Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1040
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 38 times

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 03:08 Saying that the CVT(T) and FV432 platforms in service with Armoured and Armoured Infantry units will need the greater protection offered by Boxer, as will some support units such as Artillery.
Why? They don't currently offer such protection. What do you expect to change?

If indeed that is your position then anyone and everyone that has criticised AJAX's weight is going to be in for a shock...

SD67
Member
Posts: 567
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 93 times
Been liked: 104 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SD67 »

Meanwhile Ukraine is defeating basically the entire Russian army with Mastiff, Stormer, AT105 Saxon, Hilux, borrowed tractors etc

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3823
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 58 times
Been liked: 226 times
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

As we renew our fleets and move on we do need to think what is the best mix of vehicle types and how many vehicle types we have. Right now we have 10 different main types not including Challenger or Ajax I think we could get this down to five with the main four being Boxer , Patria 6x6 , Bushmaster & Hawkei we will need a new Armoured recce vehicle Ajax , CV90 , Jaguar

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1040
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 38 times

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 11:26 As we renew our fleets and move on we do need to think what is the best mix of vehicle types and how many vehicle types we have. Right now we have 10 different main types not including Challenger or Ajax I think we could get this down to five with the main four being Boxer , Patria 6x6 , Bushmaster & Hawkei we will need a new Armoured recce vehicle Ajax , CV90 , Jaguar
MOD already announced this at DVD.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1040
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 38 times

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

SD67 wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 09:57 Meanwhile Ukraine is defeating basically the entire Russian army with Mastiff, Stormer, AT105 Saxon, Hilux, borrowed tractors etc
Best way to survive artillery fragments is not to be there...

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3823
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 58 times
Been liked: 226 times
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

RunningStrong wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 11:31
Tempest414 wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 11:26 As we renew our fleets and move on we do need to think what is the best mix of vehicle types and how many vehicle types we have. Right now we have 10 different main types not including Challenger or Ajax I think we could get this down to five with the main four being Boxer , Patria 6x6 , Bushmaster & Hawkei we will need a new Armoured recce vehicle Ajax , CV90 , Jaguar
MOD already announced this at DVD.
Very good but what did they announce at DVD that they would reduce the number of fleets or which types would replace the current fleets ?

sol
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 45 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Tempest414 wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 08:28 We have 623 on order as of April 22 so if 400 are needed for the infantry Battalions then that leaves 220 odd for other roles
Among those 623, there is still not enough infantry carriers but there are 61 ambulance in the 1st batch, and while types in the 2nd batch are still not disclosed, it was mentioned that there will be some more ambulances there to. And 177 C4I vehicles in 1st + unknown number in the 2nd batch. So just to equip 5 battalions, the Army will need at least some 800 or even more at this rate, which sound silly considering that 789 Warriors was enough to originally equipped 8 or 9 armoured infantry battalions. IMO lot of these variants could be covered with FV430 replacement.
These users liked the author sol for the post:
SD67

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3823
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 58 times
Been liked: 226 times
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

I agree there is some odd thinking here as said Patria 6x6 would make good ambulance even mortar carrier at one fifth the money
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

SD67
Member
Posts: 567
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 93 times
Been liked: 104 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SD67 »

OK let's work this

5 fleets (assume it excludes LandRovers)

70 t class - CR3
40 t class - Boxer
25 t class - something like Patria 6x6
12 t class - something like Eagle 6x6 / Bushmaster
7 t class - Something like Eagle 4x4 / Foxhound / Jackal

thoughts?
These users liked the author SD67 for the post (total 3):
wargame_insomniacLittle JLord Jim

tomuk
Member
Posts: 560
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 93 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by tomuk »

Where does the already? procured JLTV fit into this?

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2533
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Has liked: 94 times
Been liked: 69 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Caribbean »

JLTV is in the 7 tonne class, but I don't think we've put pen to paper on a deal yet
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7286
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 317 times
Been liked: 351 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

RunningStrong wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 09:28
Lord Jim wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 03:08 Saying that the CVT(T) and FV432 platforms in service with Armoured and Armoured Infantry units will need the greater protection offered by Boxer, as will some support units such as Artillery.
Why? They don't currently offer such protection. What do you expect to change?

If indeed that is your position then anyone and everyone that has criticised AJAX's weight is going to be in for a shock...
Well Considering the Armoured Regiment currently use the Sultan as a Command platform at the appropriate levels, boxer as it is on order would be an obvious choice for that role and given the number of command variants on order this has probably already been decided. In the Infantry Battalions we know that the FV432m are likely to be replaced by a mortar carrying variant of Boxer so why not have the Mortar Platoon Command vehicle be a Boxer as well. Of course, in both cases we could by a separate vehicle type to match the existing levels of protect if that was desired.

As for the integral Recce units in the Armoured and Armoured Infantry units, this is a grey area to me as I cannot find any info on whether Ajax will be used to replace the existing Scimitars, assuming units still have this capability. If these units are losing their integral close Recce capability, they the addition of a Recce Regiment in each Heavy BCT is essential, which is probably why this has been planned.

If one looks at the platforms used by Support units, you can either say that they are best using a vehicle that provided some protection or say that no protection is needed. At present the only platform that is on order is Boxer, with the MRV(P) programme having gone so quiet it may have even died. So, if we want protection, we are sort of limited as to what platform we can choose. As previously mentioned regarding the Command Boxer variant, the numbers ordered as well as the number of Ambulances seem to imply that they will be in units beyond the five Mechanised Infantry Battalions.

AS for weight, the size of Ajax has never really been an issue for me, I have been more concerned about its capabilities.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 560
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 93 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by tomuk »

Caribbean wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 18:08 JLTV is in the 7 tonne class, but I don't think we've put pen to paper on a deal yet
I was under the understanding that it been signed with pencil but when it was passed up the political chain it was paused as shipping in complete JLTVs from Oshkosh was not seen as providing sufficient social value, eg levelling up etc. As we now see with the announced partnership with Jankel an amount of British whitewash is required.

sol
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 45 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Lord Jim wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 19:39 Well Considering the Armoured Regiment currently use the Sultan as a Command platform at the appropriate levels, boxer as it is on order would be an obvious choice for that role and given the number of command variants on order this has probably already been decided.
You are forgetting that the Army also ordered 112 Athena C&C vehicles, which is way more than 4 armoured cavalry regiments needs. Even tho that 1st Regiment RHA & 19th and 26th regiments RA will get Ajax tactical group, there will still left enough vehicles to cover two armoured regiments too, which is what I expected is planed.

Between Ajax and Boxer, UK is ordering 289 (probably even more as it is already mentioned that Boxer batch 2 will also have additional C4I vehicles on order) armoured command vehicles. That is a lot. Maybe they need all of those, but it still seems like a big part of armoured fleet.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1040
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 38 times

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 19:39 Well Considering the Armoured Regiment currently use the Sultan as a Command platform at the appropriate levels, boxer as it is on order would be an obvious choice for that role and given the number of command variants on order this has probably already been decided.
Sultan and Bulldog have massively less protection than Boxer, hence why it wouldn't be an obvious choice to replace those legacy platforms. A wheeled platform with glass screens wouldn't be the obvious choice either, but there's a large gulf between them and Boxer.
Lord Jim wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 19:39 In the Infantry Battalions we know that the FV432m are likely to be replaced by a mortar carrying variant of Boxer so why not have the Mortar Platoon Command vehicle be a Boxer as well. Of course, in both cases we could by a separate vehicle type to match the existing levels of protect if that was desired.
So far all we know is that Boxer ha specialist variants on order that could include mortar dismounted. We don't have any contract for integrated mortar. Similarly, mortars don't operate with a CP in current British army capability (81mm), nor does Armoured Artillery CP use Warrior (FST) or AS90, both of which offer significantly more protection than Bulldog.

sol
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 45 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

tomuk wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 20:29 I was under the understanding that it been signed with pencil but when it was passed up the political chain it was paused as shipping in complete JLTVs from Oshkosh was not seen as providing sufficient social value, eg levelling up etc. As we now see with the announced partnership with Jankel an amount of British whitewash is required.
Seems like decision to not buy JLTV as a part MRV-P Package 1 was done due to many concurrent major programs. Basically lack of money
A spokesperson for the UK MoD confirmed to Shephard that the army has ended the proposed MRV-P Package 1, which comprised acquisition of JLTVs. ‘This difficult decision took into consideration affordability and the requirement to deliver several major army programmes within the same period,’ the official stressed.
But JLTV is still in the race for MRV-P and they are trying to make their offer better by finding partners in the UK, considering that they will now have to compete equally with number of concurrents for that project. But if I am not wrong, whole project is delayed for now and the Army will need to stick with what they have for quite some time.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3823
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 58 times
Been liked: 226 times
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

SD67 wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 15:16 OK let's work this

5 fleets (assume it excludes LandRovers)

70 t class - CR3
40 t class - Boxer
25 t class - something like Patria 6x6
12 t class - something like Eagle 6x6 / Bushmaster
7 t class - Something like Eagle 4x4 / Foxhound / Jackal

thoughts?
If we include Ajax have 11 vehicle type (not including Challenger ) and I think we need to get down to six with say

Deep Fires & Armoured BCT's
900 - Boxer
600 - Ajax or CV90
600 - Patria 6x6

Light BCT's
1000 - Bushmaster or Eagle V 6x6
450 - Jackal
1200 - Hawkei or Eagle V 4x4 or JLTV
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

SD67
Member
Posts: 567
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 93 times
Been liked: 104 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SD67 »

Personally I'd go for Boxer CRV instead of Ajax making it 5. Trivia point -Eagle and Jackal use the same engine family - Cummins B series, made in Daventry, near ubiquitous. ( There's also a 4 cylinder version that fits in a Landrover)
Boxer derivatives assembled by RBSL plus Eagle derivatives built in Methyr, steady drumbeat, problem solved

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 132 times
Been liked: 318 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SW1 »

Whatever the 6x6 or an equivalent is in the light bct should be the same vechile in the heavy bct.

I would suggest 4 vehicle types including challenger tank.

Challenger, boxer, bv10 and bushmaster.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Lord Jim

sol
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 45 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Boxer Skyranger was demonstrated to MoD today

These users liked the author sol for the post (total 2):
Tempest414wargame_insomniac

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7286
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 317 times
Been liked: 351 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

RunningStrong wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 20:59
Lord Jim wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 19:39 Well Considering the Armoured Regiment currently use the Sultan as a Command platform at the appropriate levels, boxer as it is on order would be an obvious choice for that role and given the number of command variants on order this has probably already been decided.
Sultan and Bulldog have massively less protection than Boxer, hence why it wouldn't be an obvious choice to replace those legacy platforms. A wheeled platform with glass screens wouldn't be the obvious choice either, but there's a large gulf between them and Boxer.
Lord Jim wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 19:39 In the Infantry Battalions we know that the FV432m are likely to be replaced by a mortar carrying variant of Boxer so why not have the Mortar Platoon Command vehicle be a Boxer as well. Of course, in both cases we could by a separate vehicle type to match the existing levels of protect if that was desired.
So far all we know is that Boxer ha specialist variants on order that could include mortar dismounted. We don't have any contract for integrated mortar. Similarly, mortars don't operate with a CP in current British army capability (81mm), nor does Armoured Artillery CP use Warrior (FST) or AS90, both of which offer significantly more protection than Bulldog.
I have suggested Boxer, not necessarily the Command Variant as a replacement for the platforms currently occupying the command position throughout Army combat units as it is really the only platform, we have on order with which to fill these posts. Yes, it would offer greatly increased protection, but I do not see that as a problem, rather the opposite. In fact, there is an alternative but that depends on whether the programme covering it actually continues and delivers what is currently under contract, namely the Command variant of the Ajax family.

As has been pointed out, it seems we have ordered far more specialist variants of the Boxer, Command, Ambulance etc. than will be required for the five planned Mechanised Infantry Battalions, whilst we still have not ordered enough Infantry Carriers variants. This means there are further orders to be placed for the latter which would also leave room for the purchase of numbers of new variants such as the Air Defence and SP Mortar carriers.

The two trials units set up by the Army to work out how its future force structure will work and what capabilities it will require. This will likely dictate which new Boxer variants are ordered. The Army seems very keen to have the Boxer as its core AFV. This may mean it could place Boxer variants in roles in which it replaces platforms that it is clearly far superior to. But having a common fleet will create savings in training and maintenance, especially when it replaces tracked platforms. For once the Army has chosen a true future proofed platform that is proven and relatively mature. The module system means additional variants are far more easily developed that in the case of traditional platforms. With Boxer the British Army has a wheeled AFV that closes the capability gap with traditional tracked AFVs and in many ways surpasses them. It has a huge growth potential with a power train and chassis that can cope with future weight gain and excess power to cope with the needs of future systems. It is a fully digitised platform and will be able to be networked with the Challenger 3 and Ajax if the latter actually enters service. It is more expensive that some other 8x8 or 6x6 platforms, but I believe this is justified by its capabilities.

The way this are looking it may be that a number of the roles originally envisaged for the MRV(P) Phase 2 are now to be carried out by Boxer. This does not mean the former programme is dead, but it further takes away any urgency for that programme if Boxer is meeting some of the requirements, whilst existing platform, possibly upgraded fill in the other capability needs such as Foxhound and Mastiff.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 2):
jedibeeftrixwargame_insomniac

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3823
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 58 times
Been liked: 226 times
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote: 30 Sep 2022, 12:40
RunningStrong wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 20:59
Lord Jim wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 19:39 Well Considering the Armoured Regiment currently use the Sultan as a Command platform at the appropriate levels, boxer as it is on order would be an obvious choice for that role and given the number of command variants on order this has probably already been decided.
Sultan and Bulldog have massively less protection than Boxer, hence why it wouldn't be an obvious choice to replace those legacy platforms. A wheeled platform with glass screens wouldn't be the obvious choice either, but there's a large gulf between them and Boxer.
Lord Jim wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 19:39 In the Infantry Battalions we know that the FV432m are likely to be replaced by a mortar carrying variant of Boxer so why not have the Mortar Platoon Command vehicle be a Boxer as well. Of course, in both cases we could by a separate vehicle type to match the existing levels of protect if that was desired.
So far all we know is that Boxer ha specialist variants on order that could include mortar dismounted. We don't have any contract for integrated mortar. Similarly, mortars don't operate with a CP in current British army capability (81mm), nor does Armoured Artillery CP use Warrior (FST) or AS90, both of which offer significantly more protection than Bulldog.
I have suggested Boxer, not necessarily the Command Variant as a replacement for the platforms currently occupying the command position throughout Army combat units as it is really the only platform, we have on order with which to fill these posts. Yes, it would offer greatly increased protection, but I do not see that as a problem, rather the opposite. In fact, there is an alternative but that depends on whether the programme covering it actually continues and delivers what is currently under contract, namely the Command variant of the Ajax family.

As has been pointed out, it seems we have ordered far more specialist variants of the Boxer, Command, Ambulance etc. than will be required for the five planned Mechanised Infantry Battalions, whilst we still have not ordered enough Infantry Carriers variants. This means there are further orders to be placed for the latter which would also leave room for the purchase of numbers of new variants such as the Air Defence and SP Mortar carriers.

The two trials units set up by the Army to work out how its future force structure will work and what capabilities it will require. This will likely dictate which new Boxer variants are ordered. The Army seems very keen to have the Boxer as its core AFV. This may mean it could place Boxer variants in roles in which it replaces platforms that it is clearly far superior to. But having a common fleet will create savings in training and maintenance, especially when it replaces tracked platforms. For once the Army has chosen a true future proofed platform that is proven and relatively mature. The module system means additional variants are far more easily developed that in the case of traditional platforms. With Boxer the British Army has a wheeled AFV that closes the capability gap with traditional tracked AFVs and in many ways surpasses them. It has a huge growth potential with a power train and chassis that can cope with future weight gain and excess power to cope with the needs of future systems. It is a fully digitised platform and will be able to be networked with the Challenger 3 and Ajax if the latter actually enters service. It is more expensive that some other 8x8 or 6x6 platforms, but I believe this is justified by its capabilities.

The way this are looking it may be that a number of the roles originally envisaged for the MRV(P) Phase 2 are now to be carried out by Boxer. This does not mean the former programme is dead, but it further takes away any urgency for that programme if Boxer is meeting some of the requirements, whilst existing platform, possibly upgraded fill in the other capability needs such as Foxhound and Mastiff.
My biggest problem here is cost lets say we buy 1500 Boxer's this could cost 6.9 billion now if we say we were to buy 1000 Boxer's and 500 Patria 6x6 this would be closer to 5.1 Billion leaving 1.8 billion. Now for this 1.8 billion we could buy 1000 Bushmaster plus 600 BvS-10 so we can spend 6.9 billion and get the vehicles we need for the heavy BCT's in the 3rd Division or we can spend 6.9 billion and get all the vehicles we need for the 1st & 3rd Division's

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7286
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 317 times
Been liked: 351 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

I agree Boxer is expensive, but it is the only platform on order that could be used to replace platforms like the Sultan and Bulldog is the roles they currently hold. Other programmes like the MRV(P) which could have provided cheaper alternatives have withered through lack of progress and/or interest. At present the intension could be to issue the Boxer only to the two Heavy BCTs, the Deep Fires BCT and the relevant supporting units, it also seems that the British Army is finally giving priority to re-equipping our heavy units after decades of neglect.

There is still time for a reinvigorated MRV(P) programme to select new 4x4 and 6x6 AFVs to equip our lighter units, but fortunately we have existing platforms such as Foxhound, Mastiff and Jackal that can more then adequately hold the fort until that time. The Army's priority at present is focused on its heavier elements, especially its Artillery, as well as a multitude of other programmes with a higher priority then MRV(P)

Personally, I believe the Boxer is the best suited vehicle to operate in the Army's heavier units including outside the planned five Mechanised Infantry Battalions. What I would like to see though is the Army deciding to equip a number of the Infantry Carrier variant with an unmanned turret mounting a medium calibre Auto Cannon and ATGWs to boost the fire power of the latter. The modest upgrade of adding Javelin to the RWS already selected is a step in the right direction, but I do not think we should be devolving back to the 1970s when our Infantry doctrine was based on the FV432 APC. Though we currently do not intend to use our Boxer Infantry Carriers as IFVs, we need to develop a new Infantry Doctrine that make the best usage of the Boxer and Infantry combination.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3823
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 58 times
Been liked: 226 times
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

This not true as Ajax is on order and can replace both Bulldog and Sultan in there role yes Ajax might not make it in to service but right now it is on order plus the idea that because a vehicle is the only one currently on order make it the only or best option we have is a poor one

Point two the only reason MRV(P) has gone quite is money right now Boxer stands us in at 2.8 billion for 623 vehicles and if Ajax goes ahead it will cost 3.5 billion for 590 vehicles = 6.4 billion

We know that Patria 6x6 can carry out all the tasks of Bulldog and Sultan at 1/5 the price of Boxer we also know that it can be fitted with a 25/ 30mm remote turret or Nemo 120 mortar we also know it can fitted with level 4 armour

Now I am not saying we should not have 1500 boxer but if that is all the money we have then for the price of 500 Boxers we could have 500 Patria 6x6 , 500 Vikings and 1000 Bushmasters and for I would rather see the army spend the part of 7 billion on

1000 x Boxer
1000 x Bushmaster
500 x Patria 6x6
500 x Vikings

This could allow the Army to have 3 Heavy and 3 Light Mechanised BCTs

sol
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 45 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Lord Jim wrote: 30 Sep 2022, 23:32 I agree Boxer is expensive, but it is the only platform on order that could be used to replace platforms like the Sultan and Bulldog is the roles they currently hold.
FV430 has its own replacement program
The current out of service date for Bulldog is 2030. The Bulldog capability will be replaced by another platform or family of platforms, yet to be determined. The Army has assigned resources to replace Bulldog and, on current plans, procurement activity should commence in 2025.
Maybe, in the end, the Army could decide to use Boxer for this, but IMO that would be just a waste of money. Also I doubt that even the all Boxers from the first two batches would be fully operational by the time Bulldog replacement is decided, so there is still lot of time to find something more suitable for that role. Boxer is just to expensive for this and there is many other programs which could use more money, like AA and UAV defence for example, or even one more regiment of tanks or proper IFV (just a wishful thinking)
Tempest414 wrote: 01 Oct 2022, 10:14 ... right now Boxer stands us in at 2.8 billion for 623 vehicles ...
2.8 billion is only for first batch of 523. I couldn't find price for additional 100 vehicles.

Post Reply