Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 08 Aug 2022, 04:22 Historically, the structure of Infantry Battalions has included the inclusion of both Mortar and Long Range ATGW Sections. For the latter Swingfire mounted on FV438s was the norm until replaced in the late 1980s by hte Spartan MCT and the addition of Milan Foring Posts to some Warriors.
No, they haven't. Infantry in the UK have never operated a long range AT capability (4km and wire guided is definitely not long range by any definition) and their mortars have always been typically smaller calibre.

FV438 was operated by Armoured regiments, then Artillery, then armoured regiments again.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Sorry, but when in service Swingfire was class as the Army's long range ATGW, only beaten by the TOW on its Lynx AH-7. However you are correct regarding the FV438, Infantry Battalions had their Milan Section(s) which varied greatly in size over time. As I also mentioned the Spartan MCT was also introduced as was fitting Milan Firing Posts to Warrior , the latter as a UOR just prior to the first Gulf war, I believe using German components as the mounts bear a striking similarity to those the Bundeswehr used on its Marders.

My argument was however , to support the idea of providing the Infantry Battalions, and or Recce Regiments with a long range precision missile capability that could be used against Tanks and other targets at long range before they run into the Infantry who would also be supported by Javelin equipped Boxers at that time. Future Soldier places great emphasis on engaging the enemy at a distance on our terms and not getting into a brawl. The Royal Artillery's contribution will be a new generation of rockets fired from the M270 GMLRS, and may also provide long range precision fire support from whatever replaces the AS-90 together with more capable rounds it will be albe to fire if tese are also purchased.

AS for Mortars, yes Infantry Battalions have used first the 3" and then 81mm Mortars whilst the larger and heavier 4.2" was operated by the Royal Artillery. That doesn't mean however that the Infantry couldn't operate 120mm Mortars is asked to, many NATO nations use 120mm Mortars within Infantry Battalions. the 120mm offers benfits such as greater range and hitting power over a 81mm and boxer could easily casrry such a weapon and the required ammunition. The latest fire control devices using GPS even align the mortar onto a goven trget before the platforms halts for a fire mission. Lighter units could still retain teh 81mm if the Army wishes, though an 120mm Mortar and towing vehicle could be carried internally within a Chinook with additional ammunition being carried by a UGV carrid by another helicopter if this option were followed.

Anyhow this is just my opinion, others are more then free to have alternative views on the subject.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

RunningStrong wrote: 07 Aug 2022, 19:37
Tempest414 wrote: 07 Aug 2022, 18:43
RunningStrong wrote: 07 Aug 2022, 18:27
Tempest414 wrote: 07 Aug 2022, 09:51 I still think with the Boxers RWS's being fitted with Javelin the battalion's need to replace the ATGW company with a Brimstone Over watch company these should have 9 vehicles with 18 ready missiles giving each Battalion 162 ready missiles. this could go someway to replacing the light gun in the Artillery freeing up a regiment to move to Air defence
Royal Artillery have traditionally been the operators of overwatch-esque guided missile anti tank systems. Most recently, Exactor.
Yes and yes but it maybe time to push out and have the Brimstone over watch within the Battalions and allow the Artillery to carry out Brigade over watch with M270 or M142 and Air defence
Personally, I can't see it. Nothing personal to the infantry, but I don't think they're capable of it...
Why do you think that with the right training the infantry can't change from a Javelin equipped ATGW company to a Brimstone over watch company what is it that would / could stop them

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote: 08 Aug 2022, 10:37 Sorry, but when in service Swingfire was class as the Army's long range ATGW, only beaten by the TOW on its Lynx AH-7. However you are correct regarding the FV438, Infantry Battalions had their Milan Section(s) which varied greatly in size over time. As I also mentioned the Spartan MCT was also introduced as was fitting Milan Firing Posts to Warrior , the latter as a UOR just prior to the first Gulf war, I believe using German components as the mounts bear a striking similarity to those the Bundeswehr used on its Marders.

My argument was however , to support the idea of providing the Infantry Battalions, and or Recce Regiments with a long range precision missile capability that could be used against Tanks and other targets at long range before they run into the Infantry who would also be supported by Javelin equipped Boxers at that time. Future Soldier places great emphasis on engaging the enemy at a distance on our terms and not getting into a brawl. The Royal Artillery's contribution will be a new generation of rockets fired from the M270 GMLRS, and may also provide long range precision fire support from whatever replaces the AS-90 together with more capable rounds it will be albe to fire if tese are also purchased.

AS for Mortars, yes Infantry Battalions have used first the 3" and then 81mm Mortars whilst the larger and heavier 4.2" was operated by the Royal Artillery. That doesn't mean however that the Infantry couldn't operate 120mm Mortars is asked to, many NATO nations use 120mm Mortars within Infantry Battalions. the 120mm offers benfits such as greater range and hitting power over a 81mm and boxer could easily casrry such a weapon and the required ammunition. The latest fire control devices using GPS even align the mortar onto a goven trget before the platforms halts for a fire mission. Lighter units could still retain teh 81mm if the Army wishes, though an 120mm Mortar and towing vehicle could be carried internally within a Chinook with additional ammunition being carried by a UGV carrid by another helicopter if this option were followed.

Anyhow this is just my opinion, others are more then free to have alternative views on the subject.
As far as the recce units go for me if they have Javelin they will be in a good place with this said I would like to the Jackals fitted with a RS6 RWS with a 30mm Venom plus Javelin giving them more punch at longer range

also with Javelin and 81mm the Infantry can put a good amount of fire power into a kill box at 5 km's as said what they need it the ability to reach over that and hit supply and command with Brimstone

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote: 08 Aug 2022, 11:58 Why do you think that with the right training the infantry can't change from a Javelin equipped ATGW company to a Brimstone over watch company what is it that would / could stop them
Because they don't have the command structures and capability for target acquisition, command and battles space de-confliction required for a NLOS, potentially upto 20km guided missile system.

Armoured infantry and mechanised units may use lightweight launchers and carry units intended for the direct-fire engagements, but that's not the FR(O) capability.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 08 Aug 2022, 10:37 Sorry, but when in service Swingfire was class as the Army's long range ATGW, only beaten by the TOW on its Lynx AH-7.
Yes, nearly 30 years ago...

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

RunningStrong wrote: 08 Aug 2022, 12:34
Tempest414 wrote: 08 Aug 2022, 11:58 Why do you think that with the right training the infantry can't change from a Javelin equipped ATGW company to a Brimstone over watch company what is it that would / could stop them
Because they don't have the command structures and capability for target acquisition, command and battles space de-confliction required for a NLOS, potentially upto 20km guided missile system.

Armoured infantry and mechanised units may use lightweight launchers and carry units intended for the direct-fire engagements, but that's not the FR(O) capability.
Maybe Brimstone is not the right weapon maybe Hero 120 would be better plus it would give the infantry some organic ISTAR

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote: 08 Aug 2022, 17:02
RunningStrong wrote: 08 Aug 2022, 12:34
Tempest414 wrote: 08 Aug 2022, 11:58 Why do you think that with the right training the infantry can't change from a Javelin equipped ATGW company to a Brimstone over watch company what is it that would / could stop them
Because they don't have the command structures and capability for target acquisition, command and battles space de-confliction required for a NLOS, potentially upto 20km guided missile system.

Armoured infantry and mechanised units may use lightweight launchers and carry units intended for the direct-fire engagements, but that's not the FR(O) capability.
Maybe Brimstone is not the right weapon maybe Hero 120 would be better plus it would give the infantry some organic ISTAR
Probably. Though light infantry would likely use the 20/30/70 systems.

Something like Desert Hawk could reasonably be used by infantry units and wouldn't need to be an artillery capability IMO.

Rentaghost
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: 07 Sep 2020, 09:10
Scotland

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Rentaghost »

RunningStrong wrote: 08 Aug 2022, 12:34
Tempest414 wrote: 08 Aug 2022, 11:58 Why do you think that with the right training the infantry can't change from a Javelin equipped ATGW company to a Brimstone over watch company what is it that would / could stop them
Because they don't have the command structures and capability for target acquisition, command and battles space de-confliction required for a NLOS, potentially upto 20km guided missile system.

Armoured infantry and mechanised units may use lightweight launchers and carry units intended for the direct-fire engagements, but that's not the FR(O) capability.
Isn't that an argument that the battalion/battlegroup structure should be re-organised to provide the necessary structures for a longer range overwatch capability?

There probably should be a shift in tactical UAV usage from RA detachments to being part of the battalion organic support. Desert Hawk is an imperfect but probably decent starting point for providing enough range to help target something like Brimstone out to >10km range.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

RunningStrong wrote: 08 Aug 2022, 18:11
Tempest414 wrote: 08 Aug 2022, 17:02
RunningStrong wrote: 08 Aug 2022, 12:34
Tempest414 wrote: 08 Aug 2022, 11:58 Why do you think that with the right training the infantry can't change from a Javelin equipped ATGW company to a Brimstone over watch company what is it that would / could stop them
Because they don't have the command structures and capability for target acquisition, command and battles space de-confliction required for a NLOS, potentially upto 20km guided missile system.

Armoured infantry and mechanised units may use lightweight launchers and carry units intended for the direct-fire engagements, but that's not the FR(O) capability.
Maybe Brimstone is not the right weapon maybe Hero 120 would be better plus it would give the infantry some organic ISTAR
Probably. Though light infantry would likely use the 20/30/70 systems.

Something like Desert Hawk could reasonably be used by infantry units and wouldn't need to be an artillery capability IMO.
The USMC now have a 8 round Hreo multi launcher system on there armoured 8x8 vehicle this system can launch hero 30 up to 400 but mainly uses hero 120

This system would give the armoured and light Mechanised infantry battalions organic overwatch. I would say the Boxer could be fitted with 16 Hero and Bushmaster and Viking could be fitted with the 8 round system

As said the light infantry , 16XX , Ranger units plus the RM could be given Hero 70 giving them some overwatch capability

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

We must not forget that by 2030 the British Army is looking to become a fully digital and networked force, allow ISTAR date to be freely moved around its units. Assuming we did purchase a new NLOS weapon system, with the latest version of the Spike NLOS missile being the most mature and avasilable off the shelf, any firing unit will be able to hand off any missiles it fires to another unit, be that an unit under attack or one that has located enemy units near it, for example. If each Infatry Battalion had a weapons Section equipped with NLOS weapons it would not just be looking to see how deep it could engage the enemy but also cover the increased frontage that unit will have to occupy in future. Under the current planned organisation, a Heavy BCT could have three "Batteries of NLOS Missiles , in the Recce Regiments and each Infantry Regiment.

Alternatively, these units could have a missile system with a lesser range, say 10km, but retaining the networked and Man in the Loop Capabilities, leaving the longer ranged NLOS Missile System to the Royal Artillery .

Whatever option that could in theory be taken the Boxer would make a reasonable platform on which to mount such a system.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 09 Aug 2022, 22:04 We must not forget that by 2030 the British Army is looking to become a fully digital and networked force, allow ISTAR date to be freely moved around its units.
The British Army has had that since at least 2008...

Rentaghost
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: 07 Sep 2020, 09:10
Scotland

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Rentaghost »

Lord Jim wrote: 09 Aug 2022, 22:04 We must not forget that by 2030 the British Army is looking to become a fully digital and networked force, allow ISTAR date to be freely moved around its units. Assuming we did purchase a new NLOS weapon system, with the latest version of the Spike NLOS missile being the most mature and avasilable off the shelf, any firing unit will be able to hand off any missiles it fires to another unit, be that an unit under attack or one that has located enemy units near it, for example. If each Infatry Battalion had a weapons Section equipped with NLOS weapons it would not just be looking to see how deep it could engage the enemy but also cover the increased frontage that unit will have to occupy in future. Under the current planned organisation, a Heavy BCT could have three "Batteries of NLOS Missiles , in the Recce Regiments and each Infantry Regiment.

Alternatively, these units could have a missile system with a lesser range, say 10km, but retaining the networked and Man in the Loop Capabilities, leaving the longer ranged NLOS Missile System to the Royal Artillery .

Whatever option that could in theory be taken the Boxer would make a reasonable platform on which to mount such a system.
So there is both the Mounted Close Combat Overwatch requirement and the RA has the Precision Land Strike requirement.

The latter is the Exactor replacement (I think) and is required to be able to hit moving, armoured or otherwise valuable targets out to 80km and is supposed to make use of the MLRS tech (one platform, many payloads)

That then should stay with the RA and will need Watchkeeper or its replacement or RAF to give ISTAR

The MCCO capability is supposed to give a >10km overwatch capability. I agree that should be Brimstone and you could either mount that on Boxer, or something smaller like an MRAP type vehicle as the Poles are proposing to do.

I think for ISTAR, a hand launched or rail launched drone would provide sufficient capability and that should be organic to the battalion/battlegroup. If you look at the new formation recce regiment organisation, a while squadron is dedicated to anti armour over watch so you could easily have multiple troops using MCCO there as well as a troop within the mech infantry.

So instead of the tactical UAVs being used by the RA and detached out to those that need them, it should become an organic platoon within the mech infantry support company alongside overwatch platoon.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

The British Army has had that since at least 2008...
[/quote]

Not to the level aspired to by the early 2030s which not only applies to the ISTAR assets and the data they produce but also individual weapon systems. Looking at ATGW, none of what we are currently using can be fully networked, the only system that I beluieve current existis is the latest version of the Spile-ER2 that is in service with the IDF. Others are on the way and should be in servie by 2030/

Fir a system to be fully networked, a missile should be able to be handed off to any other element of the formation of higher unitsstructure. This really requires such a weapon to have a man in the loop capability to achieve the level of precision aspired to rather than a laser seeker for example. An example of their use would be for a units equipped with such a weapon to fire a number of missiles into the vicinity of an enemy force that is being observed by another unit much closer and further forwards. Said unit would then take over the missiles and guide them onto the targets of the highest priority. For deeper strikes the targets could be located by UAV and the UAV operators taking over control of the missiles and providing terminal guidance.

IF Brimstone was selected for this role, it will require further upgrades to give it the required precision needed, mainly the essential Man in the Loop guidance capability. An alternative would be the adoption of the latest version of Spike-NLOS, an earlier version of which is already in service under the name Extractor.

WE will need at least two launch vehicles for any system adopted, The first needs to be a high mobiiity AFV, possibly Boxer to allow it to operate within the Mechanised Infantry and Recce formations. The second needs to be a light weight platform that an be assigned to the Army's light units be they the Light BCTs or 16 AA BCT as well as available to the Royal Marines and in the latter role being able to be fired from the deck of a ship as the USMC has done with its HIMARS of a LPD-17 class vessel.

For longer range precision strikes we will be using our M270 GMLRS with a new generation of rockets as well as the very long range missile that is being developed that has a range likely to end up being in excess of 500km.

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by leonard »

Madam the minister goose for a ride on the Boxer crv a more clear indication that the Australian version will be procured albeit in German Army specifications.
( That Tetris camo is truly a danger to everyone eyes my personal opinion )

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

leonard wrote: 17 Aug 2022, 15:33 Madam the minister goose for a ride on the Boxer crv a more clear indication that the Australian version will be procured albeit in German Army specifications.
New German Boxers should be equipped with the same remote turret as Puma IFV, RTC-30, not the manned one.
These users liked the author sol for the post:
Lord Jim

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

We really need to look at forming the planned Mechanised Infantry Battalions as self contained all aspect units that can be augmented by heavy Arour and heavr Recce units. The best place to look is still the US Army's Stryker Brigades which have continued to evolve since their introduction.. The way these usints are networked and can passs data both to any vehivle in their unit as well as to other units higher up the chain is a game changer and how units need to be organised for any future Peer level conflict. Speaking of that, we need to concentrate our spending on such conflicts ofr the forseeable future as this has been the biggest failing in the past decades. We have legacy platforms that can fight COIN or low level operations.

HAving the Boxers equipped with a .50cal or 40mm AGL will possible a Javelin is the bear minimum required for its role. Ideally it needs to be able to handle poosible hostile AFVs such as the BTR-80, Boomerang or BMP at a reasonable range. the Javelin will do this but is single shot and expensive where a 30 to 40mm AUto cannon could do the job both cheaper and be able to engage multiple targets. THis does not mean we will be using our Boxers as IFVs but rather still as APCs but in an aggressive manner where they will provide fire support for the infantry as they assaultthe Enemy.

Each Battalion need in addition to its Command and Infantry carrying versions an effective indirect fire support platform, Combat engineering, SHRAD, ew, Logistics, Ambulance, anti tank/overwatch and a AVLB version. Many of these are not even on the MoD's radar as of this moment but some at least will be once the Armys Mechanised Trials units makes its report. Fortunately the modularity of the Boxer and the fact that many of these needs can be met by off the shelf Missin Modules should keep development costs and lead times down.

WIthout improving the capabilities of the planned Mechanised Infantry Battalions and the Heavy BCTs they will be assigned to the Army will be s'futue but the required investemtn must be made.slipping back to the 1970s in operating doctrine even is units are netwoorked. Boxer is the Army'

Sorry for Typos I iam losing my level of sight slowly.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Lord Jim wrote: 08 Aug 2022, 10:37 Sorry, but when in service Swingfire was class as the Army's long range ATGW, only beaten by the TOW on its Lynx AH-7. However you are correct regarding the FV438, Infantry Battalions had their Milan Section(s) which varied greatly in size over time. As I also mentioned the Spartan MCT was also introduced as was fitting Milan Firing Posts to Warrior , the latter as a UOR just prior to the first Gulf war, I believe using German components as the mounts bear a striking similarity to those the Bundeswehr used on its Marders.

My argument was however , to support the idea of providing the Infantry Battalions, and or Recce Regiments with a long range precision missile capability that could be used against Tanks and other targets at long range before they run into the Infantry who would also be supported by Javelin equipped Boxers at that time. Future Soldier places great emphasis on engaging the enemy at a distance on our terms and not getting into a brawl. The Royal Artillery's contribution will be a new generation of rockets fired from the M270 GMLRS, and may also provide long range precision fire support from whatever replaces the AS-90 together with more capable rounds it will be albe to fire if tese are also purchased.

AS for Mortars, yes Infantry Battalions have used first the 3" and then 81mm Mortars whilst the larger and heavier 4.2" was operated by the Royal Artillery. That doesn't mean however that the Infantry couldn't operate 120mm Mortars is asked to, many NATO nations use 120mm Mortars within Infantry Battalions. the 120mm offers benfits such as greater range and hitting power over a 81mm and boxer could easily casrry such a weapon and the required ammunition. The latest fire control devices using GPS even align the mortar onto a goven trget before the platforms halts for a fire mission. Lighter units could still retain teh 81mm if the Army wishes, though an 120mm Mortar and towing vehicle could be carried internally within a Chinook with additional ammunition being carried by a UGV carrid by another helicopter if this option were followed.

Anyhow this is just my opinion, others are more then free to have alternative views on the subject.
I agree. Going forward we need to have multiple layers ranging from man portable up to vehicle mounted, with lighter weapons for individual squads and platoons and heavier weapons for companies, battalions and brigades. Whether we are looking at Anti-Tank or Anti-Air missiles, mortars / artillery / MLRS.

So as an example it might be that one shot disposable NLAW to individual squads, reusable Javelins to a Platoon support squad, vehicle mounted Starstreak or Brimstone at Company level all the way up to new Precision MLRS at say Brigade level etc.

It may be that the lighter man portable weapons be allocated to squad members of the battalion that are trained on such systems. And maybe the heavier vehicle mounted systems be operated by soldiers from say Royal Artillery Regiments that are seconded to the Battalion.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

Battalions will have 3 Companies each with 3 Platoons = 9 sections if Boxer is fitted with RS4 and RS6 RWS's these can be fitted with 12.7mm , 30mm and 40mm GMG plus a Javelin this would mean each Platoon would have 4 Boxers with 3 sections which could have 6 x NLAW , 1 x 12.7mm , 2 x 30mm , 1 x 40mm GMG Plus ready 4 x Javelin.

each Battalion should get 1 x Mortar platoon , 1 x Air defence Platoon , 1 x Over watch Platoon (with Hero 120 )

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

WFEL completes first fabricated and painted Drive Module hull for Boxer

These users liked the author sol for the post (total 4):
Tempest414bobpJensyLord Jim

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by tomuk »

It always seems WFEL/KMW doing all the work what are Rheinmetall BAE upto?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Are they going to be responsible for the final assembly of each vehicle including assigning the relevant Mission Modules, which could also be their responsibility?

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

tomuk wrote: 16 Sep 2022, 07:20 It always seems WFEL/KMW doing all the work what are Rheinmetall BAE upto?
WFEL are building all the drive modules in the UK with Assembly, Test and Integration split between RBSL and WFEL
WFEL – SMA – Ambulance version based on the German not the Dutch design, Infantry Carrier and some specialist vehicles.
RBSL – SMA – All Command Post and a large proportion of the specialist carriers.
https://battle-updates.com/the-uk-boxer ... ettlefold/
These users liked the author sol for the post:
Lord Jim

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

According to the uncorroborated sources on YouTube, Ukraine is placing an order of between fifteen and eighteen Boxer RCH155 Wheeled SP 155mm Gun, hoping for delivery within the next twelve months. IF the RCH actually enters production as a result, it could possibly have an impact on the British Army's Mobile Fires programme, with the RCH155 no longer being only a demonstrator.

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Lord Jim wrote: 18 Sep 2022, 23:54 ... hoping for delivery within the next twelve months
I am not sure where did you find info about delivery in "next twelve months". All the info I could find suggesting that, if it happen, is basically ...
It is expected that deliveries of the RCH-155 will be ready no earlier than 30 months after the conclusion of the contract - that is, as early as 2025.
As contract is still not signed or even officially confirmed, I doubt we will see it realised that soon, if at all.

Post Reply