Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
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, 13:02 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.
What circumstances though? I’m having difficulty thinking of any that wouldn’t be better addressed by repairing the chassis or simply bringing in a whole new vehicle.

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, 15:40
Ron5 wrote: 19 Nov 2021, 13:02 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.
What circumstances though? I’m having difficulty thinking of any that wouldn’t be better addressed by repairing the chassis or simply bringing in a whole new vehicle.
If you can’t answer a question, that’s not the fault of the one asking the question, you know?

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Lets say a Boxer takes an ATGW hit to the front taking out the engine and Driver's slot. The platform is designed and built so that unless the vehicle received absolutely catastrophic damage the Mission module will be able to be removed, and would still be useable. It is more than possible to change modules in the field with a suitable crane or ARV, and it takes around 45min to do so, that is removing the existing module and fitting a new one.

However the idea is to have the more specialised modules spare so that more basic variants like the APC can be changed to a Command or Mortar vehicle is the need for one of those is greater in a given situation. Whether the UK will take advantage of that or simple buy one Mission Module for one Drive Module or over time actually buy additional modules for new and existing variants is not known. On the Plus side it is easy to develop new Boxer variants as all that is required is developing a new Mission Module not a whole vehicle. Unlike previous more traditional platforms, new variants of Boxer require far fewer trials and as has been shown by the Lithuanian IFV version the time from order to development to in service was less than two years, thanks to the platforms modularity.

This would bode well for the British Army is it decided it wanted an IFV version to compliment the planned APC variant for example, and would make the in service date well within the Army's current ten year plan up to the early 2030s. The Same could also apply to any Air Defence, Mortar Bridging or Combat Engineering variants is ordered.

But many do not approve or agree with the modularity of the Boxer, preferring to stick with one traditional platforms where any modifications take substantially longer, just look at Warrior for a bad example, and cost more as well as taking entire vehicles out of the existing fleet. Boxer of course only requires the Mission Module to be worked on as the Drive Module chosen by the UK has ample power and beefed up drive train and suspension to handle heavier Mission Modules, and it will be unlikely it will need modification. With only a small pool of surplus modules it would be easy for a modification programme to be carried out without any vehicles being removed from units.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 450
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by jimthelad »

Fire (as in the flamey stuff) does tend to be a consequence of an ATGM hit unless you have serious armour protection. Modern tandem or binary ATGM HEAT warheads generate a lot of lateral plasma flow when in contact with the triggering surface. This improves the chance of beating ERA. I think if it knocked out one of the compartments (especially the front end) it would spark up quite a bit. The back end might be different but I think the REME section would have a hernia trying to rebuild.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 02:37 Lets say a Boxer takes an ATGW hit to the front taking out the engine and Driver's slot. The platform is designed and built so that unless the vehicle received absolutely catastrophic damage the Mission module will be able to be removed, and would still be useable.
There's no bulkhead or door between the driver compartment and the mission modules. Not sure how you expect damage to be contained.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

I agree, my point was that even though the front aka. the Drive Module would be probably terminally damaged, the Mission Module would have a fair chance of being reusable.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 15:11
Lord Jim wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 02:37 Lets say a Boxer takes an ATGW hit to the front taking out the engine and Driver's slot. The platform is designed and built so that unless the vehicle received absolutely catastrophic damage the Mission module will be able to be removed, and would still be useable.
There's no bulkhead or door between the driver compartment and the mission modules. Not sure how you expect damage to be contained.
Depends on the module. For some the door is blanked off to make a continuous bulkhead.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 16:04
RunningStrong wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 15:11
Lord Jim wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 02:37 Lets say a Boxer takes an ATGW hit to the front taking out the engine and Driver's slot. The platform is designed and built so that unless the vehicle received absolutely catastrophic damage the Mission module will be able to be removed, and would still be useable.
There's no bulkhead or door between the driver compartment and the mission modules. Not sure how you expect damage to be contained.
Depends on the module. For some the door is blanked off to make a continuous bulkhead.
My sympathies to the driver.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 19:40
Ron5 wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 16:04
RunningStrong wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 15:11
Lord Jim wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 02:37 Lets say a Boxer takes an ATGW hit to the front taking out the engine and Driver's slot. The platform is designed and built so that unless the vehicle received absolutely catastrophic damage the Mission module will be able to be removed, and would still be useable.
There's no bulkhead or door between the driver compartment and the mission modules. Not sure how you expect damage to be contained.
Depends on the module. For some the door is blanked off to make a continuous bulkhead.
My sympathies to the driver.
Image
Image
Image

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote: 22 Nov 2021, 16:03
RunningStrong wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 19:40
Ron5 wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 16:04
RunningStrong wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 15:11
Lord Jim wrote: 21 Nov 2021, 02:37 Lets say a Boxer takes an ATGW hit to the front taking out the engine and Driver's slot. The platform is designed and built so that unless the vehicle received absolutely catastrophic damage the Mission module will be able to be removed, and would still be useable.
There's no bulkhead or door between the driver compartment and the mission modules. Not sure how you expect damage to be contained.
Depends on the module. For some the door is blanked off to make a continuous bulkhead.
My sympathies to the driver.
Image
Image
Image
If I remember correctly, the Gun System maintains a path for the driver to exit to rear.

The MLRS is a render, but with system raised still allows an emergency path.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

It seems most variants have access from the Mission Module to the Driver's Station in the Drive Module. As for a ATGW hit, well unless you are in a platform like the Challenger 2 everyone is in a world of pain really. Anyway we can go round and round about whether the Boxers modularity is beneficial or not, I am in the former camp and won't be moving unless something happens in the real world under full combat conditions. Only then will the verdict be in.

Now all the British Army needs to do is order a second tranche of Boxers to cover many of the roles that the MRV(P) phase 2 was to under take, such as buying additional Ambulances, as well as the other specialised variants we have discussed at length here. If we were to accept more deliveries from the German line there is no reason we could not have these as well as the first tranche in service by 2030, placing the British Army in a far better place. As for the remainder of the roles allotted to MRV(P), well the improved Mastiff design built for Mali should be applies to the remainder of the fleet and its support version and then they should do the job nicely.

AS for MRV(P) phase one, well the in service Foxhounds can cover that for the time being, and then we will be spoilt for choice if and when we proceed with the purchase of the phase 1 platforms.

Going off topic, with our existing wheeled platforms, with some like the Mastiff requiring work to improve its mobility, as long as the additional specialist versions of the various platform are procured/rebuilt, the Army is not in a bad place for operations outside of eastern Europe. The critical areas that must be addressed are precision fires and air defence regardless of where we operate.

Regarding the former I strongly believe we should not be upgrading our existing M270 GMLRS, especially as the programme will be deliver the final vehicles until well into the 2030s. Instead we should be ordering the HIMARS system, obviously using the MAN HX platform for logistical purposes. It has all the capabilities out of the box our upgraded M270s are planned to have, yet with HIMARS will will have a brand new platform that is easier to deploy and has mush less operating costs. Drivers for example only have to learn to drive a MAN truck rather than a tracked AFV. If paired with a capable wheeled gun platform we will have platforms that can operate in all operations from eastern Europe to Africa or the Middle East and find it far easier to get them there and support them.

On Air Defence, the Army should follow the lead of the Royal Marines and use the shoulder fired version of Starstreak to compliment the pedestal mount to provide protection further forward, even assigning these weapons to the Support Companies of Regiments/Battalions. WE also urgently need a gun based SPAA platform base on Boxer to enable it to keep up with other units as well as having good protection and be easier to support due to being part of a family of AFVs rather than a bespoke design.

With all of the above we just need to put our money where the need is. The sums involves a very small compared to programmes being run by the other two services, but are just as important as any of these. You never know if the MoD gets a real liking to wheeled AFVs the Royal Marines may end up with s few of the new 8x8 Amphibious Assault vehicles being built for the USMC, to compliment the much lighter platforms like Polaris. Unlikely but strange things sometimes do happen.

Here endith yet another sermon to the unwashed masses! :D

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

I thought the 155mm turret shown above was unmanned?

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 22 Nov 2021, 16:34 I thought the 155mm turret shown above was unmanned?
It is! But supposedly the crew is Driver/Operator and Commander. No idea where Commander is stationed.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by BB85 »

Yeah I'm not sure how a boxer 155m would work. The HX3 recently revealed by Rheinmetall or Archer systems carry the crew in the same vehicle. It will be interesting to see what option the army selects as it looks like they want to replace both their 105 and AS90 options

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote: 22 Nov 2021, 16:17
If I remember correctly, the Gun System maintains a path for the driver to exit to rear.
But you don't remember where the commanders sits? Okaay.

For LJ: the turret is unmanned, not the entire vehicle.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote: 22 Nov 2021, 17:50
RunningStrong wrote: 22 Nov 2021, 16:17
If I remember correctly, the Gun System maintains a path for the driver to exit to rear.
But you don't remember where the commanders sits? Okaay.

For LJ: the turret is unmanned, not the entire vehicle.
Well one is obvious to people that have seen the vehicle in the flesh, and the other information is surrounded by 50mm plus of steel.

Yet again showing you don't spend much time around AFV, despite your supposed expertise.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

RunningStrong wrote: 22 Nov 2021, 16:17 If I remember correctly, the Gun System maintains a path for the driver to exit to rear.
RunningStrong wrote: 22 Nov 2021, 16:55 It is! But supposedly the crew is Driver/Operator and Commander. No idea where Commander is stationed.
Rear exit is for Commander who sits behind driver in extended crew cabin.

Image



It doesn't sound as the best solution as to be able to leave vehicle, Commander should either go through driver hatch or rear exit which could only be accessed if turret is not blocking it.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

@sol - Great stuff! Not ideal, but still gives both crew two routes in most scenarios.

Hope there's space for the BV!

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Lord Jim wrote: 22 Nov 2021, 16:33 You never know if the MoD gets a real liking to wheeled AFVs the Royal Marines may end up with s few of the new 8x8 Amphibious Assault vehicles being built for the USMC, to compliment the much lighter platforms like Polaris. Unlikely but strange things sometimes do happen.
Why would Royal Marines exchange their, already great, Vikings with ACV? I don't think that current organization and role of the RM require such vehicles. Not to mention that ACV is much bigger and heavier vehicle than Viking which, unlike ACV, is air-portable by Chinook. And even being smaller and lighter than ACV, Viking could carry greater payload, 5t compared to 3.6t. So what will RN gain with vehicle which is even less transportable then the one they currently own? Even the acquiring to work together with Vikings is completely unnecessary. That would just further complicated logistic chain of such a small unit. Just because USMC has it it does not mean that it should be suitable for RMs too, as I doubt RMs would ever plan to conduct storming a beach by force.

IMO, replacing a perfectly good vehicle just for a sake of getting a wheeled one is nonsense.

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: 23 Nov 2021, 08:34
RunningStrong wrote: 22 Nov 2021, 16:17 If I remember correctly, the Gun System maintains a path for the driver to exit to rear.
RunningStrong wrote: 22 Nov 2021, 16:55 It is! But supposedly the crew is Driver/Operator and Commander. No idea where Commander is stationed.
Rear exit is for Commander who sits behind driver in extended crew cabin.

Image



It doesn't sound as the best solution as to be able to leave vehicle, Commander should either go through driver hatch or rear exit which could only be accessed if turret is not blocking it.
Brilliant, well done @sol :thumbup:

So the answer is maybe that's also true for the other variants I pictured i.e there is a commander exit hatch but not usable from all positions of the payload.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

You learn something new everyday, well done Sol.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

So there will be 5 battalions equipped with Boxer APC, 1st Mercian and 1st Royal Welch in 12th ABCT and 1st RRF, 5th Rifles and 1st PWRR in 20th ABCT.

https://www.army.mod.uk/media/14919/adr ... _25nov.pdf

This new ORBAT looks quite weird, no Artillery regiments in both ABCT, seems like all are put into 1st Deep Recce Strike Brigade Combat Team (is this one of the longest names for brigade?). 4th LBCT has no regular artillery unit, 7th LMBCT (another very long title) should be mechanised (Foxhounds I guess? Which would mean 4th will not have those?). 3rd RGR is not mentioned at all, just forgotten or removed from ORBAT?

Post Reply