 30mm on a Boxer just adding an unmanned turret with no protection?
I see thins as a stop gap as all the APC's will have a RSW adding a 30mm to every one in three APC's would give them more punch and maybe they could be moved to the MPV's later allowing them more punch
Ron5 wrote:"Any volunteers for clearing jam??? Oh come on lads"
This is the same for the 12.7 HMG and 40mm AGL so Army top brass have no problem kicking Johnny out to sort it out at this time

Also do the unmanned turrets have a hatch into the hull to clear jams ?

Online
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7248
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote:This is the same for the 12.7 HMG and 40mm AGL so Army top brass have no problem kicking Johnny out to sort it out at this time
But they were not being procured to replace Warrior i.e. would be operating in a more benign environment.
Tempest414 wrote:Also do the unmanned turrets have a hatch into the hull to clear jams ?
Usually. Allows reloading from under armor too.

Online
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7248
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote:The army needs to get boxer into service ASAP and start getting experience with such a vehicle, turrets can wait. There appears to be institutional resistance to both the wheeled vehicles and unmanned turrets so it will be interesting to see how it plays out but it will greatly depend on what happens with Ajax.
What institutional resistance? If there is one, it's pretty feeble with hundreds of Boxers and hundreds of RWS being bought. But I agree with your main point i.e. get Boxer into service asap.

SW1 wrote:A high end turret like the kongsberg one will be expensive and I don’t think there’s budget for it and challenger and Ajax only two. The army needs to decide how it will configure there two heavy brigade combat teams and there deep strike one and which vehicle to build its high end around Ajax or boxer then if it’s going to stick with cta40 or not.
Well the MoD did say Boxer will be replacing Warrior which would seem to imply a cannon on top. Ajax isn't an IFV or even an APC so they're not competing here.
SW1 wrote:The one thing it can’t do is start all over again. It can’t keep investing hundreds on millions in different systems then walking away half way thru needs to go all in on its chosen sensor and gun systems.
Soooo easy to say. Remind me again how Nimrod 4 went?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote:But they were not being procured to replace Warrior i.e. would be operating in a more benign environment.
Again I only see it as stop gap to allow more punch
Ron5 wrote:Usually. Allows reloading from under armor too.
However the Warrior turret was to be pre-loaded in the harbour area and not reloaded on the battle field

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote: However the Warrior turret was to be pre-loaded in the harbour area and not reloaded on the battle field
The CT40 was reloaded under armour.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

I am happy to be wrong it was just something that was said in one of the many youtube vids by a army officer

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

There’s no reason that you couldn’t both reload under armour and load your magazine in harbour before heading out. If you consider that anyone in the Army at the moment will be familiar with RARDEN, which needs constant reloading, an automatic dual feed system will be a lot different.

Post Reply