FRES 2: The Revenge aka MIV

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Just managed to find some info on the tracked wagon. The Boxer(W) uses an MTU 8V199 TE20 (600 kW/805 hp) and the Boxer(T) uses an MTU 881 CR (880 kW/1,180 hp). I guess they needed the extra grunt for the added weight. I'd say a fair amount of the other bits/internals are probably drawn heavily from the Puma since KMW seems to have a larger stake in that than the Boxer.
Which just makes it an answer looking for a question, to me.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Which just makes it an answer looking for a question, to me.
I don't disagree with the concept, but it would have made more sense to design these alongside each other as they did at BAE with the SEP, then you are looking at the vehicles as whole, same with the large calibre varients, the IVECO 8x8 IFV evolved from the larger Centauro, not the other way around as with other 8x8 families.
 

gafkiwi

War Hero
Which just makes it an answer looking for a question, to me.
I agree but I guess KMW kind of realized they were at a dead end with the Puma since the sales are limited to the German Army. With the tracked IFV and APC markets being very competitive at the moment with new and second-hand wagons I'd say they were looking for a niche to exploit their knowledge and skills from both the Boxer and Puma programs. Their aim may have been a business plan built around selling a multi-role tracked hull that might just be the answer to a question a military doesn't know it has yet, especially if they already have Boxer(W).
 
Last edited:
I agree but I guess KMW kind of realized they were at a dead end with the Puma since the sales are limited to the German Army. With the tracked IFV and APC markets being very competitive at the moment with new and second-hand wagons I'd say they were looking for a niche to exploit their knowledge and skills from both the Boxer and Puma programs. Their aim may have been a business plan built around selling a multi-role tracked hull that might just be the answer to a question a military doesn't know it has yet, especially if they already have Boxer(W).
The advantage of a tracked Boxer compared to other tracked vehicles is that it could use many of the modules developed by third parties instead of KMW having to spend time and money developing variants of their own. That cuts development time and cost and also makes the product more attractive to potential users who don't have to fund development of these variants.

If the idea is attractive enough then other companies may design competing wheeled and tracked vehicles to use the same modules as well.
 

gafkiwi

War Hero
The advantage of a tracked Boxer compared to other tracked vehicles is that it could use many of the modules developed by third parties instead of KMW having to spend time and money developing variants of their own. That cuts development time and cost and also makes the product more attractive to potential users who don't have to fund development of these variants.

If the idea is attractive enough then other companies may design competing wheeled and tracked vehicles to use the same modules as well.
It does make sense but it may be a little too late for the party. A lot of the major players have already purchased or started the process to acquire their latest tracked IFV's. That being said this could be a good way to possibly un f*ck the current situation for the UK.
 
It does make sense but it may be a little too late for the party. A lot of the major players have already purchased or started the process to acquire their latest tracked IFV's. That being said this could be a good way to possibly un f*ck the current situation for the UK.
If the idea of replaceable vehicle modules does take off in a big way, I suspect it may not happen until Boxer proves whether or not the idea is a sound one in service.

I expect that the vehicle pays a penalty in terms of size, weight, and cost in return for having replaceable modules. The primary benefit comes from the potential for third parties producing specialist modules allowing customers to purchase them and fit them to their existing vehicles, potentially simplifying and shortening the specification /development / procurement cycle.

Whether or not the costs are worth the benefits remains to be seen. If they are, then the biggest beneficiaries will probably be the smaller militaries who want capability 'x' but it isn't offered as an OEM option for the vehicle they want to buy or build themselves. If the base vehicle accepts standard modules then they have a lot more flexibility in procurement.
 

Latest Threads

Top