Boxer is the British Army’s next generation armoured fighting vehicle.

According to the British Army:

“The Army’s Boxer programme is on track with welding work beginning today for the fabrication of prototypes and subsequent series production in Germany. Defence decided to re-join the Boxer programme in 2018 and since then has committed £2.8billion to deliver over 500 vehicles to the British Army.

They will be made up of four variants: an Infantry Carrier, a Specialist Carrier, a Command Vehicle and an Ambulance.  

Most of the fleet will be built in the UK by main contractors Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) and WFEL, supported by a nationwide supply chain that will secure around 1,000 jobs nationwide and create an ambitious UK apprenticeship scheme. Rheinmetall will develop and fabricate first prototypes at its plant in Kassel, Germany where the first series vehicles will also be produced. Workers at the German plant will share technical knowledge, particularly their specialist welding expertise, with British colleagues at RBSL.”

Delivery of the armoured vehicles is due to begin at the end of 2022 with the first vehicles scheduled to be ready for service in 2023.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

95 COMMENTS

    • Good question, I hope that we will. If I understood correctly the 40mm CTA is able to be made into a module. I would also like to see a version with Brimstone and Starstreak, possible if it could be made to fit GMLRS and CAAM. Has anyone thought asbout an upgraded 105mm gun from the Centurian. It was a good gun, could kill almost anything, I think the Abraham M1 had a version of this gun. Lets give the mobile striker units some real bite. I hope that the UK government will develop Boxer like the old Alvis family, get in hit hard and get out. Its not for a stand up fight but hit and run then hit again.

      • Make more economical sense to fit the 30 mm bushmaster, this module has been designed for Lithuanian Boxer. It also has commonality with are fishery protection ships and works without turret wobble problems !

        • I agree that the 30mm is a good gun especially if it is the Orbital ATK Mk 44 30 mm Skyranger mode. I have thought hard about a bigger gun, yes the 40mm designed for Warrior is a possibility, and yes after all the money invested it should be used, but I keep coming back to the idea of the 76mm gun a modern version of the Scorpion. I do understand the reason for the Bushmaster, but I think a dp 30mm might make more sense. As for the 76mm, it cannot kill a MBT but it can destroy light armour and give an MBT something to think about.

        • So here is one to ponder…and purely conjecture on my part…
          As the warrior upgrade is now a non-starter, there are a lot of CTA40s with nowhere to go. The MSI 30mm mount used throughout the fleet can take a 40mm sized gun. Perhaps that is why QE didnt get its 30mm mounts …could the RN be looking at a CTA40 fit?

        • No point using recc assets to take on peer tanks! Their job is to screen a force not go toe to toe. The Armoured Cavalry Regiments are not “Medium Armour” no matter how many times the government or army claim they are!

          • Absolutely Daniele, the mechanised infantry will follow up behind Chally3, who in turn will follow up behind Brimstone equipped Apache, with Spear3 Typhoon ‘can openers’ at the tip of the spear.

            We may lack the mass to hold ground moving forward, but we will surely have the capacity to smash a large hole through just about anyone’s defences and cause enormous damage.

            I would assume that that will be our job in another Gulf war type operation …. Kick the door in for Uncle Sam to pour armour through…

          • Good question, only as a target to draw enemy fire from what I can see, it has no offensive capability, no targeting capability, but can carry four passengers in relative comfort, often wondered if that was all that was drafted for the requirement….

            Wanted: ‘Massively’ expensive helicopter to carry four staff officers to meetings, price not an issue….

        • We did on previous recce assets, whats different about this one? It may be a bit large and heavy, but its still a recce asset and there job is to recce, not fight (if need to only to extract). The Ajax has only ever been called light armour by people who either should know better, or dont know at all, to fill a gap in our very bad ORBAT and strategy.

      • I doubt CAMM would be fitted, same with the GMLRS. That eight cell launcher would be nice if it was a universal one capable of firing CAMM, Brimstone and M31 rockets. But if we were procuring those, plus a version with a 105mm gun and a VSHORAD variant with the SkyRanger turret/HVM, that’s either going to eat into the 500 odd ordered or the order needs to be bumped up. Can’t see any of that happening unless there’s another force rework and some sort of mech infantry battlegroups are formed. Plus there’s the cost of developing the configurations and if we’re the only customer then yay more cost.

    • The MOD has already paid for 250 CTA40 Canon as part of the Warrior LEP which probably means they will scrap them and order something else instead.
      The army has confirmed they are looking to up gun some of boxer varients now that warrior has been cancelled.

      • And a single Jav on the RWS, its a start but woefully inadequate mate. I believe bout 50 mounts have been ordered as at this time.

        • I seem to recall seeing a James article saying there were NO plans to use the 40mm cannon on the Boxer and thus there were about 245 spare that are surplus to requirements and would be sold. Who else uses it? Just the French, I think?

          If I can find the article, I will post up the link.

          • Mehtinks I may have seen similar, a while ago, however the Boxer will eventualy require a cannon and the easist and cheapest option would be a RWS with a 30mm. At the moment we are as ever under utilising what is a fantastic platform. Then, lets look at Ares for the HBCTs. The issue with the 40 mm is partly the very expensive ammunition natures.

          • Makes a lot of sense. Could use the turret from the Ajax on the Ares IFV variant, strip out the recce gear in the hull and on the turret, and you’d have a reasonable AFV, that could even carry at least a squad…

            RWS with 30mm also a good idea, even with adding another calibre weapon. Think the current RWS from Ajax family and Boxer that UK is going with is only rated to 20mm, and British Army plans to use 7.62mm or 12.7mm MGs.

          • The Ares can already carry 6, take out the excess gear and its a squeezed 7-8. Not sure if you can mount an Ajax turret on the Ares, due to hull manufacture etc, but im ready to be corrected. Likewise the 40mm CTC turret would also be an issue, therefore an RWS with a 30mm should be the obvious, cheapest and minimum structural work to make the Ares a credible MIFV.

          • Thanks Airborne, that’s a logical approach – stated way better than an armchair general like myself 🙂

          • Mate im an armchair warrior now, dont knock it lol! Feels quite nice, but frustrating at times.

          • Hi Airborne, why can’t they stretch the Ares to take another 2 troops…and call it…Arrester…or…Asterex…?

          • Hi Guys, Just for the sake of clarity here: The ARES can carry 4 dismounts plus Commander and Driver. The crew all sit in/on blast mitigating seating so there is no room for any more dismounts even if the “excess gear” were removed. All of the electronics are mounted on the walls of the vehicle, a lot of room is taken up by mission/personal equipment. An AJAX turret on an ARES is called AJAX, there is a common hull with relatively minor engineering tweeks to suit the various roles. The CT40 cannon and it’s AHS are designed to fit in a variety of forms and have minimal turret intrusion and is suited to an unmanned turret arrangement. Yes, the current ammunition is comparatively expensive but economies of scale should help there and it’s effectiveness is proven, especially the APFSDS round. The Airburst nature will appear soon.
            cheers
            Ian

          • Ian I stand to be corrected but thats not how ive been informed. There is much scope to removal the specialist kit down the right hand side and a squeeze to 7 dismounts is possible. And ive been informed as many also believe, that the Ajax turret cannot simply be engineered to fit onto the Ares? While it would seem common sense to have that ability, as its a comman base vehicle, there is much opinion on the matter. Any info to the contary, from the horses mouth so to speak, engineering etc would be appreciated. Cheers.

          • Hi Airborne. Unfortunately the Tac Commander takes up too much room to squeeze in 3 more seats. You are correct in saying that an AJAX turret can’t be “plonked” onto an ARES hull, there’s a lot moved upstairs to make space for the basket and the roof is a different “line”. All of the kit down the RHS is demanded by the needs of the guys (and the MOD) in the vehicle, bergens, ammunition, water etc. If the ARES were to be converted to an ICV, the hull would need stretching which in turn would entail an 8th roadwheel. Not an impossible task, the powerpack itself is well up to the job and the suspension is readily modifiable. The RWS is already capable of mounting a 40mm GMG so a 30mm cannon of some description would seem doable. I suppose my point is that if you want more AJAX, just build more AJAX. Happy to discuss.
            cheers

          • Thanks for the info mate. No we have enough Ajax, Mum concern was a reasonable and achievable replacement for the Warrior. Ares could have fitted the bill. But if not it can certainly act as a decent overwatch/AT vehicle with the right weaponry, cheers.

          • Mum concern? Bloody hell I need to go on a finger diet! Should read my main concern lol

          • Turret wobble caused by the 20,000 lbs of recoil through short springs is the main problem. Ajax has vibration from duff suspension, the six road wheel can be seen dragged back by the track. When the spring force of the torsion bar exceeds the drag it jumps forward and the cycle is repeated The other suspension units may also be causing problems. The test vehicles can be seen at Bovington, the clanking noise of the track is louder than CR2 . ASCOD for the base vehicle was a poor choice as was originally designed to be 20 ton vehicle, seems it was another of Cameron’s mistakes. Think we will be buying more Boxer !

          • How in God’s name can the army get itself in such a mess?? Heads must roll.

          • Thanks Pete, I’m happy with more Boxer and variants but also would be happy with more Ares for the HBCTs.

          • I never understood why anyone thought replacing a ten ton CVRT with a 40 ton vehicle almost as big as a Ch2 was a good idea for the reconnaissance role. The problems you describe make it seem even worse.
            These vehicles are not exactly leading edge technology. Development should be fairly low risk. If the contractors fail to deliver, stop paying them and make sure they never get contracts again.
            Better still, set up a state owned facility to manufacture all of our army vehicles.

          • “Better still, set up a state owned facility to manufacture all of our army vehicles.”

            Agree. What was wrong with RARDE? Still drive past the place often. A film studio now?

          • I used to work at RARDE Chertsey and was there as it morphed into DERA. We did cutting edge R&D. Our UGV work was at least 15 years ahead of civvy industry. But it was not configured to mass produce AFVs. Top Gear TV programme and car mags used the test track and the cross country course a lot. Disgraceful that it closed down, thus there is no MoD focus for vehicles R&D, hence all the problems??
            Only the area of Barrowhills Officers Mess is used by the film company. Not sure what happened to the test track and main site.

          • Well ajax is meant to be the armoured vehicle version of f35 ie lots of secret squirrel, passing info and data, networks and electronic trickery so they had to build from scratch

          • I blame the TRACER project which allowed the US to convince us that a new recce vehicle to replace Scimitar had to be of Bradley CFV size and weight.

          • Peter, have you been run over by an AJAX or something? You make it your mission to knock the platform at every turn. You obviously have access to insider information as you keep quoting 20000lbs of recoil but without context. Are you appraised of the recoil system on AJAX? EVERY tracked vehicle vibrates, I spent my working life in and around them and know this for a fact. The sixth road wheel does not lift when turning, it’s the seventh and it doesn’t happen across country, only when driving /turning tight radius bends on hard standing. David Cameron doesn’t work for GD so for the life of me I can’t see what input he would have had on an engineering decision as to the “Point of Departure” vehicle. Speculation from the uninformed is a tad annoying in my book.
            cheers Ian

          • Read the sun article , crews are getting swollen joints, nausea, tinnitus from the vibration and noise. Test crews are limited to 105 minutes(Crown source) Perhaps you ought to go down to Bovington and have a look. The seventh road wheel lifts while being marshalled in a straight line. David Cameron was so impressed with ASCOD he signed the contract. Ok seventh, never happens with hydro-gas. Think your GD shares will be going down. American AIRFORCE LAB 1996 REPORT clearly states the design has excessive recoil and is therefore unsuitable ( Context is turret wobbles loss of accuracy in burst firing ).

          • Peter, I’ve read the Sun article and it is what I would expect from a red top rag; complete, ill informed, badly written drivel! I have no need to go to Bovvy to see AJAX. David Cameron was shown a prototype PMRS (ARES), a full size and weight vehicle as was parked in front of the Celtic Manor for the NATO summit in 2015. I don’t have any GD shares or options thereof.
            What exercises me on this otherwise excellent and informative site is misinformation promulgated by the ill informed.
            Do you not think that in over 25 years some Engineer, French or British might have looked at your report, doodled a bit on a post-it note and come up with a way of reducing the effects of recoil on the turret? Might they possibly have exercised their grey matter and thought, hey, that could be a problem? Then they would have put their heads together, designed a recoil system that dissipates the energy, then returns the breech to run-out ready for the next bang! Excellent idea!
            As far as “turret wobbles” are concerned, there will always be some play between the race ring and the turret bearing, it’s a machine and will NOT work unless there is backlash. The weapon system is capable of burst firing, you are correct in that at least. Any weapon, during a burst will deviate from the line of bore / sight, principally due to barrel bend and muzzle blast effects. This is accounted for in the type of engagement where burst firing is demanded. The weapon will not be used to burst fire APFSDS, more likely HE or Airburst natures.
            Opinions are fine and can be entertaining and humorous but are best backed up by knowledge and facts.
            Ian

          • Fact if you locate a chain gun on side axis you will get ejection port jams as it was designed with gravity in mind, perhaps you could look into this fact and application?

          • I saw that article too. Its crazy they French might buy them for the jaguars but if they have already ordered them then no one else will want them. We are better holding onto them and integrating them onto boxer in some way shape or form. If we have already invested in CTA we need to stick with it.

          • Cheers. Also interesting to see an article on the same page about the Boxer fitted with the C3000 turrets, one being the 105mm C3105. Very useful platform looking forward.

          • And therefore we will stick with a shed load of Ambulances and command modules which we dont realy need lol!

          • Far to many and mostly unnecessary in today’s modern modes of communications. Maybe some at Div and Bn/Reg level but not needed at Coy level.

      • Seems it has the problems, experiments from 1954 to 1994 by the American Airforce Lab’s failed to produce a satisfactory CTA weapon lol

        • So do the French have problems with CTA40 in Jaguar? I had read they do not because they didn’t mess around with the overall design from CTA.

          The issue with reverting to 30mm for Boxer is that, at best, we achieve parity on the battlefield and may well find it is inadequate against new APCs/IFVs. The CTA40 was intended to provide over-match, but do so in a compact form factor for the rounds, to enable higher load out than with conventional rounds, and with the benefit of low swept volume inside the vehicle.

          If we go with conventional 40mm, or 50mm cannon like the US, to try to get back to over-match, then we face the problem of not being able to carry enough ammunition in the vehicles due to size of the rounds. Along with the much larger intrusion of the cannon into the turret. Add to that the logistics to support the larger rounds.

          Cost of the CTA40 natures is brought up but a) they aren’t in mass production and b) how does price rank vs. a vehicle not able to carry enough of the less expensive rounds and unable to achieve the effects necessary with those rounds either.

          The irony is that people constantly wish for a better armed military vehicle, then when we get one they want to drop back down to 30mm.

          BTW, that US report is well over a quarter of a century old at this point, with much of the RDT&E significantly earlier and based on whatever they were doing for 75mm. I expect we could find a lot of historic reports about systems that weren’t viable then, but which are now, due to technology advances.

          • GHF, thanks for a sensible, reasoned reply to Mr. Wait. I have pointed out before that his “data” is 25 years old and is no longer relevant.

            cheers
            Ian

  2. I like Boxer, with the right modules and numbers the Light BCTs, could have a great asset. However I know they are now to be used in the Heavy BCTs, a case of slotting them in somewhere now Carters Strike Bde nonsense is pretty well chinned off. But, the Heavy BCTs should be filled with Ares, fitted with a light 30mm RWS. Order at least another 120, and get at least two Battalions worth to act with the Chally 3 and AS90 (or replacement), and Ajax, in the heavy BCTs. This is not insurmountable, and the minimum to be effective.

    And then look at Boxer and at least order enough 120mm mortar versions/modules to equip 4 x Bns (32-40). We will be missing a trick at this early stage if we dont think about a little more than the basic Boxer IFV. Its a great wagon but as normal we are scrimping on what will be a platform in service for the next 30 years plus.

    • The concept of the Light BCTs needs to be fleshed out, I think. In this context what does “Light” mean? Boxer is as heavy if not heavier than the Ajax family, isn’t it?

      The Integrated Review said one Light BCT would be equipped with Jackal and Foxhound, and said there was to be a second Light BCT, and did not specify its vehicles. Don’t think there are enough Jackal and Foxhound for both?

      • The HBCTs and LBCTs are both being equipped with whats available, which is the absolute wrong way of doing it. However saying that, thats where we are and we need to get on with it. One light BCT will be with Foxhound/Jackel, the other at the moment is boots combat high! The future buy of the JTLV, if it goes ahead should cover this but im not to sure.

        I was more looking at wheels vs tracks. Weight is an issue of course for speedy deployments, but I do believe tracks with tracks and wheels with wheels, otherwise one will negate the advantage of the other. Therefore the “light” BCTs should all be wheels and the heavy, all tracks. However thats just my assesment and opinion, and at the moment we are struggling to get a rational ORBAT, out of the bits of kit we have. Cheers mate.

        • So the second Light BCT is basically a paper formation only?

          Also the Heavy BCTs will be mixed Track/Wheels now, as we know.

          And the Strike Recce BCT will be all tracked, is that right? Ajax, plus MLRS and AS90…until the new 155mm SPG comes in

          • Yep, at the mo the HBCTs will be a mix of tracks (chally/AS90) and Boxer. The second LBCT is a paper exercise! The tracked recce is already a formation in use, with just a different name and Ajax added mate. Its the old Divisional Arty formation. MLRS with ER guided munitions, AS90 and locating/Recce assets. The Ajax will add a new dimension, but basicaly the same as before. Its the right way to approach things, and a better approach to deployment and planning. The main thing is whatever kit these formations have they have to live/train right down to Coy level as they will fight ie in mixed battle groups. Cheers.

          • Concur.

            2nd LBCT foot infantry of the line.

            SRBCT old 1 Art Bde. They had to put those spare Ajax regs somewhere. I’m still excited by this formation of they put precision fires and loitering assets into it.

          • Spot on mate I still think it’s the way forward, utilizing and maximizing the already in situ kit, with the added Ajax. Concept is good, but let’s see if it’s properly equipped in the future.

        • What happens to the 3 Light Cav regs on Jackal? If we had 1 for each LBCT, even the 2nd foot one until JLTV arrives, leaves one “spare” ?

          Put it with SOps Bde?

          • Or with the Experimental Inf Battalion for tactics and weapon testing and OpFor? or in the Air Assault BCT?

          • Possible but with the way units and formations have been chopped and changed, it’s hard to guess. Things will be changing anyway in regard to units basing and issuing of assets ie boxer.

          • We will know more in the Autumn when the army flesh things out…allegedly!
            Yes, I’ve read that Catterick might not now get Boxer. No point with Warrior going and SPTA space available.

          • Well you actually have enough foot Infantry for 3 Brigades in 1 Div, even with the units going to SFAB.
            So my guess would be an orbat of:

      • I understood the Light BCT to be on JLTV when it’s aquired, until then probably MAN trucks and Land Rovers.

    • Don’t know if you read ThinkDefence’s recent updated piece on a rethink of MRV-P? This might be a future candidate for LBCT vehicles, given that Boxer and Ajax are hardly medium weight any more?

      https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/rethinking-the-multi-role-vehicle-protected-programme/

      I agree with a number of his points. The two standouts were a) that it should be better armoured if we really expect to be fighting in dispersed warfare (aka where the hell is the rear echelon I’m supposed to be operating in!) and b) the vehicles should really be hybrid power train at this point for operational and logistics advantages, given we’ve waited this long for them anyway.

      We are currently evaluating hybrid power trains in Jackal and Foxhound, so assuming this isn’t just another waste of taxpayers pounds, it seems hybrid is at least on the radar.

      For the main MRV-P Multi-Role Utility program, TD makes a reasonable argument to use a 6×6 or 8×8 platform, because anything smaller is likely to cost in the same ball park once fully equipped. What we might want is something more like a UK program similar to the French Jaguar/Griffon, with say an average vehicle cost of £1M as a hard cap. Going this path means we keep Boxer for high end fighting roles and use MRV-P for ambulance and perhaps other roles.

      Still going to have to live with wheels and tracks in HBCTs though.

  4. Morning all. Am constantly amazed at the wealth of knowledge at this site on complex subjects such as this. I am a broad generalist but quickly feel inadequate reading your technical exchanges with only a flimsy understanding of same. I would think UKDJ should be compulsory reading for those who make the major decisions regarding acquistion of such hardware! On subject sort of, the British Army is planning an upgrade of what was once regarded as the worlds finest tank. The tiny numbers(+- 300) mean the the UK will now field only a token force of MBT’s. When you look at the huge arsenals in terms of numbers not only of our adversaries but some decidely middle order militaries, what do we conclude about this state of affairs? Has the UK decided that the days of these huge vehicles are numbered in that they are too vulnerable to sophisticated guided weapons or is it that along with many other military assets in the British Armed Forces, the low numbers are due solely to budget constraints / the philosophy that a few superb weapons(a la F35,Astute etc) are better than a horde of lesser assets?

    • Morning geoff.

      Salami slicing of assets due to cuts, as you say budget constraints.

      There were 6 Challenger regiments in 98. then 5, then 3, soon 2. Bean counters cut what they see that we had plenty of, like RN Escorts ( 35 to 17 ), like tanks, like RAF Fast Jet Squadrons ( 23 to 8 ), like RN MCMV ( 25 to 12, or less ), until a token force remains, while other assets in smaller numbers to start with more or less remain ( with exceptions like the MPA fiasco of course )

      On Tanks I’m pretty cool with having fewer, as we no longer have BAOR and Great Britain, in my view, should be a sea, air and intelligence power, not a land power. The worry for me is not less tanks, as the ones we retain will hopefully be upgraded effectively, but the lack of firepower across the army, the decimation of the RA, the loss of Warrior, the IFV that supported the Tanks, and the whole FRES/Ajax/Strike Brigade army procurement disasters of the last two decades that have seen billions spent for a handful of vehicles delivered so far.

      Added to that due to the cap badge mafia infantry battalions, while having had their numbers reduced, are often retained at the expense of enabling assets from the CS and CSS arms like the RA, RE, RS that enable the infantry to be moulded into effective brigades.

      The recent ISR forming the Security Assistance Force Brigade and Special Ops Brigade, while welcome if they are properly furnished with enablers, is also, to my cynical side, an oh so convenient solution to finding a home for infantry battalions long orphaned from their supporting assets cut in 2010 and before.

      The Tanks, artillery, logistic regiments, engineer regiments, and signal regiments no longer exist to support the number of infantry battalions that remain after the constant cuts.

      On comparisons with other militaries, take into account the training, experience, capability, and the logistical tail to enable a military to actually deploy and be useable. Many militaries seem to be for show, numbers are not the be all and end all, despite my rant above. Take the QEC group, how many nations can do that.

      I have a book called “British Sea Power” I think from 1986. Even then, it stated clearly that the UK had long decided to go for quality rather than quantity.
      Sadly at the moment, the army does not even have the quality if we end up buying some of the worlds most expensive armoured vehicles, 2 billion to equip just FOUR of our infantry battalions and some supporting units, and stick a machine gun on the roof. And the Ajax rattles so much the army are not accepting it yet, after 5 billion was handed over years ago.

      • Thanks for your comprehensive reply Daniele. Only saw it now-for some reason never got a CMS notice-also our Internet was down. Cheers G
        btw 17 degrees here and FREEZING!! We are not equipped for it and neither are our buildings so cold hands and runny noses. Snowing on the Drakensberg!!

    • Unbelievable! Didn’t the Army do thorough testing on any test vehicles before committing to it any manufacturing of the Ajax vehicles? All these stuff ups and money wasting is seriously not funny! The British armed forces deserve some better decisions makers. The Defence Minister needs to clamp down on all this before even more is wasted. Maybe time to look at the Lynx and Redback?

      • Okay, a whacky idea, not sure how useful, are there any spare Challenger chassis’s that can be updated and take the spare CT 40mm turrets?

        • And maybe add some Anti missiles for extra punch – maybe in a reworked tank. In effect a Chally-Ajax-Striker combo! Sounds good from my armchair but happy to be corrected. It would be good if these 40mm could be repurposed considering they’re staying in service on the Ajax’s.

        • Hi QuentinD63, why would anyone want a 50 tonne behemoth sporting a 40mm? Unable to take on peer adversaries, out gunned and slow? It may make a portable pillbox I suppose 😉 

          • Hi Ian, just some thoughts on making use of any left over chassis’s, guns and turrets. The Israeli army has reworked captured main battle tanks into their army. I don’t know how heavy they were, probably not 50mt. A 40mm turret, with atms, maybe Brimstones, and a Shorad and Anti drone ability might be useful to accompany the new Challenger 3s around, maybe not.

          • A large multi-weapon platform could make sense, all the different control systems would fill a turret though!

        • A Challenger 40? I like the idea. Russian industry produced the BMPT fire support combat vehicle on a tank chassis with 2 30 mm cannons for ground and air targets and 4 ATGW. I didn’t like the concept but it’s been trialled in combat in Syria and it’s grown on me. I think 40 mm CT would work better than 30 mm. But the UK is cutting army personnel and I can’t see where crews could be found.

    • If you read and believe the article and ignore all of the typos and outright lies then you should take a chill pill and find out the facts from a reputable source.

      • Thanks for your posts in this thread Ian.
        I was getting worried re Ajax.
        Your knowledge is appreciated.

        • Hi Daniele, thanks for the vote of confidence. My job, day to day is dealing with facts and if I can throw a few into a conversation to straighten things out I will. Cheers 🎓 

          • Hi Ian.. I wondered what your views are on the Ares demonstrator dubbed ‘Overwatch’. Sounds like a very interesting idea to me. Certainly would give the army extra punch and the Brimstone missile has turned out to be a real plus when it comes to the RAF mix of missiles.

          • Using a common platform, a bit like the CVRT family makes sense to me. Brimstone packs a decent wallop and having 8 ready to go would spoil anyones day I think. I worked on the Striker/Swingfire system when I were a lad and that worked (mostly😜).
            Cheers

  7. Why only 4 variants? What is the Specialised variant? What do REME use as a Repair and Recovery vehicle to support Boxer. I remember when Warrior was introduced without a full variant provision, had to run on 432s in the mortar role etc!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here