Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Online
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1277
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

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mr.fred wrote: 02 Apr 2023, 10:31 When they canned WCSP it was because the IFV role is obsolete.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.
Bwhahaha. Amazing how a fixed price contract is "out of control". Lying seems to be the American dream.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1009
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SD67 »

We’ll so far the cost per finished unit delivered and accepted is about 200£ million which is a tad over the odds

Online
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1277
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

SD67 wrote: 02 Apr 2023, 18:40 We’ll so far the cost per finished unit delivered and accepted is about 200£ million which is a tad over the odds
Well the first platform was doomed then because without any manufacturing payments it would have cost £500m.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1009
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SD67 »

700 million was already paid for a development phase.

In a manufacturing phase there is no reason for payment other than on completion and acceptance of a finished product. Otherwise what's the incentive to get it right? Certainly that's how it worked at Barrow, I remember everyone's payment terms being pushed out because BAE didn't have the cash because Ambush was taking a long time to rectify and therefore the RN weren't paying, period. It tends to focus the mind. But agreed Ajax is far more complicated than a nuclear sub...don't be too hard on GD

Online
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1277
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

SD67 wrote: 03 Apr 2023, 07:55 In a manufacturing phase there is no reason for payment other than on completion and acceptance of a finished product.
That's not true at all. It's perfectly reasonable that having committed to long-lead items (electronics, steel armour, drivetrains, turrets) that payments would be made in line with invoices received from suppliers into the prime. The prime doesn't carry all cost burdem that for the entire production run, and suppliers don't run a line of credit for delivery timelines to a customer that are outside of their control.
SD67 wrote: 03 Apr 2023, 07:55 Otherwise what's the incentive to get it right? Certainly that's how it worked at Barrow, I remember everyone's payment terms being pushed out because BAE didn't have the cash because Ambush was taking a long time to rectify and therefore the RN weren't paying, period. It tends to focus the mind. But agreed Ajax is far more complicated than a nuclear sub...don't be too hard on GD
So once the reactor was built and installed who paid Rolls Royce?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7156
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote: 02 Apr 2023, 17:15
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.
Bwhahaha. Amazing how a fixed price contract is "out of control". Lying seems to be the American dream.
Which contract, the original or the re-negotiated?

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1009
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SD67 »

RunningStrong wrote: 03 Apr 2023, 09:24
SD67 wrote: 03 Apr 2023, 07:55 In a manufacturing phase there is no reason for payment other than on completion and acceptance of a finished product.
That's not true at all. It's perfectly reasonable that having committed to long-lead items (electronics, steel armour, drivetrains, turrets) that payments would be made in line with invoices received from suppliers into the prime. The prime doesn't carry all cost burdem that for the entire production run, and suppliers don't run a line of credit for delivery timelines to a customer that are outside of their control.
SD67 wrote: 03 Apr 2023, 07:55 Otherwise what's the incentive to get it right? Certainly that's how it worked at Barrow, I remember everyone's payment terms being pushed out because BAE didn't have the cash because Ambush was taking a long time to rectify and therefore the RN weren't paying, period. It tends to focus the mind. But agreed Ajax is far more complicated than a nuclear sub...don't be too hard on GD
So once the reactor was built and installed who paid Rolls Royce?
Rolls are paid directly - GFE
I imagine similar to the turret and CT40 on Ajax

Online
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1277
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

SD67 wrote: 03 Apr 2023, 19:38
RunningStrong wrote: 03 Apr 2023, 09:24
SD67 wrote: 03 Apr 2023, 07:55 In a manufacturing phase there is no reason for payment other than on completion and acceptance of a finished product.
That's not true at all. It's perfectly reasonable that having committed to long-lead items (electronics, steel armour, drivetrains, turrets) that payments would be made in line with invoices received from suppliers into the prime. The prime doesn't carry all cost burdem that for the entire production run, and suppliers don't run a line of credit for delivery timelines to a customer that are outside of their control.
SD67 wrote: 03 Apr 2023, 07:55 Otherwise what's the incentive to get it right? Certainly that's how it worked at Barrow, I remember everyone's payment terms being pushed out because BAE didn't have the cash because Ambush was taking a long time to rectify and therefore the RN weren't paying, period. It tends to focus the mind. But agreed Ajax is far more complicated than a nuclear sub...don't be too hard on GD
So once the reactor was built and installed who paid Rolls Royce?
Rolls are paid directly - GFE
I imagine similar to the turret and CT40 on Ajax
Turret isn't GFE (CT40 is, AHS isn't). Neither are the Thales Sights.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Wheeled AFVs are cheaper to run and easier to train drivers for. The platforms suffer far less wear and tear from operations, and require less support when deploying and in the field.

There is a case for the MRV(P) programme to be resurrected to provide additional platforms to mechanise Infantry battalions that are currently classed as "Light role".

For any cavalry version there are already manned and unmanned turrets mounting the CT40 Autocannon that can also take a number of heavy ATGWs.

Mercator
Member
Posts: 661
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Mercator »

Lord Jim wrote: 06 Apr 2023, 00:07 Wheeled AFVs are cheaper to run and easier to train drivers for. The platforms suffer far less wear and tear from operations, and require less support when deploying and in the field.

There is a case for the MRV(P) programme to be resurrected to provide additional platforms to mechanise Infantry battalions that are currently classed as "Light role"...
Image

Not especially expensive. Much cheaper to buy and operate, compared to Boxer. Motorised battalions of them exist right now and you need only ask to obtain the cost breakdowns. A complete known quantity. To my mind, the lack of it, even now, is simply a lack of will. Battalions of Horse Guards probably cost more.

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 773
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mrclark303 »

Mercator wrote: 06 Apr 2023, 06:24
Lord Jim wrote: 06 Apr 2023, 00:07 Wheeled AFVs are cheaper to run and easier to train drivers for. The platforms suffer far less wear and tear from operations, and require less support when deploying and in the field.

There is a case for the MRV(P) programme to be resurrected to provide additional platforms to mechanise Infantry battalions that are currently classed as "Light role"...
Image

Not especially expensive. Much cheaper to buy and operate, compared to Boxer. Motorised battalions of them exist right now and you need only ask to obtain the cost breakdowns. A complete known quantity. To my mind, the lack of it, even now, is simply a lack of will. Battalions of Horse Guards probably cost more.
Sounds like a great idea, but we obviously have to apply our procurement philosophy....

So it has to be built here, perhaps make it 12" longer, 4" wider and 3" higher, hmmm, a yes, what about making it tracks one side and 9 wheels the other ... Rocket engine, 155 mm cannon on the roof and a cloaking device......

Feel free to add changes and I'll start shoveling money into a hole in the ground to get us started.....

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5434
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

I really like Bushmaster its got a lot of pluses going for it what is the cost today 750,000 to 1 million per unit that puts it in the same price range as a Patria 6x6 and the BVs-10 all are very good vehicles and could do a great job. The big thing is the Army needs new vehicles that can be deployed where and then needed at this time we have on order

148 Challenger 3 upgrades
590 Ajax
623 Boxer + funding for 375 extra not ordered
100 BVs-10
70 Jackals
14 Archer 155mm

In some ways both Ajax's and Boxer are like the Navies type 26 in they cost a lot and are being built slowly and what the army needs is a Type 31 program something like Bushmaster , Patria 6x6 or BVs-10 a lot cheaper built quicker

If we were to buy say 1000 bushmasters or Patria 6x6 I see no problem with us building say 600 of them
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 2):
DaheddLord Jim

sol
Member
Posts: 478
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Tempest414 wrote: 06 Apr 2023, 10:14 I really like Bushmaster its got a lot of pluses going for it what is the cost today 750,000 to 1 million per unit ...
Price would probably be way over £1 million per unit, probably £1.2 to £1.4, maybe even more. Maybe Foxhound was not so expensive after all.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5434
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

sol wrote: 06 Apr 2023, 13:18
Tempest414 wrote: 06 Apr 2023, 10:14 I really like Bushmaster its got a lot of pluses going for it what is the cost today 750,000 to 1 million per unit ...
Price would probably be way over £1 million per unit, probably £1.2 to £1.4, maybe even more. Maybe Foxhound was not so expensive after all.
would that be the price if we ordered 1000 of them as the last few orders have been for less than 50. If it would still remain at say 1.2 million then it is out of the game as Patria 6x6 is 1 million a pop with Latvia ordering 200+ vehicles for 200 million euros

sol
Member
Posts: 478
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Tempest414 wrote: 06 Apr 2023, 14:27 would that be the price if we ordered 1000 of them as the last few orders have been for less than 50. If it would still remain at say 1.2 million then it is out of the game as Patria 6x6 is 1 million a pop with Latvia ordering 200+ vehicles for 200 million euros
Well not sure how that would work, to be honest. Patria is more an option for FV432 replacement, not for MRV-P, for which Bushmaster is supposed to be one of contenders. Their roles are different. Another question is what will happen with MRV-P as it was supposed to replace platforms like Panther, Foxhound and Mastiff family, as there is very little news about it now, or to be more precise none at all.

One thing is for certain, using Boxers for every role will be extremely expensive. It would be great for sure, but will there be money for all that? My guess is no. UK needs some other cheaper vehicle that will take roles that FV432 provided.

And, IMO, there is still a role for tracked vehicles. I still think that UK should replace Warrior with tracked vehicle, but that is just my opinion. Just a Boxer with 50 cal is a joke.
These users liked the author sol for the post:
SD67

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5434
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

sol wrote: 06 Apr 2023, 15:19
Tempest414 wrote: 06 Apr 2023, 14:27 would that be the price if we ordered 1000 of them as the last few orders have been for less than 50. If it would still remain at say 1.2 million then it is out of the game as Patria 6x6 is 1 million a pop with Latvia ordering 200+ vehicles for 200 million euros
Well not sure how that would work, to be honest. Patria is more an option for FV432 replacement, not for MRV-P, for which Bushmaster is supposed to be one of contenders. Their roles are different. Another question is what will happen with MRV-P as it was supposed to replace platforms like Panther, Foxhound and Mastiff family, as there is very little news about it now, or to be more precise none at all.

One thing is for certain, using Boxers for every role will be extremely expensive. It would be great for sure, but will there be money for all that? My guess is no. UK needs some other cheaper vehicle that will take roles that FV432 provided.

And, IMO, there is still a role for tracked vehicles. I still think that UK should replace Warrior with tracked vehicle, but that is just my opinion. Just a Boxer with 50 cal is a joke.
Lets say we get all 1000 Boxers funded plus all 590 Ajax what would the Warrior replacement replace and what with an Ares APC fitted with a RT40/60 turret if we were to buy

590 Ajax plus 200 Ares APC fitted with RT60 turret
1000 Boxer with say 250 of them fitted with RT40/60
800 Patria 6x6
500 Bushmaster
1400 of a clean sheet design to replace Jackal , Foxhound , Panther & Husky

would the Army not be in a good place

sol
Member
Posts: 478
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Tempest414 wrote: 06 Apr 2023, 16:06 Lets say we get all 1000 Boxers funded plus all 590 Ajax what would the Warrior replacement replace and what with an Ares APC fitted with a RT40/60 turret if we were to buy

590 Ajax plus 200 Ares APC fitted with RT60 turret
1000 Boxer with say 250 of them fitted with RT40/60
I doubt MoD would jump to order more Ajax family vehicles unless they show as exceptionally good vehicle. Or there is corruption involved. But if IFV version is ordered, than why would you need 1000 Boxers for. Especially with remote turrets.
Tempest414 wrote: 06 Apr 2023, 16:06 800 Patria 6x6
If you have tracked IFV, than you will probably go with tracked support vehicles.
Tempest414 wrote: 06 Apr 2023, 16:06 500 Bushmaster
1400 of a clean sheet design to replace Jackal , Foxhound , Panther & Husky
Or maybe just one platform that will replace them all.

FS only have 5 mech battalions. Unless 2023 review change that, there is either no need for tracked IFV or so many Boxers. And seems like there is no intention to replace Warrior with either tracked IFV or up-gunned Boxer. Thing is both CR3 and Boxers will become available in sufficient numbers only around 2028-2030, and if paring tank and wheeled APC proves not to be satisfactory, it would cost more to either upgrade new Boxers APCs to something more resembling IFV or find other vehicle for that role. Not to mention waste of time as it will go deeper into 2030s without putting credible force.
These users liked the author sol for the post:
Tempest414

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5434
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

sol wrote: 06 Apr 2023, 18:25
Tempest414 wrote: 06 Apr 2023, 16:06 Lets say we get all 1000 Boxers funded plus all 590 Ajax what would the Warrior replacement replace and what with an Ares APC fitted with a RT40/60 turret if we were to buy

590 Ajax plus 200 Ares APC fitted with RT60 turret
1000 Boxer with say 250 of them fitted with RT40/60
I doubt MoD would jump to order more Ajax family vehicles unless they show as exceptionally good vehicle. Or there is corruption involved. But if IFV version is ordered, than why would you need 1000 Boxers for. Especially with remote turrets.
Tempest414 wrote: 06 Apr 2023, 16:06 800 Patria 6x6
If you have tracked IFV, than you will probably go with tracked support vehicles.
Tempest414 wrote: 06 Apr 2023, 16:06 500 Bushmaster
1400 of a clean sheet design to replace Jackal , Foxhound , Panther & Husky
Or maybe just one platform that will replace them all.

FS only have 5 mech battalions. Unless 2023 review change that, there is either no need for tracked IFV or so many Boxers. And seems like there is no intention to replace Warrior with either tracked IFV or up-gunned Boxer. Thing is both CR3 and Boxers will become available in sufficient numbers only around 2028-2030, and if paring tank and wheeled APC proves not to be satisfactory, it would cost more to either upgrade new Boxers APCs to something more resembling IFV or find other vehicle for that role. Not to mention waste of time as it will go deeper into 2030s without putting credible force.
A few things here if Ajax gets into service we will not buy another tracked IFV with 93 APC's in the 590 Ajax's ordered adding say 150 more with RT60 fitted would be the quickest way go

As for Boxer if were to buy an extra 150 Ares APC's then we would only buy 900 Boxers adding RT60 to Boxer has already been done and tested so as long as it proved OK this could be done by handing over 10 modules at a time

Yes FS only has 5 heavy mech battalions but for me this should be pushed to 6 three in each brigade . Then there is the 1st division I can't see this being tracked but again as I have said in the past I would like to see the 1st become more Mechanised and to that end I would like to see it get Patria 6x6 and JLTV or as said a clean sheet design

sol
Member
Posts: 478
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Tempest414 wrote: 07 Apr 2023, 09:30 A few things here if Ajax gets into service we will not buy another tracked IFV with 93 APC's in the 590 Ajax's ordered adding say 150 more with RT60 fitted would be the quickest way go
Those Ares are intended to replace Spartans in recce regiments, you can't just took them and move into infantry battalion as recce regiment will suffer. But even if you want to use them to create armoured infantry battalion, as you said it, it would still require more of them and that means further orders from GD. Ajax will eventually enter service, there is very little doubt about that, but it still needs to prove itself trough service and I doubt without that anyone would risk his career to order more of the troubled vehicle.
Tempest414 wrote: 07 Apr 2023, 09:30 As for Boxer if were to buy an extra 150 Ares APC's then we would only buy 900 Boxers adding RT60 to Boxer has already been done and tested so as long as it proved OK this could be done by handing over 10 modules at a time
Again, if you are using tracked IFVs, there is no need for more Boxers. Who will use them? And if there will be no tracked IFV in the future, than MoD should already decide to use turreted version, as any later upgrade would just require time and money and it would be waste of both.
Tempest414 wrote: 07 Apr 2023, 09:30 Yes FS only has 5 heavy mech battalions but for me this should be pushed to 6 three in each brigade . Then there is the 1st division I can't see this being tracked but again as I have said in the past I would like to see the 1st become more Mechanised and to that end I would like to see it get Patria 6x6 and JLTV or as said a clean sheet design
I can only discuss planned orbat defined by FS, or if there are some changes in its refresh. And by it there are only 5 mech battalions (for now) while 1st Div is supposed to use whatever MRV-P will result with. So I still can't understand why there is a need for so many Boxers unless, in the end there is intention to replace FV432 with it, no matter how expensive that would be. Or maybe to use them as a base for many other variants but than should planned replacement for FV432 be used for that as those would hardly be frontline roles and it would be cheaper. 789 Warriors was enough for 9 battalions, 628 VBCI is used in 8 infantry regiments in the French Army and it is also some tank regiments, while 623 Boxers is not just not enough for 5 battalions but somehow there is a need for many more (over 1k). I would really like to know how all those Boxers are supposed to be distributed among the Army.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5434
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

Well we come back full circle to what I said some time back with 590 Ajax and 623 Boxer what else dose the 3rd division need in terms of this type of vehicle maybe if we pushed to 6 Mech battalion in the 3rd we would need say 100 extra Boxer

When it comes to the 1st again we have 5 Light mech battalions

the Army said it had funding for 1000 Boxers and it wants 1400 however right now I can't see a need for so many Boxers. If we take the 1000 funded we have 623 on order meaning there is funding for 377 extra Boxers at 4 million a pop that is 1.6 billion if we were to order 100 extra Boxer that leave 1.2 billion in the pot with that money we could buy 700 Patria 6x6 & 800 JLTV to equip 8 battalions of light Mech in the 1st div

Online
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1277
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

sol wrote: 07 Apr 2023, 10:54 [ So I still can't understand why there is a need for so many Boxers unless, in the end there is intention to replace FV432 with it, no matter how expensive that would be. Or maybe to use them as a base for many other variants but than should planned replacement for FV432 be used for that as those would hardly be frontline roles and it would be cheaper.
Boxer probably should replace FV432 for several roles in the Armoured Artillery units.

sol
Member
Posts: 478
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

RunningStrong wrote: 07 Apr 2023, 16:52 Boxer probably should replace FV432 for several roles in the Armoured Artillery units.
I guess that is true. Also guess ambulance version of Boxer will replace Samaritan in the recce regiments considering that UK didn't ordered ambulance version of Ajax, possibly even in the armoured regiments too, considering how many are ordered. But still it is baffling to me that even with 623 ordered vehicles, probably more will be needed just to equip 5 mech battalions considering number of infantry version ordered so far. Wonder when the Army requested 1400 or around that number, did they already planned/expected that Boxer RCH 155 will replace AS-90.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

sol wrote: 07 Apr 2023, 19:35 Wonder when the Army requested 1400 or around that number, did they already planned/expected that Boxer RCH 155 will replace AS-90.
I think that once they've got all the HQs fitted out with them, they'll need something for the infantry.

Mercator
Member
Posts: 661
Joined: 06 May 2015, 02:10
Contact:
Australia

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Mercator »

Good enough for this badass:

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5434
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

So at the moment out out some 1200 armoured vehicles ordered there is only 178 APC with 85 Boxer APC and 93 Ajax APC

So given a Mech battalion needs 90 vehicles something like

42 APC's
15 C&C
9 ATGW
9 x Mortar
4 Assault Pioneer
8 Recce

In the Armoured battalion this is covered by

57 Warrior
21 AFV 432
8 CVR(T)

so with 85 Boxer APC there is just enough for 2 x Battalions

Post Reply