Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3367
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 100 times
Been liked: 233 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SW1 »

https://defbrief.com/2022/04/27/sloveni ... his-month/

Slovenia’s defense ministry said the 343.4 million contract would see the first Boxer IFV delivered by the ARTEC consortium, which is composed of German military vehicle specialists Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Rheinmetall, in 2023.

The estimated delivery schedule includes nine vehicles in 2024, 22 in 2025, and the final 13 IFVs in 2026.

Slovenia’s Boxer vehicles would have a similar configuration to those in service with the Lithuanian Army, which refers to them as the Vilkas IFV. This would mean that the vehicles would feature Israeli-developed Rafael Samson II 30×173 mm remote turrets, anti-armor Spike LR missiles, and US-made 30 mm MK-44S cannons.

The price tag for Slovenia’s Boxer purchase will include armament, logistics services and project management costs, the defense ministry said, adding that the price Slovenia would pay for the vehicle “was the same as other countries pay for the same configuration.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post (total 2):
Lord JimDahedd

leonard
Member
Posts: 126
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Has liked: 39 times
Been liked: 40 times
Italy

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by leonard »

Things are moving fast on the Boxer 3rd lot as we can tell by this Rehinmetall publication

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 72 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Luke jones wrote: 12 Apr 2022, 11:45 This is why it was always a shit idea to can Warrior. It was pointed out again and again.
The British army is now 245x 40mm turreted vehicles down.
Boxer is twice as expensive as the WCSP vehicles were and you get a 50 cal on top.

Theres now a lot of money to be found to fund a capability that was provided by the vehicle that just got cancelled.

Where will the money be found to do this?
Extra 245 Boxers with cannons? It'll cost an arm and a leg.
You are right... but one can one absorb that hit ( acquisition costs) by rethinking the platoon: one autocannon per 4 Boxers. This means that they can be deployed independently for recce/ flank guarding whatever duties when they are not required to 'baby-sit' MBTs while those are advancing.
- ie. AI can take on some 'classic' cavalry roles, in addition to their main tasking
RunningStrong wrote: 12 Apr 2022, 15:19 There would be no reason to equip C2, Eng, REME and ambulances.

RunningStrong wrote: 26 Apr 2022, 17:08 The BOXER alongside MAN truck and K9 Thunder
If it was me, heh-he, two of those three could easily be chosen
- standardise gun (ops), and REME for whatever makes it move to the right place; and from there
Lord Jim wrote: 27 Apr 2022, 04:33 ATGW Overwatch/Precision Fires.
Ammunition Limber for Boxer RCH is that vehicle is chosen to replace the AS-90.
ATGW easy for any othet than the MAN chassis; and
-limber for Boxer.... a Boxer
- MAN... another MAN
- K9 (they have a specific design on the same chassis... but why not the best of the remaining AS90s. After all, their suspension system was licensed for the K9 chassis)
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: 7151
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 244 times
Been liked: 296 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

The Army need to up its firepower at every level now it is relearning how to fight at Peer level and the amount of kit and consumables this requires. It has to find a way to fund what are essential current capability gaps, and this can only come from reducing other equipment programmes or new money. The programmes it will have to look at for reducing are those aimed at capabilities in the mid to distant future. The Army is also going to be the prime candidate to use any change left over form any given years expenditure as it has a long list of kit it can purchase off the shelf if it wishes.

Buying the extra Boxers is one of the few good decision the Army has mode so far. These are probably mainly gong to be the Infantry carrying variant as there was a shortage of these in the initial order. We may only be buying the APC variant at present but purchasing Mission Modules equipped with a Turret such as the Sampson 30 would be only of those options for any funding left by a in year underspend, which often occurs.
This would be a relatively simple way forward as the Sampson 30 RWS/Turret i fully cleared for use on the Boxer and would be a plug and play option for the British Army unless they decided to make things more complicated. If Ajax fails to meet the Army's requirements and is stopped, the only option the Army would have would be to use a variant of Boxer for the Recce role, developing a Mission Module for that role, possibly using the turret of the Ajax, who knows.

What ever happens, Boxer is going to be the most important platform in Army service, the latter just needs to ensure it gats the most out of the platform.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3367
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 100 times
Been liked: 233 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SW1 »

These users liked the author SW1 for the post (total 3):
jedibeeftrixbobpLord Jim

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7151
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 244 times
Been liked: 296 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Well if that turret fits on the Tracked cousin then maybe the British Army could....................

leonard
Member
Posts: 126
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Has liked: 39 times
Been liked: 40 times
Italy

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by leonard »

My take is this happens when you give your engineering department free hand
Eurosatory 2022 !!!!

leonard
Member
Posts: 126
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Has liked: 39 times
Been liked: 40 times
Italy

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by leonard »

I thought that this idea reminds me of samething I had seen before

sol
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 17 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Additional render of "Tracked Boxer"



I found it really ugly and it looks bigger than Boxer which itself is already quite huge. Still, if it good as other IFVs like CV90 or Lynx, it could be interesting for British Army, just because it is using same models as Boxer.

Little J
Member
Posts: 734
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
Has liked: 26 times
Been liked: 23 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Little J »

I said a few weeks ago that using Boxer modules on a tracked chassis could be a good idea... :mrgreen:

Nice to know I get some things right once in a while :lol:

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Luke jones »

Does anyone know if our Boxer line will be able to export during/after our production run?

Or would they naturally just export from Germany?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7151
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 244 times
Been liked: 296 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

THat would probably be up to Rheinmetall. WE wopuild be the largest user and it may make sense to consolidate Boxer production in Europe in the UK as these production lines will be running full tilt compared t those in Germany once they have built the initial vehicle for the British Army there. Obviously I am making an assumption here but I feel it would make sense.

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 661
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
Has liked: 159 times
Been liked: 59 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Jensy »

Another photo, showing the Tracked Boxer with the 120mm module but in green:

Image



Also a first glimpse at a 'naked T-Box'..

These users liked the author Jensy for the post:
Little J

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1907
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 18 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Jake1992 »

While I like the idea the current concepts look rough and so ugly to me.

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 330
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 23 times
Korea North

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Cooper »

tracked Boxer..FUGLY beyond belief.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1907
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 18 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Jake1992 »

I do wonder though with the problems Ajax is in and how Lord Jim said above the possibility of consolidating nearly all Boxer manufacturing to the UK, if the army will seriously consider the tracked Boxer in place of Ajax.

It’ll give industrial benifits, solve the on going Ajax issues by getting rid and give commonality and scope for easier development with Modules, seems like a win win to me.

The big questions are, would the army be willing to take the risk and the egg on their face over Ajax, and how long would it take to get the tracked Boxer up abd running ?

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 964
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 22 times
Been liked: 30 times

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Jake1992 wrote: 15 Jun 2022, 12:05 I do wonder though with the problems Ajax is in and how Lord Jim said above the possibility of consolidating nearly all Boxer manufacturing to the UK, if the army will seriously consider the tracked Boxer in place of Ajax.

It’ll give industrial benifits, solve the on going Ajax issues by getting rid and give commonality and scope for easier development with Modules, seems like a win win to me.

The big questions are, would the army be willing to take the risk and the egg on their face over Ajax, and how long would it take to get the tracked Boxer up abd running ?
It's crazy to think that in the face of a failing programme people actually think a viable alternative is a programme barely in the embryonic phase...

Also not forgetting that vibration qualification profiles for wheeled and tracked vehicles are somewhat different, so all the Boxer equipment would need to be qualified to the new standard if the intent is to have modules shared between both.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1907
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 18 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Jake1992 »

RunningStrong wrote: 15 Jun 2022, 12:52
Jake1992 wrote: 15 Jun 2022, 12:05 I do wonder though with the problems Ajax is in and how Lord Jim said above the possibility of consolidating nearly all Boxer manufacturing to the UK, if the army will seriously consider the tracked Boxer in place of Ajax.

It’ll give industrial benifits, solve the on going Ajax issues by getting rid and give commonality and scope for easier development with Modules, seems like a win win to me.

The big questions are, would the army be willing to take the risk and the egg on their face over Ajax, and how long would it take to get the tracked Boxer up abd running ?
It's crazy to think that in the face of a failing programme people actually think a viable alternative is a programme barely in the embryonic phase...

Also not forgetting that vibration qualification profiles for wheeled and tracked vehicles are somewhat different, so all the Boxer equipment would need to be qualified to the new standard if the intent is to have modules shared between both.
Like you said Ajax is a failing program with no true sight in end.

I was simply posing the question with the rise of the tracked Boxer if it could be an alternative. Like I mentioned above this would involve the army weighing up both the cost and time frame of getting Ajax up and running compared to that of Boxer tracked.

Tracked boxer has several things running in its favour -
1- the industrial benifits that will likely arise from the uk ordering a larger number of it and it’s wheeled counterpart
2- the commonality it will share with its wheeled counterpart
3- it ease for future development with its modular set up

But Ajax does have a couple of things swinging back in its favour -
1- how much time and money has already been put in to the project and how it would require the army admiting to a massive faililour for it to be cancelled.
2- it is much further on in its development even though it is arguable its failing and could be a dead end or produce a dud.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3367
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 100 times
Been liked: 233 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SW1 »

If you were going that route would u not continue to procure wheeled boxer to stand up an entire brigade structure as all variants are available then as things go on you add tracked drive modules if or when required to a point you had sufficient drive modules to choose the appropriate configuration for the deployment.

Essentially the decision to standardise on boxer is the decision that needs taken not the future configuration

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1260
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 34 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Jake1992 wrote: 15 Jun 2022, 13:22 Tracked boxer has several things running in its favour -
1- the industrial benifits that will likely arise from the uk ordering a larger number of it and it’s wheeled counterpart
2- the commonality it will share with its wheeled counterpart
3- it ease for future development with its modular set up
To add in the caveats that you missed, since you added them for Ajax:
1 - Though you would lose the industrial benefits of Ajax
2- assuming that the different (and much more severe) vibration from the tracked chassis doesn't render commonality impractical
3- assuming that the modular set up is an advantage rather than expensive additional complexity.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1907
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 18 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Jake1992 »

mr.fred wrote: 15 Jun 2022, 14:07 [quote=Jake1992 post_id=140963 time=<a href="tel:1655295727">1655295727</a> user_id=1084]
Tracked boxer has several things running in its favour -
1- the industrial benifits that will likely arise from the uk ordering a larger number of it and it’s wheeled counterpart
2- the commonality it will share with its wheeled counterpart
3- it ease for future development with its modular set up
To add in the caveats that you missed, since you added them for Ajax:
1 - Though you would lose the industrial benefits of Ajax
2- assuming that the different (and much more severe) vibration from the tracked chassis doesn't render commonality impractical
3- assuming that the modular set up is an advantage rather than expensive additional complexity.
[/quote]

1- the order would likely match that of Ajax and have a greater chance IMO of export compared to the no intrest Ajax
2 - is a issue that should be worked out in design thase like Ajax should of been.
3 - it’s easier to develop a module over a whole vehicle.

SW1 wrote: 15 Jun 2022, 13:53 If you were going that route would u not continue to procure wheeled boxer to stand up an entire brigade structure as all variants are available then as things go on you add tracked drive modules if or when required to a point you had sufficient drive modules to choose the appropriate configuration for the deployment.

Essentially the decision to standardise on boxer is the decision that needs taken not the future configuration
I see both tracked and wheeled offering different but complimentary means of transport.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7151
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 244 times
Been liked: 296 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

From my pint of view, whilst the idea of adopting a "Tracked" Boxer may be appealing, I do not think it has any benefits at any scale over the wheeled platform already in service. Boxers suspension together with large wheels and a powerful drive train give it cross country mobility very early on par with tracked platforms and of course it is far superior to the latter on any roads or hard surfaces. So as far as I am concerned the British Army should stick to the Wheeled version and develop it and its modules to their maximum potential, something I am sure Rheinmetall would appreciate and work with us to achieve.

The Boxer can definitely cover all the capabilities needed in the Mechanised Infantry Battalions and replace legacy CVR(T) and FV430 variants in other frontline units. Developing new mission modules is far simpler and cheaper than developing whole platforms as there are a firm set of criteria that are known and been intensively tested with regards to the tolerances between the Mission Module and Drive Module and insuring they meet the relevant standards. Therefore as long as any new Mission Module falls within these criteria as well as meeting the relevant standards, it is more like developing and adding a new munition to a Fast Jet than building a whole new one Plane. The use of the latest computer aided design and engineering tools will help this process greatly. This is very different from previous AFV platforms, even platform families, and the more the MoD and Industry get comfortable with it the faster and less costly it will be to add new capabilities to the Boxer platform.

The above processes need ot be applied as a matter of urgency to develop Mission Modules that will allow the Boxer to fill the numerous capability holes that currently exist. We need work to start now in order for any additional variants to be ready to join the initial Boxer equipped units, or at least be in service before the last unit is so equipped.

With all the AFV programme cock up in recent decades, the Army should be grabbing Boxer with both hands to undo much of the damage that has been done to the Army's ability to really be a viable combat force in any future Peer level conflict. This together with Challenger 3 and the upgrading of the Army's indirect fires capabilities could be the Army's last chance to stay with the big Boys in NATO even if we are far smaller than we used to be. If we don't we could end up at teh same level as the Armies of Denmark or Belgium. Nothing wrong with these countries Armies but our influence would be greatly reduced as would restrict the Army's ability to carry out the wishes of the then UK Government.

Sorry :roll: got a bit deep there!

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1260
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 34 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote: 15 Jun 2022, 21:34 With all the AFV programme cock up in recent decades, the Army should be grabbing Boxer with both hands to undo much of the damage that has been done to the Army's ability to really be a viable combat force in any future Peer level conflict.
The AFV programme cock up in recent decades is partly due to the army grabbing Boxer with both hands in order to make sure that the supporting functions are comfortable.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7151
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 244 times
Been liked: 296 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

??? can you explain that last bit please.

I wouldn't blame Boxer. IF we had stayed in the MRAV programme we would already have had boxer in service a decade ago, but the MoD cocked up and decided it wanted everything to fit in a C-130. I would blame Boxer for the Tracer/FRES debacle either as the MoD wanted to copy the US Army's FSV programme without the funding to do so and then kept moving the goal posts as it came up with new ideas and requirements. Even when choices were made for both FRES SV and UV, they chose the wrong vehicle for teh former and cancelled the latter, restarting the programme under a new title MIV and then bit their tongues and chose the vehicle they had already selected years ago to fill it. It left Warrior far to long before trying to instigate a substantial upgrade for part of the fleet and use the remainder to replace the forty to fifty year old FV432 series. Both programmes dragged on and the latter fell victim to budget cuts, being replaced by Boxer as there was no alternative and the latter was allowed to quietly waste away with the FV432 series still being in service. So no I would not say Boxer was to even partly blame of the MoD's cock ups, and I haven't even started on Ajax.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1260
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 34 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote: 16 Jun 2022, 18:11 ??? can you explain that last bit please.
The sudden swerve to Boxer took funds that would otherwise have gone to Warrior and Challenger. Most of the Boxer buy has been for second or third line capabilities while the front line soldiers on, if you'll pardon the pun, in increasingly obsolescent vehicles.

Post Reply