SW1 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2022, 11:13
Yes really. How many boxer/Ajax challenger can u put in an a400m/c17.
Plenty. The question in reality is how Kuch better do you want to get? Like I said, we already have one of the largest strategic air lift capabilities in the world, in reality it won't get much bigger.
Why does distance matter? We have air to air refuelling capability, as well as allied forces, as well as numerous UK and allied air bases strategically located around the globe.
SW1 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2022, 11:13
We’re is the increase in HET or the increase in rail options.
HET not required for moving AJAX and Boxer. Both can go on standard commercial carriers and BOXER can self-deploy if needed. Again, rail is commercial equipment.
SW1 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2022, 11:13
The strategic sea lift has gone from 6 to 2/4. We only need look at earlier this year how long did it take to move even a partial battlegroup from senelager to Estonia it was weeks!
Contracted strategic sea lift. Again, it is for the most part commercial equipment. We have RN and RFA ships available for beach head deployment.
Operation Iron Surge took 8 days from first packet leaving to last packet arriving after 2000km road lift. That's 25 hours moving time, at best, plus in peacetime you're also following rest periods to ensure you're not crashing a HET plus MBT/IFV into a hatchback of civilians.
SW1 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2022, 11:13
Yes really. How many boxer/Ajax challenger can u put in an a400m/c17.
Plenty. The question in reality is how Kuch better do you want to get? Like I said, we already have one of the largest strategic air lift capabilities in the world, in reality it won't get much bigger.
Why does distance matter? We have air to air refuelling capability, as well as allied forces, as well as numerous UK and allied air bases strategically located around the globe.
SW1 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2022, 11:13
We’re is the increase in HET or the increase in rail options.
HET not required for moving AJAX and Boxer. Both can go on standard commercial carriers and BOXER can self-deploy if needed. Again, rail is commercial equipment.
SW1 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2022, 11:13
The strategic sea lift has gone from 6 to 2/4. We only need look at earlier this year how long did it take to move even a partial battlegroup from senelager to Estonia it was weeks!
Contracted strategic sea lift. Again, it is for the most part commercial equipment. We have RN and RFA ships available for beach head deployment.
Operation Iron Surge took 8 days from first packet leaving to last packet arriving after 2000km road lift. That's 25 hours moving time, at best, plus in peacetime you're also following rest periods to ensure you're not crashing a HET plus MBT/IFV into a hatchback of civilians.
Are strategy airlift isn’t even the biggest in Europe.
Took much longer than 8 days from then they announced they were going until they arrived.
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 30 Nov 2022, 18:08
by Ron5
Mr RAF (@SW1) on other threads says he can move a RAF squadron anywhere in the world in hours fully equipped for an extended air campaign, but here he says there's not enough airlift capacity to move anybody else.
Doesn't add up.
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 30 Nov 2022, 18:42
by SW1
Ron5 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2022, 18:08
Mr RAF (@SW1) on other threads says he can move a RAF squadron anywhere in the world in hours fully equipped for an extended air campaign, but here he says there's not enough airlift capacity to move anybody else.
Doesn't add up.
A battlegroup of 40 tonne tanks is a little more difficult to move than a Sqn of planes but then you knew that….
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 30 Nov 2022, 20:30
by RunningStrong
SW1 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2022, 13:57
Are strategy airlift isn’t even the biggest in Europe.
Took much longer than 8 days from then they announced they were going until they arrived.
Correct, the biggest Strategic Lift in Europe is the USAF.
But with 8x C17 and 22x A400M, I'd put us ahead of Germany and France, because not everything is divisible by multiple aircraft. Just ask France when they deployed to Mali.
SW1 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2022, 13:57
Are strategy airlift isn’t even the biggest in Europe.
Took much longer than 8 days from then they announced they were going until they arrived.
Correct, the biggest Strategic Lift in Europe is the USAF.
But with 8x C17 and 22x A400M, I'd put us ahead of Germany and France, because not everything is divisible by multiple aircraft. Just ask France when they deployed to Mali.
Surely we're not still counting AN-124...
Yeah the French have 50 a400m and 15 a330mrtt deliveries continue over the rest of this decade granted. In their army vbci, Jaguar, griffin, serval all transportable over distance by said aircraft without disassembly.
The French deployment to mali predated the arrival of a400m with them a issue they are correcting c17 is very expensive but useful and is highly finite
While the Germans well have well over 50 a400m I will grant you there willingness is lacking
In the U.K. the only vehicles left in service that we aren’t disposing off that we can air lift combat ready is open top jackal, Land Rover and foxhound. The idea of a light medium and heavy armoured capability evaporated in the army’s mess of a vehicle procurement. And the ability to move and mount rail and transporter has been allowed to wither on the vine.
So if you’re being charitable we may have the 2nd best in Europe and an inability to move most of the army’s combat capability.
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 30 Nov 2022, 21:33
by RunningStrong
SW1 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2022, 20:56
Yeah the French have 50 a400m and 15 a330mrtt deliveries continue over the rest of this decade granted. In their army vbci, Jaguar, griffin, serval all transportable over distance by said aircraft without disassembly.
But then the A400M with combat ready VBCI barely makes it as far as the Middle East for operational range without refueling.
SW1 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2022, 20:56
The French deployment to mali predated the arrival of a400m with them a issue they are correcting c17 is very expensive but useful and is highly finite
But if you want to move heavy armour, heavy lift helicopters and actually lift vehicles and crew/dismounts (as C17 did into Mali) then it's essential. A400M just isn't enough.
SW1 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2022, 20:56
In the U.K. the only vehicles left in service that we aren’t disposing off that we can air lift combat ready is open top jackal, Land Rover and foxhound.
No, that's not true, because we have C17. Which means we can lift all of our AFV in combat ready state.
On top of that you can't dismiss Bulldog and it's replacement in the same swoop, when the former remains in service. As well as
SW1 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2022, 20:56
The idea of a light medium and heavy armoured capability evaporated in the army’s mess of a vehicle procurement.
I agree that the failure of the MRV-P programme to progress has left us without modern light armour vehicles. But we have prioritised protection, which is something the French haven't.
And how can you credit Germany having a valid strategic lift if it by the same metric can't lift Boxer?
SW1 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2022, 20:56
Yeah the French have 50 a400m and 15 a330mrtt deliveries continue over the rest of this decade granted. In their army vbci, Jaguar, griffin, serval all transportable over distance by said aircraft without disassembly.
But then the A400M with combat ready VBCI barely makes it as far as the Middle East for operational range without refueling.
SW1 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2022, 20:56
The French deployment to mali predated the arrival of a400m with them a issue they are correcting c17 is very expensive but useful and is highly finite
But if you want to move heavy armour, heavy lift helicopters and actually lift vehicles and crew/dismounts (as C17 did into Mali) then it's essential. A400M just isn't enough.
SW1 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2022, 20:56
In the U.K. the only vehicles left in service that we aren’t disposing off that we can air lift combat ready is open top jackal, Land Rover and foxhound.
No, that's not true, because we have C17. Which means we can lift all of our AFV in combat ready state.
On top of that you can't dismiss Bulldog and it's replacement in the same swoop, when the former remains in service. As well as
SW1 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2022, 20:56
The idea of a light medium and heavy armoured capability evaporated in the army’s mess of a vehicle procurement.
I agree that the failure of the MRV-P programme to progress has left us without modern light armour vehicles. But we have prioritised protection, which is something the French haven't.
And how can you credit Germany having a valid strategic lift if it by the same metric can't lift Boxer?
The French would not have needed c17 had it had a400m. Now it does it can move everything but it’s main battle tank. We have allowed out force to become far to heavy!
The French can also move all their helicopter fleet as well. Not to mention a helicopter aar capability.
We have failed in both medium and light forces. And for our geological location that is very poor choice imo.
The German armed forces are worse than ours granted but we are behind the French
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 01 Dec 2022, 07:38
by RunningStrong
SW1 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2022, 21:59
The French would not have needed c17 had it had a400m. Now it does it can move everything but it’s main battle tank. We have allowed out force to become far to heavy!
The French can also move all their helicopter fleet as well. Not to mention a helicopter aar capability.
We have failed in both medium and light forces. And for our geological location that is very poor choice imo.
The German armed forces are worse than ours granted but we are behind the French
So the French are in a better position because they've based almost their entire land forces and helicopter force doctrine around "strategic" A400M. Do you not see the flaw in that?
SW1 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2022, 21:59
The French would not have needed c17 had it had a400m. Now it does it can move everything but it’s main battle tank. We have allowed out force to become far to heavy!
The French can also move all their helicopter fleet as well. Not to mention a helicopter aar capability.
We have failed in both medium and light forces. And for our geological location that is very poor choice imo.
The German armed forces are worse than ours granted but we are behind the French
So the French are in a better position because they've based almost their entire land forces and helicopter force doctrine around "strategic" A400M. Do you not see the flaw in that?
The French are in a better position because they have designed their force around the ability to get to places they need to get to and quickly.
They haven’t come up with a random collection of programs that pay little regard to anything else.
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 01 Dec 2022, 09:45
by RunningStrong
SW1 wrote: ↑01 Dec 2022, 07:50
The French are in a better position because they have designed their force around the ability to get to places they need to get to and quickly.
They haven’t come up with a random collection of programs that pay little regard to anything else.
Again, you're ignoring that we have C17 and they don't!
SW1 wrote: ↑01 Dec 2022, 07:50
The French are in a better position because they have designed their force around the ability to get to places they need to get to and quickly.
They haven’t come up with a random collection of programs that pay little regard to anything else.
Again, you're ignoring that we have C17 and they don't!
Not ignoring it. We only have 8!
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 01 Dec 2022, 11:39
by Tempest414
With funding for 1000 Boxers we now need funding for 1000 Bushmaster to allow for 10 light mechanised Infantry battalions to allow fast deployment of light forces
Ron5 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2022, 18:08
Mr RAF (@SW1) on other threads says he can move a RAF squadron anywhere in the world in hours fully equipped for an extended air campaign, but here he says there's not enough airlift capacity to move anybody else.
Doesn't add up.
A battlegroup of 40 tonne tanks is a little more difficult to move than a Sqn of planes but then you knew that….
And both movements require ships. Aircraft on their own are as useful as tanks without men, diesel, spares, & ammo.
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 06 Dec 2022, 07:44
by sol
Review of data from latest testing of Ajax is showing that noise and vibration levels remained within safe levels
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 13 Dec 2022, 10:25
by SW1
Boxer tracked in the wild
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 16 Dec 2022, 22:02
by Little J
Just seen this and thought it might be of interest, in reference to the Boxer + 105mm debate
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 17 Dec 2022, 15:42
by SW1
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 01 Jan 2023, 22:31
by zanahoria
Tweet from Mr Drummond. I hope it performs well. I wonder what % of other buyers would prefer to put this module on tracks.
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 04 Jan 2023, 20:58
by Timmymagic
If this is true its a big change....we haven't fielded a heavy mortar since the retirement of the 4.2 inch mortar 50+ years ago....apparently for the Infantry
Don't think this effects Light Gun.
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 04 Jan 2023, 20:58
by Timmymagic
Duplicate that I can't delete.
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 04 Jan 2023, 21:33
by sol
If British are getting Boxer with Nemo that would be a great news. About a month ago there was this tweet
If light forces is moving to 120mm mortars, than mechanised battalions should probably do the same. Nemo should be a good choice for them. BvS 10 can also be equipped with it so RM could also consider some for them too.
If the Boxer Battalions are to get Nemo 120mm and the 4th BCT are getting towed or SP 120mm then the 7th Light Mech will get what ever the 4th gets and all that will happen with the Viking SP mortar is the 81mm will be replaced with a 120mm job done
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 06 Jan 2023, 14:57
by Ron5
Timmymagic wrote: ↑04 Jan 2023, 20:58
Don't think this effects Light Gun.
Big impact on the light gun successor tho
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 08 Jan 2023, 18:46
by mr.fred
Saw this and thought it interesting, particularly in mind of the discussion on display arrangements a couple of pages back: