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 »

With such a RWS fitted we would be able to retain eight dismounts per vehicle which would be a good thing, but I cannot help but feel that such a weapon system is going to be very vulnerable to being knocked out but either direct or indirect fire. I do not know the stats but how resistant to even small arms fire is such a RWS? To me it seems more like a naked turret with the same costs to procure and maintain but without any protection.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Let's not forget (and agonise) about the main weapon system being
... the dismounts; 8, 6 or any other number
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)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

For me the prefect mix for Boxer at Battalion level is

20 x APC's with 12.7mm + 1 Javelin RWS
20 x APC's with 30mm Venom RWS
20 x APC's with 40mm GMG RWS
20 x CVR's Turreted 40mm with 2 Javelin
9 x Nemo 120mm mortar

= 89 Boxers

this allows each company to have

6 APC with 12.7mm + 1 Javelin
5 APC with 30mm
5 APC with 40mm GMG
3 NEMO
4 CVR 40mm + 2 Javelin

which leaves 1 recce groups of 4 CVR's and HQ with 12 APC's

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:With such a RWS fitted we would be able to retain eight dismounts per vehicle which would be a good thing, but I cannot help but feel that such a weapon system is going to be very vulnerable to being knocked out but either direct or indirect fire. I do not know the stats but how resistant to even small arms fire is such a RWS? To me it seems more like a naked turret with the same costs to procure and maintain but without any protection.
There are applique armour options for the kongsberg units, but they only offer limited coverage.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

As long as the weapon is "just" for suppression, I would be more concerned about losing the optics. ie. compromising the situational awareness
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 if you only wanted a weapon for suppression we could simply go with the CROWS RWS used on some Strykers that come with a .50cal and Javelin, as the former is pretty good at that role.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

I think it comes down to what we want to do. If we take the Warrior as the bench mark i.e a armoured vehicle that can carry 7 troops onto the battle field dismount them and offer fire support out to 2000 meters when not moving with its 30mm cannon. Then we can now use Boxer to carry 8 troops onto the Battle field dismount them and offer fire support out to between 2000 & 3000 meters while on the move using 12.7mm HMG , 30mm Cannon & 40mm GMG fitted on a RWS. Also a RWS can be replaced in around 30 to 40 mins if damaged

For me having a mix of RWS fitted APC's and turreted CVR's is key

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

It (-J at the end for Javelin) is quite a good base option, adding to the capability and (reducing) reaction time to dealing with pop-up threats, reading from the testing with the Europe-based cavalry rgmnt (in 2018):
"The CROWS II is stabilized, electrically operated, and incorporates a Detached Line-of-Sight (DLOS), which allows the gunner to maintain a stable sight picture independent of weapon or ammunition selection. "

However, another type of 'pop up' namely a helo or a UAV coming at you will only give you a second or two to fire at it because the elevation is limited.

Further, making the complete RWS light enough for a wide range of vehicles (LJTV, among others) leads to compromises, like noted after that testing
• The platform met its reliability requirements for the turret and gun system without degrading the reliability of the base Stryker chassis.
• The design of the mounting fork for the Javelin Integration Kit is not structurally sound... bending it in a hurry brought the simulated battle to an abrupt :( end

In the couple of years since, I'm sure the last point has been actioned. And other than weight (broad applicability) there's of course the price and in our case also no need to intro any new weapons.

Like @tempest says above, normally you get the best result with a mix of assets (and the mix itself keeping the cost, including training rqrmnts, down).
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: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Here I was thinking CROWS and the UK's Kongsberg RWS that will be fitted to both Ajax & Boxer, were the same thing. Silly me.

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:Here I was thinking CROWS and the UK's Kongsberg RWS that will be fitted to both Ajax & Boxer, were the same thing. Silly me.
You of course know ;) that there has been Crows I, II, and III... with Crows-J sliding into the family tree, too
... Kongsberg came along by winning an iteration contract, once a thousand + had been fielded & tried & tested

Your argument is on par with Spear1, 2, 3, 4, 5
... spot the odd one out 8-)
- and none of these have been tied to manufacturer names (being capabilities); until MBDA was quick on their feet - and named their own product ... Spear3 :)
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)

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by whitelancer »

With all the comments above about the various options for arming Boxers, I thought it was worth pointing out that to be effective a 3 man crew will be needed. This is true whether its fitted with a manned or unmanned turret or just a RWS. Can Boxer carry a 3 man crew plus 8 dismounts?

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 a RWS with a .50Cal or 40mm AGL, the Boxer has a crew of two and eight Dismounts. If you add a two man turret this drops to six dismounts. If you have an unmanned remote heavy turret with a 30mm or larger, you still only get six dismounts I now believe, but the only example of this are those Boxers operated by the Lithuanian Army with the Samson turret and I have no data on this.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

whitelancer wrote: Can Boxer carry a 3 man crew plus 8 dismounts?
To be on the safe side (in this calculation), if a platoon is 30
- 3 x 8 =24
- a turreted, platoon's 'own' fire-support Boxer only needs to carry the (dismounting) commander and 5 more (signals, Javelin, medic, sniper... take your pick).

Though if the whole platoon dismounts, probably the commander is with them and the vehicles form another 'manoeuvre unit' - so it is more likely that it is the deputy who is (and stays) in the vehicle?
- you wouldn't have both of them in the vehicle
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)

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Apparent confirmation that we are at least looking into options to up-gun Boxer: https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... cle-fleet/

The cynic in me reckons we will just bung a 30mm chain gun into a fairly standard RWS mount and call it a day - maybe if we are lucky they might slap an ATGM on the side.

To my mind the thing will need a proper gun to be credible and that in turn will require a proper turret, crewed or uncrewed. Plenty of options around but my preference would be to continue throw our weight behind CTA since we already seem to have the barrels and have spent so much to date.

Technically the system is excellent too, it's just the costs. With a bit of commitment from our side however, as the French are doing at their end, we might even get the supportability costs down to acceptable levels.

As an aside, the article also mentions that a fairly significant uplift in the numbers of Boxers to be acquired is likely, including the procurement of additional capabilities/variants.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:Technically the system is excellent too, it's just the costs.
Anything in hundreds will cost a lot (per piece and per round)

WE need to roll it out and sell it on its excellence
... the Americans (for their Stryker upgrades) are now looking at 50 mm (conventional)

I wonder where defencenews.com got this from:
"For the moment the number of reconnaissance vehicles purchased by the British stands at 50, but the Army is conducting an analysis to determine if more Boxer vehicles within the force should also be fitted with ATGMs."
but the wording points to 50 having a CROWS-J fitted... and that makes it a recce version, because it can take one (Javelin) shot at an MBT, in a chance encounter, and then try to get away(?)
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)

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

Only heavy and light; where did Medium disappear to? Or did we get Medium-heavy and Light-medium

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Boxers moving around mysteriously...

They were to be the medium force;
- now they will be the AI component of the 'heavy brigades'

There will be no medium force
... as for the first half of this decade their kit will be absorbed by the new 'heavy'

Light will become heavier than before
- but what will be their 'mounts'; the likely answer is
... what we have as of now (inheritance of the last two decades)

New?
Airmobile + Air Combat
- 16X + JHC
Ranger Rgmnt
- a good thing, as we have been shaving off from the 'field' deployable strength of RM Cdos, after repurposing the 42, then that made the 40+ the 45, to be down by a third
... so 800-1000 Rangers will nicely plug that hole (and everyone will forget about the fact that there were ships, not just to get them to the end of the Earth, but also to sustain them - while there)
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 »

The Recce variant of the Boxer is something I wasn't aware of, and I do not think much has been said about it. Saying that, 50 would have been enough to give each of the then planned four Mechanised Infantry Battalions in the "Strike" Brigades a Recce Platoon. But simply tagging a Javelin, assuming that it the current plan, onto a turret with a .50Cal M2 does in no way close the capability gap created with the cancellation of the WCSP.

As pointed out there are a number of turret mounted auto cannons already fully cleared to NATO standard available for the Boxer but that does not include on fitted with the CTA 40mm, as was to be fitted to the Warrior. I have no doubt that the LM turret designed for the Warrior could be fitted to the Boxer but it would require a series of trials before it could enter service. Given that the British Army wished to accelerate Boxer production this does not bode well for this option. What does is the UK manufacturing sire built by LM for this turret and that fitted to Ajax. However is we adopted the Rheinmetall Lance or Lance-RC turret equipped with a 30mm auto cannon instead, could we have these manufactured in the UK, as we would end up being by far the largest user, in spite of the fact that a line has been set up in Hungary recently.

The Lance has the advantage in that it is already cleared to be fitted with a two round launcher of the Spike-LR2 4th/5th Generation ATGW, which is greatly superior in all areas to the Javelin currently in use by the British Army. In fact in my opinion we should be looking to replace the Javelin in most Army units already due the fact that it is at least a generation behind the Spike, mush like the Milan 2 was to Javelin. Adopting the Lance turret would allow the introduction of this variant with little change to the delivery schedule required by the British Army, as trials vehicles could be delivered to the Army within months from the German production line which is geared up to produce a similar vehicle for the Bundeswehr.

AS for other much needed variants, well a mortar carrier is certainly going to be ordered, the question is in what form it takes, be it a simple open hatch carrier like the existing FV432 with an 81mm Mortar, or at the other end being fitted with the NEMO 120mm turret. Using the Boxer as the platform to replace the AS-90 might be appealing, but it would be one of the more expensive options. Other options that are Truck based probably have a greater chance of being ordered.

One area that will need to be satisfied is Combat Engineering as the Army's current fleet of vehicles, with the exception of Terrier are based on the Challenger or Challenger 2 chassis and are way too heavy to deploy except in support of our Tank Regiments. I know a very small number were deployed to Afghanistan but that was a unique situation and would not be applicable to supporting a BCT not including Challenger 3s. Instead we need platform based both on the Boxer and Truck mounted to equip at least one Regiment of the Royal Engineers as well as provide integral support within the Mechanised Battalions.

Another area that could use the Boxer to meet the Army's needs is Air Defence. Firstly transferring the Army's existing Starstreak/LMM Turrets form the existing Stormer chassis to Boxer Mission Modules should be a simple affair and will probably allow more reloads to be carried. These need to be complimented by a gun based platform more suitable for dealing with UAVs as well as helicopters and other aircraft. In this there could be a solution to the CTA 40mm auto cannons that would no longer be needed if the LM turret was not selected for Boxer. A self contained turret already exists mounting this weapon as well as the necessary sensors and optics. Alternatively there is Rheinmetall's Sky Ranger turret mounting a 35mm revolver type auto cannon. This has already been cleared for Boxer like the Lance turret, to NATO standards. Could the manufacture of these be added to any production line in the UK for the Lance turret? Again we would probably end up being the types main user so this may be a possibility. A logistics Carrier to support the above would also be of great use, with the Army possibly only having to purchase a number of flat bed Mission Modes to achieve this.

The Boxer will be a central component in the Army's planned two Heavy Infantry BCTs, whether these have two or three Battalions each, and possible the heavier end of the Light Infantry BCTs with the remainder of these being equipped with the winners of the MRV(P) programme. On a side note it is strange that not more was said about this programme in the Command Paper given the direction the Army is heading. But Boxer will be the largest AFV fleet in the Army, especially if it is also used to replace the large numbers of CVR(T) and FV432 platforms still in service in supporting roles.

With Boxer the Army has many options and the time to decide what it wants to do especially if there is a steady production up to 2030. But it does need a framework to work to and this needs to be established over the next two years. Dependant on the mission to core of any force could be the Boxer equipped units with either heavier or lighter formations being attached dependant on the Mission as well as what supporting units would be required. This would make the British Army a very flexible force able to deal with everything from Peer adversaries to COIN operations and Peace Keeping duties. And with its modular nature, many UORs could possibly be resolved by the adoption of a new Boxer Mission Module rather than a whole new platforms.

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

Re: Only heavy and light; where did Medium disappear to? Or did we get Medium-heavy and Light-medium

Post by Lord Jim »

This is the issue with the Command Paper and its emphasis on sound bites over substance. Until we see how these BCTs and a like are to actually be organised it is difficult to say. Yes we know the Boxers are now to replace the Warriors, but will these new Heavy BCTs have two or three Infantry Battalions. So until the Army puts its cards on the table all we can really do is put forward our preferred options and discuss.

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:a side note[:] it is strange that not more was said about this programme in the Command Paper given the direction the Army is heading.
V strange indeed; I expect that to be in the next installment... saying more about the make up of the various BCTs
Lord Jim wrote:use the Boxer to meet the Army's needs is Air Defence. Firstly transferring the Army's existing Starstreak/LMM Turrets form the existing Stormer chassis to Boxer Mission Modules should be a simple affair and will probably allow more reloads to be carried. These need to be complimented by a gun based platform more suitable for dealing with UAVs as well as helicopters and other aircraft. In this there could be a solution to the CTA 40mm auto cannons that would no longer be needed if the LM turret was not selected for Boxer. A self contained turret already exists mounting this weapon as well as the necessary sensors and optics. Alternatively there is Rheinmetall's Sky Ranger turret mounting a 35mm revolver type auto cannon. This has already been cleared
OK, let's work this out;
the Stormer units are there to protect the armour on the move
the Boxer "AI" bns will be part of any such BG
while standardisation on the same gun would not be bad
the proven RhMetall 35mm (just one shot with the AHEAD round makes it a super shotgun), as you say, already promoted (in metal, not as a .ppt) should be the choice, as
then we would have a missile+gun combo in each BG
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)

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

Re: Only heavy and light; where did Medium disappear to? Or did we get Medium-heavy and Light-medium

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:we know the Boxers are now to replace the Warriors, but will these new Heavy BCTs have two or three Infantry Battalions.
50 Boxers a year, starting when ? 2023?
That will take 4 years just to put the [4] AI bns in place
And,
another year to give those bns their recce sqdrns (4 x 12?)

2023, 4, 5, 6,7 (and not sure if I should count the first year, 2023, in)
... the Warriors are going in 2025; oh yeah, sure
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: Only heavy and light; where did Medium disappear to? Or did we get Medium-heavy and Light-medium

Post by Lord Jim »

Doesn't the article mention a couple of times that the Army is now looking to accelerate the production, possibly buying more off the German production line whilst the UK sites get up to speed, or at least this would be the simplest option.

I also hope it is now intended to have the Heavy BCTs organised as one Armoured Regiment and Three Mechanised Infantry Battalions plus a Artillery Regiment, with other units like medium Range Air Defence and Combat Engineers coming from a central pool. In fact this pool is going to be the biggest facilitator in this new Army organisation. We cannot afford to have each BCT being fully self contained and it would actually be a waste of resources to do so regardless of how the Command Paper worded it.

I also hope that each Light BCT has a single Mechanised Battalion as part of its make up. Ideally the remainder would three Motorised Infantry Battalions mounted in the Phase 2 MRV(P), with an Artillery Regiment and attached supporting units as with the other BCT. Speaking of MRV(P), I am now looking at the GM Eagle in both its 4x4 and 6x6 versions as the best option for the whole MRV(P) requirement. I think the JLTV is too big and too specialised, really being aimed at past requirement raised during the was in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Eagle seems a much more suitable platform and quite a few other countries seem to agree.

SO there we have the Heavy-Medium and Medium-Light formation I think you are thinking about. Two each of these would be able to form a fighting Division (3rd), and we can also add the High Readiness formation like 16AA BCT, the new Ranger Regiment (Brigade) as the specialised units from 6th Division and the SF. Unfortunately this leaves 1st (UK) Division acting as a holding Command for a multitude of light role infantry and Reserves units and this si where I feel the personnel cuts are going to fall.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Pairing a Boxer/Starstreak platform and a Boxer/Shy Ranger platform as fire teams would be the way to go, allocating a pair to each Company and Squadron in the BCT. This would mean around 16 of each vehicle per BCT, which with support vehicles etc. would equate to a Regiment from the Royal Artillery. Being mounted on Boxer will also make it far easier for these units to support both the Light BCTs as well as the Heavy ones as well as easing maintenance and logistics.

So if the two current Starstreak equipped Regiments (one Regular and one Reserve) we converted to this new format with four Batteries each made up of four of each platform, we would have sufficient to provide local air defence for two BCTs. I would like us to follow the US Army though and issue shoulder launched Starstreak at Platoon level and have pedestal (3 rounds) allocated to head Quarters and support units.

CAMM needs to be purchased in greater quantities than the current one Regiments worth, but actually even less as a Battery is now presently allocated to the Falklands. We need a minimum of two with one allocated to the protection of key installation such as Air Bases and another to provide Area Air Defence to Army formations, and I would suggest each Regiment will need to have six Batteries each of four launchers, Radar and Command platforms. The current truck mounted system can do the job, especially in the first category, but as a minimum those operating in support of the Army need Armoured cabs and protection covering other vital areas. Serious work should be done to see if Mission modules could be built for Boxer to house the Missiles , Radar, Command in separate vehicles providing a far better protected option and with greater mobility.

I would like to see the Royal Artillery being given a Regiment of SAMP-T, to provide long range air defence and well as eventually BMD for fixed sites as well as deployed Army formations. I prefer SAMP-T over Patriot as although it is more expensive it is far more capable, also has a developmental path including BMD and was designed to provide 360 degree coverage from the start unlike Patriot. Even if teh T-45 and eventually the T-83 have a BMD capability they are not always going to be available or even in range to provide such cover for ground forces.

Finally I would like to see a Mission Module to allow the Boxer to take over the NBC Recce role from the current Fox platform, being better protect, more mobile and a greater load carrying capacity.


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

Re: Only heavy and light; where did Medium disappear to? Or did we get Medium-heavy and Light-medium

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Can it be found in the Command Paper anywhere else than in the Recce - Deep Strike BCT (only as part of it), the function of which would seem to be to act as 'divisional' artillery for the other BCTs?
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)

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: I would like us to follow the US Army though and issue shoulder launched Starstreak at Platoon level and have pedestal (3 rounds) allocated to head Quarters and support units.
Quite rightly you point out the bde-level and theatre BMD needs, but for these lower level assets to be effective they will need to be supported by a sensor network working in real-time.
- hence keeping it all under the RA, and spreading the assets out, as needed, would be better
- Starstreak (HVM) has a fighting chance (bcz of its speed) against pop-up attack helicopters even as a stand-alone, but why restrict its effectiveness (to one category only)
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)

Post Reply