Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by jonas »

UK to join Boxer multi role support partnership :-

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... rship.html

J. Tattersall

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by J. Tattersall »

I can understand why people want a CTA40 turret and gun. However money unfortunately must be the big object. Before proceeding down that route one would have to be absolutely certain that a) the current foreseen arrangements for a MMG/ HMG turret on Boxer (& potentially ATGW) mounted on a remote weapons station a wholly unacceptable and that b) one clearly understands how much you're prepared to REDUCE the Boxer vehicle buy by so that one can afford to be turrets on a reduced number of vehicles.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

J. Tattersall wrote: how much you're prepared to REDUCE the Boxer vehicle buy by so that one can afford to be turrets on a reduced number of vehicles.
except under a scenario that the turrets become available for 'free'

Then (as the number of dismounts in such a vehicle would be lower) one needs to configure
A. a combination that lets a platoon to move around as an entity, and
B. as a bonus the platoons firepower will have gone up substantially.
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)

J. Tattersall

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by J. Tattersall »

Sorry where do these 'free' turrets come from?

Has the integration cost of putting the particular turret onto UK Boxer, including non-recurring engineering work, already been carried out?

Where's the money for the actual embodiment of the turret into Boxer going to come from?

Even if the turrets were free, these are typically massive sums of money, which have to be found from somewhere.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

There will be more than the required number, should the Warrior project not proceed (GFE and all that)
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:There will be more than the required number, should the Warrior project not proceed (GFE and all that)
Since the Warrior Production contract hasn’t been let yet, those turrets don’t exist, so they won’t be free.

Plus you’d have to pay to integrate and prove them on Boxers, and that wouldn’t be free either.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

With the current level of resources neither the "Strike" Brigades nor the Armoured Infantry Brigades are going to have the equipment they need nor the level of training to be viable combat formation. The Army is going to have to find additional resources in order to provide the "Strike" Brigades, their priority, with both the quantity of Boxer needed and the right types. This is gong to mean that both the Army is going to have to make some seriously hard decisions, and I feel the target is going to have to be 1st (UK) Divisions formations. A poorly equipped "Strike" Brigades will simply be a long casualty list waiting to be filled out in any future peer conflict.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote: Since the Warrior Production contract hasn’t been let yet, those turrets don’t exist, so they won’t be free.
8 years into the project and eight prototypes under hugely long testing (to establish MTBF, which will then set the whole life cost somewhere between £ 1.2 bn and 1.8 bn... not going to speculate where the critical threshold sits exceeding which could sink the whole project).

The guns definitely have been ordered and should the turret contract (along with the rest) be called off, I would guess the amount of compensation to be paid could well be enough to cover taking 100+ units of the "product" instead
- a wild guess as little of these contracts and their cancellation terms are in the public domain. Brings to mind that it was cheaper :shh: to take the second carrier than to cancel the order for it
- but just as well; at least :) will keep the discussion going
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 »

mr.fred wrote:ince the Warrior Production contract hasn’t been let yet, those turrets don’t exist, so they won’t be free.
The CTA40s have probably already been made/delivered and are awaiting the Ajax production to actually get underway or catch up. Mind you cancelling the Warrior Turrets as well as the rest of the programme and ordering an unmanned turret fitted with the CTA40 for a Boxer IFV Mission Module would be a far more economical move in the longer term, given the cheaper running costs and simple logistics.

If we are going down the "Strike" route we might as well go all in. We are going to be using the Boxer to replace the remaining FV432 platforms as well as a number of CVR(T) variants already so why not replace the Warriors as well. If we cannot afford to equip all the Infantry carrying Boxers to IFV configuration the minimum armament should be a M2 12.7mm HMG, or 40mm AGL and a Javelin on a RWS, with just a M2 on all other variants. A 7.62mm GPMG is simply not enough both it range and stopping power for a primary weapon.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:Mind you cancelling the Warrior Turrets as well as the rest of the programme and ordering an unmanned turret fitted with the CTA40 for a Boxer IFV Mission Module would be a far more economical move in the longer term, given the cheaper running costs and simple logistics.
Yes, spending about the same for half as many vehicles that’ll take another five to ten years to arrive seems like an excellent use of resources.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote: Yes, spending about the same for half as many vehicles
Rather than all-in, doing things in moderation: read 1 in 4 with an autocannon.
- I was hinting at this "in code" with the "how to make a whole platoon" ride in x vehicles
- depending on the type of turret - and not forgetting the space for sufficient number of rounds - one Boxer will have 2-4 fewer dismounts
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 »

I was referring to not having any Warriors

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Me too.

Surely the 1-in-4 formula will not stop in less than 150 of the guns being installed
... as the total number of Boxers is likely to go up. Perhaps at first that increase will come mainly from more specialised versions, but after that more infantry bns will be riding in Boxers.
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 »

So you need vastly more money to buy both more vehicles and turrets?

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

mr.fred wrote:Yes, spending about the same for half as many vehicles that’ll take another five to ten years to arrive seems like an excellent use of resources.
Well we still haven't signed a production contract for the Warrior yet, and no production schedule yet. We are only getting the infantry carriers upgraded now, and rather than an upgrade we are getting something in between a total rebuild and having to use new hulls because the existing ones are shot. We are already buying a fleet of Boxers over three times the size of what the Warrior fleet will be, and that platform has plenty of growth potential left in it, unlike Warrior which will only last until the mid 2030s anyway before needing replacement.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote: spending about the same for half as many vehicles
Is the unit price twice the base Boxer's or twice the unit price of refurbed Warriors (200+ units for a cool 1 bn, upfront, cost)?
ArmChairCivvy wrote:in moderation: read 1 in 4 with an autocannon
average unit price 25% higher than with a Boxer fleet with no turrets in it at all
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 »

Lord Jim wrote: Well we still haven't signed a production contract for the Warrior yet, and no production schedule yet. We are only getting the infantry carriers upgraded now, and rather than an upgrade we are getting something in between a total rebuild and having to use new hulls because the existing ones are shot.
Speculation, isn’t it?
Lord Jim wrote: We are already buying a fleet of Boxers over three times the size of what the Warrior fleet will be, and that platform has plenty of growth potential left in it, unlike Warrior which will only last until the mid 2030s anyway before needing replacement.
Since we’re paying three times as much, that isn’t too surprising.
Except we’re getting a boxer fleet without turreted versions. The £800m WCSP production contract would get you 133 more boxers without turrets. Turrets are about as expensive as new vehicles, so that’s 66 turreted boxers. Not many if you are planning to equip two AI battalions or having 1 in 4 through the rest of the fleet.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote: rather than an upgrade we are getting something in between a total rebuild and having to use new hulls because the existing ones are shot.


Speculation, isn’t it?
Sure is, and as it is more than a mln $ question; the reason for the testing prgrm being so long (=thorough).
mr.fred wrote:The £800m WCSP production contract would get you 133 more boxers without turrets. Turrets are about as expensive as new vehicles, so that’s 66 turreted boxers.
These are the facts, before we come to the aspect of some costs for the turrets (guns incl.) having already been incurred/committed to - and how to get 'the most bang' for those bucks.
mr.fred wrote: equip two AI battalions or having 1 in 4 through the rest of the fleet.
- do the first two first (4 x 66 = 264 Boxers in all for them)
- you've got then (from the committed to numbers) another 300 Boxers 'to play with'
- the price of all of this would/ could be delay for the kitting out of the second Strike Bde; BUT at least we would have 2+1 bdes not just up to scratch sooner, but also able to maintain their readiness better as their kit would be newer (better MTBFs, among other things)

What's not to like? = where's the line where one can sign ;)
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 »

In one of the posted RUSI lectures, the Senior Army Officer stated his preference for upgrade Brigades one at a time. This ensured that when a formations was reequipped and/or re organised it received the latest kit that could be afforded and e=wad able to incorporate the latest developments in doctrine and strategy.

Following on from this, it would make sense to equip the First "Strike" Brigade as quickly as possible, even if that means sticking to the current plan of two Recce/Cavalry Regiments and two Mechanised Regiments. This would allow the development of the Strike concept to be further examined and refined. Additional Boxer variants like a Mortar Carrier would be purchased at this time. Ideally in my mind the aim would be to have the "Shrike" Brigades equipped solely with Boxers which would still be an option. If this were to happen we could take the Two Ajax Regiments and use them as the designated screening force of 3rd (UK) Division, as well as being available to be deployed to support other operations. There would of course could be a reduction in the total Ajax purchase if this was needed to free up funding but the remaining two planned Regiments could be incorporated into the two Armoured Infantry Brigades as an alternative.

Next I would reequip the first of the Armoured Infantry Brigades, these would be the first Battalions to receive the Turreted version as well as additional variants to begin replacing many of the remaining CVR(T) and FV432s within this brigade, its sibling and other support units within the Division. Examples of this could be the transfer of the Starstreak HNV Turrets from the current Stormers to a Boxer Mission Module, and replacing those vehicles used by units such as the Royal Signals. At the same time any variant that would be applicable to it would be adopted by the First "Strike" Brigade, either by converting existing Mission Modules or purchasing new ones.

It would then be the turn of the second "Strike" Brigade, taking on board the lessons from the first such unit and incorporating Boxer variants developed for the Armoured Infantry. It could also incorporate the Cavalry variant armed with the large calibre gun to equip either a dedicated Cavalry Regiment or have each Mechanised Battalion include a platoon so equipped.

The process would carry on with some units being transferred to other Brigades within the Division until the restructuring of its four Brigades has been completed. Of course during this time the two Armoured Regiments would have been reequipped with modernised Challenger 2s and the Precision Fires requirement would have been met and these units either integral to specific Brigades or ideally managed at Division level and assigned as needed,

Such a rolling programme would avoid the log jam of trying to get everything right straight away and the resultant hesitation historically shown for fear of not anticipating what maybe around the corner. Being able to incorporate new technologies as they immerge into the latest formation to be reequipped should alleviate this mindset. Of course the rolling programme would continue with the first Brigade being modernised to incorporate later innovations once the forth Brigade had completed its initial conversion and so on. This should prevent the current situation the Army finds itself in by having the majority of its AFV fleet redundant of obsolete at the same point in time and requiring a major programme to rectify the situation.


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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

According to Nicholas Drummond:

"The British Army's modernisation plans translate into the following BIG SIX priorities:
1. Armoured vehicles
2. Artillery Systems
3. Communication systems
4. Base infrastructure
5. Helicopters
6. Logistics"

And Boxer is one of six programs fighting for funding to address #1: CR3, WSCP, Ajax, Boxer, Bushmaster/Eagle , JLTV.

I think it's called "massed obsolesce" or Brown/Osborne/Hammond's repeatedly mortgaging UK's defense 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 »

Ron5 wrote: fighting for funding to address #1: CR3, WSCP, Ajax, Boxer, Bushmaster/Eagle , JLTV.
Against that background easy to see why JLTV seems to be slow 'in coming'
- more specific reasons have been reported, but could be just 'smoke and mirrors' - with a statement attached "it will come, some day"
- I think the US order itself was cut (along with new Chinooks) with the slogan: "we don't intend to fight another Iraq insurgency next"
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 »

Plus there is no need to replace all the existing 4x4s as they can still do a respectful job in and arounds bases in the US, in much the same way we can keep using the good old Land Rovers, though I do not think we will be buying the new Defender to replace them when they are finally worn out beyond repair..

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: though I do not think we will be buying the new Defender
A little bit of trivia: before Iraq kicked off in a way that called for MRAPs, the MoD had already announced the intention to buy 3000-ish G-wagens
- of course protection wise that would not have been much of a step up (on those vehicles needing the armour kit) so the idea quickly sailed away and over the horizon
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)

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:Plus there is no need to replace all the existing 4x4s as they can still do a respectful job in and arounds bases in the US, in much the same way we can keep using the good old Land Rovers, though I do not think we will be buying the new Defender to replace them when they are finally worn out beyond repair..
In the simple utility vehicle respect (i.e. not militarised) they have largely been replaced by hired Mitsubishi L200s.

Post Reply