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 »

Interesting, is that the British or US Military?

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:Interesting, is that the British or US Military?
British. Much like farmers, the British army has realised a Japanese pickup truck offers a lot more benefits than the expense of a Land Rover.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

The Dutch went all in with Volkswagen's toughie pickup, maintenance is also in the deal.

The protection that can added to these sorts of rides is limited; but the money saved gets more Boxers to jobs where their level of protection is needed
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 »

Haven't the French gone down a similar route, with two main variants, one basically a toughened civilian vehicle and then a version of the same platform that can be up armoured if needed.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

From a doc on the T26 thread, as to what decisions (and the costing of alternative approaches; they seem to like facts a priori - a commendable thing that is) within procurement are considered business critical in these times when not everything can be pursued as planned:

"could indicate that it's decision time getting nearer as to in what quantities to order more MIVs... as the first order will be pretty much fully absorbed just by the 4 inf. bns and 2 eng. rgmnts needed to have the strike bdes stood up
"DE&S Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV) Procurement & Commercial Cost model to support MG submission"


https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... april-2020[/quote]"
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 »

Isn't the first order for around 500, so with each Mechanised Infantry Battalion needing around 75 that should leave between 150 and 200 Boxer for other units.

I do see the Boxer becoming probably the key AFV in the Army's inventory with regards to numbers and I can see its procurement being one of multiple order of a long period of time, well into the 2030s. This may come at the expense of investment in the Army's heavy units, though the key component within these that maybe retained would be the Challenger 2s, whereas other platforms such as the Warrior could have their roles carrier out by a variant of the Boxer if needed.

The Army's equipment plan could, in all likelihood become something of a train wreck if the economic downturn has a seriously adverse effect on the defence budget and especially the equipment plan. This couldn't happen at a worse time, when multiple Army programmes are all in need of funding in order to replace or modernise the majority of the Army's AFV fleet. If the Army tries to keep all its programmes going, it will result in both delays and reduced numbers, both of which the Army can ill afford if it wants to regain its ability to be able to fight a peer level 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 »

Lord Jim wrote:that should leave between 150
yes, two more rgmnts (the engineers) 2 x 75
Lord Jim wrote:equipment plan could, in all likelihood become something of a train wreck if the economic downturn has a seriously adverse effect on the defence budget
Not news to you or me, but some other threads/ some contributors on them seem to believe in "economic levitation". I went onto a levitating train in the mid 80s, in the Tsukuba Expo, but that is how far belief alone carries me
Lord Jim wrote:This couldn't happen at a worse time
as you say, the army is attempting a major recapitalisation of its AFV fleets; last time that happened was... in the mid 80s :D
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 also fear there are some in high places within the MoD and Army in particular who seem to have gotten the revolutionary bug once again, as happened when FRES originally raised its head. They are looking at capabilities and doctrines that require technologies that in some cases have only just begun to be developed. They seem to believe that the current recapitalisation as part of Army 2020+ is on track and will deliver what is needed by the Army in the near term and so have moved their attention to the far future beyond 2040. In reality these programmes as they stand will deliver an Army ill equipped to fight a modern peer level conflict and lack the mass to sustain it.

The Boxer is a very good platform, some might say too good for what the Army intends, but after deciding to create the "Strike" Brigades, they are intending the Boxers to be mainly basic wheeled APCs with little firepower except that of the old trusty .50 Cal HMG. The formation will rely on dismounted infantry units whose support weapons will also be dismounted including ATGW and Mortars. This alone goes against the idea of highly mobile formations able to engage and disengage at will against a peer opponent.

Though the Army has identified that these units will require substantial indirect fire support, these aspiration are not properly funded and their size and scope is insufficient.

With the right combination of variants the Strike Brigades could almost be a blueprint for all western medium forces, but the Army has wasted this opportunity. It could of had a blank canvas to work with but instead decided to turn the formations into a melting pot of platforms it didn't know how to use or those that were searching for a new role e.g. Ajax.

To these woes we must, as mentioned up thread take into account the squeeze that will inevitably fall on the Defence Budget as a result of the economic downturn resulting from the ongoing pandemic and we could see the Army having even more teeth pulled and capabilities lost or postponed to a future date, where those in high places we see them as yesterday ideas, cancel them altogether whilst looking to systems that would not be out of place in a Buck Rogers movie.

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:with little firepower except that of the old trusty .50 Cal HMG
- old crusty?
Lord Jim wrote:take into account the squeeze that will inevitably fall on the Defence Budget as a result of the economic downturn resulting from the ongoing pandemic and we could see the Army having even more teeth pulled and capabilities lost or postponed
- where was Brexit in that :lol: ?
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 »

With BREXIT I hoped we might just manage to maintain to Status Quo, but with all that has happened since the year started I am more concerned about things going "Down, down". :D

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7930
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SKB »

Lord Jim wrote:Status Quo.... "Down, down". :D
:mrgreen:

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »


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:All I want for Christmas is.......
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... 552-mm-gun
Well, put down the advance, quick, and Shephard says you'll stand a good chance:
"Italian 3.0 Centauro II procurement remains unfinalised

As the Italian MoD and the Iveco-Oto Melara (CIO) consortium continue negotiations, details remain undefined of a plan to acquire 40 8×8 Centauro II armoured vehicles"
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)

Tom8
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: 15 Feb 2020, 07:59
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tom8 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:All I want for Christmas is.......
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... 552-mm-gun
Well, put down the advance, quick, and Shephard says you'll stand a good chance:
"Italian 3.0 Centauro II procurement remains unfinalised

As the Italian MoD and the Iveco-Oto Melara (CIO) consortium continue negotiations, details remain undefined of a plan to acquire 40 8×8 Centauro II armoured vehicles"
I imagine the 40 will be used to equip the two squadrons needed for their two New Freccia brigades.

To equip the rest of their recognisance regiments they will need another 6-7 squadrons worth.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by bobp »



Thought this was useful to show different variations

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 can only wish.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

bobp wrote:

Thought this was useful to show different variations
Anyone else getting FRES SV flashbacks...

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by bobp »

RunningStrong wrote:Anyone else getting FRES SV flashbacks...


Without being accused of fantasy fleets, my eyes keep looking at the 105mm turret and the 120mm mortar plus ammunition carriers. Also the Precision Fires if that is doable.

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by jonas »

First sub contract for Boxer awarded to WFEL UK :-

https://defence-blog.com/news/army/brit ... icles.html

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Good news, at least the wheels are turning.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

jonas wrote:First sub contract for Boxer awarded to WFEL UK :-

https://defence-blog.com/news/army/brit ... icles.html
Pretty sure that's a German company's subsidiary wrapping itself in the Union Jack...

Image

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by bobp »

Ron5 wrote:Pretty sure that's a German company's subsidiary wrapping itself in the Union Jack..
I think you are referring to RBSL which is a Rheinmetal/Bae joint venture with Rheinmetal owning 51 percent. They are partnered with WFEL to build the Boxer in the UK. WFEL I think is owned by KMW in the Netherlands. So it will be a case of built in the UK , jobs in the uk as well.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

bobp wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Pretty sure that's a German company's subsidiary wrapping itself in the Union Jack..
I think you are referring to RBSL which is a Rheinmetal/Bae joint venture with Rheinmetal owning 51 percent. They are partnered with WFEL to build the Boxer in the UK. WFEL I think is owned by KMW in the Netherlands. So it will be a case of built in the UK , jobs in the uk as well.
Nope - WFEL

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

bobp wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Pretty sure that's a German company's subsidiary wrapping itself in the Union Jack..
I think you are referring to RBSL which is a Rheinmetal/Bae joint venture with Rheinmetal owning 51 percent. They are partnered with WFEL to build the Boxer in the UK. WFEL I think is owned by KMW in the Netherlands. So it will be a case of built in the UK , jobs in the uk as well.
Both are correct. From the WFEL site.

"WFEL’s ultimate holding company is KMW + Nexter Defense Systems N.V., a company incorporated in the Netherlands.

WFEL’s immediate parent company is land defence systems provider, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann GmbH & Co KG (‘KMW’), a company incorporated in Germany."

I wonder what aspects of the contract guarantees UK manufacturing? Business is business, if they can build in existing facilities elsewhere, they will.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by bobp »

It would be in Germanys interest to continue building in the UK as a way of getting around its countries reluctance to export to certain countries. Aside from that its providing British jobs at a time when unemployment are rising, and maintaining its skillset for future orders.

Post Reply