Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Rentaghost
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: 07 Sep 2020, 09:10
Scotland

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Rentaghost »

The NAO report suggests an extra 2.5 Billion funding for Boxer out to 2031. Surely that suggests we are equipping more than the 5 current battalions as envisaged by Future Soldier?

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Given that the current 500 only has 80-odd troop carriers (1) and that you need 40 or so to kit out a battalion, they’ll need a decent portion of that budget to cover the ICVs for the battalions listed.




(1) https://questions-statements.parliament ... 6-04/10208
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post:
ArmChairCivvy

Rentaghost
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: 07 Sep 2020, 09:10
Scotland

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Rentaghost »

mr.fred wrote: 22 Feb 2022, 15:47 Given that the current 500 only has 80-odd troop carriers (1) and that you need 40 or so to kit out a battalion, they’ll need a decent portion of that budget to cover the ICVs for the battalions listed.




(1) https://questions-statements.parliament ... 6-04/10208
What does the recce/fire support variant look like? How does that fit in with current assumptions around Future Soldier? Isn't that meant to be all on Ajax?

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by bobp »

mr.fred wrote: 22 Feb 2022, 15:47 Given that the current 500 only has 80-odd troop carriers (1) and that you need 40 or so to kit out a battalion, they’ll need a decent portion of that budget to cover the ICVs for the battalions listed.




(1) https://questions-statements.parliament ... 6-04/10208
Why do you need so many command and control vehicles 123

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

bobp wrote: 22 Feb 2022, 18:31
mr.fred wrote: 22 Feb 2022, 15:47 Given that the current 500 only has 80-odd troop carriers (1) and that you need 40 or so to kit out a battalion, they’ll need a decent portion of that budget to cover the ICVs for the battalions listed.

(1) https://questions-statements.parliament ... 6-04/10208
Why do you need so many command and control vehicles 123
Because the current fleet of vehicles are largely inadequate for the latest C4I and ISTAR demands.
These users liked the author RunningStrong for the post:
bobp

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

I do find it interesting that though it has repeatedly been said that we were only purchasing four variants of the Boxer, this appears only to be a list of versions that numerous specialist versions are being based on. However the number simple do not add up if the Army is intending to fully equip four Infantry Battalions with the vehicle as well as replacing other platforms in other units.

The 26 Mortar Carriers is a good example where capability os being reduced. With that number we can equip four Battalions but each Battalion's Mortar Platoon will now only comprise of six vehicles rather then the current eight. The large number of Command vehicles can easily be explained by the fact that it will be replacing the Command CVR(T) and FV430 platforms in many units

The need for far more Infantry Carrying Vehicles is the most obvious shortfall. For the four Battalions the Army needs at least 160 and probably more if attrition spares are to be available. Additional Modules are also going to be needed if the Army wants to take advantage of teh Boxers modularity.

From what has been ordered already I would say the Army is looking to fully equip two Mechanised Battalions and then see what these two units still require before enough additional vehicles are ordered to complete the second pair. By then the Army may have decided that the ICVs need greater firepower and so will order a number of new build vehicles and buy/convert additional modules to equip the existing two Battalions.

What i cannot understand is the secrecy the Army is maintaining over the Boxer programme, keeping the number and type of vehicle needed out of the general public domain. This could backfire on the MoD as if teh programme is a success, and God knows Army procurement needs one, then it should be front and centre of the Army's PR campaign, hopefully deflecting opinion form other programmes such as Ajax.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 23 Feb 2022, 23:50 I do find it interesting that though it has repeatedly been said that we were only purchasing four variants of the Boxer, this appears only to be a list of versions that numerous specialist versions are being based on.
They are just 4 variants being purchased, what is listed are just stowage and internal equipment differences. I.e. the mortar version will just have a rack for mortar tubes and ammo.

AJAX has been similarly listed with "Artillery" variants and "anti tank".

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Lord Jim wrote: 23 Feb 2022, 23:50 However the number simple do not add up if the Army is intending to fully equip four Infantry Battalions with the vehicle as well as replacing other platforms in other units.
By "Future Soldier" there will be five mechanized battalion equipped with Boxer, 1st Mercian and 1st Royal Welsh in 12th ABCT and 1st RRF, 5th Rifles and 1st PWRR in 20th ABCT. So total number of personal carriers required to equip all those would probably be between 200 and 240, maybe even more. If I am not wrong, battalion AT platoons, would also need personal carriers as currently they have 8 Warriors to transport Javelin equipped teams. I doubt that, at least for now, they will get some special AT version of Boxer.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

I think there is more to the Army's plans for the Boxer than just carrying different kit to define the various roles mentioned. For example the Recce/Fire Support Vehicle (Recce/FSV) and the Beyond Line Of Site (BLOS) though based on one of the four announced versions will have to have a number of difference in the module used. For the first the Module will need additional sensors and firepower to carry out the role, and for the BLOS, to carry out its role controlling indirect fire and so on with require additional equipment inside and outside the platform.

Overall I see a number of distinct Mission Modules being developed from the core module being procured. The Army have looking to make each Mission Module multipurpose and modular in itself, but to what level they are will to take this, and whether this will actually increase the cost of each module as well as over complicating the programme by addition requirements that are too bespoke, as the Army has a knack of doing.

From my stand point we would do batter to use the existing modular system of Mission Modules, buying a "Mortar" module or buying a RECCE/FSV module. This is what Boxer was designed for and has been proven to work. Yes certain modules can easily be rearranged for other tasks, but this should be seen as a additional benefit form the existing system. I am worried teh Army is going to take a well proven and mature Weapon system and screw it up trying to cut corners and have the Mission Modules do far more then they are really able to do. Has the Army yet again come up with a plan that is not properly funded as a result of over enthusiastic assumptions and is now rying to ram a square peg into a round hole regardless of how it affects the platforms the troops eventually get.

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Dahedd »

Given the disaster the Ukrainian mud appears to have been for Russian wheeled vehicles how do we think a Boxer would handle it ?
These users liked the author Dahedd for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Dahedd wrote: 05 Mar 2022, 11:56 Given the disaster the Ukrainian mud appears to have been for Russian wheeled vehicles how do we think a Boxer would handle it ?
That perhaps needs putting in context as there are some real questions about the maintenance failures in the Russian army.

These users liked the author RunningStrong for the post (total 4):
Dahedd~UNiOnJaCk~SW1zanahoria

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Dahedd wrote: 05 Mar 2022, 11:56 Given the disaster the Ukrainian mud appears to have been for Russian wheeled vehicles how do we think a Boxer would handle it ?
Gitler (ie. Hitler, in Russian) was 6 weeks late ... the Balkans and all that.

Putler was a couple of weeks late, bcz an ally staging the Olympics as a prop for the world stage, asked him to delay.

Regardless of the number (of wks) both delays may play a big part.
... now let's ask our ozzie friends about what happened with their much lighter LAWs in East Timor
These users liked the author ArmChairCivvy for the post:
Dahedd
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Dahedd wrote: 05 Mar 2022, 11:56 Given the disaster the Ukrainian mud appears to have been for Russian wheeled vehicles how do we think a Boxer would handle it ?
Well as the vehicle photo'd is at best a 6x6 Lorry chassis and Boxer is an advanced cross country 8x8 we are talking chalk and cheese here.

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Dahedd »

Lord Jim wrote: 05 Mar 2022, 17:57
Dahedd wrote: 05 Mar 2022, 11:56 Given the disaster the Ukrainian mud appears to have been for Russian wheeled vehicles how do we think a Boxer would handle it ?
Well as the vehicle photo'd is at best a 6x6 Lorry chassis and Boxer is an advanced cross country 8x8 we are talking chalk and cheese here.

True but I've also seen BTRs and such mired & stuck.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

We have also seen tracked vehicles stuck in the mud in this conflict I don't thick we can make much of it for now

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by BB85 »

It's hard to tell how much of the issue is down to maintenance and the tires being in a poor state of repair and how much is down to mud.
No matter what logistics vehicles will always be required on wheels so being able to go cross country simply isn't an option.
In regards to front line APCs and IFV's a mix of Ajax and Boxer is ideal.
We all know Ajax has been an enormous fuck up, putting all of that digital architecture and sensor fusion into a bespoke shortened ascod chasis was moronic when it could have been dropped into an existing cv90 as a scout variant leaving the option open to replace warrior with dedicated cv90 if vehicles in the future at minimal cost but there is too much water under the bridge.
These users liked the author BB85 for the post:
ArmChairCivvy

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by BB85 »

It is clear that every vehicle now needs APS regardless of cost if we value soldiers lives, adding 10 tonnes of armour does very little against modern ATGMs and reducing vehicles speed, range and mobility leaves them vulnerable to attack.
These users liked the author BB85 for the post (total 2):
CaribbeanArmChairCivvy

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

BB85 wrote: 07 Mar 2022, 13:12 It is clear that every vehicle now needs APS regardless of cost if we value soldiers lives, adding 10 tonnes of armour does very little against modern ATGMs and reducing vehicles speed, range and mobility leaves them vulnerable to attack.
It needs to be an option fit, but there is an issue there...

The vast majority of APS systems are based on a radar system. In some contexts this would be a massive beacon in the Electromagnetic spectrum. Something which we did, until recently, consider the Russian forces to be quite adept at detection.

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Works both ways given how many Russian vehicles, especially their MBTs, that are fitted with their versions of APS. Who knows, Israel may have developed a low probability of intercept radar for its APS, plus there maybe passive sensors to trigger the radar, say the back blast from a missile launch activating the Radar which until then is dormant. Personal I would prefer any AFV I was in to be equipped with an APS, especially if it was not an MBT. Mind you APS still doesn't protect oneself from larger calibre rounds coming towards you, bring on the old fashioned Smoke Dischargers with TI blocking ability.

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by BB85 »

If vehicles are manoeuvring 20-30 miles outside of the front line and want to avoid detection it makes sense to switch off just about everything that creates an electronic signature. But once your within 5 miles of the enemy especially ones armed with thousands of man portable ATGMs vehicles need APS otherwise they are mobile coffins. It's staggering to believe how arrogant Russia was if they thought they could win without sustaining eye watering loses and that this would be acceptable even in Russia

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RunningStrong wrote: 07 Mar 2022, 15:34 The vast majority of APS systems are based on a radar system. In some contexts this would be a massive beacon in the Electromagnetic spectrum.
They don't need to be 'always on'
Lord Jim wrote: 07 Mar 2022, 16:10 passive sensors to trigger the radar, say the back blast from a missile launch activating the Radar which until then is dormant. Personal I would prefer any AFV I was in to be equipped with an APS, especially if it was not an MBT. Mind you APS still doesn't protect oneself from larger calibre rounds coming towards you, bring on the old fashioned Smoke Dischargers with TI blocking ability.
What is TI? Multi-spectrum?
BB85 wrote: 07 Mar 2022, 17:29 once your within 5 miles of the enemy especially ones armed with thousands of man portable ATGMs vehicles need APS otherwise they are mobile coffins.
Who is this @BB... coming up with the right answers... so it is frustrating (emoji) to write as one reads along
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: They don't need to be 'always on'
....
BB85 wrote: 07 Mar 2022, 17:29 once your within 5 miles of the enemy especially ones armed with thousands of man portable ATGMs vehicles need APS otherwise they are mobile coffins.
Who is this @BB... coming up with the right answers... so it is frustrating (emoji) to write as one reads along
So not always on, but within 5 miles of your oppo and it's essential. Contradiction, much?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RunningStrong wrote: 07 Mar 2022, 18:08 within 5 miles of
Starting with the ATGW range(s) and the questionability of APS effectiveness against high-calibre, high-velocity rounds
.... where do we go from here?

Probability of kill for artillery rounds (other than of the Bonus kind) not great... and using a Smerch per tank killed, not that likely either?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

BB85 wrote: 07 Mar 2022, 13:12 It is clear that every vehicle now needs APS regardless of cost if we value soldiers lives, adding 10 tonnes of armour does very little against modern ATGMs and reducing vehicles speed, range and mobility leaves them vulnerable to attack.
I'm not quite so convinced, certainly not "regardless of cost". These things are always a cost/benefit decision which may be unpalatable but you shouldn't consider sending people to war if you aren't prepared to take a risk.
APS emit, are generally only good for two shots and are quite heavy and power hungry themselves. they're also very costly. If you set the question of "vs. the cost of a tank/it's crew" then it seems a good buy, but if you start looking at it as "vs. training the crew" or "vs. spares" or even "vs. an additional vehicle/unit to provide overwatch" it's less compelling.
While modern ATGW may go through most armour arrays not all AT weapons on the battlefield are modern ATGW. An extra 10t of armour that keeps out most RPGs, auto cannon or cluster munitions might have more value than an APS that is wiped off the vehicle in the first artillery concentration, before an ATGW draws a bead on it.

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by BB85 »

I never said they always had to be switched on, I did say they needed to be fitted on every vehicle which gives them the option. There is no contradiction, the same principle applies to RN ships operating in the ocean with their radar turned off to avoid detection.
I also didn't suggest aps would defeat everything but certainly perform a lot better than nothing. They are also more likely to encounter ATGMs in an insurgent type scenario as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan than meet enemy armour head to head.

Post Reply