UK Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Same difference. Boxer is a heavy wheeled IFV/APC offers all around 14.5mm protection with 30mm at the front and Mrap level protection from below as the stock. Additional armor kits are available. Drive is a 8x8 wheeled and it is modular variants can include logistics, IFV/Scout, 120mm mortar, command vehicle, Ambulance and APC. With concepts under work including Howitzer.
It also has options for a Hard Kill APS. Good power pack, good speed, good range.
It is a medium weight vehicle though without Amphious capability. It can ford a river but not land on a beach. I continue to be amazed that the Nation that built Hobart's funnys for Normandy has continued to walk away from the potential of Amphious armored vehicles. On the other side of that though the Boxer is transportable by A400M and C17 can haul 2 units. Which more and more seems to push the C130 to the light tactical lifter role.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Same difference. ...

Click to expand...

what's funny
14 years after opting out
they rush: "The MoD chose 5:30 p.m. on Easter Saturday to announce its controversial intention not to hold a competition to procure an 8x8 for the new Army strike brigades being forming as part of a wider restructuring plan. Instead, the U.K. will take a significant step towards buying the German-built vehicle in a single source deal."


(I meant 'funny' as in 'humorous', not 'funny' as in 'nefarious')

The Major Driver was that the Boxer was getting up to 35 tons. The Brits wanted at that time a 8x8 like the Stryker that could atleast in theory be hauled to fight by C130J.
No way to do that with a Boxer unless they sent it in boxes and assembled it on sight after 4 or 5 flights.
However after fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan combined with the mess we see in Syria, light armored vehicle offerings in the under 20 ton range once the Rage for Armies procurement officers are collecting dust as the reality is The IED, ATGM and EFP as well as even potentially Tank rounds are back on the Threat menu.
Or as you keep ragging the Stryker about what happens when they have to face off against a BMP3?
Well In this case as long as the BMP3 crew saves the 100mm gun for other targets the base armor of the Boxer could from the front take a 30mm shot.

I almost missed this:

TerraN_EmpirE said:

...
Or as you keep ragging the Stryker about what happens when they have to face off against a BMP3?
...

Click to expand...

it's true I'm afraid the US boys and girls in Europe in their revered Strykers would be quickly gone, and it's true I've repeatedly used the German expression
Kanonenfutter
in this context

but my posts
Today at 7:36 AM
35 minutes ago
were related to the current UK procurement processes, and I'll leave it at that

And As I have pointed out before BMP3's 100mm gun can Trash just about any IFV on the planet save for Nammer (which is really a Tank hull) Puma, Lynx and Marder with add on Armor.

The British Army has selected Boxer for the Mechanised Infantry Vehicle requirement.



"The Boxer is an eight-wheeled multi role vehicle, consisting of two key elements: the platform/drive-line and the removable mission module. The mission module is a key feature of Boxer, it allowing the vehicle to be rapidly changed to meet different operational requirements. Mission modules are attached by four points and can be swapped within an hour under field conditions."

Three sources Comforted.

timepass said:

The British Army has selected Boxer for the Mechanized Infantry Vehicle requirement.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

<Read full article At Army reco.
The Boxer fresh off the sucess of the Australian Land 400 seems like it's getting the UK's interest.

Click to expand...

Jura said:

and in real world

"The MoD chose 5:30 p.m. on Easter Saturday to announce its controversial intention not to hold a competition to procure an 8x8 for the new Army strike brigades being forming as part of a wider restructuring plan. Instead, the U.K. will take a significant step towards buying the German-built vehicle in a single source deal."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Will be interesting to see what modules the British will buy and if they would make changes for there versions. Will they add a Hard kill APS? Questions to be asked. I mean Will the British retire the AS90?

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Three sources Comforted.
Will be interesting to see what modules the British will buy and if they would make changes for there versions. Will they add a Hard kill APS? Questions to be asked. I mean Will the British retire the AS90?

Click to expand...

Well I was chatting elsewhere and got an answer, not official though so it's up in the air on trust, But I have seen this and he's pretty well informed.
Any way he claims that the British army wanted to place a order for 800 units but budget wise they are probably going to end up closer to 500, They aim for 10 variants.
Boxer is a modular design basically the forward cab and under body are the vehicle and rear cabin is a removable module. ( I can hear teeth grinding, because I know how much you love Modules.)

So this would mean the British ordering 500 or so of the Chassis and then whatever modules you would like in what ever numbers you like and mate them together.
The British apparently want 10 variants. The base line armored personnel carrier, A command and control vehicle, An armored recovery vehicle, A mortar carrier Hopefully with a turreted Breach loaded system I mean a BAE subsidiary makes the AMOS system but chances are they would cheap it and just use a 120 mm on a turn table.
A Turret loaded mortar offers better protection as the weapon and crew using it are under the turret where a more conventional mortar carrier requires the crew open the roof of the vehicle. this means armored doors that tend to be weaker and when open exposes the crew of counter attack by small arms or artillery. as well as potential NBC. on the other side of that equation the conventional mortar carrier is lighter and Cheaper.
They also want an Ambulance, armored engineering vehicle, Joint fire control vehicle. An infantry fighting/reconnaissance vehicle which is basically what the Australians ordered for there Boxers but is likely to be using the 40mm CTAS cannon. A 155 mm self-propelled gun carrier which is unique to the Boxer, has no other 8x8 armored vehicle has a 155mm 52 caliber SPH configuration, and a short-range air-defence vehicle I am guessing which would use there Starscr... sorry I mean Starstreak missile system. Or it could be based off the Existing Skyranger with a 35mm cannon. [I got confused for a second I mean the British nicknamed The Challenger 2 Megatron, and Starstreak sounds like another Hasbro Decepticon.]

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Well I was chatting elsewhere and got an answer, not official though so it's up in the air on trust, But I have seen this

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and he's pretty well informed.
Any way he claims that the British army wanted to place a order for 800 units but budget wise they are probably going to end up closer to 500, They aim for 10 variants.
Boxer is a modular design basically the forward cab and under body are the vehicle and rear cabin is a removable module.

Click to expand...

at this point I was thinking like
the ..-. modules

TerraN_EmpirE said:

( I can hear teeth grinding, because I know how much you love Modules.)
...

Click to expand...

LOL!
'Like' being attached

Feb 22, 2018

Jura said:

noticed the sales talk (OK daydreaming)

Cammell Laird and BAE showcase export potential of Type 31e frigate at supplier conference

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

claimed Type 31 is to get an Artisan and Sea Ceptors

Click to expand...

I'm guessing they're going to arm them with this (dozen of CAMMs as far as I understand this "solution"):
MBDA, Lockheed complete CAMM, extensible ExLS launcher qualifications

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

MBDA and Lockheed Martin announced they have completed a series of trials aimed at qualifying the integration of MBDA’s Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM) with Lockheed Martin’s Extensible Launching System (ExLS) 3-Cell stand alone launcher.

ExLS is Lockheed Martin’s low-cost alternative for integrating new missiles and munitions into naval surface combatants.

The compact vertical launch 3-cell ExLS system is specifically designed for smaller naval platforms that are unable to accommodate the larger 8-cell MK 41 vertical launching system (VLS).

“A launcher within a launcher, ExLS uses CAMM canistered munitions with its qualified launch electronics to cut integration costs by more than 50 percent. It is a mature design that when paired with CAMM offers a low-cost alternative for integrating new missiles and munitions into current and future surface combatants,” said Joe DePietro, Lockheed Martin vice president of small combatants and ship systems.

MBDA’s CAMM is a compact missile that enables multiple weapons to be fitted in limited spaces. When operated from ExLS or MK 41 VLSD, CAMM comes in a quad-pack arrangement which allows to store and fire 4 missiles from a single cell. These latest trials from 3-cell ExLS were successfully completed in the United Kingdom at the end of 2017.

“These trials have further demonstrated the maturity, reliability and safety of the CAMM vertical launch system from both 3-cell ExLS and ExLS Host/MK 41 and follows the highly successful operational trials of CAMM by the Royal Navy in 2017,” Paul Mead, Head of Business Development at MBDA, said. “The pairing of CAMM with the 3-cell ExLS launcher is a natural choice, providing a flexible launcher solution available now for naval platforms to take advantage of the high performance air defence capabilities and compact size of CAMM with ExLS. Other MBDA weapon systems, compatible with ExLS, are planned for the future.”

Click to expand...