Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7105
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 237 times
Been liked: 278 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

There was always a requirement for a vehicle like Boxer, and the Army has seen it as a critical capability to allow the rapid deployment of troops. This coincided with the need to upgrade Warrior and Ajax. In the 2021 Command Paper one of those three had to go due to lack of funds and warrior was chosen.

Going forward I feel the Army will get far more out of the Boxer platform that it would Warrior. The former can be easily adapted to carry out a large number of roles, whereas the latter really was only going to be an IFV after Warrior support vehicle modification programme was quietly canned. So yes if you look at things one way you could say Boxer took money away from Warrior, but I look at it as the most expendable platform was cancelled.

Email Ittome
Junior Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 19 Jun 2022, 14:07
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 7 times
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Email Ittome »

Maybe MoD can utilize the investment in the Lockheed turret by mating it with tracked Boxer. Now you can have both tracked and wheeled IFV. Choose the drive module depending on what is needed. One of the concern for wheeled Boxer was mobility in wet and muddy European and SE Asia, maybe this solves that problem.

I don’t see any downside of procuring tracked drive modules.

Now only if MoD can force GDLS to stop working on Ajax the vehicle and work on getting the electronic suite into a Boxer mission modules.
These users liked the author Email Ittome for the post (total 2):
SW1SD67

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1250
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 31 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Email Ittome wrote: 19 Jun 2022, 14:46 I don’t see any downside of procuring tracked drive modules.
You don't know if they're any good, you don't know if the existing modules are compatible with the different vibrations and you don't know how much they cost.
Email Ittome wrote: 19 Jun 2022, 14:46 Now only if MoD can force GDLS to stop working on Ajax the vehicle and work on getting the electronic suite into a Boxer mission modules.
Cost them a pretty penny to do that and there's 200-odd of the things in existence that you'd need to address in one way or another

Email Ittome
Junior Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 19 Jun 2022, 14:07
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 7 times
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Email Ittome »

mr.fred wrote: 19 Jun 2022, 16:03
Email Ittome wrote: 19 Jun 2022, 14:46 I don’t see any downside of procuring tracked drive modules.
You don't know if they're any good, you don't know if the existing modules are compatible with the different vibrations and you don't know how much they cost.
That could be true, but I trust ARTEC, and to some degree RBSL, to have a vehicle working properly before GD have Ajax in service.
But in reality you have very few options: Keep rolling out obsolete Warrior, Get something more modern out there or Just have wheeled IFV.

- Keeping the obsolete Warrior is out of the question.

- Since British Army will have Boxers in inventory, they can maximize their investment and tailor the combat group accordingly, wheeled tracks depending on the environmental conditions or type of enemy. Also they've been testing this for three years and don't you think they would have tested the range of modules before they start showing this off? I would think that would be the first thing they tested. For goodness sake they put a self loading 120mm on a turret. So 40mm shouldn't be a problem. Get in on the development program early as possible. Get in to partnership with others. This is why UK should have gone with CV90, they have more users, so more people are looking to improve the platform. Who is using ASCOD, Spain and Austria?

- They can, for all we know, be out of the Tracked IFV all together, then all of this is moot. But I would like to think they haven't, because British Army has not order an IFV version of wheeled Boxer, so there might be a chance for it.

Like it or not you are going to have Boxers in your inventory with various modules. It only makes sense to have some commonality with the mission modules. Having multitude of different vehicle type seems wasteful these days. That is why when people see the variants MoD has ordered so far and think they made the wrong choice. They can always order mission modules as they see fit.

Out of all of the potential options this seems like the least risky and potential for domestic work-share for UK industry.
mr.fred wrote: 19 Jun 2022, 16:03
Email Ittome wrote: 19 Jun 2022, 14:46 Now only if MoD can force GDLS to stop working on Ajax the vehicle and work on getting the electronic suite into a Boxer mission modules.
Cost them a pretty penny to do that and there's 200-odd of the things in existence that you'd need to address in one way or another
We all know everything cost money, cancel it, keep working on the fix, repurpose the work already done for Boxer modules... etc. That is a given. This is how most business work. Bad choices were made, fine that happens, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater as they say.

If I were the MoD and British Army, I wouldn't want whatever fix GD come up with, it'll be a compromised system with limitation on a defected platform. It'll be gift that keeps on giving. You have to cut loose.

In this situation, you have to work on a compromise and get your lawyers to work. GD can keep the money and earn more by start working on the integration of the electronic suite to Boxer mission modules.

You would think, electronic suite should be platform agnostic.... right?!? I mean if someone tells me that GD made the chassis integral to the electronic suite, then GD really needs to fired on the spot. These should be modular because why would you make that sensor suite, things that change year by year, not modular. These thing should be future proof? Am I crazy to think that?

Unfortunately, in the document for the upcoming "Lessons Learned" investigation, it seems no decision will be made on the fate of this program, rather what not do in the future. Which is scary, because by December, still no decision will be made on this disaster.
These users liked the author Email Ittome for the post (total 4):
Jake1992SD67Lord JimJensy

SD67
Member
Posts: 440
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 38 times
Been liked: 37 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SD67 »

I think we’re all underestimating the reputational damage to a firm like GD if a reference customer takes them to court. This is the sort of thing that costs the CEO his job pension share options etc. Whereas what is the damage to us? Worst case we meet them half way and get a billion or so. Seriously the MOD needs to grow a pair. Trinidad and Tobago sued BAE and won

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7105
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 237 times
Been liked: 278 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

I couldn't agree more with Ittome on this. If the British Army is adamant that only a tracked platform can carry out the IFV and Recce roles then the Tracked Boxer platform is by far the most sensible choice. The savings in maintenance alone would make it worth it, but adding the modular Mission Modules that can be shares across both tracked and wheeled variants makes not doing so illogical. I also agree that ARTGEC would not have shown off their Tracked Boxer demonstrator with doing a substantial amount of work to ensure the Mission Modules are inter changeable/ They already have a Modular tracked platform in the form of the KF-21 Lynx so developing another tracked modular platform without an additional set on bonuses would be pointless, even if said platform shared some commonality with another family.

Thought my personal preference it to stick with the wheeled Boxer, if both were adopted it would allow some interesting options. For example whilst the Recce, Armoured and Armoured Infantry units could use a Recce version of the Tracked platform the Mechanised units could use a wheeled one. Even more interesting would be the RCH155 Mission Module, allowing both tracked and wheeled versions of the gun.

The biggest issue facing the Army as I see it is what to do with Ajax. As pointed out, if the platform does actually enter service it is most likely be a compromise, with associated restrictions. Yes it will meet the requirements laid out in the contract only for this to be followed by a very large "BUT". There must be quite a battle brewing in the MoD between to old guard who believe in muddling through with alot resting on saving face and a newer bunch who believe you should carry on a failing project for the sake of it, and it is better to cut you r losses. This will also be a political decision which makes everything more complicated.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1250
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 31 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote: 20 Jun 2022, 18:36 I couldn't agree more with Ittome on this.
No surprises there.
Lord Jim wrote: 20 Jun 2022, 18:36 If the British Army is adamant that only a tracked platform can carry out the IFV and Recce roles then the Tracked Boxer platform is by far the most sensible choice. The savings in maintenance alone would make it worth it, but adding the modular Mission Modules that can be shares across both tracked and wheeled variants makes not doing so illogical.
Do you know what the savings in maintenance would be? The tracked vehicle has a whole new drive train, so that's different. You might find that you increase the maintenance demands on your shared mission modules because they weren't designed to sustain a tracked environment.
Lord Jim wrote: 20 Jun 2022, 18:36 I also agree that ARTGEC would not have shown off their Tracked Boxer demonstrator with doing a substantial amount of work to ensure the Mission Modules are inter changeable
Being able to fit a module is different to it operating to required levels under different environments. If it were so easy there would be no need for trials.
Lord Jim wrote: 20 Jun 2022, 18:36 The biggest issue facing the Army as I see it is what to do with Ajax. As pointed out, if the platform does actually enter service it is most likely be a compromise, with associated restrictions.
Why is that a given? It's possible that GD and the Army* come up with a fix that removes all restrictions on Ajax.
I would think that a tracked vehicle designed to fit modules designed for a wheeled vehicle is also likely to be a compromise with associated restrictions.
Lord Jim wrote: 20 Jun 2022, 18:36 There must be quite a battle brewing in the MoD between to old guard who believe in muddling through with alot resting on saving face and a newer bunch who believe you should carry on a failing project for the sake of it, and it is better to cut you r losses.
Why must there? Isn't what you present a false dichotomy? Why should it be the old guard vs the new (and presumably better) group?

There's a lot of emotional appeals going on here that I'm curious about. You don't have hard data.

* the Army is included as part of the problem was their equipment. - the new headsets that the Army is procuring may also remove restrictions and damages associated with other in service vehicles.
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post:
RunningStrong

Email Ittome
Junior Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 19 Jun 2022, 14:07
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 7 times
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Email Ittome »

mr.fred wrote: 20 Jun 2022, 20:09
Lord Jim wrote: 20 Jun 2022, 18:36 I couldn't agree more with Ittome on this.
No surprises there.
Lord Jim wrote: 20 Jun 2022, 18:36 If the British Army is adamant that only a tracked platform can carry out the IFV and Recce roles then the Tracked Boxer platform is by far the most sensible choice. The savings in maintenance alone would make it worth it, but adding the modular Mission Modules that can be shares across both tracked and wheeled variants makes not doing so illogical.
Do you know what the savings in maintenance would be? The tracked vehicle has a whole new drive train, so that's different. You might find that you increase the maintenance demands on your shared mission modules because they weren't designed to sustain a tracked environment.
Lord Jim wrote: 20 Jun 2022, 18:36 I also agree that ARTGEC would not have shown off their Tracked Boxer demonstrator with doing a substantial amount of work to ensure the Mission Modules are inter changeable
Being able to fit a module is different to it operating to required levels under different environments. If it were so easy there would be no need for trials.
Yes, tracked vehicle would come with new set of maintenance requirement, but you're stating something that is already given and it comes with having any tracked vehicle in your inventory.

But what is also a fact is British Army just killed Warrior upgrade program, what are their options?
(Which were laid out in my humble opinion, not that it matters, but then again if we didn't have ideas what is the point of these type of forum?)

1. Keep Warrior
Not very good option, but they'll keep deploying them unfortuantely.

2. Get something new? CV90 or Tracked Boxer or Ajax (j/k, that isn't going to happen), Lynx or Redneck
Choosing any of these will have the similar associated maintenance cost. However, tracked and wheeled Boxer will have same power-plant and possibly some common components. So that is a saving that can be beneficial versus other vehicles.
Yes, mission modules will have it's own maintenance issues, but then again, so will every equipment you purchase to replace the Warrior.

3. No more Tracked IFV.
There's been some rumbling from Aussies that wheeled Boxer is good in hot and dry but not as useful in Wet and Muddy environment. And as war in Ukraine has proven, you need to stay off the road! So Tracked vehicle isn't dead yet.
Since no decision has been made on the IFV, UK can start building their mission modules to withstand the tracked version that can also used on the wheeled Boxer. UK already have this turret they'd paid for from Lockheed, it's been tested on a tracked Warrior and Ajax :sick: so why not test it on the Tracked Boxer.

To me, an outsider without any knowledge in machination of military arm procurement, tracked Boxer just seems right, including the concerns raised by others. If there are better options, please do share it.

Also, no one is saying, "if it fits, it good to go!", I think you're just being pedantic. I don't believe anyone is thinking Tracked Boxers will roll out of the factory and be ready to go to war. Of course they'll need to trial the vehicle, that's a given, so I'm pretty sure they'll be plenty of trials before any decision are made. If not, let the manufacturer do all the testing and certification. for goodness sake, even if you bought CV90 off the shelf, they'll still need to test it. Again tracked Boxers are not panacea, it's looks to be best option.

mr.fred wrote: 20 Jun 2022, 20:09
Lord Jim wrote: 20 Jun 2022, 18:36 The biggest issue facing the Army as I see it is what to do with Ajax. As pointed out, if the platform does actually enter service it is most likely be a compromise, with associated restrictions.
Why is that a given? It's possible that GD and the Army* come up with a fix that removes all restrictions on Ajax.
I would think that a tracked vehicle designed to fit modules designed for a wheeled vehicle is also likely to be a compromise with associated restrictions.
How many years has it been since they known about the issue? You're telling me they still need more time? Are you f*cking kidding? If you haven't fixed the issue at this point, there is a fundamental problem that can't be resolved. Unless there is a redesign, which won't happen, therefore it will be a compromised POS, you're being delusional if you think that 5hit can be fixed.

Given the track (pun intended) record, I have more faith in ARTEC over GD at this point.

Again, if you have other ideas, i would like to hear about it as well.
These users liked the author Email Ittome for the post:
wargame_insomniac

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1250
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 31 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Email Ittome wrote: 20 Jun 2022, 23:47 I think you're just being pedantic.
Probably. Doesn't mean I'm wrong though.
Email Ittome wrote: 20 Jun 2022, 23:47 Also, no one is saying, "if it fits, it good to go!"
Not exactly, but you're saying that you can see no downsides and Jim is saying it's illogical to do anything else. I think that there could well be downsides and doing something else might well be the logical step.
Email Ittome wrote: 20 Jun 2022, 23:47 UK already have this turret they'd paid for from Lockheed, it's been tested on a tracked Warrior and Ajax so why not test it on the Tracked Boxer.
I believe that the structure is different but much of the functional stuff is the same, but to test it on Boxer would require money. Unless the British Army decides it does want an IFV, hot on the heels of deciding that they don't, that testing isn't likely to happen.

Personally, I think that the army does need an IFV, but I'm not sure which is the best vehicle. I have reservations about it being the latest bandwagon.
Email Ittome wrote: 20 Jun 2022, 23:47 How many years has it been since they known about the issue? You're telling me they still need more time? Are you f*cking kidding? If you haven't fixed the issue at this point, there is a fundamental problem that can't be resolved. Unless there is a redesign, which won't happen, therefore it will be a compromised POS, you're being delusional if you think that 5hit can be fixed.
Well, getting angry and using curse words about something that you patently don't understand is a sure way to bolster your credibility on the internet.
Identifying a fix is different to implementing a fix which is again different to getting that agreed with a number of different authorities and all of that is different to having the results of all that made public.
Email Ittome wrote: 20 Jun 2022, 23:47 Given the track (pun intended) record, I have more faith in ARTEC over GD at this point.
Even if that is valid, and there's enough against GD at this point, it doesn't mean that ARTEC is magically free from the tyranny of physics. It's this kind of sub-critical thinking that could be cited as a cause for the GD problem in the first place.
Email Ittome wrote: 20 Jun 2022, 23:47 Again, if you have other ideas, i would like to hear about it as well.
I think it would be best to look at the options and evaluate them based on cost and performance before comparing both to the need and finances available. Off hand that's going to be KF41, CV90, Warrior 2, Redback, Ascod 2, Tracked Boxer and Wheeled Boxer.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3524
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 147 times
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

If we are talking about replacing Ajax ( if it fails ) then we need to move fast as we are now using Warrior in the armoured Cavalry role. For me this means we can't chase another rabbit hole i.e tracked Boxer and there for it would mean a new comp between KF-41 , CV-90 and Redback

Also for me with the move to the deep fires recce groups maybe we should be thinking of giving them a mix of 40mm and 105mm vehicles something a section with 3 x 40mm and 1 x 105mm Ajax or KF-41
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Dahedd

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3524
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 147 times
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

For me we need to nail down on what our Boxer Battalions will get and for me we should be looking at giving them something like

APC's with RWS fitted with 30mm cannon and 40mm GMG plus 2 Javelin
C&C with RWS fitted with 12.7mm HMG and 2 Javelin
Overwatch with 16 Brimstone missiles plus a RWS with 12.7mm HMG ( this would replace the old ATGW troop )
Mortar fitted with NEMO 120mm (

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 937
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 26 times

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Sticking a turreted mortar on BOXER sounds like an incredibly expensive and complicated option for a very limited capability (range, effect).

81 or 120 open-roof and manually fed still gets you rate of fire. If you can load a CR2 on the move, surely you could load a mortar too.

Email Ittome
Junior Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 19 Jun 2022, 14:07
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 7 times
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Email Ittome »

mr.fred wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 07:59
Email Ittome wrote: 20 Jun 2022, 23:47 I think you're just being pedantic.
Probably. Doesn't mean I'm wrong though.
Email Ittome wrote: 20 Jun 2022, 23:47 Also, no one is saying, "if it fits, it good to go!"
Not exactly, but you're saying that you can see no downsides and Jim is saying it's illogical to do anything else. I think that there could well be downsides and doing something else might well be the logical step.
I didn't say you were wrong, In fact. i don't think there is anyway to say what is right or wrong answer because we don't have all the information.
Also I didn't say there were no downside, in fact I think there are plenty of downside that we do not know yet. But from outside looking in, it does beg the question, is there a better option? This is a very promising start to an issue that needs to be addressed. I'm thinking UK would be wise to get involved early as possible to remedy a potential problem. If there are other options, again, please lets hear about it so we have additional information. But you also have to apply the same rational that you have applied to the tracked Boxer.
mr.fred wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 07:59
Email Ittome wrote: 20 Jun 2022, 23:47 UK already have this turret they'd paid for from Lockheed, it's been tested on a tracked Warrior and Ajax so why not test it on the Tracked Boxer.
I believe that the structure is different but much of the functional stuff is the same, but to test it on Boxer would require money. Unless the British Army decides it does want an IFV, hot on the heels of deciding that they don't, that testing isn't likely to happen.

Personally, I think that the army does need an IFV, but I'm not sure which is the best vehicle. I have reservations about it being the latest bandwagon.
There are some benefits that can be derived from failed or cancelled project. This is one of those things that can be beneficial. I do realize that turret ring size is a major obstacle with integration, not sure Warrior and Boxer had the same size right. But I believe Lockheed turret has already been fitted to a boxer Mission module, so there is a genesis to start testing this integration. Again, not saying it'll be ready to go or free, (don't need to be said, but for someone's benefit, I'll state it for them) but you have a foundation to re-start this program. UK can leverage lessons learned from Warrior sustainment program, so again, can it be repurposed? If it's cost prohibitive then by all mean, get one of the turret that's been tested by other countries. I'm not wedded to this turret. if there are better and cheaper that can be produced in UK all the better.

Also, I wouldn't call it hoping on a bandwagon, I see logical progression from wheeled to tracked vehicle that can possbile use the same mission modules. If modularity can help leverage your limited resources to increase the effectiveness, this will only benefit the British Army. I do believe modularity would help logistics in the future of military equipment and it's a intriguing idea that has the backing of a multi billion dollar armored company. If ARTEC think it's a feasible idea, then I don't see why UK should not investigate it. The consortium that built Griffon for the French Army, were able to keep 70% of its components with the Jaguar. These are two completely different vehicle. So if they can achieve this type of commonality with tracked and wheeled Boxer, why would you not? (Disclaimer, I understand it will cost money and be subjected to testing and trials. And they will not just fit but also function properly in Tracked and Wheeled Boxer)
mr.fred wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 07:59
Email Ittome wrote: 20 Jun 2022, 23:47 How many years has it been since they known about the issue? You're telling me they still need more time? Are you f*cking kidding? If you haven't fixed the issue at this point, there is a fundamental problem that can't be resolved. Unless there is a redesign, which won't happen, therefore it will be a compromised POS, you're being delusional if you think that 5hit can be fixed.
Well, getting angry and using curse words about something that you patently don't understand is a sure way to bolster your credibility on the internet.
Identifying a fix is different to implementing a fix which is again different to getting that agreed with a number of different authorities and all of that is different to having the results of all that made public.
First of all, I never identified myself as an expert, so of course I don't have any idea what is actually going on. However, I'm making an educated guess from the information we've seen. Recently they presented ASCOD2 for Slovakian evolution, and Slovaks also noted the vibration issue. So I think there is a fundamental issue with the design. Why would you submit something that has known issue? Unless you're telling the new customer that when you buy this, you can design it so it doesn't kill you with vibration. Ok, I'm just being cynical.

Speaking about something that I know, software implementation at a large corporation. we see this type of BS all the time. Sometime software isn't what was sold and requirements were not meet. What usually happens is the vendor tells you, we'll fix it in the next patch or next version. In the meantime you still pay and have to implement this software that isn't what you wanted. I would think this is more of an issue with an armored vehicle. You can't just rewrite the code for a physical design.

So that is why I'm calling the eventual Ajax fix a bullshit. You know for a fact they will never redesign it without UK paying for it.

The problem has been identified, and no fix has been implemented, therefore my point still stand. After all these years you can't fix the problem, then it's a piece of 5hit. Do you actually think they'll come up with a miracle fix? You think some engineer will have an Eureka moment? I wouldn't hold my breath. That is why probability of this fix being a workaround and not a fix is most likely. In ITIL problem management, it's a workaround until the problem is fixed.

And I'm seeking or in need of internet credibility, not chasing some internet IFV expertise level up here, and if I feel like cursing then I will proceed to f*cking curse. Also it's not really anger, it's a literary tool to display shock and dismay.

I think I've been civil and courteous, I will not be dragging this topic into name calling and using a straw-man fallacy to win any internet arguments. I would hope that you refrain from disparaging others just because of the choice of the words that were used. We're all grown ups here. There aren't any words we have seen or heard before. Therefore, I will not engage in any subject that is not related to Tracket Boxer any further. This is just a mental exercise in subject we all enjoy discussing. Thank you for you consideration and lets just have constructive conversation.
mr.fred wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 07:59
Email Ittome wrote: 20 Jun 2022, 23:47 Given the track (pun intended) record, I have more faith in ARTEC over GD at this point.
Even if that is valid, and there's enough against GD at this point, it doesn't mean that ARTEC is magically free from the tyranny of physics. It's this kind of sub-critical thinking that could be cited as a cause for the GD problem in the first place.
That's why it's called faith, as in you are more willing to believe something when you've seen their track record. Just because I have faith in one company based on their track record, doesn't mean I have blind trust. I'm making no assumptions here.

I am under no illusion that ARTEC/RBSL will magically produce a world beating tracked Boxer IFV. Far from it. Nor am I saying put all the eggs in one basket with Boxer. What I would like to see is UK getting on the tracker Boxer program early to develop the modules that can be useful and leverage the Boxers program got UK benefit. One of the issues with going with ASCOD was the lack of user base. If they had gone with CV90, they would have had more data and information based upon the number of customers that were already using them.
mr.fred wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 07:59
Email Ittome wrote: 20 Jun 2022, 23:47 Again, if you have other ideas, i would like to hear about it as well.
I think it would be best to look at the options and evaluate them based on cost and performance before comparing both to the need and finances available. Off hand that's going to be KF41, CV90, Warrior 2, Redback, Ascod 2, Tracked Boxer and Wheeled Boxer.
I would agree that looking at other programs would be wise decision, but in this days of commonality and austerity, does it make sense to have different types of vehicles? I would hate to think no lessons were learned from Ajax saga. I made this point elsewhere, CVR(T) FV430 were simple design that could be modified to fit the requirement, for goodness sake, it's still service. If British Army could get that much usage out of Boxers, we all be in our adult diapers talking about the Boxer controversy of 2022.


Thank you again for indulging me by reading my ranting or not reading them. But I would appreciate a civil discourse, we already have too many hostility that we have deal with in real life. I would like to hear others ideas, good or bad or indifferent. We all do this for our enjoyment, we enjoy discussing this type of topic. No need for name calling... other than General Dynamic UK, they can go f*ck themselves.

Email Ittome
Junior Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 19 Jun 2022, 14:07
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 7 times
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Email Ittome »

Tempest414 wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 09:39 If we are talking about replacing Ajax ( if it fails ) then we need to move fast as we are now using Warrior in the armoured Cavalry role. For me this means we can't chase another rabbit hole i.e tracked Boxer and there for it would mean a new comp between KF-41 , CV-90 and Redback

Also for me with the move to the deep fires recce groups maybe we should be thinking of giving them a mix of 40mm and 105mm vehicles something a section with 3 x 40mm and 1 x 105mm Ajax or KF-41
This might need to be a budget conscious purchase if Ajax is canned. Meaning off the shelf purchase, and of the three you mentioned, KF-41 and Redneck would be ideal as they are the newest vehicles out there. But since we, arbitrarily, gave ourselves a limited budget, CV-90 would have be the choice. They are already in production with, other nations already operating them. Making it the safest choice.

As far as KF-41 and Redneck, I don't think it's in production yet or any nations operating them, I think Hungary ordered them? So does UK have the political will to go in on a new vehicles?

I've advocated for Tracked Boxer for possible Warrior replacement, but that's because of the investment already made by MoD and part of the production will be UK via RSBL. But if RSBL can also work out a domestic production deal for KF-41, then full steam ahead with KF-41.

I mean MoD surprised everyone with Boxer and E-7 Wedgetail procurement deal, so maybe someone over there has common sense.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1250
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 31 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Email Ittome wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 15:22 Also I didn't say there were no downside, in fact I think there are plenty of downside that we do not know yet.
You said you couldn't see any downside. I presented some potential downsides.
Email Ittome wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 15:22 First of all, I never identified myself as an expert,
You're writing an awful lot and making some very definite statements for someone who isn't an expert. Assuming that your location flag is correct I understand this may be the American way, but maybe dial it back a bit?
Email Ittome wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 15:22 The consortium that built Griffon for the French Army, were able to keep 70% of its components with the Jaguar. These are two completely different vehicle.
They are both 6 wheeled armoured vehicles. In terms of drive train and mechanical environment they're virtually identical. Tracked is very different to wheeled.
Email Ittome wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 15:22 Speaking about something that I know, software implementation at a large corporation. we see this type of BS all the time. Sometime software isn't what was sold and requirements were not meet. What usually happens is the vendor tells you, we'll fix it in the next patch or next version. In the meantime you still pay and have to implement this software that isn't what you wanted. I would think this is more of an issue with an armored vehicle. You can't just rewrite the code for a physical design.

So that is why I'm calling the eventual Ajax fix a bullshit. You know for a fact they will never redesign it without UK paying for it.
GD has a contract to deliver 589 vehicles that conform to the requirement for a certain amount of money. It will be as much, if not more, of a victory if they are held to that rather than making sure that the lawyers get rich and the Army has to wait even longer and pay even more for new vehicles.
If you could go back in time a decade or so you could take the view that the whole requirement for a unique recce vehicle, that shared a chassis for an IFV that we also needed, was wrong. But hey, we can't, so we work from where we are and with what we've got.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3524
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 147 times
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

RunningStrong wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 11:36 Sticking a turreted mortar on BOXER sounds like an incredibly expensive and complicated option for a very limited capability (range, effect).

81 or 120 open-roof and manually fed still gets you rate of fire. If you can load a CR2 on the move, surely you could load a mortar too.
weren't they already working on Boxer with NEMO if not I am more than happy with 81mm open top

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3524
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 147 times
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

Email Ittome wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 16:50
Tempest414 wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 09:39 If we are talking about replacing Ajax ( if it fails ) then we need to move fast as we are now using Warrior in the armoured Cavalry role. For me this means we can't chase another rabbit hole i.e tracked Boxer and there for it would mean a new comp between KF-41 , CV-90 and Redback

Also for me with the move to the deep fires recce groups maybe we should be thinking of giving them a mix of 40mm and 105mm vehicles something a section with 3 x 40mm and 1 x 105mm Ajax or KF-41
This might need to be a budget conscious purchase if Ajax is canned. Meaning off the shelf purchase, and of the three you mentioned, KF-41 and Redneck would be ideal as they are the newest vehicles out there. But since we, arbitrarily, gave ourselves a limited budget, CV-90 would have be the choice. They are already in production with, other nations already operating them. Making it the safest choice.

As far as KF-41 and Redneck, I don't think it's in production yet or any nations operating them, I think Hungary ordered them? So does UK have the political will to go in on a new vehicles?

I've advocated for Tracked Boxer for possible Warrior replacement, but that's because of the investment already made by MoD and part of the production will be UK via RSBL. But if RSBL can also work out a domestic production deal for KF-41, then full steam ahead with KF-41.

I mean MoD surprised everyone with Boxer and E-7 Wedgetail procurement deal, so maybe someone over there has common sense.
I fill Boxer wheeled will replace Warrior in service as we will only have two heavy BCT's with

1 x Armoured regt = CH-3
1 x Cavalry regt = Ajax
2 x Infantry Battalions = Boxer

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1250
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 31 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

RunningStrong wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 11:36 Sticking a turreted mortar on BOXER sounds like an incredibly expensive and complicated option for a very limited capability (range, effect).

81 or 120 open-roof and manually fed still gets you rate of fire. If you can load a CR2 on the move, surely you could load a mortar too.
With a turreted mortar like NEMO it would also fill the role of direct fire HE for a Boxer-only battlegroup and be somewhat more survivable than an open-topped vehicle on a modern battlefield.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7105
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 237 times
Been liked: 278 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Oh well I might as well chip in again.

ARTEC has deli8vered Boxer to four nations so far and with the exception of the weight of the turret on the Australian Army's Boxer CVRs, there have been few issues with the platform or its modules to date. It is now safe to say that Boxer is rapidly becoming a mature platform and ARTEC in partnership with other manufacturers have developed a large number of Mission Modules that have all be qualified on the Boxer Drive Module.

There have been other successful pairings of Tracked and wheeled AFVs, the AMX-10P and AMX-10RC for one. The shares many common components, but the two versions of Boxer take this to another level, ARTEC are not stupid and will have done their best to ensure the existing Mission Modules from the wheeled Boxer are applicable to the new tracked version, using computer aided design and engineering tools. The day where you can only test something is to have in tested physically are long gone. Yes there is still a needed for some to be carried out and ARTEC have built at least one demonstrator to conform what the computer results have told them. If GDUK had followed this more closely with the ASCOD2 and AJAX maybe the issues wouldn't have arose as they have done.

So is the tracked Boxer ready for service, no. Could it be before 2030, quite possibly. The British Army will by than have already begun to realise the benefits of having a wheeled platform replace many tracked ones, especially in training and running costs. Both of these are a given, and the ability to easily change Mission Module within one hour, even in the field adds more flexibility. Would the Army gain the same level of savings with the tracked variant, no as tracked platforms are innately more maintenance intensive and require more logistical resources to keep them going.

But does the British Army need the Tracked Boxer? I personally do not think so and the experience of using the Boxer the Bundeswehr has, where it has replaced many of its old M113Gs, is that it can keep up with the tracked platforms that make up its Panzer and Panzer Grenadier Brigades. Neither has the Netherland of Lithuania had any real mobility issues, in fact the opposite is the case as the wheeled platform is far superior on roads, able to travel hundreds of miles under their own power, unlike their tracked predecessors.

The British army is already looking to improve the "Spikiness", of the Boxer in the planned Mechanised Infantry Battalions, beyond the current Machine Guns or Grenade Launchers. The obvious first option is to fit Javelin to the RWS and other nations using the same RWS have already done this. But going further there are already a number of manned and unmanned turrets that are cleared for Boxer Mission Modules, a couple even using the CTA40 Cannon used on Ajax. The Boxer has the common digital network on board, just like Ajax and all modern turrets and RWS are being designed to include this making far easier to install as well as making formations networked.

Using the Ajax turret on Boxer should be possible, as its mission modules have taken turrets requiring larger turret rings, such as turrets mounting large calibre Tank guns. But I do not think any Recce variant of Boxer would require the Ajax turret to be an effective platform. Yes its optics are a generation or more above the Army's best current optics but many modern turrets and RWS have similar or possibly even superior optics etc.

As with any programme there are bound to be some unforeseen issues with Boxer over time, but the UK is seeming to be the largest planned user already before even looking at options beyond what has already be ordered. However being the biggest user will most likely bring greater benefits to the UK beyond the Army. Partnering with Rheinmetall on a programme of this scale can only be a good thing for the Army and MoD. WIll boxer solve all the Army's capability issues? No but it has the chance to solve many of them if the right level of investment is made, especially given its growth potential and open architecture design.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
Email Ittome

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 937
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 26 times

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

mr.fred wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 18:56
RunningStrong wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 11:36 Sticking a turreted mortar on BOXER sounds like an incredibly expensive and complicated option for a very limited capability (range, effect).

81 or 120 open-roof and manually fed still gets you rate of fire. If you can load a CR2 on the move, surely you could load a mortar too.
With a turreted mortar like NEMO it would also fill the role of direct fire HE for a Boxer-only battlegroup and be somewhat more survivable than an open-topped vehicle on a modern battlefield.
Direct-fire HE for what purpose? Why would a turret be more survivable? They're inherently less-armoured than a protected roof. A mortar carrier would have a closable aperture, it wouldn't be a chop-top!

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1250
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 31 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

RunningStrong wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 19:42 Direct-fire HE for what purpose?
Because you want that building/trenchline/bunker/wall to go away and you don't have the time to wait for CAS or guided missiles to spare nor do you want to cross the km or so of open ground to place a bomb by hand.
RunningStrong wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 19:42 Why would a turret be more survivable? They're inherently less-armoured than a protected roof. A mortar carrier would have a closable aperture, it wouldn't be a chop-top!
An open aperture is inherently less protected than a turret and I wouldn't have said a turret was inherently weaker than a hatch or a roof. You don't have crew sticking their heads out to serve a turreted mortar nor are they exposed to muzzle blast.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 937
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 26 times

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

mr.fred wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 20:39
RunningStrong wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 19:42 Direct-fire HE for what purpose?
Because you want that building/trenchline/bunker/wall to go away and you don't have the time to wait for CAS or guided missiles to spare nor do you want to cross the km or so of open ground to place a bomb by hand.
So an assault gun too. Not something the British Army has generally found much demand for, and largely covered by simple shoulder launched weapons in this day.
mr.fred wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 20:39
RunningStrong wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 19:42 Why would a turret be more survivable? They're inherently less-armoured than a protected roof. A mortar carrier would have a closable aperture, it wouldn't be a chop-top!
An open aperture is inherently less protected than a turret and I wouldn't have said a turret was inherently weaker than a hatch or a roof. You don't have crew sticking their heads out to serve a turreted mortar nor are they exposed to muzzle blast.
The very nature of having a turret means you have a greater geometric area to cover and significant static and dynamic weight penalty for every kg of weight you add to it. So yes, they're inherently weaker than a similar investment in a flat roof in armour and weight.

Breech loaded, everyone keeps their head down...

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1250
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 31 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

RunningStrong wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 21:40 So an assault gun too. Not something the British Army has generally found much demand for, and largely covered by simple shoulder launched weapons in this day.
That's what I was thinking. Better range, better ammunition depth, greater range and better mobility than shoulder launched munitions.
RunningStrong wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 21:40 The very nature of having a turret means you have a greater geometric area to cover and significant static and dynamic weight penalty for every kg of weight you add to it. So yes, they're inherently weaker than a similar investment in a flat roof in armour and weight.

Breech loaded, everyone keeps their head down...
Ah yes, if you're keeping the weight the same.
Airburst fragments come in from the top.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7105
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 237 times
Been liked: 278 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Whilst I like the idea of using a Nemo Turret, I do not like the idea of using such a platform as an "Assault Gun", of sorts. The Batalions mortars are too valuable to be used up close to an Enemy especially in urban terrain. I would rather a Platoon has access to a M4 Carl Gustav with the breaching and/or bunker busting ammunition to provide that capability.

AN open top version similar to the US Army's Stryker 120mm Mortar platform would more than suffice especially with the more advanced mounts that will slew the tube towards teh target with the correct elevation with the help of GPS. This means the Mortar can be ready to fire almost as soon as a platform carrying it stops. Speed in and out of action is better protection that any Armoured turret in my view.

Mind you it seems the British Army is aiming for a basic set of mounts for its existing 81mm Mortar, using a Infantry Carrier Mission Module as the base, at least initially. Definitely the cheapest option to give each Battalion a Mortar Section, but the Army could do so much better for not a lot of funding in the bigger scheme of things.

Email Ittome
Junior Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 19 Jun 2022, 14:07
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 7 times
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Email Ittome »

mr.fred wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 18:09
Email Ittome wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 15:22 Also I didn't say there were no downside, in fact I think there are plenty of downside that we do not know yet.
You said you couldn't see any downside. I presented some potential downsides.
I don't see a downside of getting involved with he program. I should have made that clearer, my apologize for confusion. I could see potential for downside in the product as they take a serious look into it, I don't see a downside of getting involved in the program.
mr.fred wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 18:09
Email Ittome wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 15:22 First of all, I never identified myself as an expert,
You're writing an awful lot and making some very definite statements for someone who isn't an expert. Assuming that your location flag is correct I understand this may be the American way, but maybe dial it back a bit?
Free country, free to express ourself as we see fit. You're free to ignore my writing. Which is what I will have to do since you can't seem to stop from taking personal shots at people who disagrees with your views.

You seem to have an very definitive views on this matter. Please share you thought about what you disagree with what I said about the Boxer and Warrior programs. and not try to nitpick what and how I say something. I'm willing to learn from others, but if you're more interested in taking little potshot, that isn't interesting to me.

mr.fred wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 18:09
Email Ittome wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 15:22 The consortium that built Griffon for the French Army, were able to keep 70% of its components with the Jaguar. These are two completely different vehicle.
They are both 6 wheeled armoured vehicles. In terms of drive train and mechanical environment they're virtually identical. Tracked is very different to wheeled.
They have different role and armament. Very dissimilar build as well. Everything from wheels up is different. But my point is that commonality is important to future military procurement.

mr.fred wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 18:09
Email Ittome wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 15:22 Speaking about something that I know, software implementation at a large corporation. we see this type of BS all the time. Sometime software isn't what was sold and requirements were not meet. What usually happens is the vendor tells you, we'll fix it in the next patch or next version. In the meantime you still pay and have to implement this software that isn't what you wanted. I would think this is more of an issue with an armored vehicle. You can't just rewrite the code for a physical design.

So that is why I'm calling the eventual Ajax fix a bullshit. You know for a fact they will never redesign it without UK paying for it.
GD has a contract to deliver 589 vehicles that conform to the requirement for a certain amount of money. It will be as much, if not more, of a victory if they are held to that rather than making sure that the lawyers get rich and the Army has to wait even longer and pay even more for new vehicles.
If you could go back in time a decade or so you could take the view that the whole requirement for a unique recce vehicle, that shared a chassis for an IFV that we also needed, was wrong. But hey, we can't, so we work from where we are and with what we've got.

Yes, unfortunately we can't go back in time. My opinion is that this will never come to fruition, without compromising the vehicle in a way that will hamper it's performance. You will get those vehicle for the fixed cost, but most likely they'll be hanger queen, borrowing an Air Force expression. Only way British Army will get what they need is by paying more to bring it up to their requirement. Which you won't be getting from GD free. They are going to deliver whatever shit they can cobble together to meet the bare minimum required to fulfill their obligation to the contract.

Post Reply