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...
Why? They don't currently offer such protection. What do you expect to change?
MOD already announced this at DVD.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
Best way to survive artillery fragments is not to be there...
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 ?RunningStrong wrote: ↑28 Sep 2022, 11:31MOD already announced this at DVD.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
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.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
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.RunningStrong wrote: ↑28 Sep 2022, 09:28Why? 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...
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.
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.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 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.
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.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.
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 moneytomuk 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.
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.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.
If we include Ajax have 11 vehicle type (not including Challenger ) and I think we need to get down to six with say
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.RunningStrong wrote: ↑28 Sep 2022, 20:59Sultan 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 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.
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.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.
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'sLord Jim wrote: ↑30 Sep 2022, 12:40I 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.RunningStrong wrote: ↑28 Sep 2022, 20:59Sultan 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 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.
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.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.
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.
FV430 has its own replacement program
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)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.
2.8 billion is only for first batch of 523. I couldn't find price for additional 100 vehicles.Tempest414 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2022, 10:14 ... right now Boxer stands us in at 2.8 billion for 623 vehicles ...