ChrisWerb Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 (edited) Rt are reporting the UK intends to purchase 800 Boxer armoured vehicles. RT are channelling "The Times". No deal has been signed yet. https://www.rt.com/uk/362910-mod-german-infantry-vehicles/ Edited October 16, 2016 by ChrisWerb 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted October 17, 2016 Members Share Posted October 17, 2016 Wow. Times, they are a-changing. I never thought Whitehall would ever admit having made the wrong decision. But, I think, a good move. After all the Boxer was designed to British specs, and from what I'm hearing, it really IS a good platform. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 (edited) If it were the BBC reporting it mite have some more legitimacy But if true nothing against buying German APC/IFVs. I think there would be no argument German industry makes Good AFVs although some what pricey. But its a sorry state of affairs if UK industry cant even produce a wheeled PC PS I have spoken to a serving German soldier who thinks the boxer is to big and ungainly for some roles. Edited October 17, 2016 by Marko 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted October 17, 2016 Members Share Posted October 17, 2016 There's always something "not quite right". The reason for it is that you have conflicting requirements. You want vehicles to be as light as possible. You want the best protection you can get. So you settle for something in between - that is neither lightweight nor best protected, and you have already the class of disingenious critics that will blast it for failing one of the requirements (if not both...). The real question is, does the vehicle do its job for the (vast) majority of roles, or does it suffer from fundamental problems. If you want to transport 10 beefy infantry guys, under armor, along with equipment that is 80% their size and 70% of their weight, plus three vehicle crew, you invariably end up with something like a maxi size minibus. Add decent armor protection and your solution inflates to regular bus size. I mean, look at the Patria XA360, or the Piranha V, and compare them with the Boxer. All are 8x8 vehicles, all are ungainly and big. Surprise! They are all designed to accommodate a large number of big guys. You can shrink them only by reducing dismount strength, reducing equipment, and/or further reducing armor protection. Which shall it be? None? Well then, suck it up and get on with it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 5 hours ago, Marko said: PS I have spoken to a serving German soldier who thinks the boxer is to big and ungainly for some roles. "Some" being the key word, note not "most" or "all". If its fit for purpose for 95% or roles well such is life. Otherwise you are in the classic "Best is the enemy of good enough" scenario. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 I can understand the need to build APC/IFVs capable of carrying a squad of infantry and all there kit ammunition resupply etc. I have noticed there seems to be a trend of making bigger APC/IFVs looking at some of the new designs from the military shows Even the new Russian designs seem to be a lot larger then there previous ones. compare the new T-15 to the BMP It looks like they have abandoned there practice of making there AFVs low profile. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpow66m Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 (edited) I was at a Armour Musem in CT and there was a BMP 2(or 1,forget)I belive there,i couldnt even climb in the troop doors to get in it.They are tiny. Edited October 18, 2016 by mpow66m 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpow66m Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 wouldnt mind seeing the US buying the Puma. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted October 18, 2016 Members Share Posted October 18, 2016 The Russians, for a while, could get away with recruiting armor and mech personnel by selecting only from the short quartile of recruits, simply because they had so many from whom they could pick. Now that they have a mix of both professional soldiers and or conscripts (and they tend to send mostly the professionals into hot combat zones) their design principles seem to change. Classic BTRs and BMPs are inadequate both in the amount of internal volume and in their armor protection value. They were designed to withstand only smaller calibers and (most) artillery fragments, and at a time when soldiers didn't wear body armor. Once that you equip the soldiers with these, you need soldiers that can carry more. When you do that, you end up with taller, beefier people. Sure, a small guy can carry almost as much, so he's more effective per body weight (just as the Amazonas Ant is the fearsome record holder in the carried weight to body weight ratio ... but still you use elephants when it comes to dragging around felled trees, not ants). Tall, beefy people need, by definition, more space than small, skinny warriors. Even more so if the big guys are wearing protection vests (and the small skinny guys do not, by comparison). So, if you want more people (ten, rather than six in the BMP-2) who are 6 foot tall rather than 4'7", and you want to protect them against 30mm APDS frontally and against 14.5mm all round, plus protection against RPG-7, that alone must inevitably balloon the volume of the vehicle. Add the requirement for a wheeled vehicle - tracked vehicles' running gears are much more compact than balloon wheels that need to turn - and you end with a bus. With today's technology there's just no way around it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted October 18, 2016 Members Share Posted October 18, 2016 I'd like to add, since we need to provide the largest field of view possible in SB Pro, tanks always appear much smaller in the sim than they do in real life. Even the flimsy BRDM is actually impressively large if you see it parked next to a civilian car. And the BRDM is probably the most pathetic armored vehicle in our whole selection. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 11 minutes ago, Ssnake said: The Russians, for a while, could get away with recruiting armor and mech personnel by selecting only from the short quartile of recruits, simply because they had so many from whom they could pick. Now that they have a mix of both professional soldiers and or conscripts (and they tend to send mostly the professionals into hot combat zones) their design principles seem to change. Classic BTRs and BMPs are inadequate both in the amount of internal volume and in their armor protection value. They were designed to withstand only smaller calibers and (most) artillery fragments, and at a time when soldiers didn't wear body armor. Once that you equip the soldiers with these, you need soldiers that can carry more. When you do that, you end up with taller, beefier people. Sure, a small guy can carry almost as much, so he's more effective per body weight (just as the Amazonas Ant is the fearsome record holder in the carried weight to body weight ratio ... but still you use elephants when it comes to dragging around felled trees, not ants). Tall, beefy people need, by definition, more space than small, skinny warriors. Even more so if the big guys are wearing protection vests (and the small skinny guys do not, by comparison). So, if you want more people (ten, rather than six in the BMP-2) who are 6 foot tall rather than 4'7", and you want to protect them against 30mm APDS frontally and against 14.5mm all round, plus protection against RPG-7, that alone must inevitably balloon the volume of the vehicle. Add the requirement for a wheeled vehicle - tracked vehicles' running gears are much more compact than balloon wheels that need to turn - and you end with a bus. With today's technology there's just no way around it. and of course if you want these guys to be able to do things when they get out you need more room. A Javelin CLU with say 4 reloads takes up a bunch more room than 4 x M-T72 LAW. The same design principles led to the M113 and FV432 on NATO's side, hence why their protection is similar to a BTR-60/70/80, etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 Russians in their newest platforms simply started to look at western design solutions to adapt them in to their own concepts, partially also because majoity of engineers working on these vehicles are very young people. There was a very large generation replacement among engineers working in Russian AFV industry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 2 hours ago, Ssnake said: I'd like to add, since we need to provide the largest field of view possible in SB Pro, tanks always appear much smaller in the sim than they do in real life. Even the flimsy BRDM is actually impressively large if you see it parked next to a civilian car. And the BRDM is probably the most pathetic armored vehicle in our whole selection. Its not the most effective platform I agree but its amphibious capability's Make it very useful. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 1 hour ago, Marko said: Its not the most effective platform I agree but its amphibious capability's Make it very useful. He didn't say it wasn't effective. He just said it was poorly armoured. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted October 18, 2016 Members Share Posted October 18, 2016 I said it was the most pathetic among our whole range of armored vehicles. I wrote nothing about effectiveness. And that even as the weakest type of cannon fodder and being one of the smallest targets among the regular combat vehicles that you get in your sights, it's still pretty large when you stand right next to it, in a museum, say, or when you park it next to a normal car. My choice of "pathetic" may be debatable. Call me a jingoistic Leopard 2 tanker for it. But still - the BMD and Wiesel may be smaller, but they pack a bigger punch. The BTR may not offer better protection - but at least it has a lot of dismounts. Only the FIST-V and PRP-3 are armed weaker with nothing but a single 7.62mm MG, but they call in artillery. Which leaves the Humvee and Mercedes G as reconnaissance vehicles, but they don't even pretend to be armored. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejawolf Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 BRDM-2 is a pretty decent scout vehicle IMO, certainly beats a humvee, protection wise. and beats an MT-LB armament wise. as far as armour goes, it's close to the level of a dingo, and armament it beats the dingo hands down, at least the one in SB. on price there's no question. you can have far more BRDMs than you can dingos. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisWerb Posted October 19, 2016 Author Share Posted October 19, 2016 The UK MoD subsequently came out with a denial of the RT/The Times article (and it was in both, and elsewhere) - apparently they need a little more time... http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/from-scimitar-to-fres-to-ajax/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enigma6584 Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Well, the British better make this decision quickly, before the Brexit vote takes effect or it will be much more expensive to purchase later. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusty Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 A bit more info of the situation at the moment. http://www.defensenews.com/articles/britains-soft-spot-for-germanys-boxer-vehicle-raises-eyebrows-in-industry?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DFN EBB 10.27.16&utm_term=Editorial - Early Bird Brief 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Crusty said: A bit more info of the situation at the moment. http://www.defensenews.com/articles/britains-soft-spot-for-germanys-boxer-vehicle-raises-eyebrows-in-industry?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DFN EBB 10.27.16&utm_term=Editorial - Early Bird Brief The whole Brexit saga may come in to play. If negotiations go badly from a UK prospective I don't see it happening Even ministers throw there dummy's out of there prams from time to time. skilled well paid jobs will also be a major factor I think the UK badly needs them. The only think that should mater though is procuring the best vehicle for the troops. Edited October 27, 2016 by Marko 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisWerb Posted October 28, 2016 Author Share Posted October 28, 2016 And in other news... http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/army-rolls-out-upgunned-stryker-30m-autocannon-vs-russians/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DFN EBB 10.28.16&utm_term=Editorial - Early Bird Brief 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusty Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 The latest instalment in this saga, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/22/mod-backs-down-on-3bn-deal-to-buy-german-infantry-vehicles/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Crusty said: The latest instalment in this saga, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/22/mod-backs-down-on-3bn-deal-to-buy-german-infantry-vehicles/ Instead of waiting years and spending billions to develop a new design UK industry should just licence build a proven design. It has worked out well in the past with projects like the apache 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj.Hans Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) IMHO, part of the problem is that buyers keep blending requirements together... Built a lightweight multipurpose platform on wheels. Okay, done. It's light, it carries troops, and machine guns, and mortars, ATGMs, low-pressure low recoil guns like Canadian version, you can do lots of stuff with it and it's very mobile because it's got thin armor and no big guns. Okay, now make it resistant to IEDs and mines. And put a tank gun on it. And armor it to go toe to toe with tracked IFVs. And make it fly. And it should be able to land on the moon. And drive under water. Edited October 31, 2016 by Maj.Hans 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSe419E Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Careful, you're about to make Sparky happy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.