Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
I think I can see what you are getting at @Caribbean. I haven't got the figures, but from what the original Challenger 2 LEP was supposed to cover, mainly removing obsolescence from the FCS, compared to what we are now getting, it would appear that whatever was originally budgeted for, if at all was significantly less than the £800M we are now spending.
Projects that were not mentioned in the existing EP were variants of the Ajax and Boxer needed to properly equip the units that were to use them as well as the replacement for the AS-90, which probably only had minimum seed money. In addition the Army is now looking for a new Air Defence weapon system, it is upgrading the GMLRS as part of the upgrade of the Army's Precision Fires capability, along with the aforementioned AS-90 replacement and we haven't even got the the additional capabilities in Cyber.
If all these requirements, many of which have not been publicly identified, and may not be until the Army releases its follow on paper in the late summer, have been fully funded then the Army has managed an amazing loafs and fishes miracle. Somehow how the Army looks in 2030 is not going to be what many on here including myself, as well as other real experts, think the Army should if it is to be able to meet the capability aspirations desired by itself and the Government.
Projects that were not mentioned in the existing EP were variants of the Ajax and Boxer needed to properly equip the units that were to use them as well as the replacement for the AS-90, which probably only had minimum seed money. In addition the Army is now looking for a new Air Defence weapon system, it is upgrading the GMLRS as part of the upgrade of the Army's Precision Fires capability, along with the aforementioned AS-90 replacement and we haven't even got the the additional capabilities in Cyber.
If all these requirements, many of which have not been publicly identified, and may not be until the Army releases its follow on paper in the late summer, have been fully funded then the Army has managed an amazing loafs and fishes miracle. Somehow how the Army looks in 2030 is not going to be what many on here including myself, as well as other real experts, think the Army should if it is to be able to meet the capability aspirations desired by itself and the Government.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
It is obviously complicated as the 'top down view' was that the paper would be ready before the summer; I am starting to believe that the integrated review was done in command stove pipes; the billions level divvy-up between them was sorted... and now the detail is being worked on (talk about the Devil)Lord Jim wrote:follow on paper in the late summer
Quite so, and only if these now appear we will know that the BCT concept will mean anything - it wasn't there when the EP was formulatedLord Jim wrote: not mentioned in the existing EP were variants of the Ajax and Boxer needed to properly equip the units that were to use them as well as the replacement for the AS-90
- it would be informative to get to see an EP version that contains the main-gated monies; and then the residual separately. Talk about 'vain wishes'...
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
They really should publish a revised EP when they produce a Review so that the two are joined up and the clock is reset.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Isn't it late autumn when they come out
- so a long wait (esp. considering that the enhanced budget over 4 yrs was announced... in November)
- so a long wait (esp. considering that the enhanced budget over 4 yrs was announced... in November)
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Bound for N. Norway? There's still snow 'up'there
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
So a Bridgelayer was being trailed. I wish the MoD was not so secretive about such things when there isn't really a need to be. But then they have always had the mentality the it is best to keep everything secret and release only what they want, where as the US military puts its resources into making sure what has to be keep secret is. But this does make you think what other vehicles are being trailed as a possible result of lessons learned for the Experimental "Strike" unit.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Quite. But there is also a growing pool to draw from; like the engineering vehicle (I don't think anyone's bought it yet) that an independent German firm built - as they have done the same using e.g. the Leo2 as a starting point.Lord Jim wrote: this does make you think what other vehicles are being trailed as a possible result of lessons learned for the Experimental "Strike" unit
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
I think this is being funded by WFEL parent company for a possible German requirement.Lord Jim wrote:I wish the MoD was not so secretive about such things
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
The MOD have nothing to do with it, like they have nothing to do with the AJAX bridging or overwatch.Lord Jim wrote:So a Bridgelayer was being trailed. I wish the MoD was not so secretive about such things when there isn't really a need to be. But then they have always had the mentality the it is best to keep everything secret and release only what they want, where as the US military puts its resources into making sure what has to be keep secret is. But this does make you think what other vehicles are being trailed as a possible result of lessons learned for the Experimental "Strike" unit.
It's great industry are investing in demonstrating these capabilities, but I see zero sign of MOD putting hands in their pockets.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
+RunningStrong wrote: like they have nothing to do with the AJAX [bridging or] overwatch
May be this new, three-layer prgrm will change that with Overwatch; AJAX might be just one of the suitable 'carriers'RunningStrong wrote: I see zero sign of MOD putting hands in their pockets.
- the Bren 'Universal' Carrier - come back
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Not likely to happen they are skint. Unless of course they get some more from the Treasury which I doubt.RunningStrong wrote: but I see zero sign of MOD putting hands in their pockets.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
taking the good from this is there is a fully working model of both Boxer and Ajax when it comes to bridge laying which we have not had to fund
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Well we shall see. The Army is supposed to have locked itself in its bedroom to try to figure out how to match existing programmes, mainly Boxer and Ajax, to the new doctrine, and is supposed to have the first answers in the summer. I believe it has become accepted that the current contracts and the numbers and make up of variants are far from what they actually need to create the Deep Fires and Heavy BCTs. Both Rheinmetall and General Dynamics will probably be open to a change in mix up of variants put probably less so in numbers. This maybe a problem with Ajax as we are ordering too many in my opinion , but not with Boxer, as the opposite is true there.
The Army's single Armoured Engineering Regiment (RE) is both insufficient, and inappropriate for many of the missions envisioned by the Army. It is only really needed if any of the Challenger 3s are deployed and so could have most of its kit prepositioned on the continent. The M3 Amphibious Bridge and Terrier Combat Engineering Tractor are the most valuable engineering platforms we currently have, though we need more of the latter as does its other user the Bundeswehr. But to support the Boxer units as well as the units within the Light BCTs we need a family of wheeled easily deployable and support vehicles and a CET and AVLB based on the Boxer would easily meet this need.
Overwatch should ideally be met by a turret or module that can be easily mounted on either an Ares chassis of fit into a Boxer Mission Module. Given out distinct lack of under armour ATGWs of any type this is a vital capability that must be given high priority. It also goes without saying that a Mortar Carrier version of the Boxer is now compulsory. The Final version of the Boxer that needs high priority is an air defence variant, but whether this is a high end SPAAG, SPAAM or a low end carrier for Starstreak/LLM teams with their three round pedestal launchers will depend on resources.
The Army's single Armoured Engineering Regiment (RE) is both insufficient, and inappropriate for many of the missions envisioned by the Army. It is only really needed if any of the Challenger 3s are deployed and so could have most of its kit prepositioned on the continent. The M3 Amphibious Bridge and Terrier Combat Engineering Tractor are the most valuable engineering platforms we currently have, though we need more of the latter as does its other user the Bundeswehr. But to support the Boxer units as well as the units within the Light BCTs we need a family of wheeled easily deployable and support vehicles and a CET and AVLB based on the Boxer would easily meet this need.
Overwatch should ideally be met by a turret or module that can be easily mounted on either an Ares chassis of fit into a Boxer Mission Module. Given out distinct lack of under armour ATGWs of any type this is a vital capability that must be given high priority. It also goes without saying that a Mortar Carrier version of the Boxer is now compulsory. The Final version of the Boxer that needs high priority is an air defence variant, but whether this is a high end SPAAG, SPAAM or a low end carrier for Starstreak/LLM teams with their three round pedestal launchers will depend on resources.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
While the 'inappropriate' for many missions is true, insufficient (they are a specialised force and not meant to be everywhere at the same time) grates a bitLord Jim wrote:The Army's single Armoured Engineering Regiment (RE) is both insufficient, and inappropriate for many of the missions envisioned by the Army.
- after all they have 72 highly specialised tanks, so 1 for every 2 MBTs they will be supporting (and of course supporting all the other formations supporting the MBTs)
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Ok I withdraw the "Insufficient", in the original context. I should have said the Royal Engineers have insufficient Armoured Engineering Vehicles to support the new Army organisation which includes predominately medium and light vehicles. The is especially so as many of these will be forward deployed and required to be rapidly deployed to support those already forward.
But I still think the majority of the Army's existing Heavy platforms based on the Challenger 2 should be either deployed in Germany/Poland or have the bulk of their equipment prepositioned there, with the same applying to a Heavy BCT's equipment. That the Deep Fires BCT should be wholly deployed on the continent is a no brainer as far as I am concerned.
But I still think the majority of the Army's existing Heavy platforms based on the Challenger 2 should be either deployed in Germany/Poland or have the bulk of their equipment prepositioned there, with the same applying to a Heavy BCT's equipment. That the Deep Fires BCT should be wholly deployed on the continent is a no brainer as far as I am concerned.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
With that I agree, asLord Jim wrote:I still think the majority of the Army's existing Heavy platforms based on the Challenger 2 should be either deployed in Germany/Poland or have the bulk of their equipment prepositioned there, with the same applying to a Heavy BCT's equipment.
1. rotation, rather than basing would thus be a realistic option
2. would fall in line with NATO thinking (rotation, instead of permanent garrisons in the states bordering with Russia (does Belorus count? In the present circumstances I would bet that Russia sees the country as their forward-defence zone... and do not want to see that change )
3. and we have existing facilities from which to roll out the kit, with a reasonable remaining transit
Whereas
I am not so sure about this one as it does have a significant Reserves component, and they and the regulars need 'face time' within the not so great yearly allocation of days, in order to instantly gel as a BCT when the balloon goes upLord Jim wrote: the Deep Fires BCT should be wholly deployed on the continent is a no brainer
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Impressive; are there two alternative sizes? Or what should one make of that photo
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Yes.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Impressive; are there two alternative sizes? Or what should one make of that photo
Posted by Nicholas Drummond with the caption
Boxer bridgelayer laying a 22-metre MLC 50 WFEL bridge. In the foreground is a 14-metre MLC100 bridge that can also be carried
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Finally the gist is starting to emerge:SW1 wrote:
1. the main weapon system is the dismounts, in the back
2. two, complementary suppression systems carried (the autocannon with a short round, which then affords more of them to be carried)
"XM813 30x173 mm chain gun, coaxial 7.62x51 mm MG, 12.7 x 99 mm HMG, @ThalesDefence
Catherine sensors "and
3. should the primary anti-tank weapons not be immediately available, then there is a self-defence option
"@byMBDA, MMP anti-tank missiles"
which, being NLOS when necessary, makes it possible to set up a layered "anti-access" zone, to buy time for the systems that can deal with the threat head-on to arrive
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
I still prefer the German unmanned turret (Lance-R) with its 30mm autocannon and Spike-LR2 missiles. Going down this route would mean major commonality with the Bundeswehr and Australian Army, A missile that is part of a family that can already meet all the requirements of the Army's next generation ATGW programme now, not in ten years, and one which is constantly evolving.
I am finding the whole Boxer programme increasingly frustrating. In reality there is little reason why we should not be receiving Boxers as per the original order now, off the German production line. We would be able to receive the up gunned Boxers and other new variants by the end of 2022. Therefore we should have sufficient Boxers in place, along with Ajax and Challenger 3 to equip the first Heavy BCT by 2025, and the second no later than 2028.
Well at least it should be possible, but the Army has accepted at least a further ten years capability holiday from being able to conduct high level warfare on top of the past decade and a bit. SO as long as nothing happens until the 2030s and all the programmes deliver on time and on budget, the Army should be in good shape. But that also depends on our possible adversaries not expanding their capabilities and capacity during the same time frame.
I am finding the whole Boxer programme increasingly frustrating. In reality there is little reason why we should not be receiving Boxers as per the original order now, off the German production line. We would be able to receive the up gunned Boxers and other new variants by the end of 2022. Therefore we should have sufficient Boxers in place, along with Ajax and Challenger 3 to equip the first Heavy BCT by 2025, and the second no later than 2028.
Well at least it should be possible, but the Army has accepted at least a further ten years capability holiday from being able to conduct high level warfare on top of the past decade and a bit. SO as long as nothing happens until the 2030s and all the programmes deliver on time and on budget, the Army should be in good shape. But that also depends on our possible adversaries not expanding their capabilities and capacity during the same time frame.
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Sounds a pretty comprehensive fit. The benefit is I guess being that these modules are all being designed and options for the future exist. Boxer would of been the vehicle i would of built the army’s 3rd div around but there seems to be institutional resistance to both unmanned turrets and modern 8x8 vehicles, perhaps that will change as more experience with them builds up.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Finally the gist is starting to emerge:SW1 wrote:
1. the main weapon system is the dismounts, in the back
2. two, complementary suppression systems carried (the autocannon with a short round, which then affords more of them to be carried)
"XM813 30x173 mm chain gun, coaxial 7.62x51 mm MG, 12.7 x 99 mm HMG, @ThalesDefence
Catherine sensors "and
3. should the primary anti-tank weapons not be immediately available, then there is a self-defence option
"@byMBDA, MMP anti-tank missiles"
which, being NLOS when necessary, makes it possible to set up a layered "anti-access" zone, to buy time for the systems that can deal with the threat head-on to arrive