IAV 2020: BOXER - Interview with Stefan Lishka, MD of ARTEC
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 01. 2020
- Shaun Connors speaks to Stefan Lishka, MD of ARTEC about Boxer's customers, recent contracts awarded, upgraded engine developments and the mission modules being developed.
SUBSCRIBE to our CZcams Channel for more videos / janes-intel
Follow us on Twitter / janesintel
Like us on Facebook / janesintelli. .
For more content go to www.janes.com
Underpinned by Jane's verified and validated open source equipment, security and defence industry data, Jane's Data Analytics supports entity recognition, capability assessment and market analysis, find out more bit.ly/2x6tlQ9
Music:
Omega by Scott Buckley / scottbuckley
Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Unported - CC BY 3.0
Free Download / Stream: bit.ly/omega-scott-buckley
Music promoted by Audio Library • Omega - Scott Buckley ... - Věda a technologie
The Boxer appears to be pretty solid for a vehicle of that class of speed. If they are really going to use it for 155mm-arty, bridges and 35mm-SPAAG as well, we got a swiss knive on wheels. Nice to see something working as it should.
I am waiting to see the 155mm do a backflip when someone decides to fire it sideways on a low angle lol
Can't swim.🇭🇲
@@georgepantazis141 doesnt need to.
amphibious capability is completely overrated and requieres about as much preparation for river crossings as the use of a quick deployment pontoon bridge, wich is alot safer and allows other vehicles to cross too. (we are talking about 2-3 hours of preparation on the vehicle + the same time for the crossing point with recon divers etc for a typical amphibious IFV/APC and that only if the vehicle is in high grade maintained condition and has had its soft seals replaced/maintained within the last few weeks. If not the crossing wont happen in the first place)
So what would you like more: an APC/IFV that must take massive compromises like drasticly reduced armor protection and crew survivability, firepower etc to be able to float (we are talking about the difference of being able to take a 30mm AP round to the face and go on vs. getting holes poked into the armor with a .50cal) or using an M3 amphibious rig, that does the floating for you and you can bring your MBT buddies with you across the river?
river crossings dont happen under direct hostile fire.
and a properly set up militiary will surpress hostile artillery.
so an M3 Amphibious Rig or similar vehicle is the better solution.
Shaun Connors always conducts the most informative interviews.
Eight different variants, hell. I'm waiting for the field kitchen variant.
Did you also hear him mention the 155mm howitzer variant and immediately think "Ohh so they made one that can do a backflip"?
There might be one.
Karl P you always need food and good food
good idea actually 🤔
I would like to see a Boxer with a Cockerill 120mm smooth bore gun. I wonder if that is a possibility for the near future.
This will be a real game changer for the Australian Army. The Boxer was imo way better than the other option that was down selected. The first tranche will be built in Germany and the rest will be built by Australians in Queensland, as is now a absolute requirement in tenders the Australian percentage industry component/supply logistical SME chain alone will add a significant number of jobs. This vehicle is a serious behemoth, and will provide a transformative change in protection and lethality for Australian Diggers. it has Spike missile, and is arguably the most modern and effective vehicle Army urgently needs. Germany builds bloody good MBTs and armoured vehicles. The next phase will see the German offer up against a South Korean option. Hopefully commonality and economies of scale will see the also cutting edge but not mature Lynx selected, time will tell. But Boxer is a brilliant start.
william broadstreet Like every defence program there will be many delays. Example is the turret. No one has used the turret before and there will be integration issues, let alone ATGM integration. Look at the submarines for instance. There is also major shortage of workforce due to bushfire recovery strain. Also shortage of trained logistics people.
Even worse Australian currency is weak so it is likely unaffordable in the long run especially sustainment. Look out for the audit office report in a few years.
As long as you are happy to get less vehicles with less of them fully equipped, which is exactly what happened.
ARTEC: Putting the "We" in "Vehicles"
Please send royalty checks at your earliest convenience.
The uk was actually apart of the boxer's development early on in the program. They dropped out and Germany and the Netherlands were the only countries who stuck with it until now.
@@dylanshaft8936 it was more a comment on Mr. Lishka's German accent ;-)
@@themeatpopsicle Christopher, please post a video of you holding a 9-minute technical conversation in a foreign language of your choice with an English accent.
@@barryolaith I'm sure it will be weally good.
I thought it was a wheeled wheelhicle, that was wheely good?
I'll get my coat................Taxi!
Great AFV with modular interchangeability! 👀👍
You can feel the weight when it moves, its one solid vehicle.
I'm curious to see if the AA, 30mm, artillery, bridge crossing boxers are also modular because if it is all modular then maybe the dismounted modules could still be used in a static fashion and transported by other means such as heavy-lift helicopters or trucks. Further, I would like to know its capabilities on hills, in forest and jungle terrain i.e. will it get stuck in mud or on inclines maybe humidity would have some effect, also I would like to know how long it takes for the backdoor to open.
It also has two cup holders as well as parking sensors.
very informative thx
Nice video.
a winner of course now that UK,Australia and lithuania
Anyone know why this vehicle is SO heavy?
It's a little longer and wider (though shorter in height) than the Stryker...but weighs FAR more.
Armour could be one answer - but there must be more to it than that.
Anyone?
Undercarriage so it can take heavier loads like the 155mm Donar module would be my guess. Boxer is more of a flatbed than a van like the Stryker, BTR82 etc.
It is a meter (aprox 40 inch) longer and it is 30 cm (1 foot) wider. This vehicle is more like a container truck. The different variants are separate modules, so there is a lot of double plating and armour. Also the Boxer is of a newer design then Stryker/Mowag Piranha with different demands. Furthermore it is also a question of payload, The gross weight consists of tare and payload. You see increasing weight of vehicles on every sort of vehicle. First you had the Jeep and Mutt 151, then you got Humvee, Now you have JLTV. Everytime the weight doubled.
Actually there is an interesting vid at YT about changing the modules on a Boxer vehicle, Then you see also the double plating on both module and the truck itselve.
@@bertnl530 Oh come on now. The HUMVEE was a different animal than the Jeep. The Jeep was absolute, bare bones. The HUMVEE was a full sized, utility vehicle with FAR more capabilities with a 50% longer wheelbase. And the JLTV is not in ANY way a HUMVEE - they are almost TOTALLY different vehicles. The latter is basic, military transportation that was NOT designed in almost any way to protect the crew - and reality later dictated more protection. The JLTV is a vehicle that is designed to protect it's crew from the outset. The HUMVEE is utility. The JLTV is tactical.
The Boxer is only about 12-15% longer and wider AND about 12-15% shorter. That should in NO WAY necessarily equal double the weight.
Now if you are saying it is because of armor - fine. That makes sense. That is what I asked at the beginning.
But if you are saying that it weighs roughly 100% more than a Stryker (in roughly similar configurations) primarily because it is about 15% longer and wider (while 15% shorter)? Not buying that for a second.
But I will watch the video you suggested - if you could provide a link, please?
I do find the Boxer fascinating and - as I said in other post here - LOVE it's modularity.
Armor it is. The Boxer has a much higher passive protection level than the Stryker, both in ballistic and mine/IED protection. It's even better protected than the Bradley.
If the Boxer has a amphibious capabilty, many customers might consider buying it.
no, striker was amphibious too, but it was so "paperish" that they uparmored it after they lost a couple in iraq...
btw. its actualy selling pretty well.
Yes it's a pity the one BAE sorted out was turned down by the UK and Aus and it is amphibious. I think someone MP's and people at the MOD have fucked this up for the UK yet again ! :(
German APCs and AFVs usually forgoe amphibious capabilities because they take the Combined Arms doctrine pretty seriously. That means the APCs and AFVs are supposed to always operate in combination with the MBTs and other vehicles. A swimming AFV would thus make no sense, because the MBTs can't swim.
On top of that, they also have a different doctrine for how to use APCs and AFVs than other NATO armies. Most or all follow the American "Battlefield Taxi" concept, where the APC/AFV will carry infantry to the front, then disembark them and then retreat to a overwatch position to give the infantry fire support from afar.
Germans do it differently. Based on experiences made in WW2, they have their APC/AFV stay directly with the infantry and fight among and alongside them. For that they need stronger armor.
Their WW2 based strategy/doctrine is to have all elements (MBTs, AFVs/APCs, infantry and additional elements like artillery or helicopters) operate together, amongst each other and simultaneously, in hopes of overwhelming the opponent's ability to deal with any of the single elements.
That is a difference to how most armies do it. Most armies claim they have a Combined Arms doctrine too, but it really is more of a "Alternating Arms" doctrine, where you send in different types of units at different times, or where you assign different jobs to different types of units. Infantry does this over there, while the tanks do that over there and so on.
(By the way, that is also why the Germans never used explosive reactive armor, even though it was invented by a German engineer. Having parts of the armor of your tanks explode outwards would be too dangerous for the infantry that operates right next to them.)
Those are basically the 2 main reasons for why Germans are unlikely to develop or buy amphibious APC/AFVs.
That is also why German APC/AFVs tend to not sell very well internationally, as good as they are. They just are designed for that unique German doctrine and basically nobody else applies the same doctrine, so the potential customers have different requirements for their vehicles.
The Marder and its successor the Puma are specifically designed for the German Combined Arms doctrine, which means to have the best armor protection while at the same time having pretty much the exact same mobility as the Leopard 2 MBT.
Still, even the other countries that bought the Leopard 2, didn't have use for the Marder, because it didn't fit into their doctrine.
Armies like the Dutch one for example used to operate the Leopard 2, but they rather bought AFVs that were more suited for their more American inspired doctrine, where the AFVs are either used as "Battlefield Taxies" or in a Cavalry role, doing recon and hunting for soft targets around the edge of the battlefield, while the MBTs do the hard fighting mostly on their own.
The question is whether the Boxer is suited for the British doctrine, if there is one... Usually every 10 years or so you hear that MBTs are outdated and will be replaced with smaller, lighter, cheaper vehicles out of the UK, until every time some war happens that proves that MBTs are still important. So whether they have a doctrine/strategy of how their different armored vehicles and infantry are supposed to work together, is questionable.
amphibious capability is completely overrated and requieres about as much preparation for river crossings as the use of a quick deployment pontoon bridge, wich is alot safer and allows other vehicles to cross too. (we are talking about 2-3 hours of preparation on the vehicle + the same time for the crossing point with recon divers etc for a typical amphibious IFV/APC and that only if the vehicle is in high grade maintained condition and has had its soft seals replaced/maintained within the last few weeks. If not the crossing wont happen in the first place)
So what would you like more: an APC/IFV that must take massive compromises like drasticly reduced armor protection and crew survivability, firepower etc to be able to float (we are talking about the difference of being able to take a 30mm AP round to the face and go on vs. getting holes poked into the armor with a .50cal) or using an M3 amphibious rig, that does the floating for you and you can bring your MBT buddies with you across the river?
river crossings dont happen under direct hostile fire.
and a properly set up militiary will surpress hostile artillery.
so an M3 Amphibious Rig or similar vehicle is the better solution.
I want this for my family weehicle.
🥊😠 Me: "Okay, i'm ready... Who am i fighting" ?
"In the 2nd. corner, Boxer 8x8" !!!
Me: 😟😨
Ya..man..rusaians already tested a 57 mm turret.. One shot and boxer is done
damn it's a meaty machine
Australia too.🇭🇲🇭🇲🇭🇲
As good as this IAV (it's very good) is, expensive to any developing country. For the price of 1 Boxer(and its packages you can get 3 to 5 Lazar 3's (and its packages). And the Lazar 3 is not a bad armored fighting vehicle.
But then you have one Boxer that can be fitted for 3 to 4 different mission with its modules kits
German Engineering
Looks Good enough to Shoot at... That's all it's good for
Shaun needs to stop shouting into the micro[phone, or more importantly, balance his voice and the distance from his mouth to the micto be the same as it is for the interviewee, this should have been fixed in post, but wasnt, probably because there was no post.
The Boxer-Programm is like Brexit. First the british stepped out now they join again ;-)
The vehicle with the Union Flag on it was clever, but this vehicle is German. It will be produced in Germany and constructed in the U.K. just like the MAN truck, and the Spanish produced AJAX.
There is no British input in any of these vehicles other than communication fittings.The whole thing was part of Theresa May's plan to integrate the U.K. Military into the proposed EU Army.
I have no objection to the Boxer; it is a very unique vehicle, but I am certain that the U.K. Defence Industry, which is the second largest in the world, could have come up up with some decent home grown stuff.
This is what the UK came up with 2002, when the first prototype was made the UK was still in the program.
sapper steve
The UK’s defence industry is not the world’s second largest. In terms of arms exports, the UK ranks sixth behind the US, China, Russia, France and Germany.
@@lv3184 I did not mention arms exports, but to be more specific, BaE is the 2nd biggest Military Contractor in the World behind Lockheed Martin, I believe?
If you look at who is behind a lot of the U.S. Military's equipment research and maintenance, you will find BaE.
Not to mention European Defence companies that BaE own?
Only 8% in Germany and with the usual reliability and constancy of the UK, it was in the project and out and now in again so it has had design input.
@@timmurphy5541 Well my hearing must be going because I'm sure he said that other than 8% German content, the rest was from other established sources.
That of course could mean anything, but he said near the end that the vehicle would be constructed in the U.K. which basically means that Germany will produce the vehicle components and ship them to the U.K. where they will be put together and finished off; just like the AJAX and MAN trucks are?
With regard to the design input, you are correct, and the module concept is a brilliant idea.
Why the British didn't opt for the variant with the 30mm Cannon if your dropping off troops covering fire from the vehicle would seem usefull.t to me. Also why have a 600kw? motor when you could have the de-tuned motor which one would guess would be less stressed.
can this thing swim,
Why would the UK buy these German tubs when we could have BAE build stuff?
proably to save devlopment cost, and the UK will build it in license most likely anyways.
The one that BAE build was turned down by the UK and Aus a real pity as it was amphibious so would be a lot BETTER.
@@RJM1011 yeah but here's the thing, there's not a whole lot of water in Australia, so, not a huge dealbreaker for us... the British isles on the other hand...
@@havoc3742 Your not making much sense ?? Both places have plenty of water and these are NOT just for use at home.
@@RJM1011 I live in Australia, and I can tell you that there is a MASSIVE DEFICIENCY OF WATER. also in the places around here where we'd use them the trees would be too thick to offroad with anyway, so roads only, thus, bridges only. like East Timor, or Indonesia. the only place where we might use them besides that, is wherever America or NATO drags us next, and well, heh, their focus has kinda been on more, Arid climates of late... meanwhile in the british isles it's raining for half the time and you only see the sun for 10 days in a year, and there's rivers, lakes, canals, lochs and all sorts of other bodies of water which right now, are being flooded. so yeah, apples and oranges.
They always assume Nobody will shoot back or ambush you whenever you invade
Boxer has an armor protection level that is similar or better than Warrior IFV.
i guess that s good enough ;)
The Boxer is a decent adaptive all-round platform. But it will never displace the current royal family of wheeled AFVs: The Swiss MOWAG family. It's been around forever, it's time tested and battle proven, and widespread (with a mature international support structure and flexible logistical chain).
Boxer is also battle proven. It was already in Afghanistan and also in Mali with the Bundeswehr. And Boxer has a much higher protection level than the Mowag. If something is royal in this vehicule class than it is the Boxer and not the Mowag.
............Gotta love Brexit.............in the light of our fabled nations reliance on our former European partners expertise in producing our future military procurement programme. Fucking Genius.
We get plenty of kit from the US, Saudi Arabia is one of pur biggest customers.
funny thign about that is, that the UK could have procured Boxer cheaper and easier if they were still in the EU via the EU common arms procurement scheme.
What happened to British industry capital vehicles built buy foreign power why don't we sell granny while we're at it. Disgrace.
BAE.
nah Rheinmetall and KMW.
BAE Land Systems has been bought up by Rheinmetall Germany and is now Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (55% german owned)
Over priced Garbage!