Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

[SKB]

(ForcesTV, 25th January 2017)

[LordJim]

We just need to get on and buy something and not over a ten year plus time period. At a minimum two battalions a year should be re-equipped and those battalions need at least the APC, Command, Mortar Carrier and Engineer/Recover variants. One of the reasons we get so little for our money is that we spread programmes over too much time to satisfy yearly spend and the expense of overall programme costs.

[ArmChairCivvy]

We just need to get on and buy something and not over a ten year plus time period.

Yep, there is extensive testing (against a slightly different rqrmnt) going on down under. If no surprises come up, we should just buy the cheaper one, plenty quick... or, on the double
- AMV has more versions
- Boxer comes , as std, with better balistic protection

[MikeKiloPapa]

We just need to get on and buy something and not over a ten year plus time period.

Yep, there is extensive testing (against a slightly different rqrmnt) going on down under. If no surprises come up, we should just buy the cheaper one, plenty quick... or, on the double
- AMV has more versions
- Boxer comes , as std, with better balistic protection

Yes so everyone says , but without a shred of evidence to back up the claim. According to ARTEC themselves, a standard boxer has base protection against 30mm AP from the front and 14,5mm allround . Which is comparable to pretty much every other contemporary 8x8 on the market.
I'm not on a Boxer-bashing exercise , but i really dont understand why people are so infatuated with this vehicle?. IMO it showcases all the worst aspects of german defence industry and engineering: overly complex, over-engineered and overpriced. And without being significantly superior to its peers.

Yes it has a slightly more powerful engine....which also has a larger footprint and is less fuel-efficient, and therefore requires a bigger fuel capacity to achieve the same range. More importantly all that power isn't actually needed and even it it were , similar power ratings is well within the capacity of smaller 6 cylinder engine options. All that combined with the Boxers modular design means its is a very space inefficient vehicle when compared to other 8x8s. The entire front half of it is essentially just engine and driver, resulting in a passenger compartment which is among the smallest in its class

As a fully tricked out wheeled IFV , ala the Land 400 CRV version, it sort of makes sense, but as a standard personel carrier it is , IMHO, the worst option available. Simply being german does not justify a cost 50-100% higher than the competition.

[ArmChairCivvy]

All that combined with the Boxers modular design means its is a very space inefficient vehicle when compared to other 8x8s. The entire front half of it is essentially just engine and driver, resulting in a passenger compartment which is among the smallest in its class

Nicht gut, I say.

I did not want to come across as an AMV salesman, but I agree with all that you say. I even let the mine protection out of mention (AMVs strong point). On the ballistic side, they (in Oz) have included the usual litany of Stanag levels, so I took the point straight from there ... we will hear more... but only in due course.

Hence I would like to point out that the "opposition" is not standing still, either:
"For use in the BMP 2 and BMP 3 vehicles equipped with the 30mm 2A42
cannon. This cartridge is designed to defeat light and medium armoured
vehicles.

This cartridge is an Armour Piercing Stabilized Discarding Sabot with
Tracer (APFSDS-T) round. It consists of a subcalibre, fin stabilized,
tungsten alloy projectile, launched by means of a lightweight sabot.
Penetration, at any given range, is greatly enhanced compared to the
older generation of APDS projectiles.

@90 degrees (not stated, but "std" as otherwise these statements make no sense) 55mm @ 1,000m"
- again, the 55mm should be rolled, homogeneous steel (which the Boxer front is NOT; enter AMAP)

[MikeKiloPapa]

@90 degrees (not stated, but "std" as otherwise these statements make no sense) 55mm @ 1,000m"
- again, the 55mm should be rolled, homogeneous steel (which the Boxer front is NOT; enter AMAP)

Surely you mean 60 degrees ?...as in 110mm @ 0 degrees LOS. Which is the same performance as its western 30x173 mm equivalent.

Most 8x8 and in particular Boxer have considerably greater slope than 60 degrees on their front profile, so they dont need 50-60 mm thick RHA. Many employs multilayer spaced armor of different materials to achieve the same or better protection level at a lower weight . So AMAP and other types of add-on armor is really only needed to bolster side/rear and roof protection.

Still if i were facing a BMP-2 or 3 i would be much more concerned about the ATGMs they carry . Even a fully souped up CRV Boxer wont survive a hit by a Spandrel or Bastian. I would rather spend my money on not getting hit in the first place. In the future i think capabilities like 360 degree radar and thermal surveillance systems and soft/hard kill countermeasures is going to be much more important than passive protection.

[ArmChairCivvy]

In the future i think capabilities like 360 degree radar and thermal surveillance systems and soft/hard kill countermeasures is going to be much more important than passive protection.

Yeah, where was my mind wandering when I put those degrees in?

BUT I agree with the quote. The implication is that the era of thousands of IFVs is over> you will have some (HAPCs they are called these days, like the Namer and T15). They will become so expensive that most AFVs will actually conform with the battlefield taxi definition (splitter-skyddad enhets fordon, one of the odd balls in the BAE product catalogue; ie. take a section close to where its effects are required, but only offer protection against indirect fire).

[ArmChairCivvy]

Even a fully souped up CRV Boxer wont survive a hit by a Spandrel or Bastian

Fully souped-up will have APS.
- as per previous post, only affordable for a fraction of the total

[LordJim]

For the UK to fit an APS to any AFV is going to need a UOR at the very last minute. IF the Army is lucky it might purchase a small number in advance for a very limited number of TES platforms but history tells us that the UOR route is most likely. As for what platform to choose, it should be who can deliver the fastest followed by who can delivery the most platforms for the money. The specs. on the candidates are very close and enough trials have been carried out together with actual use on operations that we should have to do very little in reality, unless the Top Brass start looking to turn the chosen platform into one so bespoke to match a idiotic UK only requirement list, ending up with anything chosen only being affordable in too small a quantity. IF they have to slow down a programme to free up funds, slow down Ajax so they can sort out how many we actually need, in what ratio of variants, and what its actual role is.

[ArmChairCivvy]

This one is great

as they have mixed footage from Oz and from somewhere else with snow.

Marketing dept surely would have liked a splash into the water (at full speed) but may be there is only one of those 28As and they were not allowed?

[shark bait]

I would rather spend my money on not getting hit in the first place. In the future i think capabilities like 360 degree radar and thermal surveillance systems and soft/hard kill countermeasures is going to be much more important than passive protection.

You're bob on their, yet another thing the British Army wont be properly equipped with thanks to Ajax.

Can repeat the cycle of deploying unprepared, let people die, then UOR a solution when it's too late.

[Mercator]

Some interesting photos that been doing the rounds the last few days:

Size comparisons between the Land 400 CRV candidates and the existing LAV-25 (ASLAV).

[ArmChairCivvy]

" I know which gen of #armouredvehicle I want"

We did not do too badly out of skipping the first gen

[Zealot]

I have not seen anyone share this here.

Turret.jpg

The beautiful AMV with an export version of the Warriors new Turret and the CT40 Cannon. Its got an ATGM strapped to its side as well. Would be a seriously deadly combination.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Optical homing head (fire & forget) peeping out of that box; surprised that the ozzie rqrmnt did not include this sort of combo
- ok, it is for recce
- but even for recce, you need some of the wagons to be able to provide cover if you stumble across an MBT force

Could be that all major components to be offered were required to be "in service" somewhere; the 40 mm is not in service

[LordJim]

The MIV programme should be so simple that even an idiot cannot mess it up. There are a multitude of platform available that meet the UK's needs and requirements and every variant you could ever want. Most are up to date and easily updated so all we really need to do is add UK comms and whatever is chosen should be ready to roll. We could have the first vehicles delivered next year. For me it should be a toss up between the Boxer and the AMV as the VBCI has not been fully developed beyond the limited variants the French Army required. The Piranha V is in a similar situation but the work on variants of earlier versions should make developing these for the Mk V a simple affair. £2Bn over X number of years would fully equip two "Strike" Brigades with all the needed variants and provide sufficient to replace many of the support FV432 variants we still operate.

It should be no brainer for the MoD but, a programme they can score a win for both the Army and MoD as a whole. Will it be, I am not holding my breath.

[RetroSicotte]

Interesting point about the Land400 program. It has a requirement for 300 rounds ready to fire without reloading. The 30mm turret can manage that. The AMV's 35mm gun can only manage 70 rounds. (I need to check these numbers when I get home, can't access it at work but thats from memory.)

Land 400 feels this is because it must be able to suppress for prolonged timed. The argument from larger calibres is that they will defeat the target in less, rather than suppress. This is similar to the CT40, which has often been said to hold between 48-72 ready rounds depending on the turret. CTA claims that it requires 4x less rounds to defeat a target that a 30mm would.

Interestingly, note that the 35mm and 40mm CT have similar ammo storage amounts in relatively similar turrets (VBCI 2, similar to AMV, is 70 rounds held). Good show of the ammo storage shaping there.

It's all going to come down to international preference then. Some value "stored kills" as ammo quantity, feeling that in practical use you are going to be firing multiple times and often not hitting, thus supressing in volume with balanced killing power. Others see "per shot effectiveness" as important, feeling that higher calibres are needed more for their range and vehicle killing power as they get heavier to not need a full on ATGM.

It's an interesting debate to watch, and intriguing to see who goes for what. Australia clearly has for the former, UK and France to the latter. Note however that the US, which previously was ALL about quantity, is now talking about a 50mm gun in future vehicles. Yet then there's Russia, who had a 57mm gun, but eventually went with 30mm.

Lot of things to consider.

[shark bait]

They've done the right thing just cracking on and buying the P8 and Apache, lets hope they can just buy AMV without all the faffing about that usually comes with big spend.

[Frenchie]

I don't quite understand the principle of the Strike Brigades, they are medium brigades or heavy brigades ?
The fact to choise wheeled vehicles instead of choosing tracked vehicles, but that do the same weight and the same dimensions, I don't see the utility.
I thought that a Strike Brigade was the equivalent of a Stryker Brigade. A brigade fast to transport by aircraft for intervene everywhere in the world, with vehicles light enough to be able to be deployed quickly over long distances. They are also useful for urban combat, where heavy tanks can not pass.
We have observed during a test that a VBCI, with its turret, narrowly enter in a A400M, the turret is small, so a 34 tonnes Boxer can enter in a A400M but maybe not with its turret, a version mortar carrier can't enter either.
What is the interest of having brigades whose only difference is not to have battle tanks.

[mr.fred]

I suspect the principle of the Strike Brigade is to justify a bunch of vehicles that don't seem to have much of a role otherwise.

[LordJim]

The British Army would like to have "Stryker" brigades, and that is what I am advocating, not the current "Strike" brigade which is basically the old Mechanised Brigades replacing the Saxon for MIV and replacing one of he Infantry Battalions with a Ajax Regiment, in a back of a Fag packet plan. Deploying one of these brigades by air is off the table now as the size and weight increases due to protection and firepower increases have meant the C-17 is the only viable transport. Deploying a limited number quickly to support a light role formation is still possible and actually desirable.

I would prefer we use the term Cavalry brigades rather than Strike, and have all MIV formations rather that put Ajax in the mix. As I have repeatedly mentioned, the Ajax should be either mixed in existing Armoured and Armoured Infantry units or held as a Divisional Recce asset, though we will only need one of these. The current deployment plans have again been written on a Fag packet. trying to find a relevant use for a platform that has been reduced to a half baked solution to replacing the CVR(T).

The MIV should be the Army's highest priority programme as it has the most relevance. Yes we need to improve our heavy formations but in a NATO context, there are enough of these being provided by our allies. High quality, self deployable formations such as a Cavalry/Strike brigade will be a far more viable contribution for us to make.

[shark bait]

Strike brigades are nothing more than a bodge.

If it was a brigade, all mounted on wheels, rapidly deployable, with a low logistical footprint it could be a valuable addition.

However the moment they bodge fat Ajax in there it voids the whole concept, and it becomes yet another bodge.

[Frenchie]

The British army has replaced a 8 tonnes Scimitar with a 38 tonnes Ajax, and a 10 tonnes Saxon with a 34 tonnes Boxer to the latest news, I understand the need of protection for soldiers after the war in Afghanistan , an increase of the size of the vehicles for a maximum protection, but the size of the vehicles must allow to the soldiers to carry out their mission. A Light Brigade is less heavy than a Mechanized Brigade which is less heavy than an Armoured Brigade. Otherwise it does not correspond to anything.

[RetroSicotte]

Given the realities of modern war in Ukraine, heavier armour like that is an inevitability. This is a case where we should look to Poland's approach, given their defence budget is almost entirely focused on that sort of conventional scenario, and they're the only country out in that direction with the stability and budget to do what they really need.

In their case, they absolutely moved away from light armour for heavier armour. BMP weight vehicles became Rosomak. The PL-01 and Anders projects were cancelled in favour of more MBTs. They are laser focused on the lessons from Ukraine, that lightly armoured vehicles are little more than artillery fodder.

That's why the 8x8's are so appealing to the British Army. Chosen correctly, they bridge protection with mobility for both conventional and intervention tasks. It's undoubtedly something Ajax has in mind as well.

[LordJim]

The British Army refers to Infantry mounted in tracked AFV as Armoured Infantry and wheeled AFVs as Mechanised Infantry, at least since the 1980s. the so called "Strike" Brigades are basically the latter, but adding the Ajax Regiment muddies the water so to speak as it inhibits the in theatre mobility of the formation without really adding anything to the mix or at least it wouldn't if the appropriate variants for the MIV were planned to be purchased. As it stands though the 40mm CTA is going to be the heaviest direct fire weapon available to the brigade and its main anti-tank weapon will be the hand held Javelin.

The Army has little real experience of wheeled AFVs since it retired its Saxons and they were more protected transports than proper AFVs. Rather then look to how other countries have used theirs though, the British Army wants to write its own manual from scratch, but doesn't seem to have any clear idea of what it wants the end result to be. It sees other nations expanding their medium AFV capability and thinks it should have the same capability but doesn't or hasn't got the will or funding to even equip the trials formation adequately.

Prior to placing orders for the MIV he Army should borrow vehicle from other nations as others have done. Say AVF/IFVs from the Czech Republic or Poland, Centauro/105s from Spain or Italy and so on and form a trials unit to see how all these part work as a whole. In addition they would probably realise that the traditional operating practices need to be expanded to fully utilise such a formation. The US Army went through a similar assessment process when developing the organisation for its Stryker Brigades, again borrowing from allies.

We need to get this right, and as I said earlier it shouldn't be rocket science. Funding is there and if other programmes needed to be reduced, slowed or even cancelled then so be it. I will go far as to say we shouldn't even build the MIV in the UK. We don't have an AFV industry anymore, and to keep stipulating that companies have to set up facilities in the UK as a stipulation of winning a contract cost valuable funding. If DFID want to fund such programmes then maybe, but job creation should never be funded from the Defence budget.

If properly equipped they Strike Brigades will be far more relevant and useful to the UK than the legacy Armoured Infantry Brigades with their Challengers and Warrior, but they must be properly equipped. Taken to the ultimate I would remove the Warriors from the AFV fleet and add a Challenger Regiment to three "Strike" Brigades as a fifth manoeuvre formation, to provide heavy support if a deployment needed it, but the Brigade would be more than capable against most opposition without their aid. The Resulting Brigades would comprise of;

1 Armoured Regiment with an HQ including a Recce Squadron of 8 Ajax, and 4 squadrons each of 14 Challenger 2s
4 Mechanised Regiments each with and HQ including a Recce Squadron of 8 MIV/Recce, 3 Infantry Companies each 3 Infantry Platoons equipped with MIV/APCs, and a Fire Support platoon with MIV/105 and finally a Weapons Company with MIV/120 Mortar carriers and MIV/APCs carrying SFMGs and AGLs. The MIV/Recce would be armed with a turreted 40mm CTS backed up by at least 2 medium or heavy ATGWs, whilst the MIV APC and other variants would have either a 12.7mm HMG, 40mm AGL or 7.62MG in a RMS.
1 Artillery Regiment, ideally this would be a wheeled SP 155mm based on the MIV but a cheaper alternative would be a MIV/Tractor towing M777A2 155mm Guns supported by Ammunition Carriers based on either the MIV or the 6x6 MRV(P)

These three Brigades would for the core of the Army backed by a Divisional HQ with assets that would include two Artillery Regiments, 1 equipped with a variant of the US Light Weight MLRS using a truck chassis already in UK service and the other with both SP and man portable Starstreak HVMS. Ideally the former would be the more modern THOR launcher able to fire the LMM. 2 Signals Regiments would be attached 1 of which would be a specialise ISTAR formation and a Recce Regiment wholly equipped with Ajax including a currently absent ATGW over watch variant and the appropriate Logistics and Engineering formations would round out things.

This core would be more than capable of successfully engaging any likely opponent in the foreseeable future, and allow tailored formations to be deployed to support all levels of deployment as self contained units or supporting lighter forces such as 16AB and 3 Cmdo. Trying to maintain a BOAR lite is preventing the British Army from evolving into a 21swt Century formation. So let other NATO members maintain the alliances traditional Heavy formations to fight in Europe, whist we design formations able to fight more flexibly, with strong offensive and defensive capabilities. This is not FRES as we knew it, we are talking a 30 to 40 tonne platform for the MIV here, but in theatre the improved capabilities will revolutionise how the British Army conducts operations.

Ops this is rather longer than I intended.