Jump to content


Photo

Uk Boxer Purchase Imminent.


  • Please log in to reply
129 replies to this topic

#121 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,989 posts

Posted 07 November 2019 - 2041 PM

"will ensure STRIKE is ready for any global scenario"

 

STRIKE is an ill-conceived and badly implemented concept that's not and will never be ready for any plausible potential conflict.


  • 0

#122 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,367 posts

Posted 08 November 2019 - 0210 AM

Is that some kind of rebranding of 19 Airportable Brigade?


  • 0

#123 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,989 posts

Posted 08 November 2019 - 0657 AM

Is that some kind of rebranding of 19 Airportable Brigade?

 

http://ukarmedforces...y.blogspot.com/


  • 0

#124 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,861 posts

Posted 08 November 2019 - 1025 AM

MOD finally sign contract for over 500 Boxers. Well we got there in the end I guess...

https://www.adsadvan...ct-secured.html

 

It's amazing how an army who raised complaints about funding to part of its self-image could so reliably waste funds.

 

Boxer is a horribly inefficient vehicle. It's way too big because of an extremely undisciplined requirements list.

It doesn't make much sense to equip infantry with super-protected APCs when those APCs are still unlikely to drive in the midst of the action (not the least becuase of poor soft soil performance) when the infantry's mission is mostly about dismounted action. Meanwhile lots of non-infantry small units will have their equipment neglected despite being much more vehicle-centric and just as exposed to the threats Boxer is designed to protect against (which includes DPICM afaik).

 

No matter from what angle you look at it, Boxer is neither offering a critical capability nor is it cost efficient.

 

XA-180s would have been very cost-efficient. That would have left resources for a badly needed improvement of AT firepower and battlefield air defences.


  • 0

#125 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,367 posts

Posted 08 November 2019 - 1048 AM

Well call me prejudiced, but any steel box is probably going to be an improvement on one we took into service in the early 1960's. At this moment Id happily relaunch production of the Humber pig, as long as the army got something that didnt break down every 5 minutes.


  • 0

#126 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,636 posts

Posted 08 November 2019 - 1839 PM

In terms of mobility and protection, isn't Boxer superior to Stryker?


  • 0

#127 Interlinked

Interlinked

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 316 posts

Posted 09 November 2019 - 0025 AM

Yes.
  • 0

#128 bd1

bd1

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,179 posts

Posted 09 November 2019 - 0543 AM

No matter from what angle you look at it, Boxer is neither offering a critical capability nor is it cost efficient.

 

 

 

XA-180s would have been very cost-efficient. That would have left resources for a badly needed improvement of AT firepower and battlefield air defences.

 

incidentally, Patria has just re-launched good old xa-180, right next to old 8x8 AMV. seems they are trying to aim at the niche between 4x4 MRAP-ish patrol vehicles and 8x8 hyperexpensive IFV/APC. just like the old one was. 

 

our own expert finn here wrote that back when Patria launched 8x8 AMV , FDF was really not very happy, because what they needed was updated 6x6 Pasi, not 8x8 hyperexpensive vehicle for export markets 

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=06aZpuu3WWc


  • 0

#129 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,861 posts

Posted 09 November 2019 - 1413 PM

In terms of mobility and protection, isn't Boxer superior to Stryker?


Boxer is extremely heavy, so it's almost guaranteed to be worse on soft soil conditions (quite common on Baltics) than Stryker, though neither stands a chance to be satisfactory on soft soil.

Such vehicles can do a nice test and negotiate some obstacles, but the rate at which such 8x8 vehicles are going to get stuck in places that light and medium tracked vehicles would have no problems with is unacceptable for a whole battalion battlegroup or even only reinforced company. A single vehicle may pass, or 2 or 3. But you will have recovery woes if a convoy of 20...100 vehicles has to pass a series of obstacles. That's what drives the commanding officers to stick to the roads when possible.  That's in effect poor tactical mobility.


  • 0

#130 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 763 posts

Posted 10 November 2019 - 0643 AM

In Australian mobility trials (hot/dry, hot/wet) both Boxer & AMV out-performed ASLAV (lighter than a Stryker). Both could go where the ASLAV would get stuck & need recovery.
  • 0