UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

British Army Future Wheeled APC

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Simon82
Member
Posts: 114
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Simon82 » 24 Sep 2018, 18:24

Mortar being an APC sub-variant with a turntable and an 81mm mortar, underwhelming as that is.


This is British procurement, it was never going to be as fancy as a Boxer with a Patria AMOS or NEMO turreted mortar, nice as that would be...

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby RunningStrong » 24 Sep 2018, 21:09

Lord Jim wrote: It usually only needs a new module designing when a new variant is requested, one of the joys of Boxer.

Given the limited number of existing Boxer variants I find it quite funny that you present this as fact.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3155
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Lord Jim » 25 Sep 2018, 15:12

There are actually a multitude of variants for the Boxer that have been developed, but only a limited number have gone into production. Here's couple they are developing.
https://www.janes.com/article/83183/rhe ... rce=Eloqua
https://www.janes.com/article/83316/dvd ... ing-module
https://www.janes.com/article/83260/dvd ... rocurement

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3155
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Lord Jim » 25 Sep 2018, 22:20

Interesting how they are trying to fit four MMP missiles on a standard Protector RWS. That would be a lot of firepower for w Boxer variant.
https://www.janes.com/article/83214/dvd ... n-stations

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby RunningStrong » 25 Sep 2018, 22:21

Lord Jim wrote:There are actually a multitude of variants for the Boxer that have been developed, but only a limited number have gone into production. Here's couple they are developing.
https://www.janes.com/article/83183/rhe ... rce=Eloqua
https://www.janes.com/article/83316/dvd ... ing-module
https://www.janes.com/article/83260/dvd ... rocurement

But I could say the same of Stryker, and it doesn't have the glory of a modular mission system.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3155
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Lord Jim » 25 Sep 2018, 22:29

You miss the point, for example we will have X number of Boxer in storage to sustain the fleet etc. One of the Ambulances goes U/S you bring a hull out of storage and fit the existing Ambulance module, and the same goes for APC or Recovery and so on. Alternatively it is decided to upgrade the the APC variant. You only have to upgrade the Module and you can upgrade the first few from those in storage then transfer them to the units who return the unmodified module to be worked on also. You do not have to take a vehicle out of service to carry out the work. For me the benefits are obvious.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 668
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby mr.fred » 25 Sep 2018, 23:07

Wouldn’t it also work if you had a fleet of conventional AFVs? Ambulance goes U/S so you bring out a high roof reserve vehicle and swap out the mission kit?

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3501
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Ron5 » 25 Sep 2018, 23:36

Ah but you would need more in reserve than with Jim's cunning plan. So he's a lot cheaper.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10178
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 26 Sep 2018, 03:17

https://www.janes.com/article/83316/dvd ... ing-module


Built by Boxer... for Boxers (OK, an Ajax can pass; leave MBTs behind though. A true medium force)
"The goal is to create the ability to launch a pre-existing 14 m span of bridge, as well as a 22 m span that is yet to be designed; both would be able to bear armoured fighting vehicles classified as up to MLC 50 (i.e. up to 50 short tons)."

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3501
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Ron5 » 26 Sep 2018, 16:40

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
https://www.janes.com/article/83316/dvd ... ing-module


Built by Boxer... for Boxers (OK, an Ajax can pass; leave MBTs behind though. A true medium force)
"The goal is to create the ability to launch a pre-existing 14 m span of bridge, as well as a 22 m span that is yet to be designed; both would be able to bear armoured fighting vehicles classified as up to MLC 50 (i.e. up to 50 short tons)."


My reading of that article is that there are two bridging projects: one by a British company using their existing bridges, and one by a German, both aiming to provide a Boxer based bridging solution.

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 617
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
Location: France

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Frenchie » 26 Sep 2018, 17:06

A Boxer can be transported in an A400M or a C17 with its turret ?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3155
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Lord Jim » 30 Oct 2018, 23:24

Interestingly, Rheinmetall have teamed up with Supercat (Asia-Pacific) in Australia for the production of components for the Boxer. Could this mean that Supercat (UK) could be part of the programme in the UK?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10178
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 31 Oct 2018, 05:59

Ron5 wrote:there are two bridging projects: one by a British company using their existing bridges


Would that be the same one that was put on Stormers, for Indonesia and Malaysia (and proposed on Warriors, all 38 of them, to support the Ajax first echelon... the Challies coming with their own heave bridging)?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3155
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Lord Jim » 02 Nov 2018, 01:38

Isn't the US Army working on a bridging unit based on the Stryker? I think I have also seen one based on a Bradley chassis, though I think this was a proof of concept with the final version being used on whatever wins the current medium weight tracked AFV programme, the name of which escapes me.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby RunningStrong » 04 Nov 2018, 12:09

Lord Jim wrote:Isn't the US Army working on a bridging unit based on the Stryker? I think I have also seen one based on a Bradley chassis, though I think this was a proof of concept with the final version being used on whatever wins the current medium weight tracked AFV programme, the name of which escapes me.

Pearson's, of the UK, have already done it for Stryker.

https://www.pearson-eng.com/bridging-th ... r-stryker/

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3155
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Lord Jim » 08 Dec 2018, 08:03

Given the mention a while back that the UK might purchase 1500+ MIV/Boxers I thought I would have a look at what the Army could do with that many. Well with these numbers I have to make the assumption that the Warrior and the BASV are on the way out. Now this raises a number of issues. Does this mean that the WCSP and BASV programmes are now on hold and the money transferred elsewhere? To re-equip the Armoured Infantry as Mechanised infantry on a one for one basis will take up to 320 new vehicles. These replace not only the Warriors but also all the remaining FV430 series and CVR(T) except for the Scimitars in each of the two planned brigades. To this you can add a further 160 to re-equip the Heavy protected mobility battalion in each Brigade bringing the total up to around 500 new vehicles, or 250 per Brigade. To this we currently need to add a further 300 needed to equip the four Mechanised Battalions planned for the "Strike" Brigades so we have a running total of 800 which leaves around 700 to equip regiments form the Royal Signals, Engineers, Artillery and so on.

Thinking on this a small reorganisation of the Mechanised Brigades together with "Strike" Brigades is in order. I would remove on of the Infantry Battalions form each of the former and transfer them to the latter. In return I would transfer one of the Cavalry Regiments (Ajax) from each of the latter and move them into the former, returning them to the historical role.

I do have question about the number and role of the possible revised MIV/Boxer buy. Many of the roles these are likely to be allocated to could be doe for far less expense by using the planned MRV(P) in either its 4x4 or 6x6 guise. All I can think of is the the latter has been re assessed and a better protect platform, namely hte MIV is being seen as the way forward. This would mean that only the MRV(P) 4x4 ws procured. This sort of makes sense if it is affordable.

The next question raised is to what variants of the MIV/Boxer are to be purchased. If we assume that the initial variants are the APC, Command, Ambulance and Engineer, aimed at equipping the first "Strike" Brigade to an interim standard, I believe that is a good starting point. I ampretty sure the Army will quickly make a case for a under Armour ATGW platform with an "Off the Shelf", turret that could also be used on a similar variant of the Ajax, the latter to give the Recce/Cavalry Regiments an integral Anti-tank/over watch capability. around 80 Turrets together with the neccessary modules/conversion would be required to achieve this. Another variant I strongly believe should be pursues is to remove the Starstreak HVM systems form the current Stormer platforms and fit them to a MIV/Boxer module. This makes sense as all other CVR(T) variants and relatives are being withdrawn and would reduce support costs through commonality and ease of maintenance through the module system.

Next I will turn to the lack of Artillery support integral to the "Strike" brigades and again the MIV/Boxer offer two solutions. The first would be to use the platform as a Tractor for a towed Artillery piece be it the existing 105mm LIght Gun or possible the M777A2 155mm. The latter would be my preference and woulbe cheaper than the second option using the MIV/Boxer which would be to devlope a module with a 155mm based on the M777A2. I stick with this weapon due to its light weight and therefore reducing the impact on the performance of the base platform. If the option of using the M777A2 were taken up it would also provide a more deployable alternative to the existing AS-90 and if there were investment in the newer percison and cargo rounds available, the British Army would once again have effective and flexible "Tube " artillery. Thinking totally outsde the box it may even be possible to adapt the HIMARS rocket system to fit on a Boxer module.

Now I turn to the Mechanosed Infantry. I strongly believe the planned APC variant of the MIV/Boxer lacks suffient firepower to replace the Warrior. What is required is an unmanned turret mounting the CTA40. I am not totally sure if one already exists but given that such turret have already been developed that can mount guns up to 50mm it should not be a problem. Such a turret should also have the option for two or more ATGW, possible Javelin. With an unmanned turret, each MIV/Boxer would be able to carry both 8 dismounts and the ammunition for the above withthe gun being able to be topped up from inside the vehicle.

As a side note, whilst the Ajax is the ideal platform for the Close Recce units within the Armoured Regiements, I would suggest that the MRV(P) be used in this role within the MIV/Boxer Regiments. These would be used for the scouting role relying on stealth and sensors to gather intelligence, similar to the way French Army used the VBL and the German Army the Fennek.

A purchase of 1500+ MIV/Boxers together with a similar number of MRV(P) would radically reshape the British Army, in my mind for the better. Our Infantry would be far more deployable for all levels of conflict and equipped to handle such missions. In exchange for the up front cost the Army would save substantial resources in the support and running costs of its AFV fleets, by reducing the number and type of platforms it operates. It appears at some in the Ivory Tower that is Main Building have realised this, I just hope those that hold the purse string can be made to see the light as well.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10178
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 08 Dec 2018, 08:52

Lord Jim wrote: makes sense as all other CVR(T) variants and relatives are being withdrawn and would reduce support costs through commonality and ease of maintenance through the module system.

... but you wanted to keep the Scimitars? While not keeping the perfectly functional (and in lesser need of heavy armoured protection) Stormer-derived AD vehicles?
Lord Jim wrote:an unmanned turret mounting the CTA40. I am not totally sure if one already exists

Toutas

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3155
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Lord Jim » 08 Dec 2018, 09:03

I wasn't imply keeping the Scimitar, but rather the Ajax would replace these rather then the MIV/Boxer. Sorry I wasn't clearer.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby RunningStrong » 08 Dec 2018, 09:56

But the AJAX variable are already intended to replace several of the CVR(T) family?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3155
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Lord Jim » 08 Dec 2018, 21:13

In my view the Boxer can be used to replace platforms like the Spartan and Sultan in units that currently use them and FV431 variants as Personnel Transport, Command and Medical platforms, like the Armoured Regiments rather then Ajax variants. I would concentrate the Ajax in the four Recce/Cavalry Regiments except for those Ajax assigned to the close Recce role in said Armoured units. This would mean we are currently planning to buy more Ajax than we need but I believe there is still time to re evaluate that contract and the variants etc. involved.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10178
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 08 Dec 2018, 21:33

Lord Jim wrote:Boxer can be used to replace platforms like the Spartan and Sultan in units that currently use them and FV431 variants as Personnel Transport, Command and Medical platforms

- would prioritise the latter in spreading out the numbers of Boxer that we can afford; Spartans for engineer teams not in the engineer recce role (Ajax something variant for that) is quite a nifty one, getting those team to the right place (and out again)
Lord Jim wrote:would concentrate the Ajax in the four Recce/Cavalry Regiments except for those Ajax assigned to the close Recce role in said Armoured units.

+
Lord Jim wrote: would mean we are currently planning to buy more Ajax than we need

OK, the close recce role accounts for x units (I'm all for that one), but you had just left one out of three AI/ mechanised bdes without a recce rgmnt... how do all these statements hold together?

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1943
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Gabriele » 08 Dec 2018, 21:55

Spartans for engineer teams not in the engineer recce role (Ajax something variant for that)


The engineer one is the Argus.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10178
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 08 Dec 2018, 22:46

Gabriele wrote:
Spartans for engineer teams not in the engineer recce role (Ajax something variant for that)


The engineer one is the Argus.


Thanks; how could I forget when I get the stuff for my own tinkering from Argos.

But there are limits to what MIV versions can do. e.g never this
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... t_2009.jpg
which I guess could be described as an assault breaching vehicle.

I am not quite clear on the role for which Argos will be slotted. Engineering recce would come awfully close to the above, but would be more like finding the obstacles (natural , or man-made by OpFor) and then dealing with them, or what?
- there will be so few of them that for that reason I thought that Spartans (along with Sultans) should be retained, so that the MIV budget - whatever it turns out to be - could be concentrated for "best effect"

I am on thin ground here (the role of REME is much more clearcut, but of course they more "follow" than "blend in" in the field), but other than for "the MIV will be infantry, marching under armour and ready to deploy at destination" the wider spectrum of its versions planned/ desired is foggy, to say the least?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3155
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby Lord Jim » 09 Dec 2018, 04:46

Going forward the Army will only retain two Armoured Infantry Brigades with the third becoming one of the "Strike Brigades. There are currently four Recce/Cavalry Regiments planed to be equipped with the Ajax family, two in each "Strike" Brigade. What I suggested was swapping the Heavy Protected Infantry Battalions from the planned two Mechanised Brigades with one of the Recce/Cavalry Regiments in each "Strike" Brigade and equipping the former with the MIV/Boxer giving each "Strike" Brigade three Mechanised Infantry Battalions and a single Recce/Cavalry Regiment. The Mechanised Brigades would have one Armoured, one Recce and two Mechanised Battalions.

Now of course we could throw all the current plans out of the Window and have three Mechanised Brigades and no "Strike". This would mean both the higher number of MIV/Boxer to be purchased and a greater reduction in the number of Ajax procured. If this route was followed I would make each Mechanised Brigade one Armoured, one Recce, three Mechanised and one Artillery Regiment. These three Brigades would form the UK's fighting Division supported by Divisional level assets and of course 16 Air Assault is also in the mix.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10178
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 09 Dec 2018, 09:14

Lord Jim wrote: a small reorganisation of the Mechanised Brigades together with "Strike" Brigades is in order. I would remove on of the Infantry Battalions form each of the former and transfer them to the latter. In return I would transfer one of the Cavalry Regiments (Ajax) from each of the latter and move them into the former, returning them to the historical role.

+
Lord Jim wrote: I suggested [was] swapping the Heavy Protected Infantry Battalions from the planned two Mechanised Brigades with one of the Recce/Cavalry Regiments in each "Strike" Brigade and equipping the former with the MIV/Boxer giving each "Strike" Brigade three Mechanised Infantry Battalions and a single Recce/Cavalry Regiment. The Mechanised Brigades would have one Armoured, one Recce and two Mechanised Battalions.


Lord Jim wrote:Now of course we could throw all the current plans out of the Window and have three Mechanised Brigades and no "Strike".
Thanks, now I see the different flavours more clearly as I somehow thought we were already traversing that continuum, with 3+1 bdes.
- though you are not suggesting that, the objection I had in mind related to readiness
- with a single "Strike" medium-early entry formation we would be facing the same problems (in scale) as with the current early entry bdes:
1. The two-bn set up in 16X has been addressed by the addition of 1RGR. As they are not parachute 'certified'... that discussion about maroon berets, but without wings, but with kukris ;) ... so in effect parachute early response is on rotation at Coy level (SFS can pitch in, with limited numbers)
2. In 3 CDO only two cdo's are equipped with what they call 'heavy' weapons, ie. to be able to tackle OpFor regular formations. The 3rd cdo was transformed to specialise in various maritime security tasks.
- so here we face the rotation between two, which
-- in itself poses a difficulty
-- and any simultaneous tasking between 'the Arctic' and in "the RoW" would probably have to happen by drawing on the other units of RM (having said that, regeneration does not impose the same kind of readiness burden as in other units' rotation as the entrants are not taken in - to use a loose parallel - from the 6th form into 'university' but rather continue from a Bachelor's to a Master's)

A quick question, though: Nobody seems to be proposing the use of Boxer in ozzie spec as the recce wagon for the otherwise to be Boxer'ed formations. Why is this? On price only? Then we come to: which one is pricier, Ajax or that sort of improved spec on wheels


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests