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.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15376
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 25 Apr 2021, 20:11

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote: the biggest postive takeaway is at least that what the army is working towards is conceptually sound and perhaps not entirely being driven by financial expediency.

At least with a sound concept in place, it gives us a fighting chance of making the whole vision work.


I am sort of half believing. It's also worth remembering that "the best" is an enemy of good-enough; as testified to by this excerpt from another country:
"
Rheinmetall Wins €470M To Equip NATO Taskforce with 41 Puma IFVs, Related...
July 22, 2019 @ 11:27 AM

Rheinmetall has won a €470 Million ($527 million) contract to equip NATOs spearhead Very High Joint Readiness Task Force 2023 (VJTF 2023) with 41 Puma Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs) and other related equipment. The contract was...

THAT IS £10 mln extra to make a squad and their vehicle an integrated system - once you have already paid for both!

Nevermind the normal overruns (are IFVs 'rocket science'?):
Germany’s Puma IFV Exceeds Initial Manufacturing Costs by Euro 2.9 Billion
July 22, 2019 @ 09:15 AM

The manufacturing costs of Germanys “Puma” mechanised infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) has reportedly exceeded initial estimates of the government by Euro 2.9 Billion, German media has reported"

Al of those quotes from https://www.defenseworld.net/news/29179#.YIWkuuco82w
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)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby mr.fred » 25 Apr 2021, 20:54

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:It's absolutely another case of jam tomorrow, but for me the biggest postive takeaway is at least that what the army is working towards is conceptually sound and perhaps not entirely being driven by financial expediency.

What is the Army working towards? I don’t think I've been able to tease that out of the pseudo-intellectual piffle.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2261
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby SW1 » 25 Apr 2021, 21:43

Looking at it what they seem to have done is add a 120mm gun to the “strike” brigade concept of operation in the form of challenger at the expense of an Ajax unit. Perhaps taking a leaf from the old German army reconnaissance formation of the 1980s.

And while many of academics and the like don’t like what they’ve come up with they fail to say what they would of done different other than trot out the much more money line. Which is fine but that’s just stick your head in the sand and fail to address the problem which has been the problem for about the last 5 years or so.

From where they were going into the review what would they have been done differently.

The vast majority of the army’s budget is being spent on reconstituting a force to support nato against Russia. But divert a small portion to the lighter forces to allow global engagement to help shape the narrative and use soft power to supt.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5285
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 25 Apr 2021, 21:49

Having watched the debate twice, I am far from optimistic regarding the future of the Army. The Army has grabbed the "Sunset/Sunrise", idea with both hands and run off into the distance. Rather than try to find a way to modernise its existing Armoured Infantry Brigades, it seems to have decided it couldn't afford to do so and has there for decided to take the "Hail Mary" approach and pray nothing happen over the next ten to fifteen years. It has given not just on being able to field a warfighting Division but to be able to deploy any warfighting formation above battalion strength and even that is being generous. If the Army withdraws its FV432 Mortar Carriers for example, at present its successor with be a mortar team in the back of a Boxer APC who will have to dismount and set up the Mortar before they can carry out any fore mission. The Army now only has one ATGW for the Infantry and again this has to be used by dismounted Infantry. This is the Javelin and it is already at least one generation behind the ATGWs being fielded by other NATO members. The list of gaped capabilities goes on and on. The final area that causes me great concern is that all infantry battalions are going to be reduce to 450 personnel! A current Armoured Infantry Battalion should have around 730 personnel of all ranks, how are these new Battalions going to be structured?

The one area for a small amount of optimism is the fact that the Army is working on a new doctrine and it appears will be revisiting the orders for both Ajax and Boxer to see if they have the right mix of variants. But they are only revisiting, no decision has been made, even after numerous trials to change the make up of the orders yet, and the clock is ticking. Even if they decide that they need new variants will there be the money to purchase these, especially when the Army is looking to accelerate the production and delivery of both platforms.

The issue of why it was decided to update 148 Challenger 2s is also bizarre! Ensuring the UK retains the skill set to drive an Tank and to manufacture a new one in the future is giving the idea of supporting UK industry far too much weight. Even if we are allowed to join the European (read Franco/German) next generation Tank programme will it be economically viable to set up a production line in the UK for the limited number we will need, especially as both France and Germany will want the majority of any workshare agreement, if one is actually drawn up. Most likely both those countries will produce their platforms entirely in house as both will have unique items they will wish to include as well as their own policy for exports. Would we produce the whole platform or import German Engines and French electronics. Would we in reality be building parts kits that require a far lower skill set that complete manufacture. The Boxer production lines will provide many of those skills anyway so we would be duplicating things.

I suppose the Ranger Regiment could also be a bright spot and a real winner in the Global Britain flag waving project. But as mentioned elsewhere it is going to need a lot of new specialised equipment, plus an intensive training schedule to bring it up to speed. If they are to be force multipliers then the range of capabilities they must incorporate will be quite substantial even before assets from 7th Division are allocated if needed. I can also see why the Royal Marines might think the Rangers maybe treading on their toes especially as they are losing personnel. Maybe we should have increase the size of the Royal Marines, actually adding another Commando?

16 Air Assault was mentioned, but this formation also requires a major overhaul to make it far more flexible and nimble, and able to operate in the role it is supposed to. I have seen no mention of how this will be achieved, just the aspiration to do so.

Then we have other major programmes like MRV(P). What has become of this programme that was supposed to deliver thousands of protected Multi-role Vehicles to the Army any time now? A new Medium Range Air Defence system is supposed to be on the way but when will, if ever, this be delivered and will it be in sufficient numbers? The new Artillery systems are to be a key component of the Army's future doctrine but these are not due to appear until the mid to late 2030s. Until then we will have systems that are either outclassed or in insufficient number or both.

The gamble the Army is taking goes far beyond the familiar "Jam tomorrow" approach. In reality we are taking ourselves out of the Peer on Peer warfighting game for the next decade at the very least, and if forced to do so by some unforeseen event, are likely to see our Army subjected to losses in lives and equipment that will see it rendered totally non effective in a fairly short manner. SO many capabilities are being gapped or removed all together, that whilst the individual Service man or woman will still be some of the best in the world, their equipment will be a far cry from it.

Here endith todays rant, go in peace my children! :)

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 458
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby RunningStrong » 25 Apr 2021, 22:06

whitelancer wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:Things change.

Things do indeed change, probable the most important one on the battlefield at present is the introduction of ever more precision guided munitions able to hit targets at ever longer ranges, coupled with the introduction of unmanned systems. If things have changed to make MBTs irrelevant to modern warfare, why keep them at all? More importantly why retain the ability to manufacture and operate them at some future point? What is going to change in the next 10 to 20 years to make them relevant again.
To be clear I am not arguing about the relevance or otherwise of MBTs to modern warfare, but the argument put forward for why Challenger is to be updated but only to the tune of 148.

https://henryjacksonsociety.org/event/a ... gital-age/

That's the link for the debate being discussed.

You're making the assumption the MBT is being reduced in strength because it's currently obsolete, but it's not. Laser detection systems and active protection systems, as well as next generation armour, mean that they are more than capable of meeting the threat.

But what they are is irrelevant at present. The old saying is that the attack helicopter would make the MBT obsolete, but the AH can't hold ground. And that's the reality today, because there is no expectation to hold ground in the forecast conflicts going forward. Instead high mobility units with indirect fires working through an ill-defined front line.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 545
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby whitelancer » 25 Apr 2021, 23:40

RunningStrong wrote:But what they are is irrelevant at present. The old saying is that the attack helicopter would make the MBT obsolete, but the AH can't hold ground. And that's the reality today, because there is no expectation to hold ground in the forecast conflicts going forward. Instead high mobility units with indirect fires working through an ill-defined front line.

Accepting the above, what is going to change that we need to maintain the ability to operate and manufacture MBTs in the years ahead.

All I am trying to understand is the argument put forward by Dr Jack Watling for why 148 Challengers are to be updated.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5285
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 26 Apr 2021, 22:10

whitelancer wrote:All I am trying to understand is the argument put forward by Dr Jack Watling for why 148 Challengers are to be updated.

I think what he is saying is that 150 to 170 Vehicles was the minimum number to retain an in house MBT manufacturing and overhaul capability, but then the MoD came up with 148 rather then 150 for some strange reason only known to then. We need 112 for the two Armoured Regiments, 14 for BATUS and the rest (18) would be attrition reserves.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15376
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 27 Apr 2021, 01:38

mr.fred wrote: tease that out of the pseudo-intellectual piffle
Heh-hehh... we are the kremnologists of today (as the FO or the MoD do not employ any, anymore)

SW1 wrote: seem to have done is add a 120mm gun to the “strike” brigade concept of operation
Exactly, they seem to have had an epiphany

Lord Jim wrote: The Army has grabbed the "Sunset/Sunrise", idea with both hands
Just like William the Conqueror, when he stumbled, wading ashore. Make virtue of 'x': I have come to grab this land with my both hands :wtf:

Lord Jim wrote: The final area that causes me great concern is that all infantry battalions are going to be reduce to 450 personnel!

... where did you you get that from?

Lord Jim wrote: The new Artillery systems are to be a key component of the Army's future doctrine but these are not due to appear until the mid to late 2030s

I have heard 2029 (and some modernisation on the way to that point in time)??

RunningStrong wrote:the assumption the MBT is being reduced in strength because it's currently obsolete, but it's not. Laser detection systems and active protection systems, as well as next generation armour, mean that they are more than capable of meeting the threat.

But what they are is irrelevant at present. The old saying is that the attack helicopter would make the MBT obsolete, but the AH can't hold ground.

Quite right, Papa Cartwright; the most worrying aspect is that anything remote can be countered with EW/EmCon, but when you think of loitering munitions (ASSUME: ATGW seen to by APS and that makes for the come-back of the Big Gun) that type of counter-measure is restricted to the immediate tactical (10 km radius) and beyond that the loitering munitions -bigger as they will have more range/ endurance - will be just another threat that the traditional means of AD can deal with.

Lord Jim wrote: We need 112 for the two Armoured Regiments, 14 for BATUS and the rest (18) would be attrition reserves.

I go with the sqdrn for BATUS (why not make it Poland?) and 10% for the sitting in the depots
... so 22 for a BG; makes for 5 :!: of those. Leaving this pesky question of IFVs aside (we would need an equal number as a minimum), for each of the 22
- 4 recce (that would be Ajax) , 4 anti-air & uav... any suggestions?
- and (let's not forget about the IFVs and their main weapon system: the dismounts), the mortar support = 8 NEMOs or 4 AMOSes - what ever the platform, deriving from the outcome from the above
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)

jonas
Member
Posts: 899
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby jonas » 27 Apr 2021, 14:03


Online
Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 5343
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Ron5 » 27 Apr 2021, 14:17

jonas wrote:Another sub contract placed :-

https://www.wfel.com/news/uk-boxer-supp ... y-kmw/1035


Giving a contract to a wholly owned subsidiary doesn't get me too excited. Was there a competition and the best company won? I doubt it.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5285
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 27 Apr 2021, 22:23

ArmChairCivvy wrote:... where did you you get that from?

From that RUSI expert that took part in that debate we have all watched.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5285
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 27 Apr 2021, 22:28

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 4 recce (that would be Ajax) , 4 anti-air & uav... any suggestions?

Like I said in the Ajax thread convert a number of Ajax in a similar way the Swedes did with the CV90 and modify a number of Turrets with a Radar, new FCS and update the ammunition to prioritise anti air with the right sensor fused rounds. Either that or include Boxer/Sky Ranger combos to the Regiments.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15376
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 28 Apr 2021, 09:36

Lord Jim wrote: Either that or include Boxer/Sky Ranger combos to the Regiments.

As per Ron, the new lighter (30mm) Skyranger turret could a solution that can be shared across tracked and wheeled platforms
- so not something different for every platform
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: 5285
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 28 Apr 2021, 14:22

So could the 35mm Systems. If Boxer can carry it so can Ajax, just "Bolt" two or four HVM or LMM on the sides and a slight modification to the EO sensor to allow it to guide the these and you are smelling of roses. We would have to do the latter regardless of which system we chose as the missiles showed fitted to the 30mm systems are IR guided which is the usual option presented. Of course we could just take the turrets off the Stormers and allocated a number of Ajax and Boxer hulls and retrofit them.

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Luke jones » 29 Apr 2021, 10:14

Just read over on Defence Journal the army are looking to sell the CT40 cannons that are left now Warrior has been canned. They quote Janes saying theres no plans for an IFV Boxer.

Can't be true surely. What a fucking shitshow.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby mr.fred » 29 Apr 2021, 10:51

Luke jones wrote:Can't be true surely.

What were you expecting? Cancelling Warrior CSP on the grounds of not enough money would somehow result in there being enough money for a brand new vehicle and a brand new turret?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5285
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 29 Apr 2021, 11:45

Our best bet if they want to up gun the Boxer would be the Lance turret used on the Australian CRV and Bundeswehr IFV variants. Of course the Army's idea of increased lethality could be simple bolting on a Javelin to the existing RWS. I think we will have to wait a few years, maybe ot the next review to see what is eventually decided with deliveries of what has been ordered continuing up until then. Bonus is that there would be little delay in the Lance armed mission modules once ordered and UK testing should be limited to confirming what Rheinmetall, the Australians and Germans have already learnt and that it meets our standards (I hope).

Online
Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 5343
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Ron5 » 29 Apr 2021, 13:14

Luke jones wrote:Just read over on Defence Journal the army are looking to sell the CT40 cannons that are left now Warrior has been canned. They quote Janes saying theres no plans for an IFV Boxer.

Can't be true surely. What a fucking shitshow.


There might not be plans today but there might be intent which could lead to a plan tomorrow.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5285
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 29 Apr 2021, 18:11

If the Army is actually having a rethink then nothing is off the table really, just levels of practicality and affordability.

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Luke jones » 30 Apr 2021, 07:57

mr.fred wrote:
Luke jones wrote:Can't be true surely.

What were you expecting? Cancelling Warrior CSP on the grounds of not enough money would somehow result in there being enough money for a brand new vehicle and a brand new turret?

I was totally behind the Warrior upgrade.

After that i was hopeing they would use the cannons on at least some of the Boxers as a work around.

Looks like they have swapped an IFV for an armoured box.

Shitshow

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 2528
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Tempest414 » 30 Apr 2021, 12:02

Luke jones wrote:Looks like they have swapped an IFV for an armoured box.


As much as I would like to see a IFV Boxer if we were to fit a 30mm RWS to Boxer we would be just a little bit above today's Warrior in terms of being able to hit moving targets from a moving vehicle with 30mm shells this being said Warrior 2 would have been an all together different beast

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5285
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Lord Jim » 30 Apr 2021, 22:34

Most modern turrets and RWS are stabilised, the former more so than the latter. The Lance-R turret made by Rheinmetall and installed on the Boxer can be manned of unmanned but both version can accurately hit targets whilst on the move. The Warrior turret was not revolutionary, its FCS and stabilisation were nothing special and the way they tried to install the CTA40 was the cause of the majority of problems. Strangely the French have had far fewer problems and hold ups with the turret for the Jaguar with is probably more capable than that destined for the Warrior.

If we want to fit a 30mm Cannon and ATGW, there are off the shelf cutting edge options out there, and given the mobility and protection levels of the Boxer the training of the Armoured Infantry to use the Boxer instead of the Warrior should be relatively easy in my opinion and definitely easier for the Drivers and Maintainers.

I think the problem the British Army has is that it has not had effective Mechanised Infantry formation, and cannot see beyond only a tracked platform can be used for Armoured Infantry. Other nations do not have "Armoured" Infantry but instead refer to them as Mechanised regardless of whether the main platform is tracked of wheeled. Lighter vehicles not operating directly with heavy armour as usually referred to as Motorised or simply infantry, even if they have protected platforms available in large numbers. The UK for historical reasons has maintained over half its Infantry as "Light Role" only having unarmoured trucks and other platforms for their mobility. This has greatly reduced the amount of Infantry it has available for ay high intensity conflict, and has found over the last two decades how vulnerable they are in lower intensity and COIN operations.

Boxer for the high end and MRV(P) should be the answer to the British Army's problems, finally giving it platforms to increase the mobility protection and firepower of the majority of its Infantry giving it a great pool of viable formations even as overall number are reduced. Infantry in Boxer even it only armed with a M2 HB in a RWS can still give effective support to the Challengers, not optimum but they can do the job. Once in service if funding is available then capability enhancement s will surely be forth coming. The French only have a light 25mm on their VBCI, but that has proven to be able to both operate effectively with the Leclerc MBT as well as conduct low intensity COIN operation in Mali. There is no reason the Boxer cannot do the same with the MRV(P) covering the roles currently carried out by the VAB and in future by the Griffin.

Boxer supported by MRV(P) is going to be the cornerstone of the British Army moving forward, adding MBTs for high intensity operations or supporting MEV(P) of less intense operation. Ajax now seems to have found its true and original calling in the Deep Strike BCT and integral to the Armoured Regiments. Hopefully it will not be at Regimental strength in the Heavy BCTs.

Another sermon over, bless you all. :D

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby Luke jones » 01 May 2021, 16:26

Lord Jim wrote:Most modern turrets and RWS are stabilised, the former more so than the latter. The Lance-R turret made by Rheinmetall and installed on the Boxer can be manned of unmanned but both version can accurately hit targets whilst on the move. The Warrior turret was not revolutionary, its FCS and stabilisation were nothing special and the way they tried to install the CTA40 was the cause of the majority of problems. Strangely the French have had far fewer problems and hold ups with the turret for the Jaguar with is probably more capable than that destined for the Warrior.

If we want to fit a 30mm Cannon and ATGW, there are off the shelf cutting edge options out there, and given the mobility and protection levels of the Boxer the training of the Armoured Infantry to use the Boxer instead of the Warrior should be relatively easy in my opinion and definitely easier for the Drivers and Maintainers.

I think the problem the British Army has is that it has not had effective Mechanised Infantry formation, and cannot see beyond only a tracked platform can be used for Armoured Infantry. Other nations do not have "Armoured" Infantry but instead refer to them as Mechanised regardless of whether the main platform is tracked of wheeled. Lighter vehicles not operating directly with heavy armour as usually referred to as Motorised or simply infantry, even if they have protected platforms available in large numbers. The UK for historical reasons has maintained over half its Infantry as "Light Role" only having unarmoured trucks and other platforms for their mobility. This has greatly reduced the amount of Infantry it has available for ay high intensity conflict, and has found over the last two decades how vulnerable they are in lower intensity and COIN operations.

Boxer for the high end and MRV(P) should be the answer to the British Army's problems, finally giving it platforms to increase the mobility protection and firepower of the majority of its Infantry giving it a great pool of viable formations even as overall number are reduced. Infantry in Boxer even it only armed with a M2 HB in a RWS can still give effective support to the Challengers, not optimum but they can do the job. Once in service if funding is available then capability enhancement s will surely be forth coming. The French only have a light 25mm on their VBCI, but that has proven to be able to both operate effectively with the Leclerc MBT as well as conduct low intensity COIN operation in Mali. There is no reason the Boxer cannot do the same with the MRV(P) covering the roles currently carried out by the VAB and in future by the Griffin.

Boxer supported by MRV(P) is going to be the cornerstone of the British Army moving forward, adding MBTs for high intensity operations or supporting MEV(P) of less intense operation. Ajax now seems to have found its true and original calling in the Deep Strike BCT and integral to the Armoured Regiments. Hopefully it will not be at Regimental strength in the Heavy BCTs.

Another sermon over, bless you all. :D


50cal on Boxer is not enough.

Just getting Boxer into service and hopeing for a turret to then be bought subsequently is not enough.

That turret wont ever end up being bought.

Neither will all the other varients that people are masturbating over currently.

If they already own the CT40 cannons it makes no sense getting rid of them now.

The fact is they are going for a massively expensive armoured box and theres no money left to buy what they need aswell.

Its a total gang fuck.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2225
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby bobp » 01 May 2021, 20:06

Lord Jim wrote:Another sermon over, bless you all.


Looking forward to the next sermon preacher. good solid points.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2261
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Postby SW1 » 07 May 2021, 18:45

https://www.army-technology.com/feature ... ility-gap/

During the press briefing, Clark said that the army was ‘under no illusions’ that Boxer is different from Warrior and shed more light on how the acceleration of the Boxer programme would work.

Clark said: “We’re clear that Warrior is going, we are trying to accelerate Boxer… now, part of that is about bringing forward the introduction of the platform to the army, part of it is about working out what more we might be able to do in order to make it more IFV-like.”

The Brigadier added that the British Army was not trying to ‘recreate’ Warrior with the Boxer vehicle but was rather trying to ‘design’ a different way of fighting wars through a combination of Apache attack helicopters, the upgraded Challenger 3 Main Battle Tank, Ajax reconnaissance vehicle and Boxer.

He said the army was looking at the ways those vehicles could be integrated and help to orchestrate a push towards warfighting that is more focused on the deep battle.


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rentaghost, Ron5 and 11 guests