Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
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 »

bobp wrote: 09 Apr 2022, 18:56 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.
I don't disagree, but so is nearly every RWS, including the Kongsberg offerings in use today.

To what extent you protect it from small arms and splinters greatly increases the weight.
These users liked the author RunningStrong for the post:
bobp

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 »

I cannot see many of the enclosed RWS having much protection against anything beyond poor weather and small arms. Not being enclosed means you save weight and it is easier or maintain the weapon system, though this entails being out of the vehicle.

At present it looks like the British Army is doubling down on the Boxer, and is set to become the biggest user of the platform. With the wealth of data from the research Rheinmetall has done on alternative weapons fits and Mission Module, mostly off its own bat, we will be spoilt for choice if and when we decide we need new variants. If Ajax fails, is cut back, or it is decided to reinstate the Regimental Recce units, the CRV variant of the Boxer is an obvious starting point to make up the shortfall and/or take on the various roles.

Though not originally a fan, I now would like to see the British Army operating the Boxer RCH155. Its ability to carry out fire missions on the move is very impressive as is its ability to, when stationary, carry out MRSI fire missions is a very short time with out needing stabilisers. I am sure Rheinmetall could easily develop an Ammunition Handling version to pair up with the RCH155 is asked to, or they might already have one on the books so to speak.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
bobp

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 »

Confirmation of order from manufacturer

https://www.joint-forces.com/defence-eq ... oxer-order

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 »

I just wish there was at least one "Light bulb" moment in Main Building, where someone actually realises that the Boxer Infantry Carrier needs more than a .50cal, especially seeing how many vehicles have been knocked out by auto cannon in Ukraine and the Boxer as it stands will be lacking in range and terminal effects against nearly anyone else. This is made even worse by our deciding to use the Boxer to accompany out Challenger 3 MBTs where other countries will have IFVs, tracked or wheeled, with even greater firepower.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote: 11 Apr 2022, 20:48 I just wish there was at least one "Light bulb" moment in Main Building, where someone actually realises that the Boxer Infantry Carrier needs more than a .50cal, especially seeing how many vehicles have been knocked out by auto cannon in Ukraine and the Boxer as it stands will be lacking in range and terminal effects against nearly anyone else. This is made even worse by our deciding to use the Boxer to accompany out Challenger 3 MBTs where other countries will have IFVs, tracked or wheeled, with even greater firepower.
None of this is unknown to the people in charge but unless they're given the money to do it, they have to make the best with what they're given.
These users liked the author Cooper for the post (total 2):
CaribbeanLord Jim

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2425
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Has liked: 49 times
Been liked: 21 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Caribbean »

As we have two existing turret designs for the 40mm CTA (Ajax and Warrior), both of which could be fitted to a Boxer module, it does indeed seem like it is a financial, rather than a technical constraint. Even if there were some technical reason why this is not possible, there are low-recoil 30mm ADEN designs available that could be fitted to an existing 12.7mm RWS mount, which could partially mitigate the lack of defensive firepower (far less effective than 40mm or even a "full-power" 30mm, I know, but still around twice the a/p effectiveness of a 12.7mm and capable of firing air-burst rounds).

That's, of course, ignoring all the other calibres for which turreted modules have been developed by various manufacturers.

I remember reading a couple of years ago that 30mm weapons were being trialled for Boxer (and presumably other vehicles), so it looks as if the "light bulb" moment was actually all part of the plan.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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 »

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 alot 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.

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 »

The short term answer would be fitting the RWS with 30mm Venom LR plus 2 x MMP allowing Boxer to hit soft & medium moving targets out to 2000 meters and heavy armour out to 4000 meters

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2425
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Has liked: 49 times
Been liked: 21 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Caribbean »

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.
Unfortunately deciding to upgrade Warrior appears to have been something akin to the Nimrod MRA4 decision.
These users liked the author Caribbean for the post:
Lord Jim
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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 »

Tempest414 wrote: 12 Apr 2022, 12:04 The short term answer would be fitting the RWS with 30mm Venom LR plus 2 x MMP allowing Boxer to hit soft & medium moving targets out to 2000 meters and heavy armour out to 4000 meters
I'm not sure short term answer to anything includes two weapons not currently in the UK operation.

The Kongsberg RWS control systems are widely used in UK service and contracted for Boxer, so anything would likely be implemented with that in mind. Kongsberg have their own 30mm LR options. Including Javelin and stingers.

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 »

RunningStrong wrote: 12 Apr 2022, 14:10
Tempest414 wrote: 12 Apr 2022, 12:04 The short term answer would be fitting the RWS with 30mm Venom LR plus 2 x MMP allowing Boxer to hit soft & medium moving targets out to 2000 meters and heavy armour out to 4000 meters
I'm not sure short term answer to anything includes two weapons not currently in the UK operation.

The Kongsberg RWS control systems are widely used in UK service and contracted for Boxer, so anything would likely be implemented with that in mind. Kongsberg have their own 30mm LR options. Including Javelin and stingers.
More than happy but an order for 200 Venom's plus swapping Stinger for LMM would be a good thing for UK PLC

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 »

Tempest414 wrote: 12 Apr 2022, 14:26
RunningStrong wrote: 12 Apr 2022, 14:10
Tempest414 wrote: 12 Apr 2022, 12:04 The short term answer would be fitting the RWS with 30mm Venom LR plus 2 x MMP allowing Boxer to hit soft & medium moving targets out to 2000 meters and heavy armour out to 4000 meters
I'm not sure short term answer to anything includes two weapons not currently in the UK operation.

The Kongsberg RWS control systems are widely used in UK service and contracted for Boxer, so anything would likely be implemented with that in mind. Kongsberg have their own 30mm LR options. Including Javelin and stingers.
More than happy but an order for 200 Venom's plus swapping Stinger for LMM would be a good thing for UK PLC
I can't see a reason to equip any more than the reportedly 85 infantry carrying variants.

There would be no reason to equip C2, Eng, REME and ambulances.

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 »

85 was in the first order the second order for an extra 100 could be for 80 odd APC plus 20 other maybe maybe not but we are going to need some 200+ APC's across the 2 Heavy BCT's are we not ?

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 »

Tempest414 wrote: 12 Apr 2022, 15:30 85 was in the first order the second order for an extra 100 could be for 80 odd APC plus 20 other maybe maybe not but we are going to need some 200+ APC's across the 2 Heavy BCT's are we not ?
The +100 is across all existing contract variants as stated by the manufacturer. And Infantry carrier isn't the largest variant across the original order.

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 »

The plan seems at present to be the formation of five Mechanised Infantry Battalions, each requiring around 75 Boxers in various forms of which around fifty will need to be the Infantry Carriers. So straight away we need 250 of this variant as a minimum number. Even if all 100 of the additional Boxers that have recently been ordered we will still be short at least sixty five, and if we are using the Infantry Carrier as the basis for a simple 81mm Mortar Carrier Variant, you will need to add a further forty to this number. In short to meet the aims of the British Army with regards to Boxer and if MRV(P) is not brought on line, we are going to be ordering very nearly a repeat of what is already on order.

Money is or in my opinion has to be why the British Army is not taking advantage of he Boxer Platform as well as not providing a number of what I regard as essential capabilities. The main reason for this is the substantial "Bow wave", caused by a serious lack if investment in teh British Army's AFV fleet compounded by the mismanagement of programmes that have both failed to deliver and gone seriously over budget. The Army's most recent failures have been the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme which has now been cancelled and Ajax which seems to be lurching from one crisis to another and is late into service to put it mildly, if it doers at all. Boxer and Challenger 3 are the next major programmes for the Army and these cannot fail. Both have Rheinmetall as a partner in the programme management capacity. This should bode well for these programmes and I hope that over the ten year timeframes for the programmes to deliver what has initially been ordered, additional platforms will be sought.

The need for additional Boxer was mentioned above, but with the Challenger 3, we need at least an attrition reserve. Ideally I would prefer the retention of the third Armoured Regiment even at a reduced scale, say reducing each Squadron to only three instead of four Troops. That would result in a need for 132 Challenger 4s to equip three such Regiments. This would leave 24 as a reserve if all active (168) Challenger 2s were to undergo the modernisation process.

Unfortunately to accomplish anything beyond what was laid out in the Integrated Review is going to need new money as there is little if any slack in the Budgets of all three Armed Services. The only pot of money I can see is the UK's recapitalisation of its CASD trough the Dreadnought programme. This bring up the argument as to whether this is a military or political weapon, as well as is it more akin to a expensive status symbol that a essential national asset. For myself I cannot see any senario where we would use it unilaterally as a result of a UK only operation against a Country that also had nuclear weapons, and in Multilateral operations we will in all likelihood be operating with the US Military, most likely under NATO Command Authority and therefore under the US Nuclear Umbrella. This would serve as the required deterrent in my opinion.

The substantial resources this would free up would probably allow the Royal Navy to build two further Astute class SSNs, possibly to a slightly modified design including an extension similar to the USN's Virginia Payload Module. It could also increase the capability of the T-31 Escorts on order, probably combining these with the planned T-32s to construct a single eight to ten ship class of Escorts that would compliment the T-26.

The Royal Air Force could purchase the additional E-7 and P-8 aircraft many believe it needs as well as enough F-35s to ensure we always have a full airwing available to one of our Carriers and still maintain training levels and a attrition reserve.

The Army would be the biggest beneficiary, gaining the number of Boxers required with the relevant Mission Modules to make the various units that make up its BCTs effective and viable. The Challenger 3 programme could be extended to achieve the increase mentioned above and programmes like the Precision Fires could be accelerated and also expanded. With additional variants of the Boxer many capability gaps could be filled and the financial roadblock that has stalled the MRV(P) programme could also be removed.

I know this is the Boxer thread but the Army needs a major transfusion of new equipment by 2030 at teh very latest and although Boxer will be the core to this it need other platforms to be purchase or reworked, and finally retire many of its AFVs that are well past their due date. IF Ajax also fails a much smaller amount of money could be made available, but it should be enough to allow additional Boxers to be prduced, some with new Mission Modules that would fill some fo the Capability crevasses that have formed within the British Army over the past few decades.

I am sure I have pushed the Detonator here for many so have at it, The Army needs more Boxers and more capabilities to be a viable 21st Century force able to fight at a Peer level. How are we to solve these issues or are we just going to expect the British Soldier to make the best of it even if higher casualties result, possibly.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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 »

Lord Jim wrote: 13 Apr 2022, 00:30 Ideally I would prefer the retention of the third Armoured Regiment even at a reduced scale, say reducing each Squadron to only three instead of four Troops. That would result in a need for 132 Challenger 4s to equip three such Regiments.
British tank regiments are reconstructed into Type 58 formation, with four tank squadrons, each with 14 tanks. So squadrons already have just three platoons.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote: 13 Apr 2022, 00:30 The plan seems at present to be the formation of five Mechanised Infantry Battalions, each requiring around 75 Boxers in various forms of which around fifty will need to be the Infantry Carriers. So straight away we need 250 of this variant as a minimum number. Even if all 100 of the additional Boxers that have recently been ordered we will still be short at least sixty five, and if we are using the Infantry Carrier as the basis for a simple 81mm Mortar Carrier Variant, you will need to add a further forty to this number. In short to meet the aims of the British Army with regards to Boxer and if MRV(P) is not brought on line, we are going to be ordering very nearly a repeat of what is already on order.

Money is or in my opinion has to be why the British Army is not taking advantage of he Boxer Platform as well as not providing a number of what I regard as essential capabilities. The main reason for this is the substantial "Bow wave", caused by a serious lack if investment in teh British Army's AFV fleet compounded by the mismanagement of programmes that have both failed to deliver and gone seriously over budget. The Army's most recent failures have been the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme which has now been cancelled and Ajax which seems to be lurching from one crisis to another and is late into service to put it mildly, if it doers at all. Boxer and Challenger 3 are the next major programmes for the Army and these cannot fail. Both have Rheinmetall as a partner in the programme management capacity. This should bode well for these programmes and I hope that over the ten year timeframes for the programmes to deliver what has initially been ordered, additional platforms will be sought.

The need for additional Boxer was mentioned above, but with the Challenger 3, we need at least an attrition reserve. Ideally I would prefer the retention of the third Armoured Regiment even at a reduced scale, say reducing each Squadron to only three instead of four Troops. That would result in a need for 132 Challenger 4s to equip three such Regiments. This would leave 24 as a reserve if all active (168) Challenger 2s were to undergo the modernisation process.

Unfortunately to accomplish anything beyond what was laid out in the Integrated Review is going to need new money as there is little if any slack in the Budgets of all three Armed Services. The only pot of money I can see is the UK's recapitalisation of its CASD trough the Dreadnought programme. This bring up the argument as to whether this is a military or political weapon, as well as is it more akin to a expensive status symbol that a essential national asset. For myself I cannot see any senario where we would use it unilaterally as a result of a UK only operation against a Country that also had nuclear weapons, and in Multilateral operations we will in all likelihood be operating with the US Military, most likely under NATO Command Authority and therefore under the US Nuclear Umbrella. This would serve as the required deterrent in my opinion.

The substantial resources this would free up would probably allow the Royal Navy to build two further Astute class SSNs, possibly to a slightly modified design including an extension similar to the USN's Virginia Payload Module. It could also increase the capability of the T-31 Escorts on order, probably combining these with the planned T-32s to construct a single eight to ten ship class of Escorts that would compliment the T-26.

The Royal Air Force could purchase the additional E-7 and P-8 aircraft many believe it needs as well as enough F-35s to ensure we always have a full airwing available to one of our Carriers and still maintain training levels and a attrition reserve.

The Army would be the biggest beneficiary, gaining the number of Boxers required with the relevant Mission Modules to make the various units that make up its BCTs effective and viable. The Challenger 3 programme could be extended to achieve the increase mentioned above and programmes like the Precision Fires could be accelerated and also expanded. With additional variants of the Boxer many capability gaps could be filled and the financial roadblock that has stalled the MRV(P) programme could also be removed.

I know this is the Boxer thread but the Army needs a major transfusion of new equipment by 2030 at teh very latest and although Boxer will be the core to this it need other platforms to be purchase or reworked, and finally retire many of its AFVs that are well past their due date. IF Ajax also fails a much smaller amount of money could be made available, but it should be enough to allow additional Boxers to be prduced, some with new Mission Modules that would fill some fo the Capability crevasses that have formed within the British Army over the past few decades.

I am sure I have pushed the Detonator here for many so have at it, The Army needs more Boxers and more capabilities to be a viable 21st Century force able to fight at a Peer level. How are we to solve these issues or are we just going to expect the British Soldier to make the best of it even if higher casualties result, possibly.
Probably worth moving this to the Future Form of the Army thread as it's completely off topic.

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 »

I don't think so. Boxer is the core theme but it also shows that you cannot just focus on Boxer, but need to look at the broader picture. Any follow up will be in the Future Army Thread.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2546
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Has liked: 53 times
Been liked: 145 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Timmymagic »

Looks like the Army are getting serious...

RT60 can take Bushmaster 30 or 40mm...hopefully we somehow get to reuse the CT40 ordered for Warrior...and yes...a pair of ATGM too.

Boxer with AGS 155mm is a great choice. It could also go on an Ajax chassis as the AGS Donar system for tracked SPG replacement.

60 of each would be nice please....

These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
Dahedd

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3276
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 87 times
Been liked: 197 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SW1 »

Be interesting if they go with the kongsberg turret. Would like to see them integrate the starstreak/lml missile as well as javelin. Give deploying troops the option to carry one or other depending on circumstances.

Also an interesting turret out of AUS in development the EOS R600MC but that maybe for lighter vehicles than boxer.

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 »

Timmymagic wrote: 26 Apr 2022, 14:17 Looks like the Army are getting serious...

RT60 can take Bushmaster 30 or 40mm...hopefully we somehow get to reuse the CT40 ordered for Warrior...and yes...a pair of ATGM too.

Boxer with AGS 155mm is a great choice. It could also go on an Ajax chassis as the AGS Donar system for tracked SPG replacement.

60 of each would be nice please....

Nothing new here. The Kongsberg turret was in the UK over a year ago for test firing unrelated to the UK, but of course others had a look around whilst it was here.

The BOXER alongside MAN truck and K9 Thunder are all publicly campaigning for the future Artillery system.

viewtopic.php?t=376&start=2000

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 »

Well we can keep our fingers crossed on all this. The whole boxer programme seems to be developing a dual personality with the manufacturer and MoD only talking about the initial variants being on order yet the Army is looking at modularity with each Mission Module type as well as other variants being based on the initial ones. It is getting a bit confusing as to what the Army is going to end up with. We have seem the Infantry Carrying Vehicle also mounting a 81mm Mortar for example. The Command variant is also being equipped for multiple roles yet is referred to a simple the Command variant.

What we haven't seen yet and hopefully the Army Trials Units will identify the capability as essential are the following types;
Bridgelayer to support Boxer and Ajax units.
ATGW Overwatch/Precision Fires.
Ammunition Limber for Boxer RCH is that vehicle is chosen to replace the AS-90.
Air Defence with Starstreak/LMM, replacing the Stormer.

There are obviously a number of nice to have variants but I would settle for the above four types.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2546
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Has liked: 53 times
Been liked: 145 times
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Timmymagic »

Lord Jim wrote: 27 Apr 2022, 04:33 There are obviously a number of nice to have variants but I would settle for the above four types.
Suspect EW will be another variant. The Netherlands have just announced a Boxer variant for that purpose.

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 will probably be another variant of the "Command" version.

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: 27 Apr 2022, 04:33 Well we can keep our fingers crossed on all this. The whole boxer programme seems to be developing a dual personality with the manufacturer and MoD only talking about the initial variants being on order yet the Army is looking at modularity with each Mission Module type as well as other variants being based on the initial ones. It is getting a bit confusing as to what the Army is going to end up with. We have seem the Infantry Carrying Vehicle also mounting a 81mm Mortar for example. The Command variant is also being equipped for multiple roles yet is referred to a simple the Command variant.

What we haven't seen yet and hopefully the Army Trials Units will identify the capability as essential are the following types;
Bridgelayer to support Boxer and Ajax units.
ATGW Overwatch/Precision Fires.
Ammunition Limber for Boxer RCH is that vehicle is chosen to replace the AS-90.
Air Defence with Starstreak/LMM, replacing the Stormer.

There are obviously a number of nice to have variants but I would settle for the above four types.
Here's a cynical take on it - the Army doesn't expect to go to war any time soon.

Post Reply