Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

yes great but what he said was pre-load and they would not reload in the field I may well have got the wrong end of the stick

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:yes great but what he said was pre-load and they would not reload in the field I may well have got the wrong end of the stick
I don’t think that pre-loading rules out being able to load under armour.
Even saying that they wouldn’t reload in the field doesn’t rule out being able to load under armour.
If you’ve got a big enough magazine you don’t need to reload during combat.

If your gunner is reloading then he’s not operating the guns or observing through the sights
If your commander is reloading then he’s not commanding the vehicle.
As such it makes sense to conduct loading operations when in a safer environments, much like a soldier will take cover to reload their rifle and will wait until a lull before refilling their magazines.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Surely the CT40 Turret isn't the only one where you have a number of "Ready" rounds and then the remainder need to be loaded into the weapon system at some point? Also wouldn't either the Commander or Gunner top up the ready rounds after an engagements is possible rather than wait for them all to be expended before boing so?

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:Surely the CT40 Turret isn't the only one where you have a number of "Ready" rounds and then the remainder need to be loaded into the weapon system at some point? Also wouldn't either the Commander or Gunner top up the ready rounds after an engagements is possible rather than wait for them all to be expended before boing so?
Most autocannon turrets feature the split between ready rounds and stowed ammunition, but it’s kind of a new thing to the British Army, where all previous autocannon vehicles have had ready rounds totalling six of one nature.
As for turret crew reloading ‘as soon as an engagement is over’, how do you determine that an engagement is over and it is safe to reduce your observation and fix your turret in position*?
I would expect reloading to occur in a relatively secure position, like a harbour or laager, unless the situation is very abnormal.

* stowed rounds usually being in the hull, it is not conducive to long term health prospects to leave the turret live while reaching out of the turret basket

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 but many unmanned turrets are designed to be reloaded or topped up from inside of the turret . Cannon like the CT40 are designed for singe or short bursts of 3-4 rounds. The Ajax and Warrior turrets had 70 ready rounds I believe in their manned turret with the rest in teh hull. Unmanned turrets with the same weapon should be able to hold at least that amount, we are not talking RWS with external weapons here but enclosed turrets that have no crew.

If a unmanned turret is designed to be reloaded from inside then it must be reasonably easy to do. Having a dozen or so rounds passed to either the Commander of Gunner to put with the ready rounds should not take a great amount of time and the advantage of the CT40 rounds id that they are far smaller and compact that most 35mm let alone 40 mm rounds. I have held one.

So turret exist out their that would be very suitable for Boxer, be they armed with a 30mm, a 35mm or a CT-40. All are fully enclosed and designed for internal reloading by the crew. Except for integral ATGWs, no one should have to poke his or her head out to reload the main gun, and this is the same situation with both manned and unmanned turrets.

The MoD's problem is they are trying to get their heads around too many things at once. Losing Warrior without an IFV replacement, or at least what they think of as an IFV and trying to think of a turreted Boxer as an IFV, even though other countries are quite happy to use wheeled platforms in this role these days. At least they have their self imposed ten year capability gap regarding peer level warfighting to sort it all out.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

From @totherchris

RT60 uncrewed turreted Mission Module interior for Boxer. Driver sits far right, not pictured, in the Driver cabin. Commander and Gunner sit side by side ahead of the dividing wall centre image. Eight dismounts seats sit facing each other, four each left and right.

Image

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Of course nobody is even going to stick their head out of the two hatches over the infantry compartment let alone stand up in case someone shoots at them. I know it is not the same as crawling out of the turret under fire, but who would do than, the vehicle would be orders back into cover if reloading was carried out externally, but most such turret and/or RWS have lighter cannon with larger ready magazines, just look at the one on the Czech 8x8.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

For a middle eastern customer apparently

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/land ... news_promo

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

I really hope the MoD study into improving the lethality of the Boxer i light of the cancellation of the WCSP, amounts to more that adding Javelin to the RWS? Do we even have enough Javelins to be able to do such a thing if we deploy more then a Company's worth? Plus Javelin is not at least a generation behind the most modern western ATGWs and lacks many capabilities Army's are now insisting on, and countries like Russia are developing counter measure against missiles of Javelin's generation as Javelin in particular is seen as the benchmark for a Western ATGW being used in the most part by the US.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SW1 »


seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by seaspear »

A new story about the concerns of the Australian Boxer variant
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-11/ ... /100343228

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

I wonder why those concerns were leaked?

Also, $5.6bn? That’s £14m each?
That’s got to include some other stuff?

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote: I wonder how much of your much vaunted, super secret, Ajax capability is provided by its payload*. Because as a vehicle, Ajax looks totally unremarkable even ignoring its habit of injuring its crew.

*a payload that could probably just as easily be carried by other vehicles. Like Boxer. A question that I'm sure is being asked is what would it take to transfer the payload across?
Perhaps it would seem that porting AJAX equipment into Boxer wouldn't be as straight forward as our resident expert thinks.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Well the British Army has ten years to try out various options to meet capability gaps that Boxer could fill, develop the necessary Mission Modules working with Rheinmetall, conduct the necessary trials and get the vehicles into service. Hopefully this will go more smoothly than existing or previous programmes as lessons have been learnt.

The idea of having both wheeled and tracked Drive Modules with as much commonality as possible that could also use the same Mission Modules could be the answer to all the British Army's dilemmas!

Regarding the reported issues with the Lance-R Turret on the Australian CRVs, have the German has similar issues with their IFV variants that use basically the same turret. Regarding the ammunition, well it is up to the Australians if they wish to start licenced production of the rounds or simply purchase stacks from Germany. Does Australia make ammunition for its ASLAVs and M1s?

The whole article seems to be trying very hard to find holes in the Land 400 programme and the Boxer. Of course there are going to be problems when introducing a new piece of kit, which local requirements have led to the mature design being tweaked and therefore requiring to be recertified etc. But the timescales this si happening under are substantially shorter that those of programmes being run in other countries.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:Regarding the ammunition, well it is up to the Australians if they wish to start licenced production of the rounds or simply purchase stacks from Germany. Does Australia make ammunition for its ASLAVs and M1s?
The complaint isn’t that the rounds aren’t made locally, it’s that they are only available from one place, while 25mm and 120mm are more widely produced.
Lord Jim wrote:The whole article seems to be trying very hard to find holes in the Land 400 programme and the Boxer.
It wouldn’t be the first time a news article has tried to trump up outrage against a military vehicle programme.
Lord Jim wrote:Of course there are going to be problems when introducing a new piece of kit, which local requirements have led to the mature design being tweaked and therefore requiring to be recertified etc.
You seem much more forgiving of this than you are of other programmes. Why is that?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SW1 »

Sounds like the Australians are also fond of requirement creep.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote: I wonder how much of your much vaunted, super secret, Ajax capability is provided by its payload*. Because as a vehicle, Ajax looks totally unremarkable even ignoring its habit of injuring its crew.

*a payload that could probably just as easily be carried by other vehicles. Like Boxer. A question that I'm sure is being asked is what would it take to transfer the payload across?
Perhaps it would seem that porting AJAX equipment into Boxer wouldn't be as straight forward as our resident expert thinks.
You seem to be rather challenged when it comes to reading comprehension.

I made no comment on the simplicity of transferring Ajax payload (merely the ease of carrying it out once transferred) and the article refers to problems mounting a turret on the Australian Boxer (you previously pointed out that Ajax's wonder capability wasn't located in the turret). That's two strikes against you.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

mr.fred wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Of course there are going to be problems when introducing a new piece of kit, which local requirements have led to the mature design being tweaked and therefore requiring to be recertified etc.
You seem much more forgiving of this than you are of other programmes. Why is that?
Because, of course, the Australian reported issues are just the same magnitude as Ajax and the Australian vehicle has been in development for a decade at over 3 billion pounds :roll:

Andy-M
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: 01 Jun 2015, 20:25
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Andy-M »

New video out on Youtube on the FFG: Armoured Recovery Module (ARM) for Boxer.


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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

A response to the Aussie news. Made me laff ...


seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by seaspear »

To be fair the report by the ABC did mention that the tyres had to be imported from Germany but since Australia does not manufacture tyres anyway so what and plants are being set up to manufacture the ammunition for the Boxer in Australia ,the ABC like many media bodies is poor on the basic homework

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SW1 »

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/land- ... ssion=true

“Defence has a process in place to consider placing projects as a project of concern via Independent Assurance Reviews. There has been no suggestion or recommendation that LAND 400 be listed as a project of concern,” the spokesperson said.

“[Twenty-five] Block I Boxer Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles have been accepted by Defence. The vehicles are performing well and are currently undergoing planned Verification & Validation and Operational Test & Evaluation activities.”

Defence confirmed it has “not been notified of, and is not aware of” any weight or stability issues associated with the integration of the Lance Turret.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

The UK MoD said the same about Ajax for years when they knew there were problems.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Yes but is appears the troops conducting trials etc. are not experiencing any real problems either, certainly not those previously reported. This is very different from Ajax where once it was put into the hands of the troops who were to use it, immediately problems were reported and the rest is history. As I said above all programmes have issues during development, but issues of the sort suffered by Ajax should remain unobserved until troop trials unless they have been hidden.

It would also be interesting if anyone has any links to the Bundeswehr's Boxer IFV programme which also using the Lance 2 Turret, to see if they are also having supposed weight issues. This turret or at least the original Lance was one of the first autocannon armed turrets installed on Boxer so these sudden supposed troubles need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SW1 »


Post Reply