Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Seems a bit obtuse to sell 40mm CTA at pennies for the dollar.

As for "no plans" for something/anything, as we've seen on so many occasions previously, that doesn't mean there is no intention/aspiration or no team working on a plan. Just means at this second there isn't a fully appoved and funded plan. In other words, it means jack.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

When it comes to Boxer I would say first we need

Nemo 120 mortar to allow indirect and direct fire
air defence to cover the BCT's
155mm artillery

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

As I have said the more you look at the Command Paper and the Army in particular the more it is just a number of sound bites as if that changes things all by itself. If they have aspiration to improve the lethality of the Boxer as well as order the numerous variants that are compulsory for the formation of viable Infantry units, then work and funding needs to be started, put in place respectively as of now. Without dong this the Heavy BCTs are simple a joke, but then again the existing Armoured Infantry Brigades are a joke with their small size and lack of key capabilities.

This is where the idea of looking to sunset capabilities at the deterioration of conventional ones comes home very quickly to bite your ass. Boxer could form a superb core for the Army going forward providing support for both the Challenger 3 as well as giving more punch to the Light BCTs is it is needed. It capabilities, though they come at a cost, could finally being the Army into the 21st century within the next decade rather than hoping some magical super systems arrive in the 2030s that will be mature enough to give to the average soldier on the battlefield and make him or her invincible.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Lord Jim wrote:As I have said the more you look at the Command Paper and the Army in particular the more it is just a number of sound bites as if that changes things all by itself. If they have aspiration to improve the lethality of the Boxer as well as order the numerous variants that are compulsory for the formation of viable Infantry units, then work and funding needs to be started, put in place respectively as of now. Without dong this the Heavy BCTs are simple a joke, but then again the existing Armoured Infantry Brigades are a joke with their small size and lack of key capabilities.

This is where the idea of looking to sunset capabilities at the deterioration of conventional ones comes home very quickly to bite your ass. Boxer could form a superb core for the Army going forward providing support for both the Challenger 3 as well as giving more punch to the Light BCTs is it is needed. It capabilities, though they come at a cost, could finally being the Army into the 21st century within the next decade rather than hoping some magical super systems arrive in the 2030s that will be mature enough to give to the average soldier on the battlefield and make him or her invincible.
I would suggest watching Jack Watling’s contributions to a recent online debate on the Integrated Review and Command Paper for the Henry Jackson society. It’s the only take on the material that I have seen so far that actually allowed me to come away thinking “maybe the Army is on to something after all?”. He covers much of what you are seeking insight on above.

The abstract of his argument is that the Army has elected to take on short to medium term risk in exchange for budgetary stability and increased credibility/relevance in the 2030 timeframe. It is suggestive that actually there might be a lot of genuinely good, if high risk, thinking that is going on behind the scenes, hard as it is to believe from where we all are. If it pays off, he says, then he reckons the decisions we are witnessing now will be vindicated in a big way. Key word is “if”.

That said, if they really do decide they aren’t going to find some way to integrate a proper turret onto Boxer (preferably based around a CTA 40mm) then I begin to question their seriousness about making this work.

As an aside Jack Watling is also able to provide some very interesting insights into the Army’s current thinking around Challenger 3, seeing it as an institutional knowledge retention (industrial and operational) and business case exercise first and foremost with the real prize being MGCS in the future. The whole discussion is definitely worth the watch.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by whitelancer »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:As an aside Jack Watling is also able to provide some very interesting insights into the Army’s current thinking around Challenger 3, seeing it as an institutional knowledge retention (industrial and operational) and business case exercise first and foremost with the real prize being MGCS in the future. The whole discussion is definitely worth the watch.
I found that very strange, the impression being that the Army saw little need for MBTs at present, but wanted them in the future. If they are no use at the moment why will they be in 10 or 15 years time? Makes no sense.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

for me the Army is taking a huge decade plus gamble that it can afford to wait until the new magic capabilities arrive that cost next to nothing but can dominate an opponent and scare him off. It also shows that it doesn't really have a lot of faith in the current BCT idea, treating it more as a lesser of two evils result from the Integrated Review. That is fine if the UK is to withdrawn from most of the World's stage except for SF and the new Ranger Regiment. We are also going to be left with a lot of Boxers that really are not fir for the role they are allocated and even worse with lack basic variants needed to actually equip an Infantry Battalion. The whole thing is looking more and more like a total FU! They think they cannot bring the Army up to date now, or at least cannot work out how to, and so are willing to wait for the next Gen Capabilities to arrive in the 2030s with their fingers crossed. :crazy:

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by whitelancer »

I could understand it if the Army decided to change the way they do business and transitioned to an all light highly mobile force. Emphasising SF and light armoured forces supported by joint fires. But what they are going for is just a mess, a heavy element which lacks mass, a medium element that is too heavy and lacks fire power and a light element that is a bit of an unknown quantity. All with a lack of supporting elements including the joint fires which everyone seems to see as essential.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

whitelancer wrote:
~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:As an aside Jack Watling is also able to provide some very interesting insights into the Army’s current thinking around Challenger 3, seeing it as an institutional knowledge retention (industrial and operational) and business case exercise first and foremost with the real prize being MGCS in the future. The whole discussion is definitely worth the watch.
I found that very strange, the impression being that the Army saw little need for MBTs at present, but wanted them in the future. If they are no use at the moment why will they be in 10 or 15 years time? Makes no sense.
I think it is an admission of the limitations of the CLEP programme - specifically that we will not be able to retain a usable number of tanks from the budget allocated to the project. Dr Watling mentions in his remarks that it seemed as if the Army was happy to do away with Challenger in its entirety and the 150 or so examples that are being retained are being kept simply because that is the minimum number needed to preserve institutional knowledge and to make for a credible business case when looking towards MGCS participation. These are the only reasons why even a portion of the fleet earned a reprieve.

I don’t think the Army believes there isn’t a need for a tank, neither now nor in the future. What seems to be their view on things is that they are betting in jam tomorrow whilst investing in more useful/cost effective areas in the meantime. As Dr Watling says, high risk. We can only hope it pays off.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Lord Jim wrote:for me the Army is taking a huge decade plus gamble that it can afford to wait until the new magic capabilities arrive that cost next to nothing but can dominate an opponent and scare him off. It also shows that it doesn't really have a lot of faith in the current BCT idea, treating it more as a lesser of two evils result from the Integrated Review. That is fine if the UK is to withdrawn from most of the World's stage except for SF and the new Ranger Regiment. We are also going to be left with a lot of Boxers that really are not fir for the role they are allocated and even worse with lack basic variants needed to actually equip an Infantry Battalion. The whole thing is looking more and more like a total FU! They think they cannot bring the Army up to date now, or at least cannot work out how to, and so are willing to wait for the next Gen Capabilities to arrive in the 2030s with their fingers crossed. :crazy:
Again, I can only advise watching the debate. I think you would find it illuminating in light of your comments. If even half of what Dr Watling says is true and accurate then I think there are good reasons to be more optimistic about the direction of the Army post Command Paper (particularly from an intellectual/conceptual/doctrinal standpoint) but even so, the short term risk represents a significant gamble and one that, should it backfire, would be little short of disastrous.

As I said, it is the only take on the IR and the Command Paper that I have come away from feeling relatively positive about how things have progressed/are intended to progress going forwards. If our bets do pay off, the implication seems to be that we will in fact have landed a massive coup - a revolutionary, not evolutionary, change in capability.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

whitelancer wrote:
~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:As an aside Jack Watling is also able to provide some very interesting insights into the Army’s current thinking around Challenger 3, seeing it as an institutional knowledge retention (industrial and operational) and business case exercise first and foremost with the real prize being MGCS in the future. The whole discussion is definitely worth the watch.
I found that very strange, the impression being that the Army saw little need for MBTs at present, but wanted them in the future. If they are no use at the moment why will they be in 10 or 15 years time? Makes no sense.
For the same reason as the nuclear deterrent was entirely pointless when we were largely invested in the war on terror and having cosy relationships with the Russians. Things change.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:Again, I can only advise watching the debate.
Could you post a link to said debate please.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by whitelancer »

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.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Lord Jim wrote:
~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:Again, I can only advise watching the debate.
Could you post a link to said debate please.
Here you are. Was using my phone for my earlier messages and it wasn't embedding before:

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote: More to the point the Army spokesperson further adds "There are no current plans to commission Boxer into an armoured infantry role"
RunningStrong wrote:Does that mean that post-Warrior there'll be no armoured infantry?
we'll find out in 4 years' time; v short for any kind of acquisition
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
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by whitelancer »

Joking aside I wouldn't mind a small bet on the proposed structure of the Army never being fully implemented and that within 5 years (probable less if they can find some money) they will be looking at acquiring an IFV of some description. Either a version of Boxer or a tracked vehicle, originating in Germany, perhaps!

The above is copied from a comment I made on the IR thread.
Should my prediction come to pass, given the pace of recent acquisition programs it will be at least a decade before anything appears. Another capability holiday the MOD is so fond of.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jack Watling did let us look behind the curtain, and understand how the process (so far) has been shaped and has worked - or not

The prof. from King's put it well: looks like the 'old' ten-year rule has come back, and will operate at least from 2010 to 2019.
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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

whitelancer wrote:will be looking at acquiring an IFV of some description. Either a version of Boxer or a tracked vehicle, originating in Germany, perhaps!
What a great opportunity then as Germany has just cancelled the second half of their Puma order... keep the line rolling and we will get 220 copies by 2025 :D
- the reason the same as over here: so many mega-programmes on the go that something has to give (and the IFV it came to 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)

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Jack Watling did let us look behind the curtain, and understand how the process (so far) has been shaped and has worked - or not

The prof. from King's put it well: looks like the 'old' ten-year rule has come back, and will operate at least from 2010 to 2019.
Indeed. He's one of the only commentators that I have comes across thus far that has done that with the IR and Command Paper. He is clearly exceptionally well informed; able to offer greater insight into the nitty gritty detail behind the command paper than most. I hazard to guess that he might even be/have been involved in the process? I guess those are the sorts of privileges that come with working for RUSI!

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

whitelancer wrote:Either a version of Boxer or a tracked vehicle, originating in Germany, perhaps!
I would say we have two good options for a IFV going forward Boxer or Ares ether of them fitted with a 40mm remote turret could work well and would allow 3 crew plus 7 dismounts

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Tempest414 wrote:I would say we have two good options for a IFV going forward Boxer or Ares ether of them fitted with a 40mm remote turret could work well and would allow 3 crew plus 7 dismounts
Provided that:
1) we have enough money, considering it will cost more per vehicle than Warrior 2 would have
2) we don’t need an IFV in the meantime.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:I would say we have two good options for a IFV going forward Boxer or Ares ether of them fitted with a 40mm remote turret could work well and would allow 3 crew plus 7 dismounts
Provided that:
1) we have enough money, considering it will cost more per vehicle than Warrior 2 would have
2) we don’t need an IFV in the meantime.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:a great opportunity then as Germany has just cancelled the second half of their Puma order... keep the line rolling and we will get 220 copies by 2025
I'm glad that the 'quote' facility loses the (hah-hah) emoticons - in this case from my post - as this, taken round, is no laughing matter:

We went down from 6 AI bns to 4, and now ?
If you forget the Poles (getting their ducks ordered, for the front line), behind them are 4 (!) armored battalions (three with 44 Leopard 2 main battle tanks each, plus one German/Dutch armored battalion with 48 Leopard 2s)
•12 mechanized infantry battalions (ten with 44 Puma infantry fighting vehicles each plus two Dutch battalions with CV90 infantry fighting vehicles... sounded good, until recently. With the Puma reduction there will be only 4 such bns (plus the two Dutch) and for the rest of the quoted number (50% of the total) the Marder2s are due to expire, just like our Warriors, in 2025

The bright spot is that
1. the German tank strength (if they can recruit the crews) will be upped by almost 50% with the modernisations feeding through, and
2. that the 'fightability' of our Challies will be much improved (in due course)

So Boxers everywhere (in due course, on our part) but not too many other really armoured assets.
- The other German division that could actually 'roll' at short notice, the DSK is only as heavy as Boxers - and in the main, lighter
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 »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote: Again, I can only advise watching the debate. I think you would find it illuminating in light of your comments. If even half of what Dr Watling says is true and accurate then I think there are good reasons to be more optimistic about the direction of the Army post Command Paper (particularly from an intellectual/conceptual/doctrinal standpoint) but even so, the short term risk represents a significant gamble and one that, should it backfire, would be little short of disastrous.
Having watched it (again, as it turns out) I don’t see any reason to be optimistic. It just sounds like the last two/three decades of Army procurement. Cut spending now in the hope of jam tomorrow.
Come tomorrow we’ll have an even older vehicle fleet that will be gutted further in the hope of jam a bit further down the line.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

mr.fred wrote:Having watched it (again, as it turns out) I don’t see any reason to be optimistic. It just sounds like the last two/three decades of Army procurement. Cut spending now in the hope of jam tomorrow.
Come tomorrow we’ll have an even older vehicle fleet that will be gutted further in the hope of jam a bit further down the line.
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.

At least with a sound concept in place, it gives us a fighting chance of making the whole vision work. The proof in the pudding will of course be if the required "jam" is forthcoming. On that note, though we've all lost count of how many times we've been in this position before, if the Command Paper has finally placed procurement on a sustainable path, then surely it's got to represent our best chance yet of getting the kit that's needed?

Sound thinking and sound finanaces. There are worse positions to be in.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

~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: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

~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.

Post Reply