Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6227
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

I didn't realise the CV-90 was smaller than Ajax. Mind you I have never seen them side by side. On the size front, where does the M3 Bradley Cavalry vehicle come in.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6301
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:I didn't realise the CV-90 was smaller than Ajax. Mind you I have never seen them side by side. On the size front, where does the M3 Bradley Cavalry vehicle come in.
This was taken during the Czech trials for a new IFV. From front to back: CV90, Lynx, ASCOD. As you know, Ajax was developed from an ASCOD base.

Image

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6227
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Thanks that is a really good picture. so we have a CV-90, Lynx and ASCOD. I suppose the fact that the Lynx is advertised as being able to carry ten dismounts with its manned turret gives a clue to its greater size than platforms such as warrior or equivalent western IFV from that time. In fact the CV-90 actually looks small even though it is still quiet a sizeable platform.

Interesting that both Lynx and CV-90 have had export success whereas besides the original developers only the UK has adopted the ASCOD platform With CV-90 many of the upgrades we would have desired could already have been partially paid for by other customers or have users willing to jointly fund them for their IFVs even though we were wanting a Recce platform. The CV-90 has been constantly evolving where as ASCOD as only evolved on paper except for Ajax so we have had to pay for everything on our lonesome. Strange way of achieving value for money and keeping things simple.

At least with Boxer we have chosen what is probably the best 8x8 available at present, with plenty of grow potential in all areas. Especially as we are getting the most potent version of the vehicle to date with regards to the performance of the core vehicle. Bigger engine, boosted suspension and so on. We just have to hope the Army truly recognises the capabilities of teh vehicle they are buying, and that they can go way beyond what they currently have on order. We have seen pictures of what could be the Army's Boxer based Mortar Carrier though only with a new 81mm mortar instead of teh hoped for 120mm. A missed opportunity there but they have stuck to what they know and already have the ammo for. Hopefully the trials and exercises over the coming years will open the Army's eyes and they will have the version in service they need for the infantry to fight effectively in a combined arms manner.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6301
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:Interesting that both Lynx and CV-90 have had export success whereas besides the original developers only the UK has adopted the ASCOD platform With CV-90 many of the upgrades we would have desired could already have been partially paid for by other customers or have users willing to jointly fund them for their IFVs even though we were wanting a Recce platform. The CV-90 has been constantly evolving where as ASCOD as only evolved on paper except for Ajax so we have had to pay for everything on our lonesome. Strange way of achieving value for money and keeping things simple.
Apparently there were some (many?) in DE&S that supported this view (including, I believe, the controller) but they were shouted down by the "anyone but Bae" mob.

Stupid, stupid, mistake that destroyed the UK AFV industry at a stroke.

The same level of thinking has lead to the Type 31's.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 759
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Are we just going to pretend the ASCOD 2 hasn't won contracts and that the AJAX-derived Griffin remains in the US competition?

The CV90 mkIV was presented only this year, it's been miles behind the AJAX, hardly an example of other operators advancing the design :lol:

Andy-M
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: 01 Jun 2015, 20:25
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Andy-M »

Boxer with RWS armed with VENOM LR 30 mm Gun.


Online
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2331
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Caribbean »

Andy-M wrote:Boxer with RWS armed with VENOM LR 30 mm Gun.

I seem to remember suggesting this as an option for the Boxer some time ago, as well as for lighter vehicles (at the time JLTV, but it looks as if that is going nowhere now). The 1200rpm mode might make for a reasonable SPAAG, when coupled with Starstreak or LMM.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6227
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

IF we decide not to go with a turret mounting the CT40 we are spoilt for choice as to alternatives and capabilities available. IF fact there are so many it will probably take the DE&S and Army an inordinate amount of time to choose one and then find it won't fit on a RWS together with something else on the wanted list, delaying thing. So lets just get all the Boxers bar the Ambulance fitted with the planned RWS mounting a M2 .50cal as a start. Swapping RWS or even selecting a new Mission Module down the rounds can be done on an incremental basis as funds are made available or are left over in a financial year.

As for Griffin, well it is a mean looking demonstrator but the consortium behind it have already said that the vehicle that would enter service if teh Griffin was selected would contain next to nothing of the ASCOD 2 so I don't really count that as an export. Where it has competed it has been defeated by either the Lynx or CV-90 if they were also in the competition, or a locally produced platform as in teh case of Poland and I believe Turkey. If either Austria or Spain has followed a spiral improvement programme with the ASCOD, like what has happened to the CV-90 it might have been more successful but it hasn't. Yes GD has developed the ASCOD 2 but have any of its improvements been adopted by the original users? So we have basically been responsible for developing the ASCOD 2 (UK) as the Ajax and for developing a family of vehicles, all as part of our £3Bn+ contract, which GD may be able to cash in on, unless the MoD has gained the IP for all teh mods to create Ajax.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Caribbean wrote:I seem to remember suggesting this as an option for the Boxer some time ago, as well as for lighter vehicles (at the time JLTV, but it looks as if that is going nowhere now). The 1200rpm mode might make for a reasonable SPAAG, when coupled with Starstreak or LMM.
I think you’d need proximity fused shells to be effective against air targets with a LW30. The kind of targets that would be worth hitting directly would rarely, if ever, come within range.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6301
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:Are we just going to pretend the ASCOD 2 hasn't won contracts and that the AJAX-derived Griffin remains in the US competition?

The CV90 mkIV was presented only this year, it's been miles behind the AJAX, hardly an example of other operators advancing the design :lol:
Yet another "what about" posts to distract from the point of the thread flow i.e. that Ajax is too big for a recce vehicle. And CV90 is a lot smaller. And the Bae Scout even smaller than that.

PS What ASCOD 2 contracts? All I can think of is the Israeli light tank that uses an ASCOD chassis that sold maybe a dozen to an Asian country.

PPS Griffin is in no way shape or form based on Ajax. The demonstrator uses an Ajax chassis to get something built quickly in order to get some US Army feedback. The chassis was then thrown away and a brand new one developed for the prototype vehicles. No Griffen or MPF has any Ajax components. None.

ASCOD and Ajax despite lots of flowery words from GD is an export dud. Along with their "British to its bootstraps" and will create 10,000 UK jobs. All lies to get the contract.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6301
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Andy-M wrote:Boxer with RWS armed with VENOM LR 30 mm Gun.

Are you sure that's a Venom gun? The company hasn't claimed any firing from a Boxer as far as I know. The very recent trials were from a static mount. I don't recognize the vehicles number plate either.

Here's the trials from a few days ago ..

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

Ron5 wrote:Are you sure that's a Venom gun? The company hasn't claimed any firing from a Boxer as far as I know. The very recent trials were from a static mount. I don't recognize the vehicles number plate either.
It’s a chain gun, most likely the M230LF. The gun condition indicator on the back is a dead give away.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3030
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

The video above looks to be from the Dutch trail which did use the MF230

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6227
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Moving from the Ajax thread, and regarding the Boxer being used as an IFV amongst other roles, if one looks at mobility Boxer win in the plus or minus game. On the minus side, yes Boxer may not be able to traverse the most difficult of terrain, but then again Ajax or Warrior cannot either, instead we use vehicles like the Viking. With the large tyres, good ground clearance and suspension, surplus power and torque from the engine and a central tyre inflation system 8x8 like the Boxer are able to match tracked platforms.

Yes many countries are buying tracked IFVs these days and some are also buying wheeled ones such a Poland, who have actually bought their wheeled IFV, the Rosomak and are now developing a tracked IFV the Borsuk. In an ideal world the British Army would maybe also be buying both, or simple having the Boxer APCs in the Mechanised Battalions fielded with greater firepower. Unfortunately we not only have the funding to purchase either a Tracked platform or a wheeled platform and the powers that be have decided to keep the wheeled platform. It need greater firepower than the present .50cal everyone including the Army agrees, though how this is to be accomplished is still being assessed. It could be as simple as adding Javelin to the existing RWS or it could lead to a new turret, a number of which have already been tested and cleared for use on the Boxer.

So Boxer is replacing the cancelled Warrior CSP, but given the snail like delivery schedule for the new platform it will be a good number of years until we have equipped the planned four Infantry Battalions and replaced many of the FV430 series still in service. Boxer has substantial growth potential and is fairly unique amongst wheeled AFV in that it is modular which brings its own benefits. It is in service with a growing number of countries and has be use operationally in Afghanistan where it performed well. Its long distance mobility is also vital for the British Army where most of its heavier units are now based in the UK and will need to get to a port and then travel from the destination port to its planned operational area under its own power. Warrior (and Ajax) cannot do that.

Whilst many favour the British Army buying an off the shelf replacement for Warrior, there simply is not the funding to do such a thing until at least the 2030s. Even then such a programme will be competing with other programmes like Cyber, ISTAR and EW that will have a higher priority.

If Ajax is found unacceptable to the British Army and cancelled, like with the idea of a new tracked IFV, funding sufficient Tracked platforms to preplace it is going to be hard to find. Even more so many countries have used wheeled Recce vehicles, more so than IFVs, and so Boxer would make a good replacement. It has the same digital core as the Ajax and Challenger 3 and even in its planned APC form has good optics and situational awareness. For firepower a version of any turret developed for an OFV variant should suffice, but ideally one with the same Orion sights as used by both Ajax and Challenger 3.

Boxer is a very good, flexible platform with benefits to the British Army it cannot ignore, especially in these time of more needs than funding. I have repeatedly mentioned the well know reduction in operating costs that would be pretty substantial over the life of the platform. The British Army should be looking hard at what the Boxer cannot do, and I believe that list when compared to the roles needed will be very small. With Boxer we are buying a mature platforms with the minimum of alteration by bespoke UK content. I just cannot see why we should go all in and go with Boxer for as many roles as it is capable of handling, increasing our order of the platform as necessary, though some might find this unpalatable.

Andy-M
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: 01 Jun 2015, 20:25
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Andy-M »

Ron5 wrote:
Are you sure that's a Venom gun? The company hasn't claimed any firing from a Boxer as far as I know. The very recent trials were from a static mount. I don't recognize the vehicles number plate either.
Got it from ARRSE, they reckoned it was the Venom.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3030
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Tempest414 »

The vehicle in the video above has the same vehicle reg as the Dutch Boxer . If you go on youtube and put Boxer 30mm&40mm in and you see the test and the team changing the 40mm to 30mm in the field

this vehicle used a MF230

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:Reading into the above statement it seems the Army's new doctrine is to find and fix an opponent, hammer him with long range "Effects", and only close once he has had the S@&% kicked out of him. That way there should be far less need to assault a position but rather occupy and fortify whilst the Recce and Deep Fires mover on to the next target. I wonder how this doctrine compares to our NATO allies besides the USA?
Sorry to come with a comment to a post from so far back, but the notifications list could not quite handle the number that had built up since late June and got into a twist;
Namely, the description sounds much like the long-standing (first Soviet, and then) Russian doctrine of offensive use of artillery
... should we not compare with the likeliest 'oppos'?
whitelancer wrote:What's the matter with just using the now redundant turret off of Warrior WCSP. Would seem to be a no brainer if they are going to fit a turret of course.
A jolly good idea; especially as so many wagons have been in testing for so long that there must be a good idea formed of (also) the turrets capabilities
... W2 and Boxer (even the Ozzie Boxer) comply with the electronic architecture standard for ease of integration/ modification
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)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:you would have one in each Platoon i.e each platoon would have 2 x 12.7 , 1 x 30mm and 1 x 40mm GMG mounted RSW's
A jolly good idea, too: 1 in 4 with an autocannon. Not necessarily a 30 mm
RunningStrong wrote:CT40 integration would be interesting given [...] the missiles [are] where the magazine goes...
- surely that vertical (UK-only!) mag can be used to fix the problem :idea: Err, was the mag itself 'a' problem :?:
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
Member
Posts: 759
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:CT40 integration would be interesting given [...] the missiles [are] where the magazine goes...
- surely that vertical (UK-only!) mag can be used to fix the problem :idea: Err, was the mag itself 'a' problem :?:
The UK doesn't use a vertical magazine on AJAX or WCSP.

And the magazine isn't the issue in CT40...

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RunningStrong wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:Really why ?
Size (turret again atop a large 8x8), effect (120mm in fighting at infantry ranges increases danger close limits), training burden (an additional AFV crew member as gunner), supply chain (larger she'll resupply).

The additional range is great in many cases, but exceeds that of the current need for infantry engagements.
Agree with all of that, despite my NEMO enthusiasm
... which cap I can now put back on, in light of mr. fred's comment below. Namely, Armoured Infantry works with armour whereas a wheeled infantry BCT will only have artillery support from afar, without any heavy guns in close proximity.
mr.fred wrote:That said, a number of SP 120mm mortars like the Nemo on a boxer would seem to be a good fit for artillery support to a wheeled brigade.
RunningStrong wrote: Plus the volume requirements. An 81mm round is a quarter of that by a quick datasheet check.
. Volume is the killer for what needs/ can be carried under armour. With the irregular shape make the volume half, rather than the quarter. While not forgetting that a ton of 81mm produces twice as many splinters as a ton of 120mm and with the better RoF (before Enter! the autoloaded NEMO breach mortar 8-) ) that ton can be put onto the target area faster
Lord Jim wrote:The whole MoD seems to be in shock and is also stunned by the additional funding it has got. It doesn't seem to know what to do
Except 'Radical' Radakin... though what he will do may not have that much to do with the army (?) - Wait and see!

Adding this to this same posting as my joke about the vertical mag not working, though set as a new/ later requirement, did seemingly not quite, err work:
RunningStrong wrote:The UK doesn't use a vertical magazine
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)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: China is also looking at installing larger auto cannon in its AFVs, which sort of make the protection levels of our AFVs except the Challenger 3 open to discussion.
Serbia, Russia, China... no wonder the 50mm super-shot is starting to take hold. After a very long gestation period
Ron5 wrote:Boxer with a manned turret, on the other hand, is the size of a house. Not really suitable for reconn.
With the turret-on-turret implementation, it can now hide behind a house... and even shoot back
- call that a recce version of a 'hull-down position'?
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: 6227
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Of course there is no reason the Boxers and the infantry they carry cannot work well with the Challenger 3. All Mechanised and Armoured Formations should eventually have direct access to a Joint Fires platform or team, so anyone can call for indirect fire support form whatever is available. Of course these formation are also going to need integral Aid Defence and Combat Engineering together with protected Logistics with everything networked and linked into ISTAR, EW and Cyber assets most likely held at Battlegroup HQ. All this and more to be in place no later that 2031 so the Army has a ten year capability holiday from actually doing any fighting except by SF and units of the SFSG and Rangers. The MoD's fingers are really going to start hurting, having to have then crossed for so long.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6227
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Video covering the live fire trials of the Boxer CRV by the Australian Army and their views on the improved capabilities offered by the Boxer compared to the older ASLAV 8x8.

Many of the comments are relevant to the conversations we have been having above as far as teh capability of the Boxer.

sol
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

Lord Jim wrote: Yes many countries are buying tracked IFVs these days and some are also buying wheeled ones such a Poland, who have actually bought their wheeled IFV, the Rosomak and are now developing a tracked IFV the Borsuk.
Sure, lot of countries is buying wheeled IFVs but very few are pairing them with tanks. Countries like Poland or Italy have wheeled IFVs, but in all wheeled brigades. Polish is using combination of old BRDM2, NORA 155mm SPA and Wolverine IFVs, while Italians are combining their Freccia IFVs with great Centauro 2. But both of them are using their tanks in combination with tracked IFVs. France is the only one that have tanks and wheeled IFVs grouped in the same brigade. All others, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Czech, Spain, Italy, Poland ... are using tracked IFVs to support tanks.

But, considering British Army, it does not have options, Boxer is the only option available. But it does not mean that is it the best solution. It could be but there is no guaranty for that, not until Army create first HBCT with Boxers and CR2/CR3 and properly test how those two platforms work together. And I don't think that Army should go and buy some vehicle from the shelf, but also I don't see Boxer as ultimate solution for everything.

I wonder would it better to just group or heavy armour in one brigade, with both tank regiments and maybe two battalion of armoured infantry on tracked vehicles. Those could use Warriors until something else is available and keep those two battalions operational by cannibalizing remaining vehicles. Maybe just like tank regiments have TA regiments to provide replacement crews, one TA infantry battalion could be used to provide reinforcements for armoured infantry battalions by giving them some Warriors for training.

Boxers could be orginised in two mechanised brigades with Ajax and Boxers, maybe some MGS based on Boxer or even like tanks like those that currently US Army is testing for their infantry units. Those would much easier follow Boxers and would be faster to deploy than CR3.

I doubt that British Army will ever be able to filed both HBCT at the same time anyway so having just one really strong armoured brigade with at least mechanised brigade to support it could give army much stronger force it there is ever need to deploy one.

But this is just my opinion which could be wrong (probably it is). As British Army don't have much options here they will need to stick with Boxer (and Ajax), how would it work it or not with tanks is to be seen. I am skeptical but I would not mind to be proven wrong.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6227
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

I am not saying that Boxer is some utopian answer to all nations problems, but for the British Army it is most likely the best and most affordable option. The Bundeswehr which of course has both Boxer and Puma and operates both with its leopard 2 tanks without any difficulty. In fact the command vehicle for all Armoured formations is a variant of the Boxer which has replaced the venerable M577G. The Bundeswehr also has no difficulty with the mobility of its Boxers when they we deployed in Afghanistan either.

At times there appears to be some sort of memory block that makes people think the cross country mobility of the current generation of 8x8 and some 6x6 still equates to that of vehicles from the 60s and 70s. Then again at that time most nations didn't even have IFVs and used thinly armoured APCs to move the infantry with the tanks, arbeit using different tactics.

I have already mentioned Poland, but is seems that the members of NATO that were former members of the Warsaw Pact have no issue operating wheeled AFVs with Tanks. Most in fact are replacing like for like, aiming to rid themselves of the soviet era BTR-60 and 70s in the APC/IFV role and the BRDM -2 in the Recce Role. I say APC/IFV role as many are taking the opportunity to gain an increase in firepower when they update to new 8x8 platforms. Russia has used 8x8 for a long time in its Motor Rifle units, operating with tanks that are part of their Brigades

As for the British Army, we are buying Boxer, lets make the most of it is all I am saying.

Post Reply