UK Defence Forum

Caribbean wrote:

RunningStrong wrote:I do wonder whether said RWS manufacturers have any interest in endorsing this integration in their already in-service hardware.

For Midguard, Venom LR is a major advertising point!
http://www.valhalla-turrets.com/products
The EOS literature doesn't mention it (yet?), but the RWS can handle a missile launcher as well
https://www.eos-aus.com/wp-content/uplo ... S-Dual.pdf

The UK RWS 'fleet' is almost entirely Kongsberg. Again, we're heavily invested in that interface already so we would need to accept a bespoke solution for Boxer which doesn't make sense in my mind.

RunningStrong wrote:I'd much rather see Boxer get a remote CT40 turret with airburst, or existing RWS equipped with Anti-tank or anti-structure guided munitions.

+

Caribbean wrote:the RWS can handle a missile launcher as well

Perhaps not every Boxer to have the two (combo) than just .50 cal?

RunningStrong wrote:The UK RWS 'fleet' is almost entirely Kongsberg. Again, we're heavily invested in that interface already so we would need to accept a bespoke solution for Boxer which doesn't make sense in my mind.

We would need to accept a bespoke solution for Boxer ... perhaps one in four?

Here we go back to Ajax vs. versions of Boxer
- they will be in different units
- therefore the mix of them might not be at the same place, at the right time
- so some Boxers witb Ajax turrets might be the 'right answer'?
... now, from the fixed overall Ajax order... what can we get - optimally - when the turrets will be 'whisked away'?

RunningStrong wrote:The UK RWS 'fleet' is almost entirely Kongsberg. Again, we're heavily invested in that interface already so we would need to accept a bespoke solution for Boxer which doesn't make sense in my mind.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:We would need to accept a bespoke solution for Boxer

Just because it hasn't yet been tested with the Kongsberg doesn't mean it can't be. AEI are the design authority for the ADEN 30mm (which this is clearly based on) and also make gun mounts (7.62mm-30mm), so they probably have a good understanding of what is needed to adapt a low-recoil 30mm for a 12.7mm mount.

Interestingly, they also manufacture a Carl Gustav look-alike, the AE84 recoilless Rifle
http://aei-systems.com/land/ae84-rcl/

The UK RWS 'fleet' is almost entirely Kongsberg. Again, we're heavily invested in that interface already so we would need to accept a bespoke solution for Boxer which doesn't make sense in my mind.

Almost entirely if you don't count in Thales SWARMLITE and Leonardo ENFORCER. There are quite a few of those... In fact, before AJAX deliveries truly kick in, i think the ENFORCER is actually the most numerous in service.

Moog has several good modular, multi-weapon RWS. For putting serious firepower with minimum expense on BOXER, they are the most obvious way to go.

I cannot see any really problem with having more than one RWS in service. Given the planned size of the Boxer fleet, an order for the RWS to be installed would be big enough to gain the fabled economies of scale and most kit like this is now serviced by the manufacturer so no need to set up an in house facility. Having a single RWS for the whole fleet makes sense with then being equipped with everything from an L7 GPMG up to a M2 HMG plus Javelin. Having a number of support variants fitted with Ajax turrets, also with Javelin would also be a good idea (Yes the Ajax fleet should also have a number of vehicles so equipped), but as I have been saying above many times, the Army is evaluation what capabilities the Boxer and Ajax units will eventually need to maximise their effectiveness and allow the Mechanised Brigades to attain what they currently aspire to.

Lord Jim wrote:most kit like this is now serviced by the manufacturer so no need to set up an in house facility.

MoD can strike deals with UK manufacturers for their staff to follow to... like was done in the Gulf deployments
- I wonder - just asking - how easy is it to come to the same kind of arrangement with others?

Money can be very persuasive.

Gabriele wrote:

The UK RWS 'fleet' is almost entirely Kongsberg. Again, we're heavily invested in that interface already so we would need to accept a bespoke solution for Boxer which doesn't make sense in my mind.

Almost entirely if you don't count in Thales SWARMLITE and Leonardo ENFORCER. There are quite a few of those... In fact, before AJAX deliveries truly kick in, i think the ENFORCER is actually the most numerous in service.

Moog has several good modular, multi-weapon RWS. For putting serious firepower with minimum expense on BOXER, they are the most obvious way to go.

Isn't Enforcer on Panther (300 retired) and Challenger 2 (Limited TES kit, and awaiting upgrade). Anything else?

Figured with those out, plus Mastiff fleet (400+) still in and AJAX fleet (589) coming into service, that was a fair claim on "almost entirely".

RunningStrong wrote:Mastiff fleet (400+) still in and AJAX fleet (589) coming into service

Do you see any reuse, as a component rather than 1:1?

RunningStrong wrote:

Gabriele wrote:

The UK RWS 'fleet' is almost entirely Kongsberg. Again, we're heavily invested in that interface already so we would need to accept a bespoke solution for Boxer which doesn't make sense in my mind.

Almost entirely if you don't count in Thales SWARMLITE and Leonardo ENFORCER. There are quite a few of those... In fact, before AJAX deliveries truly kick in, i think the ENFORCER is actually the most numerous in service.

Moog has several good modular, multi-weapon RWS. For putting serious firepower with minimum expense on BOXER, they are the most obvious way to go.

Isn't Enforcer on Panther (300 retired) and Challenger 2 (Limited TES kit, and awaiting upgrade). Anything else?

Figured with those out, plus Mastiff fleet (400+) still in and AJAX fleet (589) coming into service, that was a fair claim on "almost entirely".

The Panther is still in use, despite reports of a proposed sale. Much like the proposed sale of Bae 146, the quest for possible customers began but withdrawal from service is not happening yet and unlikely to happen for a while still.

ENFORCERs were also on quite a few Bulldogs and i've seen it on Ridgback too, although at least some of the turrets are probably moving around as and where needed.

Only a limited number of Mastiffs have the PROTECTOR, specifically the "Protected Eyes" and "Praetorian" variants, for all i know. The latter having been used by the RAF Regiment for force protection.

Boxer, looking surprisingly small inside.

Certainly showed how large Boxer is. Crew of three Driver, Gunner and Commander and 8 dismounts but only six seats in the rear compartment?

whitelancer wrote:but only six seats in the rear compartment?

Interesting. I do see two large equipment racks in the back, is this maybe a command vehicle?

Could be rigged up as something other than a basic infantry carrier I suppose but doesn't look like a Command set up.

Maybe just storage racks, for supplies. Also is the crew, all three of them? sitting in the front section. just done a quick google search and found a image with eight seats in back. So it must depend on variant.

bobp wrote:

whitelancer wrote:but only six seats in the rear compartment?

Interesting. I do see two large equipment racks in the back, is this maybe a command vehicle?

Definitely not a C2 variant shown.

I suspect it's a 6 PAX fit with 96 hr supply racks (as alluded to in the video), which could be exchanged for an 8 PAX setup, without the stowage.

AJAX (Ares) suffers the same reverse-tardis, death by stowage racks.

Well here is the basic German APC configuration with the crew, dismounts and kit carried;
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... &eim=1,2,6

Photo shown at this link suggests there aren't mineblast seats fitted?

https://www.army-technology.com/projects/mrav/

pioneer version:

Yep "Note discussion of combat supplies endurance and range"
but the first two minutes into it puts to rest the long running argument about changes between mission modules.

jedibeeftrix wrote:pioneer version:

That makes sense. The specification of the seating used will depend on what the Army wants and could vary between roles. Interestingly the original MCV 80/Warrior prototype had individual seating for the dismounts, unsurprisingly that didn't survive in the production models.
As for being able to replace the modules in the "field" I cant see that being a regular occurrence, most likely they will replaced in a Base Workshop or possible in an armoured delivery Sgn/Regt.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Yep "Note discussion of combat supplies endurance and range"
but the first two minutes into it puts to rest the long running argument about changes between mission modules.

Believe it when I see it!

So easy anyone could do it.

Lord Jim wrote:So easy anyone could do it.

As per usual discussion on this, that's clearly not a battle-worn platform, and that's clearly not a battlefield swap.

There has been this argument before, that armoured vehicles warp over time more than an old Rover Metro. If that was the case then it wouldn't be possible to change the engine on any AFV because the engine mounts would be out of alignment. Yes running over an AT mine might have some affect, but I have to believe that the designers and engineers who have built the Boxer realised it was actually gong to be used and therefore subject to some wear and tear. The module systems allows variants to remain in service and makes the upgrade and refurbishment work far easier. We are not going to be swapping out modules left and right on the front line. We could but we won't.