Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

[Lord Jim]

I agree, perhaps the Armoured Infantry clique need to get their heads arounds the fact that they are losing Warrior and are going to have to adapt to using a 8x8 wheeled platform. Once they gat over that shock to the system they may then be ready to emotionally deal with remote weapons larger than a 50. cal.

[jonas]

RFEL win new contract for Boxer :-

https://rbsl.com/news-and-events/news/r ... ct-to-rfel

[mr.fred]

I agree, perhaps the Armoured Infantry clique need to get their heads arounds the fact that they are losing Warrior and are going to have to adapt to using a 8x8 wheeled platform. Once they gat over that shock to the system they may then be ready to emotionally deal with remote weapons larger than a 50. cal.

Perhaps the strike/ FRES/ disruptive tech future brigade need to understand that they aren’t necessarily smarter than their potential opposition and that leaning so heavily on being so to balance the budget is going to get people killed.

[ArmChairCivvy]

If the Francis Tusa tweets about turretless AJAXes, all thru, are true (?), let's see how we could get the mini-division - as per army original IR submission - together for 2025... or 'soon' thereafter.

Aim for a divisional strength, but perhaps BCT are duplos and we - over the target time frame - can only use legos to get a balanced division cobbled together. Let's see how the numbers would stack up, against current order pipeline:

Make strong BGs the core, built with
4 x 36 ch3, chally tally 144

4 x 90 ai

4 x 32 recce Boxer CRV

4 x AS90 mixed with enough of Stormer based AD platforms


And then throw in for purely wheeled, high intra-theatre mobility a mini-bde (supported by what 16X can still muster in the way of airmobility > abt three inf. bns with enough organic lift for one at a time, with support & logs factored in)

32 Boxer CRV, CRV cumulative tally 160

36 Boxer Amos, close support Boxer tally 36

2 x 90 Boxer std, cumulative inf. carrier tally 540

helicoptered artillery support, with LG & Exactor

AA & Antidrone (together or separately, on Boxer chassis)

So what do we get:
Chally3 tally off by 4 from the confirmed order (and enough fil-ins for those that go for a factory visit)
540 base-version Boxers; TICK
Close support artillery: what we have + 36 AMOS Boxers
Divisional artillery: what we have ( a little bit of remanufacture here, too, coming up)

NEW: to be ordered, on the double
36 of the Boxers with AMOS added on top
64 Boxer CRV, delivered upside-down
Anti-air, as per what has been put on Stryker (a combo) or just pure Rheinmetall-light gun version... or both

What's not to like?
- except that there is only one, and the rest of the army would be at medium intensity/ peace-making level (for a while)

[Lord Jim]

The British Army has a huge opportunity with the Boxer to brings its AFV fleet up to date and gain or regain a substantial number of capabilities. A turreted Mortar variant of the Boxer needs to be on the order books as of yesterday as does a SPAAA variant to compliment the Starstreak/LMM which needs to be transplanted onto a Boxer chassis as well. Upgrading the lethality of the Boxer APC also needs to be addressed before the vehicle enters service. WE need something more effective than a .50 cal M2, and ideally having an ATGW capability though not all need to carry this. To this we also need to add a Combat Engineering vehicle, tied in with a Python trailer, a Recce version and ideally a Bridging platform.

Ajax needs to concentrate on its Recce role, with the Regiments matching the organisation of the existing Recce Regiments. This is where the suggested over watch platform will be vital.

Both Ajax and Boxer need to have Joint Fires variants as Artillery will become a key factor in future operation, but this also means the Army needs to invest more in this branch to both expand its capabilities and size.

If the Army does not exploit the inherent flexibility of the Boxer and to a certain extent the Ajax, it will never be able to conduct operations against a peer level opponent. We are already midway through a twenty year break from being able to fight at this level effectively, and the beginning of the 2030s will be the make or break point for the Service.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Above I was speculating on the basis of the extreme scenario by Francis Tusa (tweets posted onto the Ajax thread) that
1. their turrets would need a redesign
2. as well as the chasses... of which 130 (I thought it was slightly more) stand ready for the next stages of manufacture
- so what could be achieved while waiting for them (if they will remain affordable)

And further, the deep fire projects (around 2025) would be still in the works - for the rocket artillery - and in contracting for the tube half of 'the orchesta'

Ajax needs to concentrate on its Recce role, with the Regiments matching the organisation of the existing Recce Regiments. This is where the suggested over watch platform will be vital.

Both Ajax and Boxer need to have Joint Fires variants as Artillery will become a key factor in future operation, but this also means the Army needs to invest more in this branch to both expand its capabilities and size.

So what should be done (2030?) and what could be done (delivered by this parliament, if the fixed term does not get 'annulled' ) are probably slightly different questions. But it is this Parliament that will need to get the IR implementation paper presented to it, so that the yearly budgets can be based on something err, tangible.

[SW1]

[SW1]

https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events ... prototype/

The Army’s Boxer programme is on track with welding work beginning today for the fabrication of prototypes and subsequent series production in Germany.

Defence decided to re-join the Boxer programme in 2018 and since then has committed £2.8billion to deliver over 500 vehicles to the British Army. They will be made up of four variants: an Infantry Carrier, a Specialist Carrier, a Command Vehicle and an Ambulance.

Delivery of the highly protected 8x8 armoured vehicles is due to begin at the end of 2022 with the first vehicles scheduled to be ready for service in 2023

[ArmChairCivvy]

Relating to the Global Response Force that seems like air transport to where they are going and Chinooks/ Apaches supporting them on the spot
... makes me think that early on the C-17s will be ferrying Chinooks and the A-400Ms Apaches?

With the vehicles crammed in not being (in the main) protected Boxers, but of lighter variety.

What would a cycle a day, with both fleets, amount to over the first week?
- e.g. ATF1 and a Light BG
If so, then the next bn/ BG might actually arrive with Boxers

[SW1]

Relating to the Global Response Force that seems like air transport to where they are going and Chinooks/ Apaches supporting them on the spot
... makes me think that early on the C-17s will be ferrying Chinooks and the A-400Ms Apaches?

With the vehicles crammed in not being (in the main) protected Boxers, but of lighter variety.

What would a cycle a day, with both fleets, amount to over the first week?
- e.g. ATF1 and a Light BG
If so, then the next bn/ BG might actually arrive with Boxers

Depends were your going and over what time frame chinook may well stage themselves

[Lord Jim]

That could depend on how the Boxers eventually equipped. IF they have greater firepower than the current .50 cal or 40mm AGL then a few could be sent to back up the more numerous MRV(P) platforms that would probably go first together with a few Jackals. But again we know so little about how the MRV(P) phase two is progressing or the timescale for deliveries of the JLTV or even if that is still the preferred choice for the MRV(P) Phase 1.

The Army seem to be wanting to get the Ranger Regiment up and running as its top priority, converting the existing mentoring Battalions, and probably giving them more equipment akin to a standard Infantry Battalion plus a few extra toys just for them. If they need transport the Foxhounds will have to do for now with a few Jackals, maybe, depending on what size of deployment they are going to have as standard.

As for Boxer, well the Army has said it wants to accelerate production, but has anything been said about how this will be instigated? And if they do manage to speed things up, they are going to have to decide what additional variants they want and how each variant is to be equipped sooner rather than later. They need to start any trials ASAP, borrowing a Dutch or German Boxer(s) and installing British Kit such as Radios. I know ours will be the improved version but at least it would get the ball rolling. We really need at least wo Battalions stood up by the end of 2025.

[jonas]

Commons written answers 9th June 2021

https://questions-statements.parliament ... 6-04/10209

[ArmChairCivvy]

OMG! Jeremy Quin was let off the hook by phrasing the question wrongly:
Is it/ will it be an APC, IFV... or both?

AFV....

[mr.fred]

Mr. Ellwood got his answer regardless of whether he got his terminology right or not.

Boxer is an APC
It is not being procured to replace Warrior.

[GarethDavies1]

Back to the 1970s then

[ArmChairCivvy]

Boxer is an APC
It is not being procured to replace Warrior.

While I fully agree that does beg a follow-on question, no?

[mr.fred]

Boxer is an APC
It is not being procured to replace Warrior.

While I fully agree that does beg a follow-on question, no?

Not as far as I can see.

[ArmChairCivvy]

To IFV, or not to IFV?
THAT is the question
... or may be some folks will be perfectly happy without one (and the army has said that Boxer will not be 'an' or 'the' IFV).

[mr.fred]

To IFV, or not to IFV?
THAT is the question

One already answered. According to the army the IFV is obsolete, and there isn’t enough money anyway.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the IFV is obsolete

British exceptionalism at work? I wonder if we will next resort (in improving our defences) to declaring a state of ‘splendid isolation’... again .

[mr.fred]

British exceptionalism at work? I wonder if we will next resort (in improving our defences) to declaring a state of ‘splendid isolation’... again .

Probably trying to rationalise cutting a capability in the hope of spending the money on the next game-changing powerpoint promise.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Probably trying to rationalise cutting a capability

Agreed: that is the smoke screen part of it. Will be interesting to see if also 'mirrors' become part of it (the .ppt aspect), or are we going to buy off the shelf
... I believe Hungary is setting up an assembly line for some very nice Lynx IFVs. Buying them from there might be cheaper than from the company who designed the thing. Puma seems to have been over-engineered and is falling victim - I mean as for for further orders - to the e25 bn cost cutting across future acquisition prgrms, meant to guarantee the survival of 'mega projects' as in fighter a/c, subs, AD with an ABM dimension, future ground systems (tank, fires...)
- talking about the euroMBT; buying some Lynx would nicely ease us into that prgrm, upping the 'observer status' we have for now

[Lord Jim]

The discussions within the MoD on how to improve the lethality of the Boxer APC, part of the overarching discussions on getting the existing programmes tweaked to provide the capability gaps that currently exist. This should see an Mortar Carrier to replace the FV432m, as well as the versions of the same vehicle used by the Signals and other branches. One could surmise that the obvious initial option would be to fit Javelin to a number of Boxers in each company, especially as the Army is currently looking to modify a number of its existing holdings of RWS. Maybe there could be a limited purchase of a heavier RWS that can carry both a 7.62mm LM and a 40mm AGL, similar to that produced in Singapore.

How the Army uses its Boxer APCs is going to be interesting. Using them in the traditional APC role will mot allow the BCTs to have the flexibility and aggressiveness to provide the convention deterrent the MoD wishes. Hopefully we will end up with a well armed APC able to deliver its dismount close to the enemy and provide suppressive fire whilst doing so. So the line between the IFV and APC maybe becoming blurred as far as operational use.

The digital battlespace that the Army's new families of AFVs will introduce will change the way all arms operate so possible thinking that the Boxer will be used as a wheeled FV432 and the Army will revert to how it operated in the 1960s and 70s maybe misplaced.

[ArmChairCivvy]

have the flexibility and aggressiveness to provide the convention deterrent the MoD wishes. Hopefully we will end up with a well armed APC able to deliver its dismount close to the enemy and provide suppressive fire whilst doing so. So the line between the IFV and APC maybe becoming blurred as far as operational use.

That is a big if. We learned from the Gulf that having a recce screen (CVRTs) that can't go where thanks go - and can't even see as far as they see - was in need of brushing up
- Ajax is/ was meant to rectify both of these shortcomings

Where tanks venture without infantry (the latter in suitable vehicles, not dismounted, most of the time) has not ended well on average
- may be times have changed (I don't think so)

[mr.fred]

The current plan:
https://questions-statements.parliament ... 6-04/10208