Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
BB85
Member
Posts: 213
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by BB85 »

I didn't realised they mounted a warrior turret onto Patria, is there any detail on what was included in the box launcher? I'm sure it was very functional but hardly a work of art.

The Nexter remote turret looks tidy with the CTA cannon, it will be interesting to see if they develop their own speculative module in the hope the UK MOD makes a purchase.

It will be interesting to see what the takeaways are in terms of deploying ATGM's from the Russian Ukraine war, I get the feeling dismounted infantry will still be the preferred option especially if they are networking into drones for targeting.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

That RT60 turret is quite far back on the Boxer. Wonder if that hurts gun depression. Wouldn't want any of those hatches open if the guns are live, or if those smoke launchers are loaded.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2649
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by bobp »

This is a better view from the side, looks like the wing mirrors have been removed. The remote weapons station seems quite high off the ground.


bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2649
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by bobp »

The article mentions that they used a British module to produce this ???


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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

BB85 wrote: 21 Jun 2023, 20:20 I didn't realised they mounted a warrior turret onto Patria, is there any detail on what was included in the box launcher? I'm sure it was very functional but hardly a work of art.
It popped up again in green, with a different launcher:
Image
Javelin would make most sense, but I can't find anything that says

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

bobp wrote: 21 Jun 2023, 21:27 This is a better view from the side, looks like the wing mirrors have been removed. The remote weapons station seems quite high off the ground.
Pretty common, if not to avoid shooting them directly, I don't imagine that the muzzle blast does anything good for them either.
bobp wrote: 21 Jun 2023, 21:27 The article mentions that they used a British module to produce this ???
I think it means the module with two hatches with periscopes at the front of the module, which would be why the turret is so far back

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

bobp wrote: 21 Jun 2023, 21:27 This is a better view from the side, looks like the wing mirrors have been removed. The remote weapons station seems quite high off the ground.
Typically wing mirrors are only used for road moves to meet legal requirements. They're always removed for firing.

The RWS is high up, they always are. There are lower profile units available, but this gives the best look-down for close on protection which is essential when working alongside infantry.

The turret is further back because it's unmanned, therefore the commander is located behind the driver and keep their own reversionary sights in the crewstation hatch.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Do people think the choice of armament for its Boxer APCs is driven by planned doctrine and use or simply a means of saving money? At least the modular nature of the platfrom should make any future firepower upgrade simple.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

mr.fred wrote: 21 Jun 2023, 21:38 I think it means the module with two hatches with periscopes at the front of the module, which would be why the turret is so far back
Yup


Lord Jim wrote: 22 Jun 2023, 01:59 Do people think the choice of armament for its Boxer APCs is driven by planned doctrine and use or simply a means of saving money?
Probably both. It was not intended to be IFV, even now it is not officially replacing Warrior in that role.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SD67 »

sol wrote: 22 Jun 2023, 07:38
mr.fred wrote: 21 Jun 2023, 21:38 I think it means the module with two hatches with periscopes at the front of the module, which would be why the turret is so far back
Yup


Lord Jim wrote: 22 Jun 2023, 01:59 Do people think the choice of armament for its Boxer APCs is driven by planned doctrine and use or simply a means of saving money?
Probably both. It was not intended to be IFV, even now it is not officially replacing Warrior in that role.
Well then why on earth are we buying 1500 of them? Do we really need new ambulances and command posts that badly? In terms of IFVs Boxer is the only game in town the chances of money appearing for say CV90 at this late stage.

Sometimes I think the army is on a suicide mission

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

SD67 wrote: 22 Jun 2023, 13:32 Well then why on earth are we buying 1500 of them?
Well that is a good question for MoD.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

SD67 wrote: 22 Jun 2023, 13:32 Well then why on earth are we buying 1500 of them? Do we really need new ambulances and command posts that badly? In terms of IFVs Boxer is the only game in town the chances of money appearing for say CV90 at this late stage.

Sometimes I think the army is on a suicide mission
Because the army is still going around in several hundred FV432 and other ancient platforms, and has been using protected mobility vehicles (Mastiff et al) to provide battlefield taxis in low-intensity conflicts but have proven limited in peer conflict with artillery.

As well as numerous capability gaps due to the selling of the CVR(T) fleet.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SD67 »

RunningStrong wrote: 22 Jun 2023, 16:25
SD67 wrote: 22 Jun 2023, 13:32 Well then why on earth are we buying 1500 of them? Do we really need new ambulances and command posts that badly? In terms of IFVs Boxer is the only game in town the chances of money appearing for say CV90 at this late stage.

Sometimes I think the army is on a suicide mission
Because the army is still going around in several hundred FV432 and other ancient platforms, and has been using protected mobility vehicles (Mastiff et al) to provide battlefield taxis in low-intensity conflicts but have proven limited in peer conflict with artillery.

As well as numerous capability gaps due to the selling of the CVR(T) fleet.
And we really need a gucci £5 million GBP 40 ton vehicle to replace FV432 in rear area support roles? I'm not an expert obviously but if 1500 vehicles does not include any IFV variant and any Recce modules it seems there's something seriously wrong.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

SD67 wrote: 22 Jun 2023, 17:05
RunningStrong wrote: 22 Jun 2023, 16:25
SD67 wrote: 22 Jun 2023, 13:32 Well then why on earth are we buying 1500 of them? Do we really need new ambulances and command posts that badly? In terms of IFVs Boxer is the only game in town the chances of money appearing for say CV90 at this late stage.

Sometimes I think the army is on a suicide mission
Because the army is still going around in several hundred FV432 and other ancient platforms, and has been using protected mobility vehicles (Mastiff et al) to provide battlefield taxis in low-intensity conflicts but have proven limited in peer conflict with artillery.

As well as numerous capability gaps due to the selling of the CVR(T) fleet.
And we really need a gucci £5 million GBP 40 ton vehicle to replace FV432 in rear area support roles? I'm not an expert obviously but if 1500 vehicles does not include any IFV variant and any Recce modules it seems there's something seriously wrong.
430 isn't in rear support areas. It's still a mortar carrier, infantry command vehicle, artillery command vehicle, REME support and recovery, RE support, signals (including EW) and various other roles.

Some will be replaced by MRV-P eventually, others in the Armoured units will be replaced by AJAX and Boxer.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SD67 »

Thanks. 50 year old FV430 mortar carrier sounds a bit scary

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Luke jones »

So far I think it's right that we have ordered 623, and yes most are support roles.
The funding is there for a follow on of another 400, hopefully all infantry carrier and even better if it had a turret module on top.

It is replacing Warrior as it's going to those units that are in Warrior now.

There's no chance of getting a tracked IFV in with the budget pressures
These users liked the author Luke jones for the post:
Jackstar

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

For me with the budget pressures we should cap Boxer at 900 and buy 900 to 1200 Patria 6x6 using money from the remaining Boxer fund and MRV(P)-2 funding
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Djpowell1984

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote: 23 Jun 2023, 15:55 For me with the budget pressures we should cap Boxer at 900 and buy 900 to 1200 Patria 6x6 using money from the remaining Boxer fund and MRV(P)-2 funding
I tend to agree given the rate of the CAVS programme gaining pace.

But undermining BOXER sales now would be similar to when the Scout SV programme was hamstrung at 589 vehicles. Yet another potentially orphaned defence manufacturing facility.

Jackstar
Member
Posts: 180
Joined: 19 Jun 2023, 17:02
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Jackstar »

Tempest414 wrote: 23 Jun 2023, 15:55 For me with the budget pressures we should cap Boxer at 900 and buy 900 to 1200 Patria 6x6 using money from the remaining Boxer fund and MRV(P)-2 funding
What would Patria bring that other armoured vehicles being procured for the army don't, to justify an entirely new manufacturing, training & logistics train ?

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

Jackstar wrote: 25 Jun 2023, 00:40
Tempest414 wrote: 23 Jun 2023, 15:55 For me with the budget pressures we should cap Boxer at 900 and buy 900 to 1200 Patria 6x6 using money from the remaining Boxer fund and MRV(P)-2 funding
What would Patria bring that other armoured vehicles being procured for the army don't, to justify an entirely new manufacturing, training & logistics train ?
At this time we have Boxer and Ajax in build both have a cost of 4 to 5 million per unit we also have the MRV(p)-2 program in sing with bushmaster 6 and Eagle V 6x6 in the short list at a cost of 1 million per unit

Now Patria 6x6 is gaining ground with sales to Sweden Finland Germany and the Baltic states it also has a price tag of 1 million per unit so what Patria 6x6 brings to the army is a very good replacement for the 1000+ Bulldogs and Mastiffs at a good price that is supported by the nations that we will fighting along side if it kicks off we can buy into a program that could see us working on upgrades on say 5000 vehicles rather than 1000.

Both Boxer and Patria 6x6 come in

APC
C&C
NEMO 120mm mortor
assault pioneer
Ambulance

In real terms if we have funding for say 1300 Boxers we could buy 900 Boxers and 1200 Patria 6x6 this would allow the Army to go from 3 Mechanised brigades to 6

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

RunningStrong wrote: 24 Jun 2023, 22:47
Tempest414 wrote: 23 Jun 2023, 15:55 For me with the budget pressures we should cap Boxer at 900 and buy 900 to 1200 Patria 6x6 using money from the remaining Boxer fund and MRV(P)-2 funding
I tend to agree given the rate of the CAVS programme gaining pace.

But undermining BOXER sales now would be similar to when the Scout SV programme was hamstrung at 589 vehicles. Yet another potentially orphaned defence manufacturing facility.
Yes but this will happen anyway but if the UK buy into Patria we could build them at the same factory alongside Boxer or build them in kit form after Ajax at that factory

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

If the UK Army had a fleet mix of say

600 Ajax
900 Boxer
1200 Patria 6x6

It could then get its head down to designing and building a new 4x4 replacement for Foxhound , Husky and Jackal with an order for say 1200 vehicles plus
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Djpowell1984

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote: 25 Jun 2023, 09:04 If the UK Army had a fleet mix of say

600 Ajax
900 Boxer
1200 Patria 6x6

It could then get its head down to designing and building a new 4x4 replacement for Foxhound , Husky and Jackal with an order for say 1200 vehicles plus
Or just build Eagles/Bushmaster? Both companies would be willing to setup manufacturing in UK with a large order.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

RunningStrong wrote: 25 Jun 2023, 12:48
Tempest414 wrote: 25 Jun 2023, 09:04 If the UK Army had a fleet mix of say

600 Ajax
900 Boxer
1200 Patria 6x6

It could then get its head down to designing and building a new 4x4 replacement for Foxhound , Husky and Jackal with an order for say 1200 vehicles plus
Or just build Eagles/Bushmaster? Both companies would be willing to setup manufacturing in UK with a large order.
Just for me it would be good for the UK to design and build a new vehicle from the ground up to keep the capability we could build Boxer and then keep the factory going with the build of the 4x4 vehicle
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
Ron5

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote: 25 Jun 2023, 13:15
RunningStrong wrote: 25 Jun 2023, 12:48
Tempest414 wrote: 25 Jun 2023, 09:04 If the UK Army had a fleet mix of say

600 Ajax
900 Boxer
1200 Patria 6x6

It could then get its head down to designing and building a new 4x4 replacement for Foxhound , Husky and Jackal with an order for say 1200 vehicles plus
Or just build Eagles/Bushmaster? Both companies would be willing to setup manufacturing in UK with a large order.
Just for me it would be good for the UK to design and build a new vehicle from the ground up to keep the capability we could build Boxer and then keep the factory going with the build of the 4x4 vehicle
I don't disagree. Unfortunately Foxhound and HMV have both proven to be capable but expensive platforms with limited exports. However if they could both be developed for manufacturing with hybrid drives I'd consider them to be good options. Foxhound might need enlarging somewhat.

Post Reply