Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

[ArmChairCivvy]

85 infantry and 62 recce/ fire support
... the main weapon system of the former being the dismounts in the back. I wonder what BLOS is for; is this now the weapon carrier that everyone has been yearning for?

[Lord Jim]

Something does not add up with those figures. The Army intends to equip what, four Infantry Battalion with Boxer. 85 APCs plus Command etc. barely equips a single Mechanised Infantry Battalion if the Boxer also replaces the FV432 and CVR(T) variants! That cannot be right, it meant to equip the remaining three Battalions the Army has to order at least 150 additional Boxers with APC Mission Modules.

As for how they will be used, as I mentioned it could be a hybrid doctrine where at time the Boxer will closely follow the Challenger 3s right up to the objective before their troops dismount, as the enemy has been heavily suppressed by supporting indirect and direct fire. Other times it may move off to flank the enemy through a hole discovered and kept open by the Ajax Recce units whilst Precision Fires keep the Reserves identified by UAVs and other methods supressed and unable to intervene. I am assuming it is this sort of thing the Trials unit will be working on.

In the past it was the physical "High ground", that gave one an advantage, to day it is the digital version, knowing where the enemy is and your units are whilst disrupting the Enemy's ability to obtain the same information, and then conducting operation at a very high tempo to take advantage of any window that appears.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Is that something I left unsaid

barely equips a single Mechanised Infantry Battalion if the Boxer also replaces the FV432 and CVR(T) variants! That cannot be right, it meant to equip the remaining three Battalions the Army has to order at least 150 additional Boxers with APC Mission Modules.

Amongst all the controversy I read it as good news that there are so many 'specialist' versions as that signals a strong intention to standardise... over the medium term (as in the long term we are all dead; even without any battle taking place).
- in the interim, I'll go to read the thread about 'who will get the hand-me-down protected mobility vehicles'

[Tempest414]

85 APCs plus Command etc. barely equips a single Mechanised Infantry Battalion

Looking at the list and then looking at an old armoured infantry Battalion each company would have 14 Warriors so with this in mind we should be able to push two battalions of Boxer like

42 x APC ( fitted with RWS 15 x 12.7mm , 15 x 30mm and 12 x 40mm GMG )
20 x C4I
20 x RFS
9 x Mortar
10 x ES repair
15 x Ambulance

Add to this 9 Ajax

[RunningStrong]

Something does not add up with those figures. The Army intends to equip what, four Infantry Battalion with Boxer. 85 APCs plus Command etc. barely equips a single Mechanised Infantry Battalion if the Boxer also replaces the FV432 and CVR(T) variants!

I don't believe the intent is for Boxer to replace FV432/CVR(T) infantry battalion variants. That's a job for MRV-P part 2.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Will comment within the quote, sorry for that:

20 x C4I, each two infantry variants commanded by... a command variant?
20 x RFS... that's more like it
9 x Mortar; each platoon (on average) having a mortar in support (not the way it works, but as a ratio quite OK)
10 x ES repair, 1 to every four would indiate a fierce enemy (and if they overrun the terrain, you can't recover anything) OR v little trust in the reliability of our own wagons??
15 x Ambulance; OK, that's sounds like a fierce enemy, then

[Tempest414]

20 x C4I, each two infantry variants commanded by... a command variant?

Were do your get that idea from the simple maths or what

My thinking wrong as it maybe was

1 x Battalion HQ x 4 x C2V , 4 x C2U , 4 x ESWI , 4 x BLOS
3 x Infantry Companies of 14 APCs plus one C&C
1 x Manoeuvre group with another C&C

this would come to 20 x C4I Boxers

[ArmChairCivvy]

would come to 20 x C4I Boxers

Sorry! The terminology is only (just!) settling in

[Lord Jim]

Looking at my tables a single Mechanised Infantry Battalion will need:
9 Boxer Command.
47 Boxer APC.
8 Boxer Scout/Recce.
6 Boxer Mortar.
5 Boxer Recovery.
4 Boxer Ambulance.
4 Boxer Joint Fires.
This equips the Battalion Headquarters, three Rifle Companies and the Manoeuvre Support Company.

Do just looking at the number of APC variants to equip four Mechanised Infantry Battalions, if that is all we are going to get, is 103 short of the 188 required. Now we could replace APC versions with the true Command version at Platoon HQ level reducing the number by 9 but that is just tinkering around the edges. The total of 85 APC versions on order does make sense still, unless there are already plans in place to order lore and the initial purchase is for a Trials Unit and only the first Battalion.

[whitelancer]

I wonder what BLOS is for; is this now the weapon carrier that everyone has been yearning for?

I'm guessing BLOS stands for Beyond Line Of Site so using HF or satellite communications. Probably a dedicated Royal Signals platform.

[Ron5]

I wonder what BLOS is for; is this now the weapon carrier that everyone has been yearning for?

I'm guessing BLOS stands for Beyond Line Of Site so using HF or satellite communications. Probably a dedicated Royal Signals platform.

I must admit I read BLOS the same way as ACC. Now I'm wondering why the OPV doesn't have these comms? Surely there's a huge overlap in the jobs they will be required to do?

[ArmChairCivvy]

wondering why the OPV doesn't have these comms?

Parliamentary answers... famous for 'bare minimum' as for elaboration given
- next Q should therefore follow (soon?)

If we go by the old roles (not just comms, but the rest of the fitting out, including how many work stations and the required power for them can be fitted in):
- OPV as per above
- battery command (could be ? a special version of C2V)
Regardless, Joint Fires still missing: a heavy comms/ power load due to the added direct/ Tac comms with 'Air'
- trying to fit out Warriors to do that job (properly) ended up with the conclusion that a pair would need to be fitted out; don't think (but not sure) that they proceeded to do that

[ArmChairCivvy]

Carrying on from the above, the ambition should not only be this (DID, ten days ago)
"The French General Directorate of Armaments (DGA) received the first operational version of the combat information system for the SCORPION program (SICS) developed by French firm, Atos. Its deployment is planned before the summer following the success of the operational assessments of the Army.
SICS is the unique information system of the Scorpion program, which enables the digital transformation of the Army's contact combat capabilities. All the weapon systems that make up SCORPION are also fully connected; thanks to SICS, they natively share combat information."

but also this (at least for the AAC assets, if not for other 'Air')
"the USMC has flown the first AH-1Z flight that has Link-16 capability. Bell says a two-way connection was completed from the helicopter to a ground station.
Bell added that the Link-16 package from Northrop Grumman adds a new digital moving map, a new security architecture and Advanced Networking Wideband Waveform (ANW2) datalinks to the helicopter."
form DID, three days ago

[whitelancer]

I rather jumped to the conclusion that BLOS (Beyond Line Of Sight) referred to a communication platform as it was in the C4I category, but of course BLOS could refer to many things. Another case of the MOD leaving as many questions as they answer.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Another case of the MOD leaving as many questions as they answer.

I would say, more so

[Lord Jim]

Haven't they already got a new anagram to cover the future ATGW capability. There are so many doing the rounds at the moment covering Army procurement Programmes. I wish we used the Australian system and called n individual programme something like Land XXXX and so on.

[Tempest414]

We can't do that good god man everyone including the Army would know what we were doing ( or not doing )

[Ron5]

Gonna buy more it says ..

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... er-numbers

[Defiance]

Author's comment describes it's due to the UK dropping the Strike Brigade concept and instead moving to BCTs. They don't have enough of the troop carrier variants and are probably going to end up needing +100 equip the 2 heavy BCTs with 2 mounted battalions a piece.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the Strike Brigade concept and instead moving to BCTs. They don't have enough of the troop carrier variants and are probably going to end up needing +100 equip the 2 heavy BCTs with 2 mounted battalions a piece.

Nowhere near enough... as the calculations upthread have shown that just to do that (while keeping the more specialised versions as announced) would need abt 2 and a half times as many
... will the light BCTs not have a 'spearhead bn' with more protection and more FS (ask me, and they will: add another multiple of 2, to the current order of that particular variant)

[Lord Jim]

I can see the Boxer becoming the primary AFV in the Army by quite a margin. It would make economical sense to use the Boxer to replace the FV432 in the Armoured Regiments to cover command and Ambulance duties as well as equipping many of the forward Headquarters signals units, giving greater protection and far cheaper to run and maintain than Ajax variants. It is what the Bundeswehr has done, replacing the M113G and M577G In their Panzer and Panzer Grenadier Battalions with Boxer.

[Tempest414]

For me if we are going to do the whole BCT thing we should be looking to set it up like

Heavy strike BCT = Challenger 3 and Ajax CRV , APC , C&C
Mechanised ( Heavy) = Boxer CRV , APC , C&C , DFS
Mechanised ( M) = Boxer CVR , DFS and MRV(P) APC , C&C
Mechanised (L) = MRV(P) CVR , APC , C&C

With this in mind we will need some 200 to 250 Boxer APC plus 150 CRV

Also it looks like the Mortar type of Boxer will be a open top rather than something like Nemo which I think shows a lack of vision

[RunningStrong]

@tempest414 - How do you differentiate between Mech Medium and Heavy if both using Boxer CRV?

[Tempest414]

@tempest414 - How do you differentiate between Mech Medium and Heavy if both using Boxer CRV?

For me Mech heavy BCT would be all Boxer

1 x Cavalry reg = Boxer CRV
1 x squadron = Boxer 105mm or 120mm DFS
2 x Infantry = Boxer APC , C&C , Mortar , ATGW
1 x Artillery support
1 x Logistics support

Mech Medium would only use Boxer for Recce and DFS

1 x Cavalry reg = Boxer CVR
1 x Squadron = Boxer 105mm or 120mm DFS
2 x lifanfry = MRV(P) APC , C&C , Morter , ATGW
Artillery
Logistics

And Mech light would only use MRV(P)

1 x Cavalry = MRV(P)
2 x Infantry = MRV(P) APC , C&C , Mortar , ATGW
Artillery
Logistics

[RunningStrong]

@tempest414 - How do you differentiate between Mech Medium and Heavy if both using Boxer CRV?

For me Mech heavy BCT would be all Boxer

1 x Cavalry reg = Boxer CRV
1 x squadron = Boxer 105mm or 120mm DFS
2 x Infantry = Boxer APC , C&C , Mortar , ATGW
1 x Artillery support
1 x Logistics support

Mech Medium would only use Boxer for Recce and DFS

1 x Cavalry reg = Boxer CVR
1 x Squadron = Boxer 105mm or 120mm DFS
2 x lifanfry = MRV(P) APC , C&C , Morter , ATGW
Artillery
Logistics

And Mech light would only use MRV(P)

1 x Cavalry = MRV(P)
2 x Infantry = MRV(P) APC , C&C , Mortar , ATGW
Artillery
Logistics

Sorry, to re-phrase my question, how is your proposed medium force and heavy force differentiated if both require the same logistics (heavy lift) and tactical support (bridging and recovery) to enable the Boxer to operate due its weight?

Whilst I think there's some scope to operate with different modular armour fitments (perhaps saving a few tons), I don't see the benefit in operating your medium weight MRV-P if you're still burdened by the larger Boxer vehicles.