Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1715
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Has liked: 9 times
Been liked: 15 times
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

Let's keep the discussion focused on Boxer as much as we can chaps.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1250
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 31 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote: 21 Jun 2022, 22:39 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.
How close is close? The turreted mortars are good for a km or so direct fire which is somewhat further and with somewhat heavier shells than a shoulder launched weapon, plus you don't have to dismount to use them. I'd expect them to be used from outside most small arms and unguided infantry AT weapon ranges in situations where a normal mortar barrage wouldn't be acceptable. Maximum flexibility rather than common usage or bringing in a different vehicle to fill the role.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1250
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 31 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

In terms of mechanical environment, if something is good for one wheeled vehicle it's probably good for all others, while the same is not true from wheeled to tracked. If you look at the various environmental test standards you can see that they have different tests for wheeled and tracks and tracked is generally more severe.

Plus everything we see at a show is a marketing thing, not necessarily a fully developed capability. By all means we can look into it as an option, but that should include assessing the weaknesses and potential problems as well and the potential advantages.

sol
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 11 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

IMO, tracked Boxer is something that the British Army could take a look into, mostly because they Boxer will become its main armoured vehicle. If there is a need for such a vehicle, of course.

Do I think it is a good replacement for FV430? No, mostly because of price, as it would be too expensive and there are some other cheaper solutions for this, like BvS10 or Patria 6x6 for example.

Do I think it is a good potential replacement for Ajax? No, at least not currently. It is still in "early" stages of development, there is lot of thing we don't know, for example how good its mobility actually is. Company is saying that it "almost similar to IFVs" but how similar, is unknown. For task Ajax is intended to, almost similar to IFV, might not be good enough. There are also other questions which would require time to get answers. Even if somehow Ajax get canceled it is questionable how the Army would approach its replacement. It would probably require come evaluations of new realities and experiences from Ukrainian War, and maybe some new requirements might emerge. So in the end it might require vehicle which could be quite different from Ajax.

But I also don't think that Ajax will be canceled, as it is just too big and to important to fail. Even if final vehicle is not entirely satisfactory it will still end in the service, only that service might be somewhat shorter than expected. Canceling project would create so much issues and problems and negative publicity and, the most important, cause further delays in Army modernisation programs.
These users liked the author sol for the post:
Email Ittome

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7106
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 237 times
Been liked: 280 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

mr.fred wrote: 22 Jun 2022, 12:48 In terms of mechanical environment, if something is good for one wheeled vehicle it's probably good for all others, while the same is not true from wheeled to tracked. If you look at the various environmental test standards you can see that they have different tests for wheeled and tracks and tracked is generally more severe.

Plus everything we see at a show is a marketing thing, not necessarily a fully developed capability. By all means we can look into it as an option, but that should include assessing the weaknesses and potential problems as well and the potential advantages.
There is also varying degrees of mobility regarding tracked platforms. A simple example is there are place the Viking can go that none of our other AFVs can go except any remaining Bv206s. From what type of terrain a Warrior for example can cross boxer could not is a very narrow band, but that must be weighed against what Boxer can do mobility wise that a Warrior cannot. For example a Boxer can lose two wheels to a mine trike and still be fully mobile, a Warrior hits a mine it will most likely lose a track and become immobile and may have to be abandoned. Secondly is the more obvious one, it can get to where it is need, country wise under its own power and rapidly, Warrior cannot. This last one allow a significant change in how we deploy our forces and how fat we are able to.

One final point on mobility in difficult terrain, the Finns are more than happy to use their many wheeled AFV all year round, and the Swedish Archer can handle the climate and terrain in Sweden all year round as we. SO where could Warrior operate where Boxer could not? Any examples would be welcome.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
Email Ittome

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7106
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 237 times
Been liked: 280 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

THe video may be in German but it clarifies that both the tracked and wheeled Boxer can use at least twenty or the same Mission Modules, according to the manufacturer. This may be a simple PR piece, but give the legal nature of things nowadays, if they cannot back the statement up they are being incredibly foolish and the Company doesn't strike me as such.

sol
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 11 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Lord Jim wrote: 22 Jun 2022, 21:11 One final point on mobility in difficult terrain, the Finns are more than happy to use their many wheeled AFV all year round, and the Swedish Archer can handle the climate and terrain in Sweden all year round as we.
And yet both Sweden and Finland, and Norway I can add, are more than happy to use tracked IFVs for their armoured infantry. Norway just modernized their CV90s and ordered some more, Finland signed contract for modernization of theirs and Sweden announced to do the same for its fleet. And Finland and Norway are more than happy with their K9s.
Lord Jim wrote: 22 Jun 2022, 21:11 SO where could Warrior operate where Boxer could not? Any examples would be welcome.
How about passing the tranches



It is not could it operate on the same terrain but could it operate with the same efficiency. Vehicles like Boxer and Stryker are close to their tracked counterparts, close but not the same. And not all wheeled vehicles could (almost) match tracked vehicles in mobility.
These users liked the author sol for the post (total 2):
Tempest414wargame_insomniac

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Luke jones »

There's no way Boxer will go where tracked vehicles will go. No way.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3527
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 149 times
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

For me right now we need to forget tracked Boxer and make sure our forthcoming wheeled Boxer Battalions have the right amount of

APC's , C&C's , SP Mortars , Brimstone OW , Assault Pioneer & Ambulance

We should be looking to fit the RWS's on the APC's with 30mm cannons & 40mm GMG both with Javelin and we should be giving the dismounted troops 2 NLAW's per section this along with the SP Mortar and Overwatch should give the troops a good level of support
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 2):
Lord JimDahedd

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7106
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 237 times
Been liked: 280 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

At current funding levels the British Army will have Boxer and only Boxer. Unless something is removed from the current ten year equipment plan to free up resources we will not be getting another tracked IFV full stop. As for mobility issues, I suppose everyone has heard of those novel defences call "Anti-Tank Ditches", and with regards to that light hearted video, it would have been interesting to see the Boxer approach the obstacle at a speed greater then 5mph.

Yes the Finns and Swedes also have tracked IFVs, and good for them. If we were more serious about having a truely viable conventional Army that could actually deploy its fabled "Division", then maybe we might have some a the end of the decade. Unfortunately as mentioned previously, without resources and a change in the Future Soldier programme we won't. We are doubling down on Boxer and I wouldn't be surprised to see a third order sometime after 2025.

As it is the British Army is returning to the 1970s but instead of Chieftain MBTs and FV432 APCs we will have Challenger 3 MBTs and Boxer APCs. Our Recce Regiments are possibly going to be equipped with the Ajax family, though key capabilities will be lacking, but if Ajax fails then the only real option the Army will have is basically a version of the Australian Boxer CVR. Oh and we are getting new Artillery but even though it has been shown in the current wart in Ukraine that whilst artillery is a paramount capability to have, you must also have the capacity, something we will certainly not have. Air Defence, well we will have a decent SHORAD and VSHORAD systems but again not in sufficient numbers and will have to rely on our Allies for anything with a greater range and ideally an BMD capability. Our Combat Engineering capability is either too heavy or too light and in both cases once again not in sufficient quantities. Even the superb M£ Amphibious Ferry , even though it has been recognised by both the British Army and the Bundeswehr that double the current number are needed, nothing has been done to make up this shortfall and its successor is progressing at a snail's pace.

We might still have a loud voice in NATO and be great at flag waving, but our Army is becoming a smaller and smaller speed bump if we even get involved in a major, high intensity war in Europe. We simply have reduced our capacity to such an extent that our offical doctrine now is to stay away from the enemy and rely on our paltry artillery to defeat the enemy. WE ahve to hope the enemy is willing to co-operate with us, doing exactly what our plans say they will.

Sorry this has turned into a rant

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 »

sol wrote: 22 Jun 2022, 14:05 IMO, tracked Boxer is something that the British Army could take a look into, mostly because they Boxer will become its main armoured vehicle. If there is a need for such a vehicle, of course. …
Thank you for your input, much appreciated.

For all the reasons you listed, I believe they are why UK government should take part in further development of the Tracked Boxer. With the limited funds, it should go to maximizing the investment they will be making with Boxers. Instead of chasing after another bespoke next new thing focus on this vehicle, since Ajax is a dead platform that has failed UK government and British Army. If nothing else, it’ll give them an option to enhance the Boxer program, if they are not sufficient for some task.

Currently only system that I see Tracked Boxer as possible replacement for is the Warrior IFV, but as we know at this moment there are no plans to replace them.

I do hope UK goes in on this technology, or at least get the industry involved so they can derive some benefit from it. They’ve been left behind by lack of investment in their internal industry.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7106
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 237 times
Been liked: 280 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

When it comes to the British Army, its resources and procurement plans, things are definitely "Glass half empty".

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 »

I can see how Tracked Boxer shouldn’t be the focus at this time. Let’s get wheeled Boxers into the Army first and see how it can be utilized.

However, that should not stop the UK government from investing in the program at this time. Just as they’ve invested in various programs for the future, this should be one of them.

Let’s start trialing the mission modules with tracked version as soon as possible. Every mission modules that British Army plans to procure, having an option to put on a tracked module would be beneficial.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3527
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 149 times
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

So the UK has now ordered 620 Boxer's for about 3 Billion it could order another 600+ so it is in the interest of RBSL to do the leg work on this and once they have a working hull the Army can have a look at it .The UK has options for 1500 Boxers so if RBSL do a good job we could end up with 750 wheeled Boxer and 750 tracked but before we get head of our self we need to ensure the Wheeled Boxer Battalions have the right vehicles

For what it is worth I see tracked Boxer with the 155mm gun module fitted being a play by RBSL for the AS-90 replacement
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Jensy

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 939
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 26 times

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote: 23 Jun 2022, 15:52 For what it is worth I see tracked Boxer with the 155mm gun module fitted being a play by RBSL for the AS-90 replacement
Not a chance. It's about 5 years behind the MFP requirements timeline.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7106
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 237 times
Been liked: 280 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Whilst I have reduced my caffeine intake, I agree it would be a good idea for the UK to strengthen the partnership with RBSL, and at the very least try to get its UK sites the primary manufacturing locations for the Tracked Boxer if any orders are forthcoming from countries other then the UK. Yes we need to get Boxer in its wheeled form into the Army with all haste and the Army needs to direct more resources into its investigations concerning the lethality of Boxer and what other variants will be needed to create well balanced and capable Mechanised Infantry units as well as replacing the legacy FV432 and CVR(T) platforms form others. With a core of five or six such infantry units the British Army would be in a better shape than it is now and be making saving in training and operating costs that should release funding for other programmes.

One thing that must be done though is a firm delivery date that GDUK must deliver all contracted Ajax platforms by and to the original specifications and within the budget agreed. At the very latest all of the four Recce Regiments must be fully equipped and fully operational with all capabilities on line no later then 2030, with the first units formed no later then 2025. If GDUK cannot achieve this then the contract must be voided. In addition no further funding should be paid to GDUK until the first units Are delivered to the standard specified in the contract.

As I have said, if Ajax fails, then the only option really would be a CRV variant of Boxer. Here however the tracked version may be a valid option. It is already cleared for a multitude of Mission Modules including multiple Auto cannon armed manned and unmanned turrets, with or without ATGWs. Would it be possible to have a tracked Boxer CRV in British Army service by 2030? It would be a stretch but possibly, with the necessary Mission Module initially being mounted on a number of wheeled Boxers.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
Dahedd

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7106
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 237 times
Been liked: 280 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

RunningStrong wrote: 23 Jun 2022, 19:06
Tempest414 wrote: 23 Jun 2022, 15:52 For what it is worth I see tracked Boxer with the 155mm gun module fitted being a play by RBSL for the AS-90 replacement
Not a chance. It's about 5 years behind the MFP requirements timeline.
Five years is well within the probability of error for most Army procurement programmes so who knows. :D

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3527
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 149 times
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote: 23 Jun 2022, 20:44 Whilst I have reduced my caffeine intake, I agree it would be a good idea for the UK to strengthen the partnership with RBSL, and at the very least try to get its UK sites the primary manufacturing locations for the Tracked Boxer if any orders are forthcoming from countries other then the UK. Yes we need to get Boxer in its wheeled form into the Army with all haste and the Army needs to direct more resources into its investigations concerning the lethality of Boxer and what other variants will be needed to create well balanced and capable Mechanised Infantry units as well as replacing the legacy FV432 and CVR(T) platforms form others. With a core of five or six such infantry units the British Army would be in a better shape than it is now and be making saving in training and operating costs that should release funding for other programmes.

One thing that must be done though is a firm delivery date that GDUK must deliver all contracted Ajax platforms by and to the original specifications and within the budget agreed. At the very latest all of the four Recce Regiments must be fully equipped and fully operational with all capabilities on line no later then 2030, with the first units formed no later then 2025. If GDUK cannot achieve this then the contract must be voided. In addition no further funding should be paid to GDUK until the first units Are delivered to the standard specified in the contract.

As I have said, if Ajax fails, then the only option really would be a CRV variant of Boxer. Here however the tracked version may be a valid option. It is already cleared for a multitude of Mission Modules including multiple Auto cannon armed manned and unmanned turrets, with or without ATGWs. Would it be possible to have a tracked Boxer CRV in British Army service by 2030? It would be a stretch but possibly, with the necessary Mission Module initially being mounted on a number of wheeled Boxers.
Why ? when we could go for CV-90 or KF-41 or even at the out side Jaguar . Boxer CRV is only one of a number of options plus given that the armoured cavalry are moving over to Warrior right now I would say we need to fit it with a RWS with 12.7mm and a Javelin to allow fire on the move

Rentaghost
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: 07 Sep 2020, 09:10
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 8 times
Scotland

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Rentaghost »

Tempest414 wrote: 24 Jun 2022, 11:17
Lord Jim wrote: 23 Jun 2022, 20:44 Whilst I have reduced my caffeine intake, I agree it would be a good idea for the UK to strengthen the partnership with RBSL, and at the very least try to get its UK sites the primary manufacturing locations for the Tracked Boxer if any orders are forthcoming from countries other then the UK. Yes we need to get Boxer in its wheeled form into the Army with all haste and the Army needs to direct more resources into its investigations concerning the lethality of Boxer and what other variants will be needed to create well balanced and capable Mechanised Infantry units as well as replacing the legacy FV432 and CVR(T) platforms form others. With a core of five or six such infantry units the British Army would be in a better shape than it is now and be making saving in training and operating costs that should release funding for other programmes.

One thing that must be done though is a firm delivery date that GDUK must deliver all contracted Ajax platforms by and to the original specifications and within the budget agreed. At the very latest all of the four Recce Regiments must be fully equipped and fully operational with all capabilities on line no later then 2030, with the first units formed no later then 2025. If GDUK cannot achieve this then the contract must be voided. In addition no further funding should be paid to GDUK until the first units Are delivered to the standard specified in the contract.

As I have said, if Ajax fails, then the only option really would be a CRV variant of Boxer. Here however the tracked version may be a valid option. It is already cleared for a multitude of Mission Modules including multiple Auto cannon armed manned and unmanned turrets, with or without ATGWs. Would it be possible to have a tracked Boxer CRV in British Army service by 2030? It would be a stretch but possibly, with the necessary Mission Module initially being mounted on a number of wheeled Boxers.
Why ? when we could go for CV-90 or KF-41 or even at the out side Jaguar . Boxer CRV is only one of a number of options plus given that the armoured cavalry are moving over to Warrior right now I would say we need to fit it with a RWS with 12.7mm and a Javelin to allow fire on the move
Surely if you are canning Ajax, the opportunity to reduce platform types and increase commonality should be grasped. Which means Boxer. Probably a shorter time to develop all the supposedly cutting edge functionality regarding networked comms and information sharing into a module to fit onto a vehicle, than trying to integrate into another platform type.

sol
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 11 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Lord Jim wrote: 23 Jun 2022, 20:44 As I have said, if Ajax fails, then the only option really would be a CRV variant of Boxer.
Why? Do you expect that if Ajax is canceled, the Army should just jump to first possible solution without any evaluation of new technologies or experiences from the Ukrainian War?
Lord Jim wrote: 23 Jun 2022, 20:44 Here however the tracked version may be a valid option. It is already cleared for a multitude of Mission Modules including multiple Auto cannon armed manned and unmanned turrets, with or without ATGWs. Would it be possible to have a tracked Boxer CRV in British Army service by 2030? It would be a stretch but possibly, with the necessary Mission Module initially being mounted on a number of wheeled Boxers.
Again why? Just because it could use same modules as Boxer? Do you know does tracked Boxer even satisfy all requirements that Ajax is trying to fill? Is it even mature enough to be considered for this?

As I see it, only use that tracked Boxer could have in the British Army is as replacement for Warrior as IFV, sometime in the future. But even there it is questionable. Thing is, tracked Boxer is much larger than wheeled version but it does not bring anything for it. For example Lynx could have manned turret with 9 dismounts, while tracked Boxer, which is similar size, could only provide 4 to 6 if it use manned turret. Even with remote turret this is 6 to 7 dismounts. So what it brings except using same modules as Boxer (which btw British Army is not utilizing at all as currently number of modules is the same as number of hulls)? British Army should not choose it just because of that. If it is the best or among the best options than sure but if there is a better option for some role than go with it, do not sacrifice capability just for option to use same modules.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7106
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 237 times
Been liked: 280 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

please bear with me here my eye sight is getting very bad.

The reason I put boxer forward as a replacement for ajax if that was cancelled is because the Army by then will desperately need a Recce platform as the Warrior stop gap is just that unless we want to invest heavily in it, Wgilkst ukraine has shown many things, graiun based recce is still imortant with UAS comp,imentig it and I am sure so will UGVs in future.

tracked noxewr is the obnious choucve as its xommonality with the wheeled variant will produxwe significan saving and any reece nission module choasen can be used on the wheeled version until the tracked version is fully ready.

The opytion of Boxer wil be cheaper than anything bar Ajax being delivered on time on budfet and at the required standard with no capoabiltyu compromises./

sol
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 11 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Lord Jim wrote: 25 Jun 2022, 01:08 tracked noxewr is the obnious choucve as its xommonality with the wheeled variant will produxwe significan saving and any reece nission module choasen can be used on the wheeled version until the tracked version is fully ready.
Why it is obvious solution? Can you tell me how good, performance wise, tracked Boxer is compared to Ajax or some other vehicles like CV90, Lynx, Redback ...? How do you know it would be cheaper? Is that just assumption, some concrete data or wishful thinking? How come is a vehicle that just couple of week ago few people know that exist is obvious choice for anything?
These users liked the author sol for the post:
mr.fred

Online
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3271
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 87 times
Been liked: 197 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SW1 »

A view to add to the debate from someone who had a gd overview of the army’s armoured fleet


User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3527
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 149 times
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

But before we jump into the rabbit hole of tracked Boxer surely we need to make sure we have enough wheeled ones for 4 Battalions so something like

180 APC's
100 C&C
40 SP Mortar
40 Brimstone over watch
20 Assault Pioneer
25 Ambulance
40 CRV

Then we need to ask why are we buying tracked Boxer what job do we want it to do because for me before we start buying tracked Boxer we should buy 300 Viking's and 900 Bushmaster in

APC
C&C
SP Mortar
Brimstone Over watch
Assault Pioneer
Ambulance
Utility
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Dahedd

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7106
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 237 times
Been liked: 280 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

If the wheeled and tracked platforms Dive Modules share many components starting with the engine and so on you are going to get savings retarding support and running costs even if you just cover the purchase of consumables, and any repair of parts schemes. No one is saying Boxer is the ONLY choice, we are simply pointing out that there would be some advantages in operating ghte tracked version ar we will have nearly 1000 wheeled boxers in service. Being able to share Mission Modules must bring some benefits, and the Army will not have experiences this situation before, so a few established practices will or would hav e otbe revisited. YJe Army will be on a stea learning curve to establist how to oerate large number of wheeled AFV in roles previously done by tracked ones. I am sure they will be pleased when they discover the new capabilities these bring to the table, and what other nations have known for quite a whiole now.

AS for wheeled Boxer replacing tracked platforms like Fv432, CVR(T) platforms like the Sultan and Spartan, Warrior. Against all of these it wil be cheaper to operate, maintain and train crews on. The modular system will make maintaining the fleets of Boxers more efficient.

IS Boxer the best thing since sliced bread, of course not but it is fgoing to be the most numerous and important platform in service with the British Army, it will easily have the most growth potential and is able to be fully integrated into the Armies' new digital network form the start, and able to have the next generation networks together with the successor to Bowman when the time comes.

AQS for hard data, well common snese plays a part hrer doesn'tit. Buyon one part that fits a single fleet of AFVs has to be cheaper then buy half a dozen different pars to de the same job over a mixed fleet of the same size. Raining on wheeled platforms os simpler than on tracked platforms in most cases. Not having to use HETs to move the platforms any distancesaves money/ something as simpe as changing a tire rather than a briken track is simpler. And unlike Ajax, Boxer is in srvice inthe 100s with varous Armies ansd the reports on their experience with the platform are in the main very positive. How does that compare to Ajax and the ASCOD 2 on which it was based?

I moght be going blind but we cannot afford a totally new fleet of tracked AFV to replace Warrior and Possible Ajax. Any money available would get more bang for the buck by aadopting a tracked Boxer platform once it has been properly developed. Other nations may also see the benefots, as the thracked version will be a good cjoice to replace the many M113 varieties still in servce if they do not wish to have w wheeled platformin some roles for example. I had better stop there I think. These are my opoinions, others are free to have there own

Post Reply