Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Quite impressive as is the apparent low noise signature of the vehicle compared to a tracked platform. IF our future tube artillery is aimed at supporting our troops and we leave counter battery fire missions to the M270 or hopefully HIMARS, then the RCH155 should be seen as a serious contender to replace the AS-90, together with the advanced munitions that are also needed.
Between now and 2030 the British Army should be doubling down on the Boxer, using it to replace all the FV430 series as well as Warrior and dependant on how Ajax fares, replace the CVR(T) variants that are in service.
The Boxer and even carry the M270's 12 round GMLRS launcher opening up other possibilities. About the only roles the Boxer cannot carry out are a recovery vehicle for the Challenger 3 nor can it carry a bridge strong enough or wide enough to support a Challenger 3. Rheinmetall seems happy to do the base development work on all manner of Boxer Mission Modules for numerous variants. WE should take advantage of this.
Between now and 2030 the British Army should be doubling down on the Boxer, using it to replace all the FV430 series as well as Warrior and dependant on how Ajax fares, replace the CVR(T) variants that are in service.
The Boxer and even carry the M270's 12 round GMLRS launcher opening up other possibilities. About the only roles the Boxer cannot carry out are a recovery vehicle for the Challenger 3 nor can it carry a bridge strong enough or wide enough to support a Challenger 3. Rheinmetall seems happy to do the base development work on all manner of Boxer Mission Modules for numerous variants. WE should take advantage of this.
- whitelancer
- Member
- Posts: 619
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
While I can just about see the utility of a self propelled mortar being able to fire on the move, for a long range artillery piece I really don't see the point.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
From an observers view it raises more than a few questions. I would have to assume it's for guided munitions only.whitelancer wrote:While I can just about see the utility of a self propelled mortar being able to fire on the move, for a long range artillery piece I really don't see the point.
Firstly, it's going to play hell with the gunnery problem. Without smart rounds, what does it mean for your PEr and PEd? Can you adjust off the first round? What does it mean for your battery MPI? Can you even battery fire?
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
It’s certainly a neat trick.
While it may not be used for long range gunnery, it’s likely to mean that the into action and out of action times will be quicker, as it can start laying the gun before it has stopped and start moving the instant the last round is fired
While it may not be used for long range gunnery, it’s likely to mean that the into action and out of action times will be quicker, as it can start laying the gun before it has stopped and start moving the instant the last round is fired
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
It also appears that it doesn't require any form of stabilising struts to be lowered prior to firing even when stationary which should definitely help reduce the time for a fire mission. Definitely starting to warm towards this platform. Has anyone seen any pics of the reduced height version of this vehicle?
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Both videos show the lower configuration vehicle.Lord Jim wrote:It also appears that it doesn't require any form of stabilising struts to be lowered prior to firing even when stationary which should definitely help reduce the time for a fire mission. Definitely starting to warm towards this platform. Has anyone seen any pics of the reduced height version of this vehicle?
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Does it fit on a River B2? I hear they need to be a bit more spikey.
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
It certainly looks non deck-penetratingtomuk wrote:Does it fit on a River B2? I hear they need to be a bit more spikey.
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Just going past warcop training centre, a66.
Just fought a glimpse of an 8x8 fitted with a turret.
Unfortunately didn't have time to stop or go back for a better look. So can only presume it was a boxer.
Just fought a glimpse of an 8x8 fitted with a turret.
Unfortunately didn't have time to stop or go back for a better look. So can only presume it was a boxer.
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Could be the example fitted with the RT60 turret that has been mentioned earlier in the thread. Look a couple of pages back and you will see some pics and post regarding this.
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Apparently that vehicle was prepared for a potential middle east customer and was "borrowed" by WFEL to get the UK salivating.Lord Jim wrote:Could be the example fitted with the RT60 turret that has been mentioned earlier in the thread. Look a couple of pages back and you will see some pics and post regarding this.
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Although the Army says it does not see the Boxer as an IFV in public, what they actually think maybe the opposite, especially at unit level. Surely the cost of at least equipping part of the fleet with a decent turret cannot be that much, say two Battalions worth of APC variants upgraded so each Heavy BCT has one Battalion so equipped and another in the APC with Javelin added to RWS. We would be looking at a maximum of 120 upgrades to do this, and it should be a high priority as it would give deployable forces some back bone.
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Or do something similar to US Stryker battalion and equip two Boxers per platoons with remote turret. That would mean 6 per company, 18 for infantry and 8 recce per battalion for total of 26. For four battalions that would require 104 turreted versions, 32 recce and 72 for infantry.Lord Jim wrote:Although the Army says it does not see the Boxer as an IFV in public, what they actually think maybe the opposite, especially at unit level. Surely the cost of at least equipping part of the fleet with a decent turret cannot be that much, say two Battalions worth of APC variants upgraded so each Heavy BCT has one Battalion so equipped and another in the APC with Javelin added to RWS. We would be looking at a maximum of 120 upgrades to do this, and it should be a high priority as it would give deployable forces some back bone.
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Rheinmetall will preset a Boxer with mortar mission module on DSEI. Seems like module was designed and built in the UK and is using Rheinmetall 81mm mortar weapon system, MWS 81.
https://www.rheinmetall.com/en/media/ed ... tar_en.pdf
https://www.rheinmetall.com/en/media/ed ... tar_en.pdf
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Interesting choice on the 81mm mortar. I'd assumed if it was mounted on a boxer the army would have gone for a 120mm option.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
It's a direct replacement to the ageing FV432 platform, so it makes sense to meet the current capability, and leave the up-sell to the (much needed) 120mm for a later date.BB85 wrote:Interesting choice on the 81mm mortar. I'd assumed if it was mounted on a boxer the army would have gone for a 120mm option.
-
OnlineTempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5624
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
It is just a shame we are not going with Nemo with its ability to fire on the move , direct fire 360 degrees and all from under armour it just seems a better way forward
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
But somewhat overkill for armoured infantry?Tempest414 wrote:It is just a shame we are not going with Nemo with its ability to fire on the move , direct fire 360 degrees and all from under armour it just seems a better way forward
-
OnlineTempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5624
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Size (turret again atop a large 8x8), effect (120mm in fighting at infantry ranges increases danger close limits), training burden (an additional AFV crew member as gunner), supply chain (larger she'll resupply).Tempest414 wrote:Really why ?
The additional range is great in many cases, but exceeds that of the current need for infantry engagements.