Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

The more frontal aspect photo of the two, above (Postby The Armchair Soldier » 23 Oct 2019, 15:46 ) would seem to counter the often touted claim that Boxer being "so much taller" would make it v vulnerable
- the ambulance and command versions that are "even taller" would not be at the front all of the time
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: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Lord Jim »

It is the platoons within the company that would fight dispersed not the platoons themselves in the formation I am suggesting. Yes they would be capable of independent offensive action if needed. They are more likely to act as a fluid screen in front of other formations.

AS for the size of Boxer, you only have to go to the Tank Museum to see how the size of AFVs has increased, but how in the west most classes of AFV are broadly similar in height. Russia seemed to have a different idea, and having squeezed into a Czech BMP and failed to do so in a T-55, the Russian idea of crew comfort was/is very different form that of the west.

T-Force
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: 23 Jun 2019, 12:56
Scotland

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by T-Force »

Lord Jim wrote:It is the platoons within the company that would fight dispersed not the platoons themselves in the formation I am suggesting. Yes they would be capable of independent offensive action if needed. They are more likely to act as a fluid screen in front of other formations.

AS for the size of Boxer, you only have to go to the Tank Museum to see how the size of AFVs has increased, but how in the west most classes of AFV are broadly similar in height. Russia seemed to have a different idea, and having squeezed into a Czech BMP and failed to do so in a T-55, the Russian idea of crew comfort was/is very different form that of the west.
if that is the case explain the T-15 Armata and the Bumerang ?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Lord Jim »

Well with the Boomerang they have decided, as with their other new Infantry carriers that crew comfort has a place and have started to duplicate the size and shape of many western vehicles. As for the T-14 well they are cramming three crew into the hull below the turret. I haven't seen any pictures of the inside of the vehicle, but the crew compartment cannot be that large. But remember there was for all intents and purposes a crew height limitation for the T-55 as the compartment was that cramped and as for the rear of a BMP, well to say it was uncomfortable in an understatement and I was in civvies.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Ron5 »

Nicholas Drummond's idea for a Boxer based Brit Centauro complete with 120m gun.

Image

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:Nicholas Drummond's idea for a Boxer based Brit Centauro complete with 120m gun.

Image
As if we needed a reason for fewer CR2!

T-Force
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: 23 Jun 2019, 12:56
Scotland

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by T-Force »

Lord Jim wrote:Well with the Boomerang they have decided, as with their other new Infantry carriers that crew comfort has a place and have started to duplicate the size and shape of many western vehicles. As for the T-14 well they are cramming three crew into the hull below the turret. I haven't seen any pictures of the inside of the vehicle, but the crew compartment cannot be that large. But remember there was for all intents and purposes a crew height limitation for the T-55 as the compartment was that cramped and as for the rear of a BMP, well to say it was uncomfortable in an understatement and I was in civvies.
tons of room, video in the link

https://www.defensewebtv.com/army/video ... attle-tank

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Had we chosen the 'right' platform, then there would be no need to resort to photo shopping now:
https://armyrecognition.com/images/stor ... turret.JPG
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)

Blackstone
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 13 Aug 2019, 05:00
United States of America

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Blackstone »

Ron5 wrote:Nicholas Drummond's idea for a Boxer based Brit Centauro complete with 120m gun.

Image
I imagine such a concept is definitely coming, but oh my does the looming Great British Tank Fight seem daunting. Maybe better to "settle" for a mortar with direct fire (NEMO or equivalent) until after that mess sorted.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by bobp »

Boxer moving towards main gate decision but will Brexit/General Election delay it

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... -scrutiny/

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Lord Jim »

Good news that things are moving forward, but the speed of the programme is still slow at best and that is assuming there are no further delays due to the Election in December or any fall out from Brexit. Why should it take over two years for the first vehicle to be delivered from a production line already going full tilt with existing orders. Unless the Germans and Dutch radically changed the platform after we left, the relatively few bespoke UK items should easily be installed. Now if the UK was after a bespoke Mission Module from the outset a small delay could be expected.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:Why should it take over two years for the first vehicle to be delivered from a production line already going full tilt with existing orders
Isn't the line going to be moved over the Channel? Dutch & German orders delivered...
- still, Stalin's tank factories did much better, while being moved a couple of thousand km, to the other side of the Urals
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: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Lord Jim »

As the article states their will be a line set up at the BAe/Rheinmetall plant in Telford, but that won't be producing vehicles until the middle of the 2020s.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Lord Jim »

Maybe an option for the Mortar variant of the Boxer which could also be used in the Armoured Infantry Battalions.
https://www.janes.com/article/91853/rhe ... capability

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

Lord Jim wrote:Maybe an option for the Mortar variant of the Boxer which could also be used in the Armoured Infantry Battalions.
https://www.janes.com/article/91853/rhe ... capability
Seems decidedly underwhelming. There are already far more capable 120mm turntable mortar systems on the market in , presumably , roughly the same price bracket. Elbit CARDOM 10 and SPEAR mk II, RUAG COBRA , Thales 2R2M just to name a few .

I fail to see the attraction in the Norwegian/ German system?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by Lord Jim »

Well all I said was it could be an option, and being that it is part of Rheinmetall's portfolio, and remind we who in the major contractor for the Boxer, oh that's right Rheinmetall, it would probably make the short list if the British Army requested a 120mm Mortar based on the Boxer, for the Mechanised Battalions.

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by jonas »

Nice one, squeezed it in before the Purdah :-

£2.8bn armoured vehicle contract secured for British Army

A contract worth £2.8 billion has been signed to provide state-of-the-art armoured fighting vehicles to the British Army.
Published 5 November 2019

From:
Ministry of Defence, Defence Equipment and Support, and The Rt Hon Ben Wallace MP

Boxer armoured vehicle at Army Combat Power Demonstration 2019

Boxer armoured vehicle at Army Combat Power Demonstration 2019. Crown Copyright.

The Defence Secretary has announced that the army will receive more than 500 Boxer 8x8 high mobility, network-enabled armoured vehicles to transport troops onto the frontline.

Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, said:

Our men and women of the Armed Forces deserve to have the best equipment to do their job.

The Boxer vehicle is a leader in its field and I look forward to it arriving in units from 2023.

The vehicles will form part of the Army’s Strike brigades, new units set up to deploy rapidly over long distances across varied terrains.

Boxer is modular by design to meet these requirements - the same vehicle base can be rapidly reconfigured to fill different roles on the battlefield, from carrying troops across deserts to treating severely injured service personnel on the journey to hospital.

Initially the Army will buy a mixture of the troop-carrying variant, ambulances, command vehicles, and specialist designs to carry military equipment.

Sir Simon Bollom, Chief Executive of Defence, Equipment and Support (DE&S), said:

This is excellent news for the Army and I’m delighted that we can now move forward with a contract for the Mechanised Infantry Vehicle.

We are looking forward to continuing to work closely with the Army and our partners across industry to deliver the best equipment and support for our troops.

The UK announced in 2018 that it would re-join the Boxer programme within the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation (OCCAR) and explore options to modernise its vehicle fleet and meet the Army’s Mechanised Infantry Vehicle requirement.

The UK played a central role in the original design, development and testing of the Boxer. In re-joining the programme last year, the UK reassumed the rights it had as a project partner.

Major General Simon Hamilton, Mechanised Infantry Vehicle Programme lead for the British Army, said:

I am delighted that we have committed to delivering the Mechanised Infantry capability through the purchase of around 500 battle-winning Boxer vehicles for the British Army. Boxer completes the suite of platforms to equip our new state-of-the-art STRIKE brigade where, alongside Ajax, Boxer’s low logistic need, extended reach, high-mobility, and advanced digitisation will ensure STRIKE is ready for any global scenario.

This contract was signed ahead of the pre-election period due to the strong value-for-money agreement reached with industry and other OCCAR nations, which expires on December 31st 2019, and announced today due to expected market implications. It would be possible for a new Government to take a different position.

The MOD Permanent Secretary, as the Accounting Officer, considered the value for money implications and, on this basis, determined the most appropriate course of action is to proceed with the contract award ahead of the election.
Share this page





Published 5 November 2019

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/28bn ... =immediate

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

Re: British Army Future Wheeled APC

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

Lord Jim wrote:Well all I said was it could be an option, and being that it is part of Rheinmetall's portfolio, and remind we who in the major contractor for the Boxer, oh that's right Rheinmetall, it would probably make the short list if the British Army requested a 120mm Mortar based on the Boxer, for the Mechanised Battalions.
I suppose you are right, if you were to make a sole source acquisition.....Though such an approach hardly seems wise in this case. One of the greatest advantages of turntable mortar systems , beyond their relatively modest cost, is that they are almost completely platform agnostic, and are quite simple and easy to integrate. So picking a clearly inferior system solely because it is from a Norwegian subsidiary of the company building your new Boxers is not really a great argument.

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

jonas wrote:Nice one, squeezed it in before the Purdah :-

£2.8bn armoured vehicle contract secured for British Army

A contract worth £2.8 billion has been signed to provide state-of-the-art armoured fighting vehicles to the British Army.
Published 5 November 2019.......
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/28bn ... =immediate
Congratulations with your new 8x8 :clap: :thumbup: ......The Boxer is certainly going to prove a more than worthy successor to Saxon and Bulldog and all the other vehicles it will replace in the British Army.

Im quite curious to see if UK , unlike DE and NL , will actually use the modularity of the Boxer, and to what degree if it does. I remain quietly unconvinced, but being a long time proponent of our own naval Standard Flex system i cant really fault the idea of module based flexible payload systems, not without being a giant hypocrite at least :lol: .....its going to be exciting to see how it pans out.

But JEEZZUSS its expensive!.....£5.6M per vehicle !!! :wtf: .......No matter how much of that is support costs, training, spare parts etc, that is not good value for money :crazy: ......especially since this contract apparently only includes the most basic Boxer versions, like apc, command, ambulance etc.
Some of the high cost can likely be attributed to the local production of vehicles in the UK, but still....its 50-100% more expensive than equivalent vehicles ... :think: ......it certainly makes me realize what a smashing deal we got on our Piranha 5s......309 vehicles in much the same variants as todays Boxer contract, but at a more reasonable £540M or 1,75 million pound per vehicle .

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by bobp »

Hope to see a variety of modules such as mortar carrier, ambulance, 40mm turret, etc . Also some ATGW such as Javelin mounted on the RWS.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:So picking a clearly inferior system solely because it is from a Norwegian subsidiary of the company building your new Boxers is not really a great argument.
As I stated this would only be one option. As for its price and that of the alternatives I do not know, but I suppose if the mortar and platform are form the same manufacturer, they might decide to make an offer too good to miss.

Saying that, why is this system so markedly inferior? Its ability to take almost any 120mm Mortar Tube including those that are rifled, giving the customer the choice of matching an existing system seems a good idea. I have a soft spot for the Rifles 120mm given its increased range as many know. Give the medium and heavy units a Boxer/Rifles 120mm Mortar combination and then equip our High Readiness units with the towed version so that there is a level of commonality. Of course retain a number of 81mm for situation where the use of a 120mm if not applicable.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:But JEEZZUSS its expensive!.....£5.6M per vehicle !!! :wtf:
We have a different yard stick :oops: over here. See it this way: compared to Ajax (did it end up closer to 7 than 6 mln?) they are cheap

In the good old days (10 yrs ago) one used to get a bde kitted for a bn
... now it is not enough for half :cry: of its vehicles
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)

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SD67 »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:
jonas wrote:Nice one, squeezed it in before the Purdah :-

£2.8bn armoured vehicle contract secured for British Army

A contract worth £2.8 billion has been signed to provide state-of-the-art armoured fighting vehicles to the British Army.
Published 5 November 2019.......
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/28bn ... =immediate
Congratulations with your new 8x8 :clap: :thumbup: ......The Boxer is certainly going to prove a more than worthy successor to Saxon and Bulldog and all the other vehicles it will replace in the British Army.

Im quite curious to see if UK , unlike DE and NL , will actually use the modularity of the Boxer, and to what degree if it does. I remain quietly unconvinced, but being a long time proponent of our own naval Standard Flex system i cant really fault the idea of module based flexible payload systems, not without being a giant hypocrite at least :lol: .....its going to be exciting to see how it pans out.

But JEEZZUSS its expensive!.....£5.6M per vehicle !!! :wtf: .......No matter how much of that is support costs, training, spare parts etc, that is not good value for money :crazy: ......especially since this contract apparently only includes the most basic Boxer versions, like apc, command, ambulance etc.
Some of the high cost can likely be attributed to the local production of vehicles in the UK, but still....its 50-100% more expensive than equivalent vehicles ... :think: ......it certainly makes me realize what a smashing deal we got on our Piranha 5s......309 vehicles in much the same variants as todays Boxer contract, but at a more reasonable £540M or 1,75 million pound per vehicle .
Agree. I don’t buy the VFM argument. Which ever way you dice it it is way too expensive. DE//NL paid 1 million each and inflation had been basically zero since.

I’m sorry but IMHO the MOD are being played. Why can’t they just hold an honest competition like Australia did. Throw a Korean option in there and watch the price fall.

Top brass are too close to the suppliers and OCCAR have a European industrial development agenda

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by bobp »

I am assuming that 2.8bn covers tools, test equipment, training and all the necessary production jigs for its manufacture in this country. Then no doubt there is VAT to be paid, and a package of spare parts, and materials.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

How many Boxer's the UK is actually getting has not been clarified beyond the "Will receive more than 500 Boxer 8x8 high mobility, network-enabled armoured vehicles". Knowing how the MoD and Treasury like to keep the annual account simple, the contract probably covers all spares, repairs and training for at least ten years as well. The Government is also chipping in regarding the reworking of the Telford manufacturing site as well and that will no doubt be also part of the figure announced, though whether the MoD is paying or it is the DTi but everything has been bundled together is an unknown.

The Boxer is not cheap, that is obvious, but it is the best protected 8x8 currently on the market (excluding some of the recent Russian prototypes"and should be the cheapest with regards to developing new variants, given this involves the development and manufacture of only new Mission Modules.

With a figure of 500+ vehicles, the Army can create the four Mechanised Battalions need for the "Strike" Brigades as well as replace numerous FV432 and CVR(T) vehicles still in service, the latter in units other than the planned four Recce Units to be equipped with the Ajax family. These to programmes combined should see the final withdrawal of the FV 432 from service after nearly 70 years!

Now we just need to get a move on and bring the upgraded Warrior into service, sort out the Challenger 2 upgrade and the new Precision Fires platform and the British Army will start to have the equipment it needs to be able to fight both Peer conflicts and those against less well equipped opposition without resorting to a whole raft of UORs to purchase new vehicles on the fly. UPRs will still be needed as always, but in future this should be reserved mainly for TES kits.

Post Reply