UK Defence Forum

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)

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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





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

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

tracked Boxer..FUGLY beyond belief.

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 ?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 got a bit deep there!

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.

??? 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.

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.

There was always a requirement for a vehicle like Boxer, and the Army has seen it as a critical capability to allow the rapid deployment of troops. This coincided with the need to upgrade Warrior and Ajax. In the 2021 Command Paper one of those three had to go due to lack of funds and warrior was chosen.

Going forward I feel the Army will get far more out of the Boxer platform that it would Warrior. The former can be easily adapted to carry out a large number of roles, whereas the latter really was only going to be an IFV after Warrior support vehicle modification programme was quietly canned. So yes if you look at things one way you could say Boxer took money away from Warrior, but I look at it as the most expendable platform was cancelled.

Maybe MoD can utilize the investment in the Lockheed turret by mating it with tracked Boxer. Now you can have both tracked and wheeled IFV. Choose the drive module depending on what is needed. One of the concern for wheeled Boxer was mobility in wet and muddy European and SE Asia, maybe this solves that problem.

I don’t see any downside of procuring tracked drive modules.

Now only if MoD can force GDLS to stop working on Ajax the vehicle and work on getting the electronic suite into a Boxer mission modules.