Comments by "David Houseman" (@davidhouseman4328) on "BOXER: Up Close With The Army's New Fighting Vehicle | Forces TV" video.

  1.  Proud Indian  2,000 km isn't pulled out of the hat. It about the distance across Europe to the Russian border. A specific consideration of the Strike Brigades is to get to the frontline before the fights lost.
    12
  2. Over half the build and final assembly will be in the UK.
    5
  3. Great interview, I really got a feel for the role. I like the comparison to what we use now.
    4
  4. There is one, a lot of the other nations use it. But they have it in a heavier role than we do.
    2
  5. I think your mistaking them for the Aussie version, these just make tea.
    2
  6.  @Anthony-lg4dy  it's not tracked, and outpacing the tank your with doesn't seem like a good plan.
    2
  7.  obese-anorexia  it more Dutch-German but Britain was still in the project when the first prototype was built. It is part British design.
    2
  8. They are run flat.
    2
  9.  Proud Indian  Those are the two expenditonary capable forces, and what you build around. But in our own backyard you'll be getting useful forces half a dozen more countries.
    2
  10.  Proud Indian  we wouldn't be fighting alone. I agree any single European nation would lose to Russia on land, that's not what they would be facing. But to make sure Russia can't defeat each country one at a time we need to be able to get to the fighting fast enough.
    2
  11. There's always a budget, even if it was huge, you should make the most out of it.
    1
  12.  @clangerbasher  Yes, but from your posts it seemed you thought it was lightly armed because you thought it was an infantry fighting vehicle. For the British it isn't. It's a battlefield taxi. Expensive for that, but better protected than the cheaper vehicles.
    1
  13.  @clangerbasher  you literally wrote "Boxer is a fighting vehicle". How is that my lack of comprehension?
    1
  14.  @clangerbasher  We got onto protection because it's a lower level vehicle with too much protection not a higher one with too little firepower.
    1
  15.  @clangerbasher  If you can give me there STANAG scores, you can make a point. All I could find was Boxers at 4, I couldn't find Mastiffs. What we do have is the British Army telling us a reason for buying it is it's better protected.
    1
  16.  @clangerbasher  4? But I'm going by the fact this video said it has better protection.
    1
  17.  @chriswagner5177  that's not how ours will be made. Production was negotiated a year ago, it'll be over half British.
    1
  18.  @clangerbasher  cheaper but less well protected? Something like the Mastiff, the vehicle this is replacing.
    1
  19.  @hans2406  I think you misunderstood. Assembly AND over half the parts build. I think the main part we won't build is the engine.
    1
  20. Why hung up on APC and IFV, when they said it was neither, it was a mechanized infantry vehicle.
    1
  21. Foxhound
    1
  22.  @clangerbasher  I think thats the point, they aren't fighting vehicles, they're troop transport.
    1
  23. Same place, waiting for an upgrade. Different role.
    1
  24.  @samuel10125  It's not quite as old as the 50s, just the 80s. The plan is to continue using Warrior, along side Challenger II, with an upgraded gun. The two being designed to work together. Ajax and Boxer are coming in for the strike brigades, roughly speaking replacing Scimitar and Mastiff. There are for the quickest response. Note Ajax itself is an Armed reconnaissance vehicle rather than a troop transport, though there is a troop varient (Ares).
    1
  25.  @samuel10125  You may have been thinking of the FV432, Warrior was build to replace it but we still have them.
    1
  26.  @samuel10125  still a few years of service yet but yes no longer any upgrade and to be retired once Boxer is in place.
    1
  27. The heavier gun will be on Ajax. But yes the strike brigades are focused on speed rather than power. They will of course be supported from the air.
    1
  28.  @Anthony-lg4dy  the warriors were built to work with challengers, I can't see the advantage of scrapping them while we still have challenger.
    1
  29. Nope, but they're a lot better on long, fast trek by road.
    1
  30. 1999, the UK started the boxer program with allies. 2003 we dropped out. Theres no point is designing something you already designed.
    1
  31.  @zhufortheimpaler4041  8x8 designs were around long before the UK left.
    1
  32. Nope, wheeled vehicles like Mastiff.
    1