Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by BB85 »

It doesn't make sense unless it was included as some sort of political sweetener to encourage Australian government to select Boxer in the first place.
The German production line is currently in full swing but that is expected to switch to the UK, so plenty of capacity in Germany to build their boxers at home.

SiVisPacemParaBellum
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 16 Dec 2022, 15:58
Germany

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SiVisPacemParaBellum »

Germany wants the exact same Version which is currently under production in Queensland. Why would we set up a new production line if there's already one available?
Apart from that: Germany will order around 160 RCH155 this year, another 3-digit-amount of Boxers with the PUMA turret, JFST units + possible engineering + ambulance units.
The Bundeswehr will end up with +1000 Boxers on the long run.
Some +150 Boxers don't matter in this context.
These users liked the author SiVisPacemParaBellum for the post:
RunningStrong

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 need to have an open mind regarding the numerous variants of Boxer Mission Modules that haver been or are being developed. In theory we cold adopt one or more of these and gain considerable capability mileage as a result with only a small amount of British kit required like radios. This is the core reason I strongly believe we should double down on Boxer and use it to replace as many legacy very old platforms still in service with the British Army.

Tracked Boxer is an interesting option. Obviously it is designed to be able to use any of the Mission Modules that have been developed for its wheeled Cousin. Maybe it could be used to augment the Vikings in any BCT allocated to the far North in Norway of Finland. Could a tracked RCH155 be the used as a solution for the Army's replacement of the AS-90, being able to be swapped to the wheeled chassis if travel distance and logistical requirements deem a wheeled platform more applicable. The flexibility of have both a tracked and a wheeled platform using the same Mission Modules and having substantial commonality in its chassis could prove beneficial moving forward.

Mission Modules I believe we should be looking for or developing are:
- Cavalry variant with CTA40 and ATGW.
- SPAA platform with both medium Autocannon and VSHORAD SAM.
- Combat Engineering platform for Royal Engineers.
- Long Range Precision Strike Launcher with Brimstone 2/3 or similar weapon system.
- Armoured Vehicle Launched Bridging platform.
- IFV variant with unmanned turret mounting CTA40 and up to 2 ATGW.
- Mine Layer with multiple AT Mine Launchers.
- EW platform.
- Logistics Platform with half sized DROPS sledges
- REME variant capable of carrying and changing Power Packs up to that installed in Challenger 3.
- C41 Signals and Data Hub/Relay variant.

Other varieties of Mission Module will surely become required as time goes by, such as a variant with a directed Energy Weapon System as well as a Mobile Gun Solution with capabilities similar to the Italian Centauro 2. Ideally I would like the British Army's manoeuvre warfare Brigades equipped in most cases with three Platforms, these being Boxer, Challenger 3 and Ajax.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniaczanahoria

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Lord Jim wrote: 16 Mar 2023, 18:05 This is the core reason I strongly believe we should double down on Boxer and use it to replace as many legacy very old platforms still in service with the British Army.
Considering that the Army is struggling to get any increase in the budget and seems like current one is not enough to cover all its wishes, I doubt that "double down on Boxer" is a good idea. Not to mention that even those 623 ordered are scheduled to be delivered only by 2032.
Lord Jim wrote: 16 Mar 2023, 18:05 Could a tracked RCH155 be the used as a solution for the Army's replacement of the AS-90, being able to be swapped to the wheeled chassis if travel distance and logistical requirements deem a wheeled platform more applicable.
Tracked Boxer itself is still in testing and testing with 155mm is even further away. So it is hard to expect that it should be a viable option for MFP. Also KMW will probably go with current Boxer RCH155 as offer for it, unless tracks are specifically required. It is also hard to expect that there will be so many unused Boxer platform, both wheeled and tracked that you can swap modules as you wish would not be economically viable.

Wishes are one thing, but where will the Army find the money for all of that.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Production of Boxer has started at Telford

These users liked the author sol for the post (total 4):
Ron5Mr Carrotbobphopper

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by bobp »


SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SW1 »


User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SKB »

Production in West Midlands of British Army's new Boxer vehicle begins

(Forces News) 28th March 2023
Production for the British Army's new Boxer armoured vehicle is under way in Telford, Shropshire.

The first welding on the first of 260 vehicles to be manufactured for the Army took place in the West Midlands, with around three a month set to be produced.

In total, the Army has ordered 623 Boxers, with the first vehicles set to be delivered next year.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

SKB wrote: 29 Mar 2023, 20:15 Production in West Midlands of British Army's new Boxer vehicle begins

(Forces News) 28th March 2023
Production for the British Army's new Boxer armoured vehicle is under way in Telford, Shropshire.

The first welding on the first of 260 vehicles to be manufactured for the Army took place in the West Midlands, with around three a month set to be produced.

In total, the Army has ordered 623 Boxers, with the first vehicles set to be delivered next year.
Three a month? Thirty six a year? Jesus wept.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Ron5 wrote: 30 Mar 2023, 15:06 Three a month? Thirty six a year? Jesus wept.
Wonder how many would be produced per year at WFEL. Officially it is expected that 27 vehicles should be in service by 2025, with all 623 by 2032. Maybe slow production was intended to keep production line active for longer time, providing steady the work to the company. Anyway, Warrior will have to cover for both Boxer and Ajax for quite some time.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

sol wrote: 30 Mar 2023, 21:11
Ron5 wrote: 30 Mar 2023, 15:06 Three a month? Thirty six a year? Jesus wept.
Wonder how many would be produced per year at WFEL. Officially it is expected that 27 vehicles should be in service by 2025, with all 623 by 2032. Maybe slow production was intended to keep production line active for longer time, providing steady the work to the company. Anyway, Warrior will have to cover for both Boxer and Ajax for quite some time.
was it not said somewhere that the army had funding for 1000 Boxer's and a need for 1400

As for Warrior having back fill both Ajax and Boxer for some means its upgrade was much needed and should have been much simpler something like the JC 3030 or RT60 turrets

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Tempest414 wrote: 31 Mar 2023, 10:58 was it not said somewhere that the army had funding for 1000 Boxer's and a need for 1400
Yes, there is a funding for some 1000 Boxers and the Army wants much more, but only 623 are ordered so far and any further order is not 100% certain. And that was before it was decided to do Integrated Review Refresh 2023, so unless some additional funding is available, some things might get scrapped to get money for other priorities. With just 5 mech battalions, I don't see why would the British Army need over 1000 Boxers unless there are some significant changes in the orbat.
Tempest414 wrote: 31 Mar 2023, 10:58 As for Warrior having back fill both Ajax and Boxer for some means its upgrade was much needed and should have been much simpler something like the JC 3030 or RT60 turrets
Warrior planed upgrade was canceled, once it i decided to be retired any money spent on some upgrade would be a waste. It already cost a lot to keep current fleet operational just because both Ajax and Boxer are late. It would be pointless now to considering changing whole turret and definitely not cheap, and something more important could be delayed because of that. Does anyone here consider where would MoD find money for all this or it is taken for granted that more money would be just given.

Just keep Warrior as it is, as its replacements start to arrive, those retired could be use for spare parts to keep those still active operational. It is sad but it is the best that currently could be done.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

I agree now is to late for a turret change on Warrior I was thinking 10 years ago it should of been a off the self turret maybe now we could give some of recce Warriors RWS's which could handed on later to something like Boxer , Viking or Ares this could give them better/ more optics and fire on the move fitted with a 12.7mm or 40mm GMG

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote: 31 Mar 2023, 13:57 I agree now is to late for a turret change on Warrior I was thinking 10 years ago it should of been a off the self turret maybe now we could give some of recce Warriors RWS's which could handed on later to something like Boxer , Viking or Ares this could give them better/ more optics and fire on the move fitted with a 12.7mm or 40mm GMG
For whatever reason Warrior didn't get a RWS in Afghanistan (I assume because it was infantry job to protect close in).

A "UOR" for a Kongsberg Protector with the Thales sights would certainly be an upgrade in STA capability on Warrior, and yes could be shared with other vehicles in the fleet.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

Just for me giving those Warriors that are in the Cavalry units a RS4 RWS with 12.7mm , 40mm GMG and maybe at a push a Javelin would be a good thing as these don't have any infantry protection. It could also give them better all round awareness

we have seen both Ajax & CV90 fitted with a RWS plus as said once Warrior goes out of service the RWS units can be handed on for me this is a win win

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Tempest414 wrote: 01 Apr 2023, 10:50 we have seen both Ajax & CV90 fitted with a RWS
On the other hand, both Ajax and CV90 have larger turret. Ajax has elevated position in the back where either another sight or RWS could be placed. Only CV90, as far as I know, that have RWS are those used by Norway. But they have added special platform above the gun, and, on that version, gunner hatch is sliding to the side so RWS is not blocking it in any way. It would be challenging to add RWS on Warrior turret without impeding crew hatches. I am not saying that it is impossible but maybe it was considered and rejected as impractical.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

sol wrote: 01 Apr 2023, 12:18
Tempest414 wrote: 01 Apr 2023, 10:50 we have seen both Ajax & CV90 fitted with a RWS
On the other hand, both Ajax and CV90 have larger turret. Ajax has elevated position in the back where either another sight or RWS could be placed. Only CV90, as far as I know, that have RWS are those used by Norway. But they have added special platform above the gun, and, on that version, gunner hatch is sliding to the side so RWS is not blocking it in any way. It would be challenging to add RWS on Warrior turret without impeding crew hatches. I am not saying that it is impossible but maybe it was considered and rejected as impractical.
All good points but could a mounting plate be fitted to the back of turret the RS4 would only need the weapons fitted as the smoke grenades would be on the main turret it would be a big step up a Warrior with 30mm rarden & 40mm GMG

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Tempest414 wrote: 01 Apr 2023, 13:12 All good points but could a mounting plate be fitted to the back of turret the RS4 would only need the weapons fitted as the smoke grenades would be on the main turret it would be a big step up a Warrior with 30mm rarden & 40mm GMG
Maybe it could. But in that case, barrel of the weapon could block opening one of the hatches and prevent safe exit from a turret. Also RWS would add a lot of weight, RS4 prospect is giving its weight as 135-190kg without weapon and ammo. This could (or could not) put strain on turret turning mechanisam, especially if it is put way back and significantly increase weight on one part of turret and its center of gravity.

Again I am not saying that it is impossible, as I have no knowledge or data for it, or that it is not a bad idea, but just because some other vehicles have it does not mean it is practical to fit it on Warrior.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

again some good points I think we should leave it there for now or move over the Warrior thread as this is the Boxer thread

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Looking at the numbers of Boxers ordered, funded and required by the British Army, it seems they are, for want of a better phrase doubling down on the platform to replace the significant numbers of elderly AFVs still in the Army's inventory. Because of its modular nature Boxer is a good choice for this task, though I think the Army is going to be on a crash course in wheeled AFV tactics etc as Boxer is a totally different beast from say Mastiff.

For me their are two roles that need further clarification. First is its role as a Warrior replacement. i cannot see the Army really wanting to replace an IFV with an APC in its two heavy BCTs. Greater firepower is needed beyond a M2 Browning and possibly a Javelin. Fortunately there are a multitude of off the shelf options available. The second is what shat will the Mortar Carrier take. Will it be a simple 81mm through a rear hatch are a turret mounted 120mm?

The 2023 Refresh is really focusing on the Army and its NATO committed formations so hopefully additional funding will allow the properly equipping of the two Heavy BCTs and the Recce/Deep Strike BCT. The order for two Batteries of Archer 155mm SP guns is promising. ect Committee, additional funding for the Army appears to be a priority with the war in Ukraine highlighting the urgent need for new platforms, and for their delivery to be faster.

Boxers can fulfil many of the roles currently handled by a multitude of elderly platform. It will bring with it cheaper running costs compared to its tracked predecessors and a common fleet in many areas. I would personally like to see at least two or three additional Infantry Units mounted in the Boxer. These could be either the IFV variant or the current APC variant. Replacing the Mastiffs would be where I would start. A Cavalry version could very easily be purchased as both Australia and Germany are purchasing such vehicles. Having a 35mm cannon and two heavy 5th generation ATGWs would do very nicely thank you.

SO the Army seems to be formulating a decent future structure and really just needs additional funding which the 2023 Refresh should provide. Delivery in a timely manner would be my next objective.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 02 Apr 2023, 07:41 It will bring with it cheaper running costs compared to its tracked predecessors and a common fleet in many areas.
There's no way a Boxer is cheaper to run than a FV432 or CVR(T)! Which is many of the roles that we need Boxer to fulfil (mortar, CP etc).

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote: 02 Apr 2023, 07:41 Because of its modular nature Boxer is a good choice for this task,
But because of it's high cost and weight, it isn't.
Lord Jim wrote: 02 Apr 2023, 07:41 First is its role as a Warrior replacement. i cannot see the Army really wanting to replace an IFV with an APC in its two heavy BCTs
Maybe because you perceive the army as rational? When they canned WCSP it was because the IFV role is obsolete.
Lord Jim wrote: 02 Apr 2023, 07:41 The second is what shat will the Mortar Carrier take. Will it be a simple 81mm through a rear hatch are a turret mounted 120mm?
I'd put that first, and recommend a turret mounted 120mm mortar. I expect that this will give the greatest return on investment*
Lord Jim wrote: 02 Apr 2023, 07:41 A Cavalry version could very easily be purchased as both Australia and Germany are purchasing such vehicles. Having a 35mm cannon and two heavy 5th generation ATGWs would do very nicely thank you.
But the Australian cavalry version carries a 30mm? Why not a CT40, seeing as we have a bunch of those and they're common with other autocannon in the land fleet?


*or bang for the buck if I were to stoop so low.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

For me there are 2 problems at this time with the army time and money with this said they find them self in the same place as the RN short on money and need to get new platforms into service so they need a second cheaper vehicle like Patria 6x6

As said before we have funding for 1000 Boxers but the army want 1400 if we say Boxer costs 4 million per vehicle the extra 400 would cost 1.6 Billion for that we could get say 900 Prtria 6x6 and 700 JTLV

We Know that Patria 6x6 can be fitted with RT40 or the 120mm NEMO motar system plus C&C , APC , Medic , Assault Pioneer

So right now with money hard to come by and a real need to have a new fleet this for me is the way forward
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
mr.fred

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

mr.fred wrote: 02 Apr 2023, 10:31 When they canned WCSP it was because the IFV role is obsolete.
Nope. It was because no money to pay for it. Stolen by out of control Ajax.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote: 02 Apr 2023, 14:12
mr.fred wrote: 02 Apr 2023, 10:31 When they canned WCSP it was because the IFV role is obsolete.
Nope. It was because no money to pay for it. Stolen by out of control Ajax.
How so did Ajax steel money from Warrior lets not forget Warrior its self was 230 million some 25% over budget and 3 year over due and not really under control

In fact it could be said that the inability to bring Warrior upgrade in on budget stole money from other projects

Post Reply