Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

[Tempest414]

All very good points the way I see it we don't have enough money for more than two Heavy mech BCT's . We also don't have enough money for a third lighter recce wagon like Jaguar so I went big maybe I should have gone lighter and gone for something like the 25 ton Jaguar for the Cavalry in both the heavy and medium BCT's but this would open a new logistics pipe line

[Lord Jim]

I like the Australian Cavalry Regiments with one Squadron of fourteen M1A1AS and two Squadrons with ASLAV, each with around eighteen vehicles. They then add a Mechanised Infantry Battalion (M113AS4) and a Motorised Battalion (Bushmaster) together with a Artillery Regiment (M777). They top it of with both a Signals Regiment and an Engineering Regiment and you have the new Australian Army Combat Brigade of which they will have three. Under the current programme the M777 is to be replaced by the Australian version of the K9 155mm SPG, and the venerable M113 by a new modern state of the art IFV and the ASLAV by the Boxer CRV. Each Combat Brigade is designed to be able to field two Combat teams and with having three Brigades the Combat Brigades are on a three year rotation. They are supported by six reserve Combat Brigades, reorganised to each provide a Light Combat Team to support their assigned Regular counterpart.

This is what Australia is building up, fully funded and nearly all under contract. Oh I forgot they are also ordering HIMARS, 29 AH-64E Apache Guardians, and a new ground based AD system based on a Norwegian one using the same AIM-120Ds as the RAAF and could also use ESSM with a little modification, and all mounted on their new protected 4x4!

Boxer has to be done right or else we might as well give up high intensity warfighting of any kind and only deploy SF and elite infantry outside of the UK. If we followed the Australian example we could probably get four such BCTs with Challenger 3s, Boxer IFVs, MRV(P), wheeled SPGs and MLRS and CAMM-ER. It might be more affordable and more suited to the Army's future roles that the current Heavy and Light BCTs We would still have the 16 Air X, Ranger Regiment, SFG, and Royal Marine Commandos, and maybe these could be boosted a little with the Ranger Regiment growing to three or four Battalions for example, and maybe add an extra Company to each "Raiding" Commando.

Just a few thoughts.

[seaspear]

This is from an earlier report suggesting similar to previous comments
https://www.army-technology.com/news/uk ... gger-flee/

[Ron5]

More good news ..

[Lord Jim]

Great things start small.

[Ron5]

There's been some pictures released showing the french unmanned turret with CT40 gun on a french vehicle (VBCI?) as entered in a Greek competition You can't help wondering how the turret would look on top of a British Boxer. I find the one showing how little the turret intrudes into the vehicle interior to be the most impressive.

[Lord Jim]

Yep, if the Army wants an IFV Boxer one could be developed quite quickly and reach units in less than two years, like the Lithuanians did with the Israeli turret on theirs.

[jonas]

Commons written anwers :- I thought this would be more relevant on here, than on the warrior thread. Seems Boxer may get a bit more firepower reading between the lines.

https://questions-statements.parliament ... 7-06/28104

[Ron5]

Thanks Jonas, I found the answer to be most interesting:

Operational Analysis highlighted the requirement for the Army to reconsider how it creates the conditions for success in the close battle. Following the Integrated Review, two Armoured Brigade Combat Teams will be formed from the modernisation of two Armoured Infantry Brigades. It is intended that over the next decade these will be equipped with Ajax armoured reconnaissance, Challenger 3 Main Battle Tanks and Boxer mechanised infantry vehicles.

The Armoured Brigade Combat Team will be centred around a digitally connected nucleus of integrated capabilities, including Ajax, Boxer, Challenger 3 and AH64E. Modernised long-range effects, including precision weapons and surveillance, is intended to significantly improve the ability to deal with threats at long range, creating the conditions for success for the Armoured BCT and reducing risk in the close battle.

As part of this modernisation we intend to accelerate and enhance the Boxer programme. The new fleet of modernised wheeled APCs will replace the Warrior IFV fleet and Boxer will become the primary mechanised infantry platform for the Army as Warrior is retired from service.

The Minister says Warrior SCP was cancelled, not to save money and not because the army didn't need a Warrior replacement. But because Boxer would do a better job in reducing the risk (to soldiers) in the close battle as a Warrior replacement.

Fair to ask why it took so long to cancel the program don't you think? Boxer didn't overnight become superior to Warrior did it? And how can it be superior without a big gun on top?

[Lord Jim]

The statement also still refers to Boxer as an APC and as a Mechanised platform which is what the British Army call their troops mounted in APCs as against Armoured Infantry in IFVs. I do believe that the Boxer will get a firepower up lift but from watching the Defence Select Committee grilling the Defence Secretary, when asked he stated that the Boxer could get more "Spiky", he does like that word, by the addition of Javelin, something we all new would be an option as the RWS being purchased for Boxer can be easily reconfigured to mount the ATGW.

Reading into the above statement it seems the Army's new doctrine is to find and fix an opponent, hammer him with long range "Effects", and only close once he has had the S@&% kicked out of him. That way there should be far less need to assault a position but rather occupy and fortify whilst the Recce and Deep Fires mover on to the next target. I wonder how this doctrine compares to our NATO allies besides the USA?

I also do not like it that Ajax is going to be part of once were named "Heavy Brigade Combat Team", but now "Armoured Brigade Combat Team", god the Army's doing it again, coming up with snappy names for units that mislead their true capabilities, yes one out of the four units is a Armoured Regiment but in the past it would have been a Mechanised formation due to the two Mechanised Infantry Battalions. But Joe Public understand that "Armoured" means big heavy boxy things with big guns like they have seen in war movies, but won't have a clue what "Mechanised" means and get confused calling they "Heavy", probably thinking that means the soldier are simply obese!

Anyway back to why I do not like having Ajax in the BCT. IF doctrine is to occupy and hold a position after dealing with minimal resistance, then it is infantry you need, supported by Armour. The Deep Fires BCT will still be out in front screening the BCT and each Regiment/Battalion should have a Recce Section/Troop to provide close recce. Therefore the BCT should have three Infantry Battalions, and we have plenty of those to convert into Mechanised, simply look to the four existing Armoured Infantry Battalions and the two that we going to become Boxer equipped Battalions already.

The acceleration of the Boxer programme is again mentioned, but considering the glacial place it was originally going to move at I still think waiting until 2025 for the first Battalion is too slow. The mention of enhancing I take to mean more than increasing teh platforms firepower, I hope at least this is to fill in the capability gaps in teh Boxer fleet's line up, such as a mortar vehicle to begin with.

Hopefully we are not going to end where we have been before, the Army coming up with good long term ideas, but therefore then leaving itself too much time to bollocks things up.

[RunningStrong]

Thanks Jonas, I found the answer to be most interesting:

Operational Analysis highlighted the requirement for the Army to reconsider how it creates the conditions for success in the close battle. Following the Integrated Review, two Armoured Brigade Combat Teams will be formed from the modernisation of two Armoured Infantry Brigades. It is intended that over the next decade these will be equipped with Ajax armoured reconnaissance, Challenger 3 Main Battle Tanks and Boxer mechanised infantry vehicles.

The Armoured Brigade Combat Team will be centred around a digitally connected nucleus of integrated capabilities, including Ajax, Boxer, Challenger 3 and AH64E. Modernised long-range effects, including precision weapons and surveillance, is intended to significantly improve the ability to deal with threats at long range, creating the conditions for success for the Armoured BCT and reducing risk in the close battle.

As part of this modernisation we intend to accelerate and enhance the Boxer programme. The new fleet of modernised wheeled APCs will replace the Warrior IFV fleet and Boxer will become the primary mechanised infantry platform for the Army as Warrior is retired from service.

The Minister says Warrior SCP was cancelled, not to save money and not because the army didn't need a Warrior replacement. But because Boxer would do a better job in reducing the risk (to soldiers) in the close battle as a Warrior replacement.

Fair to ask why it took so long to cancel the program don't you think? Boxer didn't overnight become superior to Warrior did it? And how can it be superior without a big gun on top?

The reality is that WCSP was only at demo phase, not production. So as funds were already committed for demo but nothing commited for production, there was no reason to make a hasty decision to kill or keep the programme.

[Lord Jim]

I agree, possibly it was sacrificed to save Ajax, before the skeletons came out of the cupboard.

[Ron5]

A set of pictures from yesterday showing a Boxer with a remote RT60 turret at the new Boxer facility at WFEL in the UK.

Interesting n'est-ce pas?

Click the little right arrow to see them all.

[Lord Jim]

Very interesting. Are you sure it is a RT60 Turret? It appears to be a Bundeswehr vehicle and they have test the Lance-R Turrets and teh Turret off the Puma on their Boxers so far. The former has already been accepted for the Australian CVR and will equip the Bundeswehr's IFV variant. Lithuania uses an Israeli Turret. It seems strange we would look at a turret no one else has installed on Boxer, but if it is only to take a spin around the block a few times with then fine.

Mind you anything is better than relying on a .50cal and a prayer like we are now.

[Ron5]

Very interesting. Are you sure it is a RT60 Turret? It appears to be a Bundeswehr vehicle and they have test the Lance-R Turrets and teh Turret off the Puma on their Boxers so far. The former has already been accepted for the Australian CVR and will equip the Bundeswehr's IFV variant. Lithuania uses an Israeli Turret. It seems strange we would look at a turret no one else has installed on Boxer, but if it is only to take a spin around the block a few times with then fine.

Mind you anything is better than relying on a .50cal and a prayer like we are now.

That's what a guy on arrse called it. Personally I'd prefer to see the frenchie one with the CTA40 gun.

[whitelancer]

What's the matter with just using the now redundant turret off of Warrior WCSP. Would seem to be a no brainer if they are going to fit a turret of course.

[Ron5]

I think they've just borrowed one prepared for another customer for a look see.

[Tempest414]

I would agree they are going to run some tests see if and how boxer would would work as a IFV . I would also agree that we should use the warrior turret or the French CT40 turret

[SW1]

Think the manned turrets for warrior ect are too heavy for boxer. But they need to decide if there going all in on cta40. They have a habit or changing there mind

[RunningStrong]

What's the matter with just using the now redundant turret off of Warrior WCSP. Would seem to be a no brainer if they are going to fit a turret of course.

I don't think there's much benefit to that. Firstly, there was never a production contract so there aren't a pile of turrets, and secondly it was a fully integrated turret like AJAX, so all the C4I equipment would have to change anyway.

[Andy-M]

A variation of that turret has already been shown on an 8x8 and is also shown fitted on the boxer, albeit in mock-up form.



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQhkYsrWAAAkgcp.jpg:large

[Ron5]

[Lord Jim]

The half way house here would be to develop a CRV variant of the Boxer for the British Army using the Turret off Ajax. The majority of the sensors etc. are mounted in said turret, especially the Orion optics/sights. Weight should not be an issue, Boxer has been tested with heavier turrets mounting 105mm guns for example. There is plenty of space in the hull for additional equipment and other items such as cameras on the hull are already being installed on the UK's Boxer anyway. It may only produce a vehicle with 90% of Ajax's capabilities, but it would still be a digital enabler and an effective recce platform ideal for forming integral Recce Platoons or Sections within the Boxer equipped Mechanised Infantry Battalions.

Regarding an IFV variant, we really should be looking at an unmanned turret to retain the maximum internal volume for dismounts and their kit. Nexter have displayed a unmanned turret mounting a CTA40 cannon and two ATGW, whilst Rheinmetall have displayed Boxer with at least two unmanned turrets mounting either a 35mm or 30mm, both with the option of also mounting up to two ATGWs. The questions is really whether the British Army wants a Boxer IFV as there are options out their already that would require minimum alteration, famous last words, to be suitable for UK service.

However much like the previous "Strike" Brigades, the new Brigade Combat Teams will require a fair number of additional Boxer variants to actually be fit for purpose. Ok the Army has set itself ten years to actually form these units, but it would be nice if they at least appeared to be looking to seriously fill these holes.

[RunningStrong]

I thought people were saying AJAX was fundamentally too big for recce? And now people are saying Boxer (which is the same height without turret), would be a suitable recce replacement?

[Ron5]

I thought people were saying AJAX was fundamentally too big for recce? And now people are saying Boxer (which is the same height without turret), would be a suitable recce replacement?

Not really. Pretty sure "people" are saying Ajax is not fit for purpose and should be cancelled.

Of course there's other "people" say that Ajax doesn't have any noise or vibration issues.