UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
mr.fred
Member
Posts: 729
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby mr.fred » 07 Feb 2020, 23:46

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
Member
Posts: 264
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby RunningStrong » 08 Feb 2020, 08:51

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.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3857
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 08 Feb 2020, 11:47

mr.fred wrote:It will take at least five years and cost at least £5m apiece. Ammunition extra.


Ok so how much do the new turrets for the Warrior cost as a comparison? remember in both cases the CTA40 is Government Furnished Equipment as is also the case on Ajax.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 729
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby mr.fred » 08 Feb 2020, 12:15

Lord Jim wrote:Ok so how much do the new turrets for the Warrior cost as a comparison? remember in both cases the CTA40 is Government Furnished Equipment as is also the case on Ajax.

The programme cost is about £5m apiece, on the same basis (300 vehicles, £1.5bn).
The scope on Warrior is a little larger, what with the hull modifications, but you’re asking for more things on the Cockerill turret.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 264
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby RunningStrong » 08 Feb 2020, 12:22

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.

The gunners sight location on the 3000 series is where the ammunition feed for the CT40 sits.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3857
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 08 Feb 2020, 14:32

Ok would have been nice, so either stick in a more conventional 35mm or try the TWS that is actually being designed for the CTA40 and add a couple of Spike LR. One thing the market is not short of is RWS these days.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3882
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Ron5 » 08 Feb 2020, 17:31

RunningStrong wrote:
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.


There's video of it firing. All I am saying is that they built a working prototype which the other guys did not.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3882
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Ron5 » 08 Feb 2020, 17:35

Lord Jim wrote:Ok would have been nice, so either stick in a more conventional 35mm or try the TWS that is actually being designed for the CTA40 and add a couple of Spike LR. One thing the market is not short of is RWS these days.


There was a Boxer fitted with a Lockheed CTA40 turret (the "international" version of the Ajax/Warrior turret) displayed at one of the shows a couple years ago. I was shot down when I said it was the Ajax turret itself. Photos exits on the interweb.

Why would you not want that?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3857
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 08 Feb 2020, 18:54

Ideally I would like to see the maximum number of dismounts retained, and any manned turret is going to reduce this. Does the international version of the Ajax turret still use the over large turret ring of the Ajax or is it a more universal size?

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 264
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby RunningStrong » 08 Feb 2020, 21:54

Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
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.


There's video of it firing. All I am saying is that they built a working prototype which the other guys did not.

Do you think the fact BAE Systems are 50% owners of CTAi has anything to do with that... I'm not sure the other guys could or would have been granted access at that time.

And yes, a working prototype. Which is miles away from "fully operational" as you previously described.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 264
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby RunningStrong » 08 Feb 2020, 22:00

Lord Jim wrote:Ideally I would like to see the maximum number of dismounts retained, and any manned turret is going to reduce this. Does the international version of the Ajax turret still use the over large turret ring of the Ajax or is it a more universal size?

The AJAX turret and Warrior/LM turret are different, as one is RLS Lance development and the other LM internal.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3857
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 09 Feb 2020, 00:20

I know the turrets on Ajax and Warrior CIP are different. I was enquiring as to the difference between the actual Ajax turret and the aforementioned "International" version of the turret.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3882
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Ron5 » 09 Feb 2020, 17:12

RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
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.


There's video of it firing. All I am saying is that they built a working prototype which the other guys did not.

Do you think the fact BAE Systems are 50% owners of CTAi has anything to do with that... I'm not sure the other guys could or would have been granted access at that time.

And yes, a working prototype. Which is miles away from "fully operational" as you previously described.


To me "working" and "operational" mean the same thing. I guess that must mean something different in your line of business. I meant that LM had a pretty picture of what they wanted to do, Bae had a metal turret with a real gun that went bang and propelled shells at a target.

Perhaps you can confirm LM's proposal of reusing the Warrior turret on the WCSP program and rerouting the ammo supply outside of the turret?

As for Bae not supplying LM with guns, that is just a bunch of hooey. As I suspect you well know. The guns were and are government supplied. If LM wanted some, they would have asked the MoD.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3882
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Ron5 » 09 Feb 2020, 17:14

Lord Jim wrote:I know the turrets on Ajax and Warrior CIP are different. I was enquiring as to the difference between the actual Ajax turret and the aforementioned "International" version of the turret.


Looks all mean and fighty! Note the missiles.

Image

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3857
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 09 Feb 2020, 19:27

Now that is a thing of beauty! If we can fit this turret and still have at least six dismounts we have a winner. Now where is our cheque book :)

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 264
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby RunningStrong » 09 Feb 2020, 19:40

Ron5 wrote:To me "working" and "operational" mean the same thing. I guess that must mean something different in your line of business

We're on a defence forum. It's disingenuous to suggest they mean the same thing.

Ron5 wrote:Perhaps you can confirm LM's proposal of reusing the Warrior turret on the WCSP program and rerouting the ammo supply outside of the turret?

The CT40 by design places the ammunition outside of the crew compartment due to the sideways breech loading orientation.

https://www.cta-international.com/wp-co ... -40mm2.jpg

Ron5 wrote:As for Bae not supplying LM with guns, that is just a bunch of hooey. As I suspect you well know. The guns were and are government supplied. If LM wanted some, they would have asked the MoD.

And the MOD would have what? Conjured up a spare system from where... MOD has hardly been known for its investment in industry R&D for the last 2 decades.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3882
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Ron5 » 10 Feb 2020, 18:07

RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:To me "working" and "operational" mean the same thing. I guess that must mean something different in your line of business

We're on a defence forum. It's disingenuous to suggest they mean the same thing.

Ron5 wrote:Perhaps you can confirm LM's proposal of reusing the Warrior turret on the WCSP program and rerouting the ammo supply outside of the turret?

The CT40 by design places the ammunition outside of the crew compartment due to the sideways breech loading orientation.

https://www.cta-international.com/wp-co ... -40mm2.jpg

Ron5 wrote:As for Bae not supplying LM with guns, that is just a bunch of hooey. As I suspect you well know. The guns were and are government supplied. If LM wanted some, they would have asked the MoD.

And the MOD would have what? Conjured up a spare system from where... MOD has hardly been known for its investment in industry R&D for the last 2 decades.


You must be a civil servant with your "gift" for answers.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3857
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 10 Feb 2020, 19:20

That "Gift", only manifests itself once one reaches the lofty perch of he Senior Civil Service. Below that most Civil Servants are treated like and expected to act like Drones for the aforementioned.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11491
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 11 Feb 2020, 03:28

It is possible to cut through the communication policy ("chaff" :D ) of the MoD
... especially training as a Kremnologist comes in handy

Therefore people can be 'in the know' without being 'civil servants'... on the inside of that chaff wall, so to say.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 264
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby RunningStrong » 12 Feb 2020, 08:02

Ron5 wrote:You must be a civil servant with your "gift" for answers.

And you sound like a 12 yr trooper, the incredible ability to make everything sound easy, and yet still stuck at the first hurdle.

One of us is certainly wrong, but perhaps both.

User avatar
clivestonehouse1
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 25 Jun 2019, 19:34

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby clivestonehouse1 » 12 Feb 2020, 09:15

Lord Jim wrote:That "Gift", only manifests itself once one reaches the lofty perch of he Senior Civil Service. Below that most Civil Servants are treated like and expected to act like Drones for the aforementioned.
Very true.
Every Civil Servant above a D band seems to think they are a god.
We lowly E grades are treated like scum.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11491
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 12 Feb 2020, 10:18

clivestonehouse1 wrote:Every Civil Servant above a D band seems to think they are a god.


On that note I wonder who is overseeing the Gvmnt Major Projects activity these days; on that front Boxer amounts to small change (though at Army's level of things will be a key determinant of what capabilities - rather than a motley collection, with some museum pieces included - can be fielded, when needed)


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests