Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
sol
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Lord Jim wrote:I am not saying that Boxer is some utopian answer to all nations problems, but for the British Army it is most likely the best and most affordable option. The Bundeswehr which of course has both Boxer and Puma and operates both with its leopard 2 tanks without any difficulty. In fact the command vehicle for all Armoured formations is a variant of the Boxer which has replaced the venerable M577G. The Bundeswehr also has no difficulty with the mobility of its Boxers when they we deployed in Afghanistan either.
Command vehicle is not exactly an IFV, isn't it. Also German still has more infantry battalion on tracked vehicles than on wheeled ones.
Lord Jim wrote:At times there appears to be some sort of memory block that makes people think the cross country mobility of the current generation of 8x8 and some 6x6 still equates to that of vehicles from the 60s and 70s. Then again at that time most nations didn't even have IFVs and used thinly armoured APCs to move the infantry with the tanks, arbeit using different tactics.
I am not. Sure, wheeled vehicles are now much more closer to tracked vehicles by capabilities but tracked vehicles are still more maneuverable outside roads.
Lord Jim wrote: I have already mentioned Poland, but is seems that the members of NATO that were former members of the Warsaw Pact have no issue operating wheeled AFVs with Tanks. Most in fact are replacing like for like, aiming to rid themselves of the soviet era BTR-60 and 70s in the APC/IFV role and the BRDM -2 in the Recce Role. I say APC/IFV role as many are taking the opportunity to gain an increase in firepower when they update to new 8x8 platforms. Russia has used 8x8 for a long time in its Motor Rifle units, operating with tanks that are part of their Brigades
And you are ignoring that all of them are either having, upgrading or buying new tracked vehicles too for their heavy units. Hungary is buying 200+ Lynx IFV, Czech is in process of acquiring a new tracked IFV, Slovakia is planing to follow the suit, Bulgaria still keeping over 200 old Cold War era IFVs and Romania, which is acquiring a lot of wheeled vehicles is at the same time upgrading their tracked IFVs. So none of them is relaying just on wheeled vehicles for their armoured infantry.

I already said that British currently don't have anything else beside Boxer to replace Warriors, and Boxer is not a bad solution. But is it ideal solution for HBCT? That is something it remained to be seen. I personally have doubts.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6301
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

sol wrote:I wonder would it better to just group or heavy armour in one brigade, with both tank regiments and maybe two battalion of armoured infantry on tracked vehicles. Those could use Warriors until something else is available and keep those two battalions operational by cannibalizing remaining vehicles. Maybe just like tank regiments have TA regiments to provide replacement crews, one TA infantry battalion could be used to provide reinforcements for armoured infantry battalions by giving them some Warriors for training.
The same thinking lead me to propose a CV90 purchase on the Ajax thread. Just for the IFV role as a Warrior replacement.

Even if Ajax survives :shock:

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6301
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:I am not saying that Boxer is some utopian answer to all nations problems..
I laughed when I read this, I'm sorry :lol: :lol: :lol:

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6227
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Despite what other nations are doing, the British Army is in a position where it has little choice than to use Ajax as has been said. IT hasn't got the funding to do the multitude of capability upgrades and introductions its need to by 2030,when its holiday ends, so any purchase of a new tracked IFV can only really happen if something else is removed from the equipment plan. The Army is more likely to be able to upgrade a number of the planned Boxer APCs to a version with greater firepower using a autocannon in an unmanned turret of between 30mm and 40mm, and add Javelin to others, in a similar way to how the US Army has upgraded a number of its Stryker Battalions.

All the other nations that are lucky enough to be able to field both new tracked IFV and wheeled APC/IFVs are using both with their armoured formations. Germany will be soon introducing its Cavalry Boxer variant with the same turret as the Australian CRV though it may be the unmanned version I a not sure.

If Ajax failed, how much of the money allocated to the programme was still available would be the main determining factor on what replaced it. But again Boxer would be a strong candidate in my opinion.

I fear the Army, though it cam out of the recent Command Paper quite bullish may find it being further pressured to lose its heavier formations in favour of a more deplorable force mix. It may only retain the Deep Precision Fires BCT as its contribution to NATO's land forces in Europe with possibly one of the LSGs and a light BCT for one of its flanks. The reasoning for this could be s desire to increase either the Royal Navy or Airforce or both as they are easier to fit in the Governments global model.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6227
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Ron5 wrote:I laughed when I read this, I'm sorry
No problem, I though it might get that reaction.

UKD
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 10 Oct 2020, 16:22
Poland

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by UKD »

This might or might not be a silly question but can a wheeled platform like Boxer function effectively in a place like northern Norway? Considering that in Europe the only two relevant regions that could be invaded by Russia are the Baltics and Scandanavia, it would be a bit mental if the entirety of our armoured infantry was unable to function in one of them.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6227
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Short answer, yes. The Finnish army uses a significant number of home grown 6x6 wheeled platforms that are a few generations behind the Boxer, which has better tyres, suspension and power train. If you are taking about 12ft+ snow drifts then you are limited to vehicles like the Viking as neither normal tracked or wheeled platforms are going to be able to operate effectively in those conditions.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

US Army is also starting a catch-up
"a release of the Army’s ‘Regaining Arctic Dominance’” strategy,” Williams said.

The strategy — the service’s first to focus on the region — was released to the public in March. It laid out plans to establish a two-star headquarters with specially trained and equipped combat brigades;"
and the vehicles going head-to-head are the old (but in new derivatives) Beowulf and Bronco3.

As @LJ says, you can't rely on tanks and just by putting a 30mm autocannon turret on their light-pressure troop transports, the Russians have created an overmatch.
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)

BB85
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by BB85 »

The boxer has completed trials in either Norway or Sweden (I can't remember where). Finland developed the Patria 8x8 and 6x6 so is happy to go all wheels for APCs. In Finland mobility will be key with ground units well dispersed because whoever controls the airspace will obliterate the opponent's ground forces. The Baltic's will be more reliant on heavy armour, capturing and holding ground. If Latvia was happy to go with Boxer I'd like to think it's well suited to their environment. Ultimately the British army can't afford to have specialised vehicles to suite every niche environment.
Boxer will definitely fit the bill, it's infuriating we pulled out if it in 2003 because it wouldn't be air transportable in a C130 when the army new we would be ordering Atlas.

sol
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

BB85 wrote:Finland developed the Patria 8x8 and 6x6 so is happy to go all wheels for APCs.
For APC, yes, for IFV no. Finnish Army still has over 200 CV9030 and BMP-2M and they are not getting rid of them. All BMP-2M were modernised recently and for CV9030, Finland already sign contract with BAe for modernisation. On the other side, both Norway and Sweden have more tracked armoured vehicles then wheeled. Norway upgraded its CV90 fleet, and is still ordering additional vehicles, not to mention they it is buying new tanks too.

I am sure that Boxer is good vehicle, but question is is it the best vehicle for HBCT, and how well will they cooperate with CR3s. And unlike Lithuania, British Army is not even having IFV version and no indication that it would get one any time soon.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6227
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

We have cancelled the WCSP, Ajax is in a bit of trouble and we have an initial batch of over 500 Boxers on order for teh APC, Command, Ambulance and Specialist roles. We are initially replacing the Warriors with Boxer APCs but we also need to purchase a number of Boxer variants to fully flesh out the Infantry Battalions and to provide support vehicles to other units. It would be far cheaper to purchase a number of Boxer IFV Mission Modules to partially equip the Infantry Battalions in the HBCTs, and a number of IFV Mission Modules have been developed which are either in service, will soon be, or are being developed, so development costs can be kept down. Running costs for a platform like Boxer compared to its tracked equivalent are substantially lower as are training. A Boxer is inherently more flexible and survivable in a modern battlefield, either in the Grey Zone or full contact. It can self deploy and is mush more resistant to mines, whilst have similar protection against other threats.

So the above and the fact that the Army cannot afford another family of tracked vehicles and the support infrastructure to support them until the mid to late 2030s at the earliest. We are already waiting ten years for the Army's initial transformation, we do not really want to wait another five or more years. We should simply go with Boxer and make the most of it.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: We are already waiting ten years for the Army's initial transformation, we do not really want to wait another five or more years.
While i agree with the sentiment, 5+ years is what the ISDs are for just about every major (conceptually, if not in the number of units indicated for now) army prgrm
Lord Jim wrote: a number of IFV Mission Modules have been developed which are either in service, will soon be
Have you rated them? As in having the top three in mind
- we have/ would have such a mismatch of calibers that are getting close to the situation in Oz (as even the Rarden soldiers on)
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)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6301
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:We have cancelled the WCSP, Ajax is in a bit of trouble and we have an initial batch of over 500 Boxers on order for teh APC, Command, Ambulance and Specialist roles. We are initially replacing the Warriors with Boxer APCs but we also need to purchase a number of Boxer variants to fully flesh out the Infantry Battalions and to provide support vehicles to other units. It would be far cheaper to purchase a number of Boxer IFV Mission Modules to partially equip the Infantry Battalions in the HBCTs, and a number of IFV Mission Modules have been developed which are either in service, will soon be, or are being developed, so development costs can be kept down. Running costs for a platform like Boxer compared to its tracked equivalent are substantially lower as are training. A Boxer is inherently more flexible and survivable in a modern battlefield, either in the Grey Zone or full contact. It can self deploy and is mush more resistant to mines, whilst have similar protection against other threats.

So the above and the fact that the Army cannot afford another family of tracked vehicles and the support infrastructure to support them until the mid to late 2030s at the earliest. We are already waiting ten years for the Army's initial transformation, we do not really want to wait another five or more years. We should simply go with Boxer and make the most of it.
You seem to be saying that even if the army had plenty of money, Boxer would be the best choice for an IFV.

Not many armies in the world would agree with that.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:whilst have similar protection against other threats.
I’ve never seen a Boxer decked out in ERA.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:whilst have similar protection against other threats.
I’ve never seen a Boxer decked out in ERA.
Here is a sales-y piece that offers a 'counter'
https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/ ... /index.php
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: 6227
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Ron5 wrote:You seem to be saying that even if the army had plenty of money, Boxer would be the best choice for an IFV.

Not many armies in the world would agree with that.
I am actually saying the opposite. Boxer will be replacing Warrior in the four to be Mechanised Infantry Battalions. If money could be found then purchasing a number of IFV Mission Modules for a number of these it would increase the capability of these units. The problem lies in how we replace the significant number of FV430 series platforms still in service. Yes a number went through an upgrade programme, but the costs of operating them, let alone deploying them is greater then for equivalent wheeled platforms. In addition the Army needs a platform(s) to provide an enhanced SHORAD capability, ideally replacing the stormer as the chassis for the Starstreak/LMM system, as well as being the mount for dismounted users of the Same system, who currently use the Spartan variant of the CVR(T) family in many cases.

I am pretty sure that add on armour packages for the Boxer are available, though maybe not ERA, but I maybe wrong.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6227
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

A great short video from Rheinmetall, posted on You Tube showing how the Mission Modules can be changed in the field;

The use of a MAN HX 8x8 to move the crane, and unload it using its EPLS means a field workshop can be set up and packed up quickly, very important these days. Having just a deployable crane rather than a JCB look alike, means costs can be kept down, whilst the vehicles themselves have a pretty good cross country capability so said workshop should be able to be set up fairly close to the action if needed.. I wonder if the British Army might pick a few of these to be integrated into the Mechanised Infantry Battalions HQs, or allocated to REME. We already have the MAN HX 8x8s EPLS so it should be affordable.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote: 19 Nov 2021, 00:05 A great short video from Rheinmetall, posted on You Tube showing how the Mission Modules can be changed in the field;
But why would you ever want to do that?
On top of which, how much additional weight and cost does that drive into the design?

BB85
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by BB85 »

I imagine this would be a lot easier to stick on an Atlas or C17 with a base vehicle and fly to Mali where a switch over could easily be made if a boxer was damaged by an IED.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

BB85 wrote: 19 Nov 2021, 12:05 I imagine this would be a lot easier to stick on an Atlas or C17 with a base vehicle and fly to Mali where a switch over could easily be made if a boxer was damaged by an IED.
If a Boxer is written off by an IED, what are the chances that the mission module is undamaged?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6301
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Seems Luddites are alive and well :D

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 759
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

mr.fred wrote: 19 Nov 2021, 12:10
BB85 wrote: 19 Nov 2021, 12:05 I imagine this would be a lot easier to stick on an Atlas or C17 with a base vehicle and fly to Mali where a switch over could easily be made if a boxer was damaged by an IED.
If a Boxer is written off by an IED, what are the chances that the mission module is undamaged?
And who's going to make that assessment in the field? I'd have thought after a catastrophic incident like an IED you'd want a full weld inspection before you start chopping it onto another vehicle.

It's a bit like sayinga turreted vehicle can just swap turrets onto a spare hull. I've not known spare hull to be kept in reserve, or this to be done as a battle damage repair. Boxer certainly addresses the spare hulls issue by repurposing.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Ron5 wrote: 19 Nov 2021, 12:30 Seems Luddites are alive and well :D
If you can’t answer a question, that’s not the fault of the one asking the question, you know?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6301
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

mr.fred wrote: 19 Nov 2021, 12:37
Ron5 wrote: 19 Nov 2021, 12:30 Seems Luddites are alive and well :D
If you can’t answer a question, that’s not the fault of the one asking the question, you know?
Fair enough but there's a load of circumstances that would disable the chassis and leave the module unaffected. I guess we'll see if the the Boxer armies pick up this capability.

BB85
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by BB85 »

The scenario can be reversed when the module is damaged and needs to be replaced or just no longer required if the army wants to swap one out for an ambulance module they can. A big benefit of boxer is that modules and base vehicles are significantly lighter to transport by air than a single 38T 8x8 APC. If something breaks you only need to transport half a vehicle in an Atlas or C17 and switch out in the field.

Post Reply