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 »

And that is the key point if the "Strike" Brigades are actually going to be fit for purpose. This is the reason the Army is currently carrying out trials to find out how the fight with such a force as it is new territory. The version announced are basically the default selection until they know better. Funding could be an issue, but the "Strike" idea is in the spotlight so should be ok, the worry is whether new money will facilitate the equipment needed or whether savings achieved by not investing further in the Armoured Infantry Brigades and other "Efficiencies".

As a base line for the Mechanised infantry Battalions I still think we should look at the US Army's Stryker units and the number of variants of the Stryker each of these uses. Though I cannot ever see us getting a Boxer 105mm MGS, all the remaining variants are relevant to how we should equip out Battalions.

Monty1985
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: 27 Jan 2019, 13:42
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Monty1985 »

For me the Stryker was the obvious choice, yes it's an older vehicle less well protected compared to the Boxer but it is a mature platform with a countless number of variations. It remains to be seen just how practical the module aspect of Boxer will be and if vehicles end up with modules being semi permanently coupled to the drive train/chassis. If they can make it work then Boxer will probably be the sensible route to take.

I doubt we will see an MGS variant though, for the same reason we wont see an AJAX 'light tank', it will only give the bean counters an excuse to kill off what little MBT capability we have left. Hopefully we will see something like the CTA 40 (the Lithuanians have something similar to this already) and some kind of ATGM capability.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Monty1985 wrote:For me the Stryker was the obvious choice, yes it's an older vehicle less well protected compared to the Boxer but it is a mature platform with a countless number of variations
We might even get the 'best of breed' - rather than the rebuilds, first with a V-hull, then with added firepower....
Monty1985 wrote:I doubt we will see an MGS variant though, for the same reason we wont see an AJAX 'light tank', it will only give the bean counters an excuse to kill off what little MBT capability we have
I guess you meant to say "would give?"... anyway, there are good ways to get the close up fire-power that can follow you, rather than the 155 mm's that need a top-up, in the tow, at all times
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)

Monty1985
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: 27 Jan 2019, 13:42
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Monty1985 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I guess you meant to say "would give?"... anyway, there are good ways to get the close up fire-power that can follow you, rather than the 155 mm's that need a top-up, in the tow, at all times
Yes, slip of the keyboard.. :oops:

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Another video showing the removal of the Mission Module from a Boxer. Although they are using a very large crane in this operation I have seen other pictures where a much smaller vehicle has been used, based on a MAN chassis also.

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 have had another look at how I would like to see the British Army's planned Mechanised Battalion organised. I have looked at further increasing the formations firepower and ISTAR capabilities.

Battalion HQ, with;
2x Boxer Command (HMG, Javelin)

Recce Section, with;
4x Boxer IFV (CTA40, 2 Spike-LR and a telescopic mast with pod containing day/night EO Sensor and GSR)

Mortar Company with;
3 Batteries each with;
3x Boxer SP Mortar (BAe/SAAB Dual 120mm mortar Turret)

3 Companies, each with;
Company HQ;
1x Boxer Command (HMG, Javelin)
2x Boxer ARV (RWS with MG/AGL)
1x Boxer Joint Fires (RWS with MG/AGL)

Air Defence Section, with;
3x Boxer SPAAG (Air Defence turret with CTA40 or alternative cannon plus IRST and a passive anti drone capability)

3 Platoons, each with;
Platoon HQ, with;
Boxer HQ (RWS with HMG, Javelin)
Boxer AEV (RWS with MG/AGL)
3 Platoons, each with;
2x Boxer IFV (RWD with CTA40, 2 Spike-LR)
2x Boxer APC (RWD with HMG, Javelin)

If funding were available all Boxers in the Infantry Platoon would have the RWS equipped with the CTA40 and Spike-LR. I propose the Spike-LR instead of the Javelin as this weapon brigs greater range and more flexibility with its man in the loop guidance option.Those vehicles mounting the RWS equipped with the M2 HMG and Javelin would also carry a gunners sight for the javelins so that it could be used dismounted if needed. The Boxer SPAAG will provide an effective counter to hostile UAVs through both active and passive means. In addition it can also provide additional direct fire support if required. To further increase the capability of these platforms, instead of mounting Spike-LR the RWS could also carry between 2-3 Starstreak HVM to provide longer range AD option. An option I would like to see for the Recce Section, would be for them to carry a 3-4 man dismounted Recce Team and them equipped with a number of lightweight tactical UAVs, access to the data provided by these would be available down to Company or even platoon level across the Battalion.

The reason for the boost in capabilities is that I am starting to believe that the British Army should not retain its full Heavy Armour capability. Having moved the majority of these units back to the UK they are now in the wrong place for any future NATO conflict. Future High Intensity conflicts are likely to have finished before these type of units could get into theatre, and we will probably have far less warning of such an impending conflict than we did in the past.

Thinking way outside the box I have come up with an alternative future Army Structure I will call Army 2028. I am including it here as the Boxer will be the cornerstone of this re organisation. So hear goes.

Firstly the Warrior CIP would be cancelled and the platform retired from service, with the Infantry Battalions being re rolled as Mechanised and equipped with Boxer. In addition a ninth Infantry Battalion would be converted to this roll . Secondly the number of variants of the Ajax family purchased would be reduced by at least half. WE would still aim to upgrade enough Challenger 2 MBTs to equip two Armoured Regiments. A further Boxer variant would be purchased, and that would be a Mobile Gun System, mounting with a 105mm or 120mm gun.

This would allow the Army to form three Mechanised Brigades each comprising of a Cavalry Regiment equipped with the Boxer MGS (and including a Recce Section like that of the Mechanised Infantry Battalions) and three Mechanised Infantry Battalions. Also formed would be an Armoured Cavalry Brigade comprised of two Armoured Regiments with Challenger 2 CEP and two Recce Regiments with Ajax. This last formation would provide support to the Mechanised Brigades and would train with these units as a matter of routing. Alternatively it could operate as a whole being supported by elements from the Mechanised formations. My reasoning behind this is the Mechanised Units only really needed the heavy firepower provided by the Challengers from the Armoured Infantry Brigades, which in the form currently planned are too weak to operate independently and will be dependant on the Mechanised Brigades for many capabilities anyhow.

16 Air Assault would be replaced by a Special Operations Brigade, comprising of all three Battalions of the Parachute Regiment, one battalion of Ghurkhas and with both Regular and Reserve SAS Regiment nominally attached. It would also include a dedicated AAC Helicopter Regiment with helicopters in the same category as the Blackhawk equipping three Squadrons and a forth equipped with Wildcats equipped to carry out a similar role to that of the US Army "Little Birds". The Brigade would be equipped to carry out Airborne, Air Assault or ground assault missions in addition to providing support of SF operations. In this they would be very similar to the US Army's Ranger Regiment.

These Five Brigades would form the core of 3rd (UK) Division which would become the British Army's single combat Division, support by the newly formed 6th Division. Division assets would include a number of Royal Artillery and Royal Horse Artillery Regiments providing Precision Fire Support, Air Defence, and ISTAR support and well as AAC, Signals, Engineering units and of course Logistics.

1st Division would become in reality only a second Divisional HQ, with few actual units under it, the noticeable exception being the Household Brigade that would in addition to its ceremonial duties also become the Army's designated support unit for the countries civilian agencies.

This is mainly a framework for discussion not a nuts and bolts proposal for everything down to the underwear of the actual soldiers. I am sure there are many areas people will disagree with and possibly replies should be in another thread but I started here so will finish here.

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: possibly replies should be in another thread
yes, but which one?
Lord Jim wrote: equipped to carry out Airborne, Air Assault or ground assault missions
We have all the AB we need, all the AirAssault we can afford (in the way of the assets needed to support ops at scale), but what I don't see in the order of battle is airlanded... and for that one Boxer is not the answer, so as said we'll need to 'crack' this one on some other thread.
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 »

Maybe we should start one along the lines of "British Army for the future".

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Or "Army in the 2020 SDSR"
- as such reviews are mandated a long view
- and we can benchmark the proposed/ eventual outcome against Force 2020 8-)
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)

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

UK Boxers to be built by KMW subsidiary in UK.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/februar ... in_uk.html

I may be wrong but isn't this another case of "anyone but Bae".

Let's build in an 100% German owned subsidiary that has never built an armored vehicle in its corporate life (I believe they used to build military bridging equipment) rather than awarding the contract to RBSL which is a UK company, experienced in building AFV's, that is 45% owned by British Bae.

Sounds awfully like Ajax: let's build a virtually brand new design in a Welsh ex-fork lift factory with a brand new turret built by another company with zero experience of armored vehicles. All done by foreign companies. The alternative: build a Bae CV90 derivative offering that already exists in prototype form and has been conducting firing tests, built by an organization that's built thousands.

Let me predict Boxer cost and budget overruns.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:The alternative: build a Bae CV90 derivative offering that already exists in prototype form and has been conducting firing tests, built by an organization that's built thousands.

Let me predict Boxer cost and budget overruns.
Interesting, this one (all the history :D apart):

As per the Ozzie thread, Rheinmetall is making great inroads, including the 'boast' for commonalities across Boxer and Lynx.

However, the Korean 'thingy' could be turned out in 1K type of volume + whatever the Ozzie order on top of that could be
... just a different turret/ gun to put on top
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)

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:The alternative: build a Bae CV90 derivative offering that already exists in prototype form and has been conducting firing tests, built by an organization that's built thousands.

Let me predict Boxer cost and budget overruns.
Interesting, this one (all the history :D apart):

As per the Ozzie thread, Rheinmetall is making great inroads, including the 'boast' for commonalities across Boxer and Lynx.

However, the Korean 'thingy' could be turned out in 1K type of volume + whatever the Ozzie order on top of that could be
... just a different turret/ gun to put on top
Relevance?

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 let your AFV production capacity atrophy to the point of extinction, including that of BAe, whose Telford plant was near enough in mothballs, if you want to start building AFV in this country you are starting from a poor position. Hats off the ARTEC who have realised that the size of the Boxer order and there could be further orders, means they need two sites and have decided to put both in the UK. They could have use the German line as the second if they wanted. This could also mean additional work for both UK sites for any future non UK orders.

I am not worried about the skill sets and workforce though. We are talking German companies here and whenever they set up an overseas manufacturing site, they ensure that the site develops a trained workforce and has the tooling to produce the end product as if it cam e off a production line in Germany. This probably is the reason for the longer than expected delivery timeframe. Another bonus of choosing a German product is their after sales support. Everything is under warranty, except actual combat damage, for at least the first years of service, so any bugs an issues are ironed out without additional cost.

So we have two sites that have little or no current experience at building AFVs, but they are going to be run by two of the best AFV manufactures on the world, bringing with them all their own business practices. In my view for once we should have a programme that actually delivers what it is supposed to, on time and probably on budget.

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:Well if you let your AFV production capacity atrophy to the point of extinction, including that of BAe, whose Telford plant was near enough in mothballs, if you want to start building AFV in this country you are starting from a poor position. Hats off the ARTEC who have realised that the size of the Boxer order and there could be further orders, means they need two sites and have decided to put both in the UK. They could have use the German line as the second if they wanted. This could also mean additional work for both UK sites for any future non UK orders.

I am not worried about the skill sets and workforce though. We are talking German companies here and whenever they set up an overseas manufacturing site, they ensure that the site develops a trained workforce and has the tooling to produce the end product as if it cam e off a production line in Germany. This probably is the reason for the longer than expected delivery timeframe. Another bonus of choosing a German product is their after sales support. Everything is under warranty, except actual combat damage, for at least the first years of service, so any bugs an issues are ironed out without additional cost.

So we have two sites that have little or no current experience at building AFVs, but they are going to be run by two of the best AFV manufactures on the world, bringing with them all their own business practices. In my view for once we should have a programme that actually delivers what it is supposed to, on time and probably on budget.
Bet you said the same garbage when General Dynamics and Lockheed won the Ajax bid. There's nothing magical about being German that confers automatic success. Go check Volkswagen's recent history for example.

And you really need to go visit Telford if you think its in mothballs. Yes it needs investment to build a Boxer line but so would anywhere else.

It's news to me that there will be two UK Boxer production lines. I am rather surprised. That there is one, I am not, it was part of the contract and not due to any German generosity.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Ok I may have got a few wires crossed, there will be two sites involved with Boxer construction but I think Telford is the final assembly site. But ARTEC didn't need to move as much of the construction to the UK, look at GDLS, which with regards to Ajax builds the basic chassis in Spain and ships that to South Wales. As for German manufacturing, VW is an example of bad practice , trying to cheat the system, not poor manufacturing. The cars we still very well built, just not to the emissions levels they advertised.

No I haven't visited Telford, but when was the last time the workforce there actually built an AFV? How many are currently employed there? and how many of those are assembly line engineers? It may not be in "Mothballs" but it is going to take a large level of investment and trained to get any site up to the standards their German Parent Companies will accept.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by bobp »

Is it possible that the Modules are built in a separate facility to the chassis, hence two production plants.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote: commonalities across Boxer and Lynx.
Ronnie, the relevance is that Rheinmetall will win
... but the cost per piece will be much more than with (the equally good) Korean wagon
Ron5 wrote: Go check Volkswagen's recent history for example
LM has even worse ethics in their management... and they have (consistent) form over the last half century (no?)
Lord Jim wrote: look at GDLS, which with regards to Ajax builds the basic chassis in Spain and ships that to South Wales.
Gee-whizz, had the dorks at BAE had any sense to quote the same for CV90 , we'd have them since a decade (or more)... but no, they made that move in the last minute (realising the deal was moving away from them). SO SAD for them, the Army, us (the tax payers), the Swedes - anyone else 8-)?
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 »

Yes imagine the Recce Regiments with CV90-40R(UK) (My designation for a recce variant with the CTS40) together with AMOS, APC, Command, Recovery and a turreted 120mm to name but a few.

Mind you if we link into the US Army OMGV programme once it reboots, and if GDLS actually use the ASCOD 3/Ajax platform we may have a future development path to improve our Ajax family and expand it.

But I still strongly believe we should be using Boxer to replace as many legacy platforms as possible as well as equipping the four Mechanised Battalions already planned. Start with the remaining FV432 which will need at least another 400 and at the same time purchase the additional variants needed to make the Mech. Inf. truly effective. To partly pay for this in my reality, there will be no production order for the Warrior CIP and the Ajax order would be reduced by at least 50% and the number of each variant changed. I would however equip the remaining turreted CTA40 version with a side pod holding two ATGW in a similar manner to what BAe have do with their CV-90 Demonstrator, using Spike-LR.

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:Ok I may have got a few wires crossed, there will be two sites involved with Boxer construction but I think Telford is the final assembly site. But ARTEC didn't need to move as much of the construction to the UK, look at GDLS, which with regards to Ajax builds the basic chassis in Spain and ships that to South Wales. As for German manufacturing, VW is an example of bad practice , trying to cheat the system, not poor manufacturing. The cars we still very well built, just not to the emissions levels they advertised.

No I haven't visited Telford, but when was the last time the workforce there actually built an AFV? How many are currently employed there? and how many of those are assembly line engineers? It may not be in "Mothballs" but it is going to take a large level of investment and trained to get any site up to the standards their German Parent Companies will accept.
Apologies for coming over rude in my prior. A poster on UK Defence Journal pointed me to a recent video interview of an Artec director that could be taken as the UK getting two Boxer lines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdgZ_Yg ... u.be&t=448

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Gee-whizz, had the dorks at BAE had any sense to quote the same for CV90 , we'd have them since a decade (or more)... but no, they made that move in the last minute (realising the deal was moving away from them). SO SAD for them, the Army, us (the tax payers), the Swedes - anyone else 8-)?
Unfortunately the British Bae dorks presented a bid that beat every single requirement and built at their own expense a fully operational vehicle including a turret that fired the 40mm CTA gun that could also be fitted to the Warrior.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7tObbS1IN8

My belief is that the Bae bid was also lowest priced.

When it was leaked ahead of time that GD/Lockheed Martin had won with it's pile of Powerpoints because it had promised everything would be built in the UK, Bae came back and said they would do the same, at their existing bid price, i.e. build all their offerings in the UK. Even though that was specifically not included as a program requirement (the program focused on lowest cost).

The MoD did not blink and awarded both the Ajax & Warrior contracts to GD & LM and touted how many jobs would be created in the UK. As the same time, Bae closed its factories and laid off workers. The government didn't headline those.

Also leaked stories appeared in the Telegraph and Times how the MoD & Treasury had cleverly taken advantage of the Spanish based GDLS to get a really, really, low price on Ajax. They were a bunch of lies designed to stop people asking why the Ajax contract was not awarded to the lowest bidder.

Of course since then, GD/LM have massively overrun their budgets & schedules mainly because their Powerpoints promised things that couldn't be delivered. Doesn't help the dorks at Bae that got laid off tho.

Yes, Bae got fucked over. So did the army. So did the taxpayer. Same fuckers are still there making decisions. It's the British way. Rule Britannia.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1469
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

If what you say is correct, and BAE had a fully compliant solution at the lowest price that didn’t get picked, I would have thought that they would have legal redress?

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Boxer direct fire support version? The video makes a 48 hr claim of workshop conversion from autocannons to 105 mm - and presumably back, too
- and the Israeli multi-mode round is available for not just 120mmm but for 105 mm as well
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 »

Bugger the 105mm option, can we have as many of those 3030 unmanned turrets with a CTA40 and 2x Spike LR as soon as possible. Goodbye Boxer APC hello Boxer IFV, still with eight dismounts. Recce version has extra ammo, ATGWs and Sensor mast with additional crew.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1469
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:Bugger the 105mm option, can we have as many of those 3030 unmanned turrets with a CTA40 and 2x Spike LR as soon as possible. Goodbye Boxer APC hello Boxer IFV, still with eight dismounts. Recce version has extra ammo, ATGWs and Sensor mast with additional crew.
It will take at least five years and cost at least £5m apiece. Ammunition extra.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:
Unfortunately the British Bae dorks presented a bid that beat every single requirement and built at their own expense a fully operational vehicle including a turret that fired the 40mm CTA gun that could also be fitted to the Warrior.
Nope, they didn't! I know alot more about that turret, and to claim it was anything like TR7 is absurd. It was a demonstrator of the CT40 integration, not a systems integration.

BAE also didn't bid compliant or beyond.

Post Reply