Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Using OCCAR means the UK will get the vehicles at equal or less price than the Germans & Dutch.

But, as mentioned in the announcement video, the vehicles will then have to have all the UK equipment fitted which will raise the price significantly. Thanks to the use of the UK vehicle architecture, such fitting will require minim development.

Then there's the usual UK addition of so many years of in service support.

Which leads me to the often repeated mantra that dividing any contract by the number of items (ship, aircraft, tanks etc) to determine the "price" of each one, is effing moronic. Yet every time ....

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:How many Boxer's the UK is actually getting has not been clarified beyond the "Will receive more than 500 Boxer 8x8 high mobility, network-enabled armoured vehicles".
528 including 5 prototypes:

http://www.occar.int/uk-joins-boxer-fam ... ews%23news

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Thanks for that, well that is more than enough to get things started, equipping the four Mechanised Infantry Battalions, plus replacing the old FV430 series in other units including Signals, REME and so on.

The Trials unit the Army has established is pretty certain to identify additional variants needed from the start, such as a basic mortar carrier to replace the FV432 based platform. Whether this is only operated by the Mechanised Battalions or also by the Armoured Infantry we shall see, Changing the number and type of mission modules purchased can be left for later as the requirement is recognised, especially when the production line is up and running in Telford.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SD67 »

Ron5 wrote:Using OCCAR means the UK will get the vehicles at equal or less price than the Germans & Dutch.

But, as mentioned in the announcement video, the vehicles will then have to have all the UK equipment fitted which will raise the price significantly. Thanks to the use of the UK vehicle architecture, such fitting will require minim development.

Then there's the usual UK addition of so many years of in service support.

Which leads me to the often repeated mantra that dividing any contract by the number of items (ship, aircraft, tanks etc) to determine the "price" of each one, is effing moronic. Yet every time ....
I’ve never heard of a non competitive process producing VFM. What’s wrong with writing a requirement and putting it out to tender. ( see Land 400)
OCCAR have a political agenda. By any yardstick 2.8 billion for 500 vehicles is multiples of what the Dutch and Germans paid especially as we’re acquiring the simplest variants and it’s already in production. The support costs in the first few years are negligible and a new factory is 50 million tops. The risk is this empties the pot and CR2 just gets pushed out

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I read this (DID of today) as good news, getting started while putting a new line here in the UK together:
" different configurations, including an armored personnel carrier, command vehicle, specialist carrier and field ambulance. Delivery of the vehicles is expected to start from 2023. Most of the production will take place in the UK. Full-scale production will begin in Germany, but 90% of the Boxer vehicles destined for the British Army will be produced in the UK"
- I wonder what that "specialist carrier" might be?
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)

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Jake1992 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I read this (DID of today) as good news, getting started while putting a new line here in the UK together:
" different configurations, including an armored personnel carrier, command vehicle, specialist carrier and field ambulance. Delivery of the vehicles is expected to start from 2023. Most of the production will take place in the UK. Full-scale production will begin in Germany, but 90% of the Boxer vehicles destined for the British Army will be produced in the UK"
- I wonder what that "specialist carrier" might be?
Wasn’t it meant to be a new design repair and recovery variant ?

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 Army is still working on what variants it actually needs. The list released is simply a generic one not what we will end up with to equip the Mechanised Brigades.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by bobp »

Jake1992 wrote:Wasn’t it meant to be a new design repair and recovery variant ?
Armoured 120mm Mortar Carrier perhaps?

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:The Army is still working on what variants it actually needs. The list released is simply a generic one not what we will end up with to equip the Mechanised Brigades.
IMO this is roughly what’s needed to make the strike brigades what they really should be -

APC
Command
Ambulance
Repair & Recovery
Reece ( CT40 fitted )
IFV ( CT40 fitted )
Mortar
120mm direct fire
Bridging
Star streak carrier
AAW gun
Ain’t tank / over watch
Logistics

Possible -
155mm artillery
Rocket artillery

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 minimum number of variants for the Mechanised Battalion to be able to function as well as replacing many of the FV432 series still in service is,
APC with 12.7mm HMG and Javelin ATGW RWS.
Command with 12.7mm HMG and Javelin RWS.
Ambulance possibly 7..62mm MG RWS.
Engineering vehicle with 7.62mm MG RWS.
Armoured Recovery Vehicle with 7.62mm MG RWS.
Mortar Carrier with 120mm Mortar and 7.62mm MG RWS.

There is a large number of vehicles carrying Javelin ATGW. This has proven to be an effective and flexible weapon beyond simply being an anti tank weapon. The weapon is in service and the RWES chosen for the Boxer is capable of having Javelin added, so the main cost is simple increasing the number of Javelin firing units and the number of Javelins in the Army's inventory.

The vehicle should be armed with the M2 12.7mm HMG in a RWS where ever possible but cost could limit this initially t the APC and Command Variants. Luckily the RWS chosen can easily swap out different weapons to vehicles can be reared when weapons become available. Another weapon would be the HK 40mm AGL as an alternative to both the 12.7mm HMG and 7.62mm MG.

Ideally the Mortar carrier should have its crew able to operate the mortar under cover, but for cost purposes a simple turntable platform will suffice initially. This platform would also replace the FV432 81mm SP Mortar carrier in the Armoured Infantry Battalions.

There are also a number of variants that should be seriously considered to give the Mechanised Brigades a full spectrum of capabilities. Some of these are;
Fire Support with CTA40, 7.62mm MG coax, and Javelin ATGW RWS.
SP Starstreak/LMM platform with Starstreak/LMM and 7.62mm pintle mount.
Logistics vehicle with trailer (DROPS) with 7.62mm MG RWS
AVLB (with bridge cleared for loads up to 45tons), 7.62mm MG Pintle mount.
Armoured Engineering vehicle (AEV) will be the equivalent of tracked Terrier AEV, with 7.62mm MG RWS

The Fire support variant would use the turret from the Warrior upgrade programme as this has already be combined with Javelin even though the British Army has chosen not to fir this to the Warrior at the present time.

The Starstreak/LMM variant simple takes the firing units and other equipment from the Stormer chassis and transfers these to a Boxer module. This should be an inexpensive operation and should be done to all existing SP Starstreak platforms with a possible purchase of new launchers at some point in the future to equip a second Regiment with a SP variant.

The Bridge carried by the AVLB must be able to handle all vehicles that are part of a Mechanised Brigade.

A Logistics carrier together with its trailer would be a very useful link between the protected MAN 6x6 and 8x8 platforms and units at the front, able to cross any terrain the combat units may have. Developing a DROPS style load module for the Boxer again should be a relatively inexpensive option.

The AEV should really be in the compulsory list rather than here as having a platform to help prepare positions, lay and remove mines and so on is a capability the Mechanised Brigades should have.

I do not really see the need for a Recce variant as the Brigade would have a recce screen provided by one of the Ajax equipped Regiments. Having a close Recce section in say a JLTV variant appropriately equipped may be an option though. A Self propelled anti aircraft Artillery (SPAAA) Variant would be useful and this requirement should be met by a new Boxer variant combining Starstreak/LMM with the vehicle mounted CTA40 anti aircraft weapon system, the name evades me, but this would be quite and expensive option. There are other auto-cannon on the market that could be used and that have a higher rate of fire etc. Using the CTA40 will ease logistics within the Brigade by using a single weapon system and related ammunition.

I believe we are not going to see an adequately equipped Mechanised Battalion unto 2025 at the earliest and probably will have to wait until 2030 to see an effectively equipped unit.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:The minimum number of variants for the Mechanised Battalion to be able to function as well as replacing many of the FV432 series still in service is,
APC with 12.7mm HMG and Javelin ATGW RWS.
Command with 12.7mm HMG and Javelin RWS.
Ambulance possibly 7..62mm MG RWS.
Engineering vehicle with 7.62mm MG RWS.
Armoured Recovery Vehicle with 7.62mm MG RWS.
Mortar Carrier with 120mm Mortar and 7.62mm MG RWS.

There is a large number of vehicles carrying Javelin ATGW. This has proven to be an effective and flexible weapon beyond simply being an anti tank weapon. The weapon is in service and the RWES chosen for the Boxer is capable of having Javelin added, so the main cost is simple increasing the number of Javelin firing units and the number of Javelins in the Army's inventory.

The vehicle should be armed with the M2 12.7mm HMG in a RWS where ever possible but cost could limit this initially t the APC and Command Variants. Luckily the RWS chosen can easily swap out different weapons to vehicles can be reared when weapons become available. Another weapon would be the HK 40mm AGL as an alternative to both the 12.7mm HMG and 7.62mm MG.

Ideally the Mortar carrier should have its crew able to operate the mortar under cover, but for cost purposes a simple turntable platform will suffice initially. This platform would also replace the FV432 81mm SP Mortar carrier in the Armoured Infantry Battalions.

There are also a number of variants that should be seriously considered to give the Mechanised Brigades a full spectrum of capabilities. Some of these are;
Fire Support with CTA40, 7.62mm MG coax, and Javelin ATGW RWS.
SP Starstreak/LMM platform with Starstreak/LMM and 7.62mm pintle mount.
Logistics vehicle with trailer (DROPS) with 7.62mm MG RWS
AVLB (with bridge cleared for loads up to 45tons), 7.62mm MG Pintle mount.
Armoured Engineering vehicle (AEV) will be the equivalent of tracked Terrier AEV, with 7.62mm MG RWS

The Fire support variant would use the turret from the Warrior upgrade programme as this has already be combined with Javelin even though the British Army has chosen not to fir this to the Warrior at the present time.

The Starstreak/LMM variant simple takes the firing units and other equipment from the Stormer chassis and transfers these to a Boxer module. This should be an inexpensive operation and should be done to all existing SP Starstreak platforms with a possible purchase of new launchers at some point in the future to equip a second Regiment with a SP variant.

The Bridge carried by the AVLB must be able to handle all vehicles that are part of a Mechanised Brigade.

A Logistics carrier together with its trailer would be a very useful link between the protected MAN 6x6 and 8x8 platforms and units at the front, able to cross any terrain the combat units may have. Developing a DROPS style load module for the Boxer again should be a relatively inexpensive option.

The AEV should really be in the compulsory list rather than here as having a platform to help prepare positions, lay and remove mines and so on is a capability the Mechanised Brigades should have.

I do not really see the need for a Recce variant as the Brigade would have a recce screen provided by one of the Ajax equipped Regiments. Having a close Recce section in say a JLTV variant appropriately equipped may be an option though. A Self propelled anti aircraft Artillery (SPAAA) Variant would be useful and this requirement should be met by a new Boxer variant combining Starstreak/LMM with the vehicle mounted CTA40 anti aircraft weapon system, the name evades me, but this would be quite and expensive option. There are other auto-cannon on the market that could be used and that have a higher rate of fire etc. Using the CTA40 will ease logistics within the Brigade by using a single weapon system and related ammunition.

I believe we are not going to see an adequately equipped Mechanised Battalion unto 2025 at the earliest and probably will have to wait until 2030 to see an effectively equipped unit.
I agree with most of the above the real part I take exception to is the need for Boxer Reece.
The main point of strike is to be able to travel long distances at high speeds with low logistics, with Ajax in being track this is not possible. They would also add a massive increase in logistics even when we havnt got enough HETs.
It is also my understanding that by having Ajax in strike it takes away the integral Reece elements of other formations.

For me what should be do is for Ajax to be put back to the formations it was originally planned for and a Reece Boxer variant be purchased for strike to allow the while formation to be wheeled.


IMO the army should be looking to have 2 strike, 2 traditional medium armour and 2 heavy armour to make up the hitting force.
The 2 strike should be all wheeled maiming boxer based
The 2 medium around should be centred on Ajax with an IFV variant eventually replacing warrior
The 2 heavy around would require all CH2 being upgraded.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

One of the issues with the whole "Strike" Brigade concept is the moving of the Ajax units at the same time as the ones equipped with Boxer. Whilst the latter can easily self deploy the former will require transporters to get them into theatre and this is going to require almost 150 medium or nearly 80 heavy equipment transporters, which I doubt the Army has at present. This is something the Army is going to have to resolve for the Brigades to be able to rapidly deploy as planned.

I do not see the need for a dedicated Recce variant of the Boxer though. Unless said variant is to be loaded up with high tech observation systems, it would be basically the same as the proposed fire support version. There would be nothing to stop the Battalion using platoons pushed forward to act as a recce screen, and in fact given the dispersed nature of this type of operation this is a more likely doctrine. Having a dedicated Recce Section per Battalion would necessitate this being split up into one and twos, these being attached to each Company, as there is no way the Section operating as a whole could screen the entire dispersed Battalion. The Battalion is more likely to be using small or micro UAVs or other ISTAR assets to keep tabs on the opposition and then having Platoons manoeuvre accordingly, to engage, shadow or withdraw.

However nothing is set in stone yet, far from it, with the Army conducting trail already to work out how they will operate these Brigades and what equipment they will need both in the sort and long terms.

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: require almost 150 medium or nearly 80 heavy equipment transporters, which I doubt the Army has at present.
Only just (though the contract is due to renew in just a year's time):
FASTTRAX was awarded the £290m whole-life-cost contract for 92 tractor trucks, 89 King GTS 110/7 semi-trailers along with three Tru-Hitch recovery systems and also staff to operate them as Sponsored Reserves
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 »

Are those heavy or medium transporters? The former can carry two Ajax sized vehicles whilst the latter only one to the best of my limited knowledge.

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:The former can carry two Ajax sized vehicles
Yes, though 35 t for each and "Each HET is capable of carrying a 72‐ton Challenger II Tank at speeds of up to 50 mph."
- the Ajax "growth limit" being 42 t
- and that speed is over tarmac
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)

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Jake1992 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:The former can carry two Ajax sized vehicles
Yes, though 35 t for each and "Each HET is capable of carrying a 72‐ton Challenger II Tank at speeds of up to 50 mph."
- the Ajax "growth limit" being 42 t
- and that speed is over tarmac
This is why Ajax’s Reece and IFV type capabilities in strike brigade should be replaced with boxer variants, even when carried on transporters they’d be slower than what boxer can travel at let alone over off road.

This limits strike to how far and fast they can travel while also reducing transporters availability for other formations. Ajax also increases other areas on logic burdens on the strike brigades, it’s over all counter to what strike is meant to be an only there as a hash job filler.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

That is the issue that even the Experts agree on and I have even put forward alternative organisations for the Army moving forward as have many others. But we are where we are, and it will be possible to have the current "Strike" Brigade be a viable formation, but it will require additional funding for additional kit to achieve this. This is one of the reasons the Army have forms a trial unit to figure out how the use theses new formations and what additional kit they could need funding permitting.

Of the three services the Army has suffered from under funding, poor management, staff shortages and lack of equipment far more than the other two. On top of that, being tied into resilient COIN campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan for nearly fifteen years hurt the Army badly when it comes to their core conventional fighting skills.

The result is that in additional to problem in recruitment and retention for personnel, the Army has a major issue with obsolescence across its AFV fleet with nearly all platforms requiring major upgrades or replacement. Ajax in on order to replace the majority of the CVR(T) fleet and Boxer has now been ordered both to re-equip the four Mechanised Battalion and replace the remaining CVR(T) variants and as many FV432 variants as possible. At the same time the incredible slow Warrior improvement programme may finally start to deliver results to the frontline, a programme to possibly bring the Challenger to up to date has been initiated, the MRV(P) programme is moving ahead and a programme to replace the AS-90 has been started. All of the above are going to be requiring significant funding during the same timeframe, yet because both the RAF and Royal Navy as more politically friendly, it will be the Army that will lose out on its desperately needed additional funding during this period. the end result is likely to be the all too familiar "Back of a fag packet", solution we have seen since 2010.

So even if we get the two "Strike" Brigades equipped with only the variants of the Ajax and Boxer already announced it will be a win for the Army against the odds. Of course if the Army gave up its heavy units it could form up to three revised "Strike" Brigades as an alternative but that is probably going too far for many. At current funding level though the Army cannot afford to properly equip and man both it heavy and new medium formations. If we keep both none will be truly effective or properly equipped. Given the rising tensions and threat levels around the globe, can we really afford the current situation.

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:replace the remaining CVR(T) variants and as many FV432 variants as possible
+
Lord Jim wrote: a programme to replace the AS-90 has been started
You have nicely located 'tail ends' to the current prgrms (though the AS90s are far more modern than the rest, and will help to bed in the new arty into Strike bdes first and as step two - all going to expectation - will then be replaced also in the AI bdes. In theory they all come out of the same pool, when fielded, but that's the theory.
Lord Jim wrote:if the Army gave up its heavy units it could form up to three revised "Strike" Brigades as an alternative but that is probably going too far for many.
Sounds like :) a bad deal
- they gave up one, and got two Strike
- now giving up two (=all) would only yield one Strike
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 »

I suppose I was thinking what savings would be actually realised from cancelling those current programmes aimed at the Armoured Infantry Brigades, as well as those from disbanding them bring the only funding available to spend on equipping the third Brigade. Wasn't thinking too hard though.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Caribbean »

Ron5 wrote:... or buy British
Further to Ron's post.
https://www.overtdefense.com/2019/11/08 ... roduction/
I did see a post (on here, I think) that said that the Army was assessing a 30mm cannon for the MIV/MRV(P) - possibly this is what they were looking at, rather than the M230. If it can be fitted wherever a 12.7mm is currently fitted, as claimed, it would seem like a "no-brainer" (for at least some, if not all, vehicles in a formation).
The 1300 rpm for a naval variant sounds interesting as well!
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Caribbean wrote:possibly this is what they were looking at, rather than the M230.
... or the next version AEI (who are they, or rather: who are they owned by?) are working on:
"currently uses the common 30x113mm calibre, however, AEI Systems are working on a version using the 30x173mm used by the Mk 44 Bushmaster II currently mounted on US Army M1296 Stryker Dragoons and by the fearsome GAU-8 mounted within the A-10A Thunderbolt II Warthog ground attack aircraft. "
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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:or the next version AEI (who are they, or rather: who are they owned by?)
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04462335
http://aei-systems.com/
A private spin-off from Enfield, it seems.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Yep, working up from the company info, the sole shareholders in (holdings)ltd seem to be a married couple.
- the operating company has a respectable level of capital, if it is from cumulated profits (£ 3/4 mln), but I was wondering if such resource is enough to do R&D, or whether the technology - which is looking good - flows from somewhere else and this is a sales company
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)

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Given the time and investment the UK has put into the CT40 it seems insane that we'd be considering another medium calibre weapon in the land domain.

I appreciate this design has great potential with existing RWS, but I do wonder whether said RWS manufacturers have any interest in endorsing this integration in their already in-service hardware.

I'd much rather see Boxer get a remote CT40 turret with airburst, or existing RWS equipped with Anti-tank or anti-structure guided munitions.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Caribbean »

RunningStrong wrote:I do wonder whether said RWS manufacturers have any interest in endorsing this integration in their already in-service hardware.
For Midguard, Venom LR is a major advertising point!
http://www.valhalla-turrets.com/products
The EOS literature doesn't mention it (yet?), but the RWS can handle a missile launcher as well
https://www.eos-aus.com/wp-content/uplo ... S-Dual.pdf
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Post Reply