Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3821
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 58 times
Been liked: 226 times
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

sol wrote: 01 Oct 2022, 10:36
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.
So I have seen that the first 523 were 2.3 billion giving a unit price of 5 million per unit so I just times it by 100 to give 500 million for the second batch making it 2.8 billion for the 623 units. Now I think I saw some where that there was a 500 million service contact that could take boxer to 3.3 billion for the 623 units

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: 01 Oct 2022, 11:23 So I have seen that the first 523 were 2.3 billion giving a unit price of 5 million per unit so I just times it by 100 to give 500 million for the second batch making it 2.8 billion for the 623 units. Now I think I saw some where that there was a 500 million service contact that could take boxer to 3.3 billion for the 623 units
From the gov.uk website, from 2019
A contract worth £2.8-billion has been signed to provide state-of-the-art armoured fighting vehicles to the British Army.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/28bn ... itish-army

If they are wrong than so am I. I don't know how much will be paid for 2nd batch, but total price for both almost certainly is over 3 billion. I guess that price per vehicle could drop for next orders but then again due inflation it could also increase. But as no data is available online we can only guess.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3821
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 maybe wrong but as far as I know the 2.8 billion boxer contract is in two parts 2.3 billion for the 523 vehicles and 500 million for the support contract = 2.8 billion as for the 100 extra vehicles I said I just took the 2.3 billion div by the 523 to make 5 million per unit and then times by 100 to give a cost of 500 million its just me working around some figures but I don't think I will be that far off

We have seen this with Type 31 the contact for the ships is 1.25 billion and the extra contracts for the program come in at 750 million giving a hole program cost of 2 billion for type 31

Zeno
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Has liked: 9 times
Been liked: 8 times
Australia

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Zeno »

In regard to possible lessons learnt from the Ukraine war ,where drones have often struck from above with impunity ,and that "Trophy" may be considered too expensive to equip all vehicles should a vehicle/platform be developed in large numbers with a high traverse rate for attacks? I have not seen claims of "Skyranger" being able to have a high traverse against overhead targets (attacking low flying rotary units perhaps).
I have included as an example what might be feasible it might be that Boxer manufacturers have something else in mind.
https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.c ... -launched/

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 40 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Zeno wrote: 02 Oct 2022, 02:01 In regard to possible lessons learnt from the Ukraine war ,where drones have often struck from above with impunity ,and that "Trophy" may be considered too expensive to equip all vehicles should a vehicle/platform be developed in large numbers with a high traverse rate for attacks? I have not seen claims of "Skyranger" being able to have a high traverse against overhead targets (attacking low flying rotary units perhaps).
I have included as an example what might be feasible it might be that Boxer manufacturers have something else in mind.
https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.c ... -launched/
If a drone is over the top of one vehicle, then another vehicle would be able to engage it at a lower angle, so the ability to shoot directly up with a high elevation isn't as vital as you might think. Also aiming straight up along the axis of traverse makes control tricky.

Rate of traverse needed to track a moving target is also less important than you might think, given the relatively low speed of most of these drones. Even anti tank missiles tend to be subsonic. Having a longer range on the gun allows you to cover more ground (and airspace) but also means that engaging a target at longer range reduces its apparent angular velocity for a given linear velocity.

The bigger problem, in my mind, is the detection of such things and the ability to pass that information to other vehicles.
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post:
Lord Jim

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 »

Short video, discussing the development of the Boxer Overwatch and Boxer mortar Carrier. With the latter it is interesting that the same module can have either a 81mm or a 120mm Mortar installed, to which it appears an automatic aiming system is attached. I really hope the MoD pull its figure out and looks to move beyond the current dismounted Mortar concept, which is not really suitable for modern high intensity warfare as it will leave the Mortar and its crew vulnerable during any fire mission including the time needed to set up and take down teh Mortar.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 2):
bobpTempest414

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 »

Yet another informative video from the Weapon Detective on You Tube discussing the Boxer, its history together with current and possible future developments. Points like the ability to the Mission module to be changed to any other module in under an hour under field conditions emphasises the benefits of its modular configuration, and the fact that it has beaten its main rival the AMV in the Australian and other competitions points to is capabilities justifying its higher cost in some circumstances/



With the UK planning to be the largest user of the platform according to current plans, we should be in a very good position moving forward. The development of additional mission modules to meet UK requirements should be facilitated by the creation of a full Boxer production line in the UK that may even outlast the line in Germany if the UK purchases the number it appears to need and in the relevant configurations involved.

It is my opinion that the UK should really double down on the Boxer and use it to equip all units that have a front-line combat requirement that are still using variants of the FV430 and CVR(T) families. Having a large common fleet of wheeled AFVs would eventually give the Mod noticeable saving in support costs as well as those for training the personnel to use it. Having new capabilities satisfied by variants of the Boxer should also have reduced developmental costs as such a programme would really only require the development of a new mission module that stays within existing parameters. Other new capabilities like the local air defence and counter UAV requirements could be satisfied by an off the shelf purchase of the Boxer anti Air variants already developed as could the Boxer RCH replace the AS-90.

With the issues with Ajax, I would also like the UK to develop a variant of the Australian Boxer CVR, optimised for use by the British Army. Whether it used the same Turret as the CVR or uses the turret chosen for Ajax are options the Army would have, but the vehicle has the size and performance to carry out the role if needed. Again, having a common fleet across the Army will bring savings down the line that could be used to further develop the platform, fund other Army programmes or those in the wider defence sphere.

AS I said up above these are my views and opinions based on what I have read and how I have interpreted things.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3821
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 58 times
Been liked: 226 times
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

If Ajax fails I can see Boxer as a option to replace it how ever as said when it comes to FV430 if we were to replace them with 500 Boxer we are looking at 2 billion pounds where if we were to go with Patria 6x6 it would cost 500 million meaning there is a 1.5 billion pound difference in cost I just can't see we could ever get that money back with a all Boxer fleet and remember as said for that 1.5 billion we could also get 1000 Bushmaster's and 500 Vikings allowing the 1st division to have 2 Bushmaster BCT's and a Viking BCT

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 31 times
Korea North

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Cooper »

Tempest414 wrote: 07 Oct 2022, 10:58 If Ajax fails
:lol: ...what do you mean 'if'
These users liked the author Cooper for the post:
Jensy

tomuk
Member
Posts: 559
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 »

Lord Jim wrote: 07 Oct 2022, 00:05 With the UK planning to be the largest user of the platform according to current plans, we should be in a very good position moving forward. The development of additional mission modules to meet UK requirements should be facilitated by the creation of a full Boxer production line in the UK that may even outlast the line in Germany if the UK purchases the number it appears to need and in the relevant configurations involved.
Eh we've already got two Boxer production lines one KMW (WEFL in Stockport) and one Rheinmetall (RBSL in Telford) both German firms were interested in setting up in the UK not only to keep the social impact scores up when tendering but also as a way of side stepping German reticence to allow exports.

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 »

We agree, what5 I was aiming at is that I could see the German plant being reduced to more a R&D centre with more limited manufacturing capacity with the UK sites being the main production hub.

AS for what Boxer could replace and how many we could end up buying, I can see it replacing the CVR(T) Sultans in Armoured units like the Bundeswehr has done for starters. What the Bundeswehr has done with Boxer is use it to replace many of its M113s and Fuchs, providing far greater protection amongst other benefits. Why is this such a problem when a similar process is suggested for the British Army. The Dutch have used many of their Boxers to replace their M577s as well as many of the non-infantry Carrier version of their old IFV family of vehicles.

I would limit the use of Boxer really to the BCTs that would be part of 3rd (UK) Division, with MRV(P) and lighter platforms being used for those of 1st and 6th (UK) Divisions. If needed a Mechanised Infantry unit in Boxer could be sent to strengthen an ongoing operation by units from 1st (UK) Division. However, it will be necessary to ensure alternative to Boxer are used to create platforms for many of the new capabilities the Army wishes to introduce, and these specialist variats will cost more than the basic platform they are based on, both to develop and build.

Regarding the Mechanised Infantry Battalions, I will try to post one or more of the theoretical layouts of these units moving forward including any variants I believe we still need and need to procure. Hopefully on the next couple of weeks. No doubt that will end up stirring to pot somewhat.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
zanahoria

leonard
Member
Posts: 154
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Has liked: 45 times
Been liked: 49 times
Italy

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by leonard »

Breaking News guys a new variant of the Boxer has just dropped.
We have to call it the Boxer/ Roland variant.
It's seems that has been designed to take up the role that was of the Roland on the Marder chassis.
Your thoughts are welcome????

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3821
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 would like to see a Boxer with 10 round HVM
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Dahedd

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 »

leonard wrote: 17 Oct 2022, 20:43 Breaking News guys a new variant of the Boxer has just dropped.
Well .... its is just company proposal, not built model or officially ordered one. It is just a Boxer with IRIS-T missile. Considering that there is proposal of the same system on Mowag Eagle, and Germany is already using it mounted on the MAN truck and BvS, I wonder is it really necessary to use Boxer as a system carrier? Seems like, on Boxer, it would cost some €10-12 million per unit ...
Sub-project 3 "Follow-up qualification land" provides for a wide variety of Boxer-based air defense systems. The tender was originally scheduled for 2026. According to current knowledge, ten fire units are to be procured in sub-project 3, with one fire unit consisting of a Boxer-based effector mix. For example, the Skyranger cannon, but also the high-energy laser plus other guided missile solutions are conceivable. Some of these boxer variants already exist, at least as demonstrators. Six effector plus one command vehicle could contain such a fire unit, at a unit price of 10-12 million per boxer.
https://www.behoerden-spiegel.de/2022/1 ... lugabwehr/

... so could something like successor for FV430 fleet or even just MAN truck, be used instead. If there is need to use Boxer for it then ok, but if there is a cheaper solution that would do the same work why pay more for Boxer.

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 suppose it depends where the system is to operate. If it is to accompany front line units in combat with the opposition, a platform like Boxer could be needed to provide the mobility and protection needed, whereas if used further back, a MAN chassis would do the trick.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 559
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 »

Would it not be possible to fit a 'flatbed\drops' module to the Boxer allowing the same containers\carriers carried by MAN HX to be placed on Boxer? You could take Land Ceptor into hotter areas than possible with the standard HX.

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 think it may be a bit difficult to even to a Boxer Mission Module to house Sky Sabre given its size. IF we want an SPAA Mission Module for Boxer it would probably comprise of a Auto Cannon and/or MANPADS such as Starstreak.. It could incorporate a 360-degree radar in a similar way to what the US has done with its SPAA variant of its Stryker.

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 »

tomuk wrote: 18 Oct 2022, 19:22 Would it not be possible to fit a 'flatbed\drops' module to the Boxer allowing the same containers\carriers carried by MAN HX to be placed on Boxer? You could take Land Ceptor into hotter areas than possible with the standard HX.
CAMM is 3.2m long, and CAMM-ER is 4.2m long.

I think BOXER mission module is circa 4m, but you also need space for a commander in there too. And if you make it DROPS, that's additional equipment, including the Sky Sabre mast.

leonard
Member
Posts: 154
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Has liked: 45 times
Been liked: 49 times
Italy

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by leonard »

And now we have the Boxer Panzerjäger variant by KMW with MBDA Deutschland turret.
For a moment we have to forgett about those specific German missile and imagine it with a pair of BRIMSTONE missile for British Army request .
In my opinion it will make a deadly vehicle and very simple integration .
Yours opinion is welcome ???
These users liked the author leonard for the post (total 2):
Little JDahedd

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 »

leonard wrote: 28 Oct 2022, 17:07 In my opinion it will make a deadly vehicle and very simple integration .
Yours opinion is welcome ???
I personally like this kind of solution more than the one showcased on DVD, simply because IMO it could provide more uniformity between different platforms. For example if Army wanted to get similar capability on Ajax, they could just implement same station as the one for Boxer or even on some other vehicle for LBCTs. This could simplify lot of things. Thing is I don't know if this is the best and the most effective solution.

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 »

I think the opposite of Sol myself. This solution is more difficult to integrate, has fewer ready rounds, burdens the RWS with the inertial mass of the missile system, includes a secondary optic for the missile system which seems unnecessary when firing BVR or NLOS, and (being particularly fussy) has a load of unnecessary hatch episcopes for the commander...

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 40 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

RunningStrong wrote: 28 Oct 2022, 21:02 hatch episcopes
Periscopes.
Episcopes are something substantially different.

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 »

mr.fred wrote: 28 Oct 2022, 21:25
RunningStrong wrote: 28 Oct 2022, 21:02 hatch episcopes
Periscopes.
Episcopes are something substantially different.
Periscopes are for snorkeling, episcopes for fighting.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcope

https://www.lmslichfieldltd.com/epages/ ... cale=en_GB

"In the context of armoured fighting vehicles, such as tanks, a periscopic vision device may also be referred to as an episcope. In this context a periscope refers to a device that can rotate to provide a wider field of view (or is fixed into an assembly that can), while an episcope is fixed into position."

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 40 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

RunningStrong wrote: 28 Oct 2022, 22:18 Periscopes are for snorkeling, episcopes for fighting.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcope

https://www.lmslichfieldltd.com/epages/ ... cale=en_GB

"In the context of armoured fighting vehicles, such as tanks, a periscopic vision device may also be referred to as an episcope. In this context a periscope refers to a device that can rotate to provide a wider field of view (or is fixed into an assembly that can), while an episcope is fixed into position."
I’m aware of the erroneous usage in some quarters, but an episcope is a kind of projector, periscopes are an arrangement of mirrors to displace the line of sight.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/episcopes
an optical device that projects an enlarged image of an opaque object, such as a printed page or photographic print, onto a screen by means of reflected light.
The objects themselves are called periscopes:
Image
I can get a bunch of images with the name plate on them that calls them periscopes, or you could consult the manufacturers:
https://www.kentperiscopes.co.uk/
https://gus-periscopes.com/


Sorry for the diversion, it’s a pet peeve.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 608
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 5 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by whitelancer »

RunningStrong wrote: 28 Oct 2022, 21:02 and (being particularly fussy) has a load of unnecessary hatch episcopes for the commander...
Leaving aside whether they are periscopes or episcopes, I fundamentally disagree that they are unnecessary. For an AFV commander situational awareness is vital, one aspect of this is having all round vision, anything that contributes to this is hardly unnecessary.

Post Reply