Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1250
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 31 times
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: 117
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 9 times
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.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16196
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 55 times
Been liked: 56 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote: 07 Mar 2022, 18:27APS emit
yes, bad
mr.fred wrote: 07 Mar 2022, 18:27 are generally only good for two shots
from what source does this derive from?
mr.fred wrote: 07 Mar 2022, 18:27 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
V valuable point... but also goes for the optics (the gunner's sight is/ used to be in a well armoured box, though)
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: 1250
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 31 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 07 Mar 2022, 19:24 from what source does this derive from?
Only two shots per launcher and only one launcher per side.
I did see an article on APS that figured that the probability of the system surviving the fragments of more than two intercepts was getting too low to be worth it. I think it was on Twitter, but the new twitter limits stop me searching through the usual suspects.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16196
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 55 times
Been liked: 56 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote: 07 Mar 2022, 20:34 he probability of the system surviving the fragments of more than two intercepts was getting too low to be worth it.
Ohh, I get it. Its own intercept splinters, as they will be so close by. Not even factoring in the splinters for the opposing side (other, like artillery or autocannon) fire.
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: 1250
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 31 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 07 Mar 2022, 20:40
mr.fred wrote: 07 Mar 2022, 20:34 he probability of the system surviving the fragments of more than two intercepts was getting too low to be worth it.
Ohh, I get it. Its own intercept splinters, as they will be so close by. Not even factoring in the splinters for the opposing side (other, like artillery or autocannon) fire.
Mostly fragments from the incoming projectile which will not lose their momentum as a result of the explosion.
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post:
ArmChairCivvy

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7111
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 238 times
Been liked: 281 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

With TI I meant Thermal Imaging, but multi spectral would be more accurate.

Regarding splinter etc. Don't the law of physics apply? ATGWs and even RPGs do not travel that fast and when subject to an opposing force i.e. the interceptor from the APS surely their velocity is going to be negatively affected with some being redirected as a result of the doming together of the inbound and outbound projectiles. Also surely one benefit of the various APS is to protect the vehicle carrying it from initial enemy fire so that it can react. Ajax will have inbound fire detection hardware that will allow the gunner to slew onto the direct the enemy fire is coming from pretty quickly with Smoke Dischargers being fired even quicker allowing the vehicle to try to manoeuvre evade further attacks. 40mm HE rounds landing in your general location will certainly make aiming for the second shot much harder, that is if you can still see the target. Will an APS always protect a vehicle, no, but it will increase its chances of survival in my opinion.

As for always being fitted, well that depends on what level of readiness out forces are to have in the future. If they remain at the level they have been for the past decade or so then we only need to have the vehicles FFBNW, with the APS being part of the TES. If we intend to have a Brigade available at high readiness, whichever of our two Heavy BCTs is at this level of readiness needs to have its vehicles fitted with APS along with other consumables etc. I have a feeling that despite the Defence Secretary saying that we intend to improve the readiness of our forces to partly compensate for reductions in numbers, the level of training, spares and ammunition required has not bee thought through or properly funded yet.

However, besides the fitting of an APS, Boxer is a very well protected platform for its type, and is only beaten by vehicles far more expensive to buy, operate and maintain and deploy.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1250
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 31 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote: 08 Mar 2022, 01:37 Regarding splinter etc. Don't the law of physics apply? ATGWs and even RPGs do not travel that fast and when subject to an opposing force i.e. the interceptor from the APS surely their velocity is going to be negatively affected with some being redirected as a result of the doming together of the inbound and outbound projectiles. Also surely one benefit of the various APS is to protect the vehicle carrying it from initial enemy fire so that it can react. Ajax will have inbound fire detection hardware that will allow the gunner to slew onto the direct the enemy fire is coming from pretty quickly with Smoke Dischargers being fired even quicker allowing the vehicle to try to manoeuvre evade further attacks. 40mm HE rounds landing in your general location will certainly make aiming for the second shot much harder, that is if you can still see the target. Will an APS always protect a vehicle, no, but it will increase its chances of survival in my opinion.
Yes, laws of physics apply, that’s why it’s a problem. The interceptor doesn’t hit the target directly and a couple of hundred metres per second is still quite quick even if you don’t factor in an explosion. Look at how aircraft shot down by missiles carry on going.
Battlefields aren’t a series of one-on-one engagements and a second shot doesn’t have to come from the same shooter, at the same time or place.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7111
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 238 times
Been liked: 281 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

That makes sense, but it would also make sense for optics to be given some protection against splinters etc. Mind you one of the advertised advantaged of the then new AHEAD style ammunition was that though it could not penetrate the armour of a Main Battle Tank it could destroy the vehicles optics gaining a mission kill. So I suppose it will partially depend on where the attack comes from, frontally with threaten optics stc. but form the flank maybe less so.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7111
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 238 times
Been liked: 281 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Nice PR Video on Boxer to remind everyone of its make up and capabilities. Not to keen on the title though.

User avatar
imperialman
Donator
Posts: 96
Joined: 01 May 2015, 17:16
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 41 times
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by imperialman »

100 extra Boxer vehicles for the British Army

Boxer armoured vehicle programme boosted to 623 vehicles as joint UK-Germany production begins in Telford, Stockport and Munich

"The British Army will receive 100 extra armoured Boxer vehicles, ensuring more vehicles reach the frontline faster and bolstering the programme to a total of 623, as the UK maintains defence ties with Germany, the Prime Minister has announced today. The modern digitalised armoured vehicles can be used to transport troops to the frontline and can be rapidly reconfigured to fulfil different roles on the battlefield."

Read more here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/100- ... itish-army
These users liked the author imperialman for the post (total 3):
bobpwargame_insomniacArmChairCivvy

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2414
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Has liked: 38 times
Been liked: 29 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by bobp »

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/100- ... itish-army


No word as to what types, or the cost of the extra vehicles.
These users liked the author bobp for the post:
RunningStrong

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1250
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 31 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

bobp wrote: 08 Apr 2022, 16:47 No word as to what types, or the cost of the extra vehicles.
Indeed. Specifically:
The cost of the additional vehicles will not be published for commercially sensitive reasons.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2414
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Has liked: 38 times
Been liked: 29 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by bobp »

With no perceived increase in defence spending, who is paying?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7111
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 238 times
Been liked: 281 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

It appears they are increasing the initial production run in Germany together with speeding up the establishment of the UK production lines. They have either quietly added additional new funding to the programme or have rejigged the equipment programme to free up money sooner, possibly delaying other programmes. However the funding has been achieved it is very good news for the Army. I just hope at least some of these new vehicles are of variants that have been identified as been needed to establish viable Infantry Battalions under the Future Soldier Programme.

Now they just heed to accelerate the precision fires programmes and increase the Sky Sabre order.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2414
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Has liked: 38 times
Been liked: 29 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by bobp »

Without a doubt the ability to shoot down drones should be a priority, and also some with a 30mm cannon equipped turret.

SD67
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 40 times
Been liked: 37 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SD67 »

Lord Jim wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 00:57 It appears they are increasing the initial production run in Germany together with speeding up the establishment of the UK production lines. They have either quietly added additional new funding to the programme or have rejigged the equipment programme to free up money sooner, possibly delaying other programmes. However the funding has been achieved it is very good news for the Army. I just hope at least some of these new vehicles are of variants that have been identified as been needed to establish viable Infantry Battalions under the Future Soldier Programme.

Now they just heed to accelerate the precision fires programmes and increase the Sky Sabre order.
I’m pretty sure there’s no cash payments going out to Ajax right now, prepayments we’re made in previous years.

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 314
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 20 times
Korea North

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Cooper »

bobp wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 09:08 Without a doubt the ability to shoot down drones should be a priority, and also some with a 30mm cannon equipped turret.
Trouble is, by the time you've spotted the little buggers, its too late, your co-ordinates are already in the enemy's targeting computer.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1250
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 31 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Cooper wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 13:17
bobp wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 09:08 Without a doubt the ability to shoot down drones should be a priority, and also some with a 30mm cannon equipped turret.
Trouble is, by the time you've spotted the little buggers, its too late, your co-ordinates are already in the enemy's targeting computer.
Worth a go, at the very least you'll stop them correcting any fire, adjusting for your movement, laser designating anything or performing a direct attack.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3529
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 149 times
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

bobp wrote: 08 Apr 2022, 19:36 With no perceived increase in defence spending, who is paying?
There is the 24 billion over 3 years uplift which starts this year

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 »

bobp wrote: 08 Apr 2022, 19:36 With no perceived increase in defence spending, who is paying?
Warrior isn't going ahead so that money should be there in theory.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 940
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 26 times

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Whilst there's no detail on this, perhaps MoD are being smart and investing in driver modules with more mission modules to follow at later dates. Perhaps that's an additional optioned price when we know the shape of the required variants.
Cooper wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 13:17
bobp wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 09:08 Without a doubt the ability to shoot down drones should be a priority, and also some with a 30mm cannon equipped turret.
Trouble is, by the time you've spotted the little buggers, its too late, your co-ordinates are already in the enemy's targeting computer.
Not really. Small and medium UAVs haven't got particularly good sensors on them. And their ability to provide specific grids is difficult without a LRF (emitter)nor directly over a target. They obviously have their uses, but not to be overstated!

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1250
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 31 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

The other thing you achieve by shooting down a drone is you stop it reporting anything it hasn’t seen yet. If it spots the counter recce screen first that’s one thing, spotting the main force, logistics lines, HQ, artillery etc.? that’s worse.

sol
Member
Posts: 112
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 13 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

bobp wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 09:08 Without a doubt the ability to shoot down drones should be a priority, and also some with a 30mm cannon equipped turret.
Why not both



It can even carry a Javalin.


bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2414
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Has liked: 38 times
Been liked: 29 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by bobp »

The RWS posted above seems to have a lot of exposed parts, and ammunition that could easily get damaged. Much preferred by me at least would be a protected version in a turret. With regard to the Boxer increase in numbers, it appears that the Army are sending a large Quantity of Mastiff to Ukraine.

Post Reply