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: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Caribbean wrote:1300 rpm (so possible use against UAVs)
So the navy wouldn't have a monopoly anymore on creating a wall of 'lead' :) .
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)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

Caribbean wrote:The AEI 30mm Venom LR sounds like it would be a good choice - can be used anywhere a 12.7mm can be fitted. 2000m effective range (3000m for area effect).
So if this could be fitted to the RS4 RWS we have on order along with a Javelin this would give the Boxer APC real hitting power. maybe we should look to fit this combo on the Jackal's of the Light Cavalry

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:this combo on the Jackal's of the Light Cavalry
If I :lol: , not that likely, were to go head-to-head with an MBT, I would certainly want to dismount with 'my' Javelin - rather than be a sitting duck and remaining in the vehicle
- quite an other set of circumstances, from standing up and delivering .50 cal to targets whose personal weapons (hopefully) would be outranged
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)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

Who said anything about it going toe to toe with MBT. I would rather be sitting controlling a fully stabilized RWS than standing up behind a hand cranked 12.7 when moving at speed under contact. The Javelin would be more for if it come across a target of opportunity they could still have dismounted Javelin as well

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:The Javelin would be more for if it come across a target of opportunity
If (or rather, IF) the autocannon can deal with opposing IFVs/APCs, what would the nature of these targets of opportunity be?
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)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

The auto cannon has a range of 2000 to 3000 meters javelin when mounted has a range of 4500 meters targets of opportunity could anything but to list some

Artillery site
air defence site
command and control
enemy recce units
Logistics

Look the main role of the recce units is to find the enemy for other units to engage however if it has to engage the enemy it wants to hit it hard

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Caribbean »

Tempest414 wrote: if this could be fitted to the RS4 RWS
It's been trialled on the Australian EOS R400S and the Slovenian Midgard 300 RWS's. The 30mm comes in two versions. The standard has a recoil force of 22kN versus 7kN for the Low Recoil version. AEI also produce a 20mm version (4.5 kN recoil force) and are working on a 30 x 173mm Bushmaster II (no idea about recoil forces for that one!)
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Caribbean wrote:
Tempest414 wrote: if this could be fitted to the RS4 RWS
It's been trialled on the Australian EOS R400S and the Slovenian Midgard 300 RWS's. The 30mm comes in two versions. The standard has a recoil force of 22kN versus 7kN for the Low Recoil version. AEI also produce a 20mm version (4.5 kN recoil force) and are working on a 30 x 173mm Bushmaster II (no idea about recoil forces for that one!)
What gets sacrificed for low recoil? Accuracy? RoF?

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

No wonders worked on the projectile can compensate (in penetration) for the initial velocity difference of (will have to use the pair I originally quoted for comparison, perhaps someone has the figure to substitute)
850
vs
1500
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: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Ron5 wrote:
What gets sacrificed for low recoil? Accuracy? RoF?
Rate of Fire. Having longer to return to battery between shots allows a softer recoil mechanism.
Taken to extremes with Rarden compared to the Bushmaster II or Mk30 guns which fire a very similar cartridge.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote:
Caribbean wrote:The AEI 30mm Venom LR sounds like it would be a good choice - can be used anywhere a 12.7mm can be fitted. 2000m effective range (3000m for area effect).
So if this could be fitted to the RS4 RWS we have on order along with a Javelin this would give the Boxer APC real hitting power. maybe we should look to fit this combo on the Jackal's of the Light Cavalry
Good god no. Top heavy, and you'd probably need everyone to dismount before you fired it. The hearing protection alone would be cumbersome.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

RunningStrong wrote:Good god no. Top heavy, and you'd probably need everyone to dismount before you fired it.
on the video of the M230LF mounted on ESO R400 RWS on a Dutch Boxer APC it all looked OK it was not moving so don't no plus everyone standing around it when firing seemed to have standard hearing protection

With this in mind it would be good see what the out come was from the Dutch trials

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Caribbean »

RunningStrong wrote:Top heavy, and you'd probably need everyone to dismount before you fired it. The hearing protection alone would be cumbersome.
Based on what? The M230LF doesn't seem to require special hearing protection. The Venom is around 60kg heavier than the M230LF, but I doubt that would make a huge difference to a 38-tonne vehicle, like the Boxer or even an 11 tonne vehicle like the Bushmaster. The M230LF has also been trialled on the JLTV, so I doubt it would be that much of a stretch to use the Venom.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:Good god no. Top heavy, and you'd probably need everyone to dismount before you fired it.
on the video of the M230LF mounted on ESO R400 RWS on a Dutch Boxer APC it all looked OK it was not moving so don't no plus everyone standing around it when firing seemed to have standard hearing protection

With this in mind it would be good see what the out come was from the Dutch trials
Caribbean wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:Top heavy, and you'd probably need everyone to dismount before you fired it. The hearing protection alone would be cumbersome.
Based on what? The M230LF doesn't seem to require special hearing protection. The Venom is around 60kg heavier than the M230LF, but I doubt that would make a huge difference to a 38-tonne vehicle, like the Boxer or even an 11 tonne vehicle like the Bushmaster. The M230LF has also been trialled on the JLTV, so I doubt it would be that much of a stretch to use the Venom.
For the avoidance of doubt, I was responding to the suggestion that it could be fitted on Jackal. A 7t, open-top vehicle.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Caribbean »

RunningStrong wrote:For the avoidance of doubt, I was responding to the suggestion that it could be fitted on Jackal. A 7t, open-top vehicle.
Apologies - didn't pick that up from your reply. The max recoil force is around 9Kn for the 30mm LR, which is around twice that of the M2, I believe. I guess that could be too much for the Jackal. However, the M230 has been trialled on the 5-ish tonne JLTV, so it may not be completely out of the question

The 20mm version is broadly equivalent to the M2, with similar mass, rate of fire, recoil and effective range, and lower muzzle velocity and maximum range (835 vs 890 m/s and 5700 vs 7400m) and slightly greater "terminal effect".
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

Also there is video of the M230LF R400s RWS fitted on a Toyota LC79 firing to the side on the move this is a 3.5 ton 4x4

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

We are moving away from the Boxer here so anything after this I will put on the Jackal thread but in 2009 tests were done with a Protector RWS fitted to the Jackal 2 weapons fitted were the 12.7 mm , 7.62mm & 40mm GMG it was said the RWS greatly improved capability with fire on the move. Having seen the effect a M230LF fitted RWS has when mounted on a 3.5 ton Toyota 4x4 I would stick my neck out and say it should be OK on a Jackal

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

You really do not want to go toe to toe with any AFV in a Jackal, you need to bug out after using smoke and suppressing fire ASAP. Anything else a M2 Browning backed up by NLAW should do the trick if you need to engage. Fitting a RWS with a M230 to the Boxer should be a simple option but said vehicle can take a far heavier weapon, and has already been tested with many turret and gun options and with a number already passes NATO standards, as well as the similar standards of other user countries. The M230 is a great Anti Personnel weapon and against light vehicles but against modern AFVs it will struggle.

If the British Army is going to put a turret on some of the Boxers it has on order or if an additional order is placed specifically for such a variant, and trial to ensure it meets our Def Stans. need to be carried out as swiftly as possible using all the latest tools available like the engineering tools developed for the aviation industry by SAAB and Lockheed Martin. These can model whether a component is capable of meeting its requirements and whether the more complex item it is part of operated within know limitation including its Def Stans. . With SAAB and LM they were able to deliver the first two prototype of the Red Hawk Advanced Jet Trainer in what is basically its full production form, meeting all the quality control, Safety and other standards and shaving at least a third of the flight test programme compared to what would normally be required for such a platform. That has saved a considerable amount of time and money to put it mildly.

A similar system applied to getting the various required variants of the Boxer cleared of use by the British Army would have huge benefits not just to us but for future exports of the platform which like with the Challenger 3, put us in a good place when it comes to negotiating with Rheinmetall.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

As I have said before I am all up for fitting 40mm turrets to Boxer and having CVR and as said before for me the new Boxer Battalion should look like this

70 APC fitted with RWS's ( 30 x 12.7mm HMG , 20 x 30mm Venom , 20 x 40mm GMG )
20 Turreted CTA 40mm ( Allowing for 4 with each Company and 2 x recce units of 4 )
9 x 120mm nemo ( allowing for 3 with each company )

Each Company battle group would have

14 x APC ( 5 x 12.7mm , 5 x 30mm , 4 x 40mm GMG )
4 x turret CTA 40mm
3 x 120mm mortar

edit ; as far as jackal goes if you bugging out using suppressing fire doing so with a 12.7 or 30mm fitted to a RWS would be far more effective as you can keep the enemy under fire when on the move

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Tempest414 wrote:12.7 or 30mm fitted to a RWS would be far more effective
The M2 is a 12.7mm HMG.

Regarding turrets etc. on Boxer, I must admit I believe that we should go with a turret that is already cleared for use on the Boxer, meets all NATO standards and can already be fitted with two medium/heavy ATGWs and that is the Lance-RC as fitted to the Australian CRV and will be fitted to the Bundeswehr's IFV variant. Have been corrected and seeing that it can carry six fully equipped troops plus additional kit like disposable rocket launchers, ATGW reloads and such like, and the fact that if we pursued the LM turret we would end up with a bespoke UK only variant once again, the Lance-RC turret seems a better bet. Yes their will be additional cost per turret as everything will be purchased, unlike the CT40 cannon fitted to the LM Turrets, but then again we will not have to pay for any trials or further development include the possibility of fitting a medium/Heavy ATGW system with the Lance RC. The money spent on the Warrior bound CT40s has been spent and at least we have a plentiful supply of spares. WE could use the CT40 in a SPAAG version of the Boxer at a later date to fill that growing capability cap as well.

So I see going down the Boxer IFV/Lance-RC route as the quickest , simplest and possibly most cost effective route for the British Army, in my opinion. ( I must be sound liker a scratched record by now :D )

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: WE could use the CT40 in a SPAAG version of the Boxer at a later date to fill that growing capability cap
On that front I could, at a pinch :) , go 6 x 6 https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=htt ... AdAAAAABAN
but then again in AA the ammo goes out like confetti
... where are the reloads ( on the same 8 x 8 :o )
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: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

It uses a modified naval mount, which itself is designed to be non penetrating. Not sure about its internal magazine, but it is frugal requiring only ten rounds, or so it is advertised, to prosecute a target. To leave more capacity for reloads we could use the MAN 8x8, but a mounting on Boxer would be preferable, especially if they could develop a light more land centric version. I am sure Thales could do such a thing if interested was shown. Alternatively we could just buy the Sky Ranger that is already undergoing trials and keep the CT40s just as spares for Ajax.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:12.7 or 30mm fitted to a RWS would be far more effective
The M2 is a 12.7mm HMG.

Regarding turrets etc. on Boxer, I must admit I believe that we should go with a turret that is already cleared for use on the Boxer, meets all NATO standards and can already be fitted with two medium/heavy ATGWs and that is the Lance-RC as fitted to the Australian CRV and will be fitted to the Bundeswehr's IFV variant. Have been corrected and seeing that it can carry six fully equipped troops plus additional kit like disposable rocket launchers, ATGW reloads and such like, and the fact that if we pursued the LM turret we would end up with a bespoke UK only variant once again, the Lance-RC turret seems a better bet. Yes their will be additional cost per turret as everything will be purchased, unlike the CT40 cannon fitted to the LM Turrets, but then again we will not have to pay for any trials or further development include the possibility of fitting a medium/Heavy ATGW system with the Lance RC. The money spent on the Warrior bound CT40s has been spent and at least we have a plentiful supply of spares. WE could use the CT40 in a SPAAG version of the Boxer at a later date to fill that growing capability cap as well.

So I see going down the Boxer IFV/Lance-RC route as the quickest , simplest and possibly most cost effective route for the British Army, in my opinion. ( I must be sound liker a scratched record by now :D )
Unfortunately this totally ignores the current move toward awarding contracts that benefit UK industry. A very good thing (not the ignoring, the build in the UK bit).

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Ok the Turret will be made in Hungary, but almost everything else should at least be partially made in the UK eventually. I suppose we could ask Rheinmetall to set up another production line for the Lance Turret in the UK but that would take more time and money, even more than the LM turret. I know there is a "Made in Britain", theme that is on going but it must have its limits. If everything we order for the Army must be built here we are going to end up with either a 70k+ Army with a small amount of good kit or an even smaller one with a bit more, but not enough kit.

If you ask me we have done bloody well to get GM and Rheinmetall to basically restart our AFV manufacturing base but for the time being it has its limits. I am pretty sure Rheinmetall would agree to a maintenance and upgrade facility being in the UK and maybe even ammunition manufacture, so some jobs would end up eventually being created. We need to carefully choose where we wish to put our resources into this "Made in Britain" doctrine. LM are still making the turret of Ajax and will also provide support. The export version of the turret they designed for the Warrior may find sales in countries wanting to increase the firepower of their existing platforms or the new ones they are purchasing. These would probably also be built in teh UK, fingers crossed.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lean and mean... onto our Boxers? (the missile pictured is a Spike)
https://www.thedefensepost.com/wp-conte ... 70x610.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)

Post Reply