WFEL has contracted with Nasmyth Group for the supply of precision machined and fabricated components for the Boxer programme.

WFEL say in a news release here that this ten-year Long Term Supply Agreement will ensure the provision of vital precision-manufactured elements for armoured combat vehicles.

“The Boxer vehicles combine long-distance road deployment with all-terrain mobility and bring new capabilities to the British Army. WFEL is a key partner in delivering these state-of-the-art vehicles to the British Army, with fabrication and assembly of the Boxers taking place at WFEL’s brand-new facility in Stockport.

WFEL is developing a robust supply chain throughout the UK to support the £3.2bn Boxer Programme, which is helping to support regional economic growth and job creation and sustainment and contributing to levelling-up opportunities.”

The firm says that the Boxer base platform, with its interchangeable Mission Modules, can cover a range of capabilities, from infantry personnel transportation around the battlefield to mobile medical facilities.

Ian Anderton, WFEL Managing Director, said here:

“We warmly welcome Nasmyth Group into our expanding UK Boxer family and look forward to developing a close partnership as we collaborate to successfully deliver this exciting project for the British Army.”

The British Army will take delivery of more than 500 Boxer vehicle variants, including infantry carriers, specialist carriers, command vehicles and ambulances.

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

168 COMMENTS

  1. According to Wiki there is or was an option for up to 900 further vehicles.

    So can we have at a few 100 more with decent armament on some these please? I particularly like the sound of the Czech version, fitted with a 30mm cannon, coaxial 7.62mm and Spike-LR! Although we should possibly fit with an AT missile we already use just to keep logistics as simple as possible.

    Cheers CR

    • They are coming CR. The recent financial uplifts mentioned in the equipment program detailed 2 billion more on Boxer. That means a big expansion of numbers. And suuuurely armament. Surely. They just need to get on with it.

      • I do find it incredible that we started with 500+ support vehicles instead of the IFV and Fires vehicles we need.

        probably the most expensive support vehicles going…

        once we decided on these we needed to go all in, and get the force design spot on – we haven’t…

        • Yes, what was the infantry carrier number, 80 something??!

          Added to the large number of C3 vehicles in the Boxer and Ajax orders and there are very few real combat vehicles.

          Direct Fire, ATGW, Mortar, Brimstone, AA variants all required.

          The army’s ability to be unable to decide what it wants to be and stick to the plan knows no bounds.

          • this is actually a bug bear of mine now daniele

            we need vehicles that accommodate 4 dismounts not 8 and we need those vehicles to be fully armed for suppressing fires

            with such a small army we have to bridge the firepower gap somehow and for me that is the vehicles taking over the fire suppression role.

            IFV should have 2 crew, Driver and a Commander (C4Istar SME) plus 4 infantry dismounts. this would make a platoon 4 vehicles with 16 dismounts and if the vehicles have a CTA40 + 2 ATWs then we have a capability.

            Fore heavy Armour – we should just buy the Merkava with a minor adaption to make it easier to offload the dismounts and change to autoloader for the gun,, job done

            if the enemy 4 boxers with 11 people inside that is half a company gone… with such a small force we now need to treat vehicles as the key differentiator and buy fleets of different types

            an inf bod doesn’t care what he is getting a ride in as long as it is suitable for the task at hand, so no more light infantry as all infantry is light by nature and training… just make sure we have different vehicle fleets for different scenarios and maintain them properly

            this clearly means the RAC becomes far larger than it currently is and is the owner of every combat vehicle in the Army and trains the crews accordingly.

          • I was reading about how the IDF think and their no1 priority is making their vehicles ultra survivable as they can’t afford the losses.

            at 72k personnel (16k inf). Nor can we… but still we go for 4 crew tanks when the French have had an auto loader for years.

            I would buy 400 jaguars tomorrow if i was in charge £800k each with CTA40 and ATW what is not to like..

            anyway rant over

        • Fully agree.

          We should get 150+ of the RCH155 heavy artillery and 200 Direct Fire Support 105mm vehicles. That would be our artillery sorted!

          • Agree with the RCH but wouldn’t go 105.. I would either go for the XM360 barrel with 120mm CTA rounds (assuming they give a performance uptick) and embed 4 in each company, similar to the griffin 1 concept, this will give a load of punch in a lightweight package

            or if this is too much and too unproven go for the 120mm Amos mortar which can direct fire at a push and is double barrelled and is ready now

            one thing you cannot fault the boxer on is we can buy Amos today and develop the turret for the 120mm IFV and overall it will be much cheaper to introduce

      • That’s good to know thanks Daniele. As you say we just need to see them buy some with real firepower.

        As you say, fit Brimstone to some of them to give the infantry some heavy AT / bunker busting capability.

        I would also like to see a version wit the longer ranged SPEAR 3 to equip the RA. It’s job would be to hit supply conveys stuck in the mud from outside the enemy’s counter battery fire range…

        I’d give that version to the RA because the RA would be best placed to support and exploit the deep battlespace picture, which is a diffferent C4ISTAR problem to the contact battlespace when thinking about the targeting and shooting process e.g. time available.

        Cheers CR

        • Absolutely! As far as I’m concerned the RA, which has been neglected for decades, should be No1 priority now.
          Precision fires, brimstone, more SHORAD, more MRAD, an anti UAV capability.

          Instead, yawning silence from the MoD and cutting more conventional guns to replace with a handful more GMLRS.

          • Agreed and the beauty of these new systems is the low manpower levels. For the 155m m gun a 4 man team can run the gun and replenish vehicles.

            If we containerise landceptor and put on a drops then we get a lot of bang for our buck

            The new munitions and solutions can dramatically change the RA with 8k staff over 4k vehicles inc replen is a game changer and so cost effective

            It doesn’t have to be all boxer as I think there are options on JTLV, HMT and HX4’s etc all have their places. Time to invest and get it right. No more watckeeper debacles

      • Good evening Daniele,
        It would appear to be the case!

        “That means a big expansion of numbers. And suuuurely armament.”

        UK details Boxer variants and confirms plans for bigger fleet
        “The UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) has released more details on what variants of Boxer Mechanised Infantry Vehicles (MIV) it is acquiring and confirmed it is looking to increase the overall size of its Boxer fleet.”

        https://www.army-technology.com/news/uk-details-boxer-variants-and-confirms-plans-for-bigger-flee/

          • Aah. The magic of the 2030s. When everything just falls into place

            MIVS are pointless now, especially at £5m each.

            Every combat facing vehicle must have the ability to provide suppressing fire, take out armour and have APS/ADS

            We need to stop buying product that is half a job and uparm everything

          • STRIKER was a true strike vehicle – could take out 10 tanks at 4000m – before resupply was required. AJAX is not a true strike vehicle in my eyes.

          • Yes, looks really good. I have not yet heard of plans to buy the Brimstone equipped variant, though. 40km range – must be self-guided munitions then.

          • Brimstone. Yes, Has multiple guidance modes. Millimetric allows it to fly to say a square km box and thereafter it can detect tank turret rings. Swarm mode allows say 6 missiles to select six different targets. Can also be lazer guided by spotters or can simply hit a predesignated spot.

            Launched from Typhoon its got 60km range. Launched from helo or ground its got 40km range if fired towards a column of vehicles it can be programmed to hit any target or it can be programed to only hit heavy armour.

          • Many of those variants reflect capabilities that the army already has but some are new, such as the artillery variant. Not sure we are buying variants that represent new capability (ie a capability we have not had before) though.

          • Time will tell no doubt.

            Heavily armoured vehicles may become a thing of the past given what we have seen in Ukraine so lighter and more flexible like Boxer could offer the best ground alternative.

            An increase in Apache would make a great deal of sense.

            And a replacement for the A10 the A14!

          • Nigel, If by heavy armoured vehicles you mean tanks – please name every country that has given them up thinking they were a thing of the past. I’ll save you the research effort – it is one – little Belgium – and they have scrapped them for budgetary reasons not doctrinal reasons.
            Russia has nearly 13,000 tanks (admittedly of varying age and quality) – when they get rid of theirs we can get rid of ours, but not before.

            You do know that Boxer has a totally different role to a tank. You can’t say – lets scrap all our Challys and get loads of Boxers. If you did, you would then face a huge tank army with an APC probably armed just with a MG.

          • Nigel, your comment read: ‘Heavily armoured vehicles may become a thing of the past given what we have seen in Ukraine so lighter and more flexible like Boxer could offer the best ground alternative’.

            I think most would interpret that as you suggesting that tanks may be scrapped and that Boxer would replace them.

            Apologies if you meant something else.

          • Not a problem, to me upgrading the challenger is a waste of time and money that could be far better spent on Boxer Variants and the Rheinmetall Lynx 120 not to mention additional Apache helicopters.

            “The vehicle’s main armament is a Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore gun, derived from the main armament of the Leopard 2. It can fire state-of-the-art DM11 programmable high-explosive (HE) projectiles.

            Its secondary armament includes a coaxial machine gun. Moreover, the commander’s independent weapon station will feature an additional .50 cal. machine gun.

            A 360° camera system with automatic target detection and tracking reduces the crew’s workload in all operational scenarios.

            Special protection modules enable a mission-specific response to ballistic threats, improvised explosive devices, explosively formed penetrators and artillery fire, and can be quickly mounted with limited tools.

            Moreover, the Lynx 120 can be readily equipped with the proven, already fielded Rheinmetall Active Defence System, or ADS, to defeat rocket-propelled grenades and antitank missiles.

            Additional armour packages and active protection systems can be provided on request.”

            https://www.edrmagazine.eu/mobility-and-firepower-rheinmetall-presents-the-lynx-120-mechanized-fire-support-vehicle

          • Nigel, your photo shows what exactly – a standard Lynx?
            The Lynx 120 is a full tracked fire support vehicle – it is certainly worth considering but of course the protection will not be at Chally3 levels, and I doubt it could carry many 120mm rounds. If we could buy more than 148 Lynx 120s for the same or less price that we are spending on the CR2 to CR3 conversion, perhaps it would be good.

          • Graham, What future upgrades will the Challenger have after this? It will fit in very well with Boxer in my opinion.

            “Rheinmetall has armed its Lynx IFV chassis with a 120mm gun for mechanised fire support and antitank operations.

            Lynx 120 mechanised fire support vehicle. (Photo: Rheinmetall)”

            The mechanized fire support variant of the Lynx KF41 IFV, dubbed the Lynx 120, merges a scalable large-caliber turret concept and the 120mm smoothbore cannon with the Lynx KF 41 chassis.

            Rheinmetall says the vehicle benefits from reduced weight, simplified architecture and an open ‘plug-and-play’ capability for future upgrades.

          • CR3 when fully fielded (2027 or thereabouts) should have a service life to 2040 and beyond. It should have 1 to 2 upgrades over that time.
            The standard Boxer is not an IFV (as the Warrior is); it is just an APC with a few tricks, the main one being the interchangeable mission modules. Standard Boxer has lower mobility than a full-tracked vehicle and less firepower. It will therefore be inferior to Warrior with WCSP yet will probably cost a lot more than the build and fitting of WCSP to WR. We need some Boxers but not as WR replacements.
            I doubt Boxers will keep up with CR3s in difficult going (thick, glutinous mud…and snow).

    • The Lithuanian version of Boxer “Vilkas” is another very attractive option. Unmanned samson ii turret from Rafael with a 30mm bush II, coax 7.62mm and 2 Spike LR. Wouldn’t take much to change the 30mm bush ii for CT40 and ATGM for well whatever they wish. Keeps the 8 dismounts and adds a lot of firepower.

    • Army seriously need a mobile Air Defence solution that can move with units land ceptor version of the Tracked Rapier. and more tanks

      • a fully wheeled Wheeled Brigade with large volumes of Fires and Apaches would be as capable as a tracked brigade with tanks imo and more flexible and deployable and cheaper to run. The key is being able to create an air denial bubble around the formation through embedded Air defences and loads of loitering munitions.

        it doesn’t all have to be boxer but certainly the IFV’s, Mortars (Amos) and some others do.

        There is still a massive role for Apache in my view as it can get up ahead and engage point targets, but I am also guessing UAVs can do that as well, so perhaps we jump to that technology

        in all cases the army needs to partner with Israel and learn from them – as most of the innovative weapons and fighting practices seem to be coming from them based on bitter experience.

    • Yes, a capability the UK is for some reason lacking – Sky Sabre may be great and all but that is supposed to protect forward-deployed army units, not the UK mainland – THAAD or Patriot would do.

      • Just need more units for battle field use. Good thing is that we have a new credible solution to hand so a fixed price contract for more units is within the realms of reality.

        Is THAAD or Patriot really the real deal these days?

        I think we are probably pretty close with the radars on the T45 combined with the NT version of that system. Issue is do you land base at fixed locations or do you keep the missile units (distinct from radar and controls) mobile? All it needs is a fibre optic broadband link?

        • At least THAAD has now been used for real, so it can at last live up to its hype. As a theatre ballistic missile defence system it is actually quite cheap.

          You could, just like Sky Sabre uses a microwave data-link. Thereby only really needing line of sight comms back to control.

          Looking at the Starstreak system mounted to the Stormer. This could also be a straight port across to a new mission module for the Boxer. Though I would like to see Starstreak updated to a more fire and monitor system, rather than the SACLOS like system it currently uses.

          • I agree that THAAD is proven, to a point.

            However, a distributed system is needed if it is to resist first conventional strike.

            Fibre optic broadband leaves no EW footprint provided Huawei don’t own your core network!

            So my ‘idea’ was to knit together all the radar heads that we already have tother with some more specialist ones to form a full picture. This then feeds data to remote control centre and this then feeds firing solutions to the NT locations/trucks.

            It is a bit Peter & Jane do ABM defence but you get the idea.

            Starstreak I know next to nothing about at a technical level: my knowledge is a bit Wiki+. Do you think it would compliment Sky Sabre in some way? Or is it a distraction of multiplicity of systems? Would UK be better of with more Sabre / Ceptor systems?

          • Unfortunately, unless the units are relatively close i.e. in the same field. Fibre gets broken quite easily. Especially if some numpty drives over it in a quad bike. This has never happened to be me before!!! You can use narrow aperture Yagi directional antennas with microwave datalinks. They still have a bit of divergence, so sighting them will be crucial. The best I’ve seen is using UV laser. It has the bandwidth and can cope with the weather better than IR laser. Plus you can sight the units several km apart.

            A meshed network of radars is definitely the way forward, especially against a peer opponent, who has access to long range anti-radiation missiles and loitering suicide drones. But to defend the site effectively you need a layer of missile and SPAAG systems.

            Starstreak is a SHORAD system designed to protect mechanized forces. If a helicopter pops over a tree line and tries to fire a wire guided missile at it. Starstreak has the velocity advantage to kill the helicopter before the fired missile can hit the targeted vehicle. If it kills the helicopter the missile will just follow a ballistic path and could miss.

            But Starstreak can only kill one target at a time. As the guidance is done using a SACLOS method. Where the missile looks at the delta between the aiming unit and the target’s track, then steers to correct it. In theory if the operator can see a target he can hit it. Unlike, Sky Sabre for example it is a chaser missile rather than a predicted intercept one. Small UAVs are definitely doable, but possible a land attack missile as well, if the operator can detect and then track it. The system uses the air defence acquisition device (ADAD) which is a derivative of the Typhoon’s PIRATE IRST. So can search passively for targets. It does however get provided situational data by being fed data from the Army’s Giraffe radar.

            The SAAB Giraffe GMB radar is pretty good. But its showing its age and should have been replaced by now. The issue is the three darts. If two miss, the third dart only contains a relatively small amount of explosive. So it must hit something vital to kill it. Personally, I think the three darts should be replaced with a single dart, that contains more explosive along with a proximity fuse. The guidance method could be updated to make it a more fire and forget method, that still keeps the near impossible to jam laser, but replace it with lidar.

            The above system would allow multiple targets to be attacked nearly simultaneously. But I would also include a turreted auto-cannon to deal with the smaller UAVs.

          • I’ve sometimes wondered about disconnecting cheap radar transmitters from the more expensive sensitive receivers. I’d have thought enemy SEAD and DEAD are more likely to be able to hit transmitters, so why not have 5 cheap ones for every receiver? Keep the transmitters mobile and the receivers hidden amongst dummies.

            More Heath Robinson than Peter and Jane, but I’m not sure why ground based radars should be integrated.

          • Rather interesting comment in the Torygraph – wonder how much is in it?

            “ Meanwhile the British Army have just received Sky Sabre and it really needs to be scaled up but the muppets at HQ want the future generation Command and Control system which is even more complicated and will take 15 years to procure. In the meantime they don’t want to invest in what they already have to make it a meaningful capability. They just need to ask for the war to stop for twenty years so they can tool-up on gold-plated solutions that they won’t be able to afford to support.”

        • a) it isn’t quite there technologically yet; and

          b) there wasn’t really a threat to protect against

          So with a limited budget it wasn’t a priority.

        • Yes, with you Gary, commonality of system, same missiles, same canisters, no brainer really. Maybe the land system could be given an additional booster/stage for more range. Singapore has had the Aster mounted on trucks and in their naval vessels for sometime so it is here! The new Samp/t should be the same I’d think. Plus there was talk here of CAMM-ER for the RA, is that still happening?
          Extra bit, I’d like to see the Star Streak given a bit of ER treatment (and yes, we can then call it “StreakER”and adapted into the RAM mount then maybe we could then put some extra defensive armament on the two carriers!
          Bit number two, can all the dodgy Ajax’s be converted into something else and the turrets put on a different workable chassis? Can the CT40 turrets take a different cannon?
          Agree with the priority of this, especially UK naval ports vulnerable to sub launched cruise missiles. How do we not know that ol’ Putin might well do something like this if we are seen to be intervening more in Ukraine or he just decides to do it anyway.
          That’s my 5c (3p) worth.

  4. The lack of MBTs and modern APCs worries me at this time, and no ability to build any heavy tanks in the UK means buying or leasing from foreign suppliers. With limited options, it’s probably not possible to get our hands on Leopard since Germany’s announcement of increased defence spending? Bringing CH3 forward before 2025 is unlikely, a range of bolt-on enhancements may be possible on the current CH2 such as Trophy etc. If increased hulls are required in the short term, the UK could look at surplus M1s refurbished from vast US storage? Obviously, a fast learning curve would be necessary but between 50-100 vehicles might be achievable by 2024? Fuel and munition issues aside, M1 would also allow the UK to operate the smoothbore gun prior to fielding the CH3?
    Whatever the options might be, the lack of MBTs and the possibility of the majority of CH2s being stationed in Eastern Europe means a tank force thinly spread with little or nothing in reserve.

    • Get what CH2’s we have working properly by investing in spares and use the better CH2 hulls in storage for the basis of the upgrade? I am sure there are some duds in that lot as well.

      Upgrade the good CH2’s last to keep working numbers up. CH2 is more than the Russian junk fest we have seen.

      • You’ve been watching the 2nd eleven reserves in terms of Russian armour, so perhaps cool the judgement.

        Although I’ve no complaints should Premier League Desant have been shot out of the sky last week.

        • Maybe.

          I’ll wait to see anything tactically sensible…..I suspect I’ll be waiting for a long time.

          I think what we are seeing is the product of massive corruption: little maintenance or munitions and no spares.

          You can’t fix broken things with thin air?

    • RBSL is to convert CR2 to CR3 by a remanufacturing process – surely a factory that can do that can build all-new MBTs?

      [CH is short for Chieftain; CR is short for Challenger].

      We don’t need Leo 2 – we are getting CR3.

      FOC for CR3 was originally stated as 2030 but Wallace is trying to shave a few years off – ‘before 2025’ is unrealistic.

      Why buy surplus M1 Abrams? – we are getting CR3s. Are you advocating a mixed fleet?

      M1 has horrendous fuel consumption and many have been destroyed in combat – I would not like to be a British tankie in one of those.

      Good luck with persuading politicians and the Treasury that we need more than 148 tanks.

      • Graham, I posted on a previous thread my thoughts on the CR2-3 , surely an audit has been done to at least ascertain how many CR2 Hulls the British Army have, what condition they are in and how many would be suitable for conversion. The Army of Oman had 38 built, if push came to shove could these be bought back and added to the Fleet, maybe 250 – 300 total could be upgraded, obviously provided the Will and Funding was there.

        • Paul, I was the Equipment Support Manager at HQ QMG, Andover – for CR1, back in the day. There is no need for the army to do an audit to find out how many CR2 hulls they have and what condition they are in – this info will be well known, but not by us on the outside. As an ESM I knew this info on a weekly basis.

          It is surely not realistic to ask Oman to sell back their CR2s to us – they need them for their own defence. Anyway, its only 38 as you say.

          We bought 386 CR2s and have only declared 227 as ‘in service’ in recent years, yet I am quite sure that none have been sold and am almost sure that huge quantities have not been scrapped. I heard that 1 tank was written off after the infamous friendly fire incident in Gulf War2.

          Tanks are held with field force units (under Whole Fleet Management only a percentage of Unit Establishment are in unit lines), others are with the Training Organisation and in storage for the following purposes (balance of UE for those field force units, Repair Pool, Attrition Reserve (formerly called War Maintenance Reserve)).

          I have no info as to what this split looks like today or what the state is of the fleet. That would be interesting – I wonder if a FOE request has ever been done by a civilian or if a MP has posed a written question on the subject to the responsible minister.

          At the moment there is no political will or funding to convert more than 148 tanks to CR3 – the Russo-Afghan war (in which NATO will not fight) seems not to have influenced defence procurement in our country (unlike Germany who really have ‘woken up and smelt the coffee’, at long last).

      • Ukraine has changed priorities overnight. The endless claptrap about MBTs in recent years has made my blood boil, if they are so outmoded then why does Russia depend so heavily on them? 148 CH3 is so few as to make a broad deployment incredibly difficult. Right now the UK is making commitments to a number of countries, which could very easily increase? If combat does break out I don’t doubt the CH2 abilities but with so few we are risking the lives of their crews. The M1 appears to be the only route open for the MOD, as Leopards are pretty well committed. MPG is not an issue with the NATO POL setup and should not be an inhibitor, nor is the previous losses in what was an urban theater. A fleet of 50 -100 refurbished M1s brought up to date with additional armour and trophy, could be a strong option for the MOD. Almost endless stocks of M1s would be a Godsend in logistic terms and with the full weight of the MOD, it might be possible to carry out the work in the UK? Yes, I am proposing a mixed fleet just as seen in WW2 due to the fact that the current MBT is woefully small for purpose.

        • Maurice, the war on Ukraine seems to have motivated Germany to increase defence spending (from a very low base) and to emphasise ‘heavy metal’, so I hear. But where is the evidence that UK MoD, the PM, SofS Defence has agreed to shift the same way?

          Those 148 CR3s are many years away from service (FOC was originally stated as 2030, although Ben wallace is trying to shave a few years off that). Only 112 of them will be allocated to field force units, the remainder being in the Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve.

          We bought 386 CR2s – I would like to see an analysis as to where they all are and what condition they are in. I am sure we have not sold any – and I have not heard of any being permanently scrapped except for 1 tank which had been severely damaged in the Gulf War2 friendly fire incident.

          MPG is a massive factor against M1 – it was the main reason it was rejected in favour of CR2 back in the early/mid 90s, plus some doubts that its armour protection was quite good enough. We would have to massively increase the fuel tanker fleet and associated driver and maintainer manpower. It would be the complete opposite of a logistic Godsend from the MPG point of view and having to set up another engineering/training/logistic infrastructure.

          • Graham, the plain truth is simple, the UK has abandoned the MBT as the main instrument of land warfare. Blinded by intellectual peacetime thinking and the endless theories of the future battlefield not requiring a heavily armoured punch, led to this situation we have today. You are right to ask if enough CH2 hulls exist to cobble enough tanks to at least increase the current fleet? As for M1s, we don’t have the luxury of choice there is possibly no chance the MOD could buy enough Leopards. The M1 has improved and though MPG does matter it must not stand in the way of any possible lease or purchase. If a green light were to be given, it might be possible to field British M1s by 2024?? One question, did all CH1s go to Jordon?

          • Maurice,
            Originally Jordan was to take a quite large percentage of the Chally 1s, and I was set quite a problem getting shot of a large residual number. My memory is not perfect some 20 years after the event, but I am sure that Jordan bought all but a few in the end and I only had to dispose of a small number – gate guardians here and there including Ashchurch and Sandhurst – and I think we gifted 3 to the Tank Museum.

            I think our politicians will cynically see Ukraine destroyed and deduce that the war does not suggest that Russia will next invade a NATO country, so why ramp up expenditure on ‘heavy metal’. Perhaps though, they will round up the CR3 order to 150!

    • Probably a daft question but could JCB + BAE + McLaren and maybe a few other companies not work as a consortium of sorts and build us some new tank. Maybe even get the guys in from the Bovington tank museum as special advisors.

      The last bit might sound daft but some of those guys are real engineers. Old school like, but they know their stuff.

      • No ideas should be off the table. The situation is so desperate that bog-standard CH2s from prepositioned stores, in Germany, is what our guys have in the teeth of the worst land warfare in 70 years! Of cause, most CH2s will be uparmoured but time is tight as the World is quickly losing patience with Putin. Right now in Whitehall, I’m sure the possibilities of armed conflict with Russia are being actively envisioned and how the UK can react in such a scenario. One thing is clear, the UK will be facing a new Cold War and reliance on other countries to supply vital arms is not a good plan. In light of Ajax, a good long look at UK military manufacturing will be required as a matter of urgency.

        • I have very little faith in politicians – I have heard no pronouncements about increasing defence spending.

          CR2 when fielded from 1998 had the best armour in the world and none have been defeated in combat with the enemy. Some improvements were made prior to Gulf War 2 (Iraq) in 2003 to bring those that deployed to a Theatre Enry Standard (TES) – I don’t now recall what that amounted to. They are still very well protected tanks.

          The only scenario that I could envisage that would bring our tanks into conflict with Russian ones is if Russia invaded a NATO country. Is that really going to happen?

          GDUK is very suspect. LM and BAE can be relied upon.

      • Is it April1st? JCB and McLaren have never made anything remotely like a tank. Why would BAE need to team with them?

        BAE has a very strong background in building tanks, albeit I think their last tank-based vehicles were Titan and Trojan in the early 2000s. They have teamed with Rheinmetall (tank experts too) to convert CR2 to CR3 and they have the facilities to do that. These 2 companies have real engineers, tank expertise and UK facilities. You don’t mention Lockheed Martin (who can build AFV turrets and do more than that) and their UK base was formerly Hunting Engineering, much upgraded.
        I would disregard GDUK due to the Ajax hull and integration fiasco.
        I love the Bovvy tank museum and they know a lot about historic tanks but they could not really be credible advisors on future tanks.

        • Well JCB do make tracked vehicles with turrets on them. They also make great big heavy duty diesel engines. Which they seem to be very good at making run on different types of fuel. As they’ve currently got their engines running on pure hydrogen (multifuel possibly ?).

          I was also thinking if you use an existing manufacturing line that has everything already setup. You can use as many off the shelf parts as possible to keep costs down and maximize total numbers. Which should also help with running and maintenance cost.

          McLaren i was thinking they have some of the best automotive engineers in the world. From what I understand, they also did a good job helping out with the foxhound. Maybe they could do something about the ride suspension and acceleration curves. They also might have some automotive tech hidden away somewhere for formula one or their latest super car that might come in handy. You never know.

          As for British Aerospace, are any of the Vickers guys still around that actually have experience making tanks ?

          I say that it jest but it is true.

          Anyway, my idea was to just get us more basic hulls. So instead of just having 140 hulls for the new turret, we could have a lot more. As in you get the basic hull, get BAE to slap in the electronics. Then you slap on the new turret. Jobs, a good one you have a load more new tanks.

          Another good point i’ve just thought off, is as it’s an existing production line you’re using. You could do a limited run on hulls, then they can switch back to making diggers. So then if you ever need to make more hulls, you’ve always got that capability of switching back again as the production line is still running.

          One last thing the Bovington tank guys. I wasn’t thinking about them actually designing the tank but them coming in and looking things over. Then using their experience to give advice. Like if they said “if you move X type sprocket over to the left half an inch you’ll be able to use this standard spanner for repairs and maintenance. Or if they said “If you make x gap a little bigger you won’t gather up as much mud going across country and you will be less likely to throw a track”

          Do you get what i mean, those guys have tonnes of experience working on and rebuilding all sort of different kinds of tanks. They’ve seen all the different evolution paths of tanks. They know what works and what doesn’t and what’s B****** to repair and what’s easy to repair.

          EDIT: Sorry about the lenght i ramble to much at times.

          • Such an interesting post! I recall hearing that bed and furniture makers in WW2 built Horsa gliders. If you have to quickly produce hundreds of tanks I guess you might be tempted to use more than the BAE, LM and GDUK facilities. That would be for an existential war, not for eastern European operations.

            I was in REME for 34 years. We had a number of equipment branches (Vehs & Wpns Br being one, Aircraft Br and Tels & Radar Br being others) who conducted Ease of Maintenance Assessments on prototype equipments and mandated changes as required to improve maintainability – so no need to go to a chap at the Tank Museum. I don’t know if those REME equipment branches have been retained in some form – I have not heard of them for decades now.

            I have thought for some time that if we really are going to have no more than 148 tanks that they should mostly be retained as a NATO reserve in the west of Germany, at the Paderborn/Sennelager hub – with some tanks (perhaps one sqn per regt) retained in unit lines for day to day training – thi is really just Whole Fleet management but slanted towards European operations. The forward deployed tanks in NATO should come from our continental NATO allies who are closer to the problem.

  5. I only hope these Boxers are a match for T14 Armatas. Whilst the west has been scrapping Chaalie 2s, LEO 2s, and going over to lightweight wheel vehicles the Russians have been maintaining a large modern tank force. The whole of western europe is once again wide open to a lighning war scenaro of the type favoured by the Russians.

    In under 6 days the absolute folly of scrapping the BAOR and its NATO equivelents has come home to roost

    We need another 500 chally 2/3, 1000 modern AFV and double the size of the army. And our Merkin cousins need more A10 Warthogs

    • Boxer vs T14 Armata? Where do you get the notion that a MIV of 20-year old design can take on one of the most advanced MBTs in the world?

      • Well theres not enough Challys to do anything useful, so its likely to be Warriors, Boxers , and other lightweights up against a bloody huge Rusian tank army.

        • We both know that Warriors do not engage tanks and Boxers are not yet in service – so that looks rather dire.

          The MoD website states that: ‘The (tank) regiments are called The Queen’s Royal Hussars, The King’s Royal Hussars, The Royal Tank Regiment, and The Royal Wessex Yeomanry which is the reserve regiment. Each regiment operates 56 Challenger 2 tanks’.

          Thus we have 224 tanks (about the same number we deployed on Gulf War 1) in field force units. A little idealistically, assume all 224 tanks deploy, including the reserve regiment – and are spread across two or three brigades, in a division.
          That British division could succesfully attack a brigade (or three Battalion Tactical Groups (BTG)) or defend against 7 or 8 brigades (say 21 to 24 BTGs).

          Of course Britain alone would not take on a bloody huge Russian tank army – we are in NATO – an alliance of 30 nations – we would not be alone.

      • Russia is great at announcing stuff all the time. Big orders etc. Very little actually makes it past this stage. They few things that do have problems and then it’s another small number of unique weapons to maintain. Russia has different forces. They have a small top tier of forces and large numbers of conscripts/ghost soldiers that aren’t that great. These are the ones that are equipped with all the soviet kit. They had masses of stores for these but they can’t last forever.

        • Be interesting to know how many are really operational and not sat there rusting,given what we have seen over the past week.

          • Very true…and some will be really old, but quantity has a quality all of its own….as someone once said.

    • Clearly you haven’t been following the news over the last week if you think the Russians can rage a lightning war across the whole of Western Europe… they can even do that over Eastern Ukraine!! 😂

      • Here we go again – swellhead is at it again. He’s right – your wrong. Sean knows everything about everything, a real little polymath. He uses the word clearly a lot – only he can see clearly – you cannot. That’s the way the world is with Sean.

      • Russia has deployed only around a 1/4 of its currently available forces and only used a tiny fraction of its firepower. they have thousands of Tanks and they can afford to lose them, The UK has around 200 operational Challys. Russia has been going softly softly so far, but now they are taking the gloves off.

        • Well on paper, judging by the quality and performance of what they have deployed you would have to wonder what the state is of the forces they haven’t deployed. The official Kremlin line is that they have only deployed professional soldiers to the Ukraine, but we know from those captured and killed, that that’s there’s a lot on conscripts there too. They may be able lose thousands of tanks, can they afford to lose all those crews? The NLAWs and Javelins are racking up the kills, and there’s more of those been deployed to the Ukraine than Russian tanks.
          Yes they’ve switched plans after they bungled their decapitation plans to race to Kyiv and take out the government. Instead they’ve switched to a less professional approach, surround a city, and then bombard it to dust sat outside it.

          No sure why you’re obsessed about 200 Challeys, as the official press releases often say, “We are NATO”

          • Definitely not professional soldiers in the bulk that have been deployed.

            Someone I work with was talking to a family member back in Ukraine a few days ago, two Russian soldiers knocked on the door asking for cigarettes so they asked what the soldiers are doing in Ukraine. They both said they dont know and last week had been in school, both of them 16 years old. Shocking to be forcing kids into this to fight.

  6. Lessons need to be learnt from the war in Ukraine..The Russians seem partially inept and for whatever reason not using full combined arms. They are however being restricted to road networks due to mud and getting smashed by ATGW and in cases drones.
    Their lightning mobility , which was vaunted at one point might actually turn out an issue.
    Boxer is bigger and heavier than the equivalent Russian wheeled vehicles and IFVs but hide a few NLAW crews in nearby bushes and literally the wheels might come off the concept.
    Analysis will be made but possibly our numbers of heavy platforms need to increase. The Merkava based NAMER is a 70 tonne beast with Trophy APS.
    The Israelis already learnt the lesson of driving into cities where the populace hates them and is willing to fight.

    • Knowing little or nothing about armoured warfare (wore a blue uniform) can anyone suggest why the Ukranians aren’t hammering that long column day by day, with NLAWs, etc? I appreciate the Russians must have put some sort of defence perimeter round the column.

      • Crabfat, UKRMil are trying to hold a line.. kind of.

        UKR SOF slotted a RusMil General… several more of those and less trucks blown up might be a good idea 😉

      • Apparently they are but it may be that they are happy to concede territory and focus on city perimeters.
        It’s also cold and getting 50km on foot to flank a convoy whilst carrying kit would be some task, much across open country , against cold landscapes that might make it easy for drones with IR sensors to detect them. Moving vehicles outside of their own air defences might be difficult . Russia has a lot of artillery to hammer anything that moves if it can be spotted
        I read the Ukraines have diverted rivers and flooded farmland, restricting areas where Russians can advance.
        That convoy must have lots of cold , hungry drivers and troops who’s morale might be wavering. In a sense , they will degrade themselves.

      • I am more surprised that UAF is not hammering away at a target-rich environment – perhaps Russian AD is exceptional near that convoy.

        NLAW range is 400m against moving targets, 600m max against static targets. You really need to have good cover near you and amazing exit routes to operate this weapon system.

        • Maybe its apparent peaceful existence is a reflection of the lack of remaining UAF assets and the concentration of UA forces in the south and especially the east.

          • Sorry JohninMK – clearly you cannot see clearly as only Sean can see clearly. You are obviously wrong.

          • Loving it – you pompous arrogant little man! Compared with you I’m happy to be labelled an idiot – from you it is indeed a complement. Life is but a shadow, a poor player (you) that frets and struts his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more – it is a tale told by an idiot, all sound and fury….. signifying nothing.

          • Loving it? You must have a sad life if having your mental and behavioural inadequacies pointed out in public is enjoyable. Something of a masochist too, it would seem.

            You probably think misquoting Shakespeare makes you sound clever, but again it highlights your inadequacy and lack of self-confidence in being able to compose your own prose. You’d be laughable if you weren’t so sad and miserable.
            Quite frankly you’re too pathetic to waste anymore time over.

          • Now I’m really getting under your skin! Throwing around epithets left right and centre. Your earning far more than me is very impressive – so what job do you do then? I’ve come to the conclusion your a non-entity posturing as an expert.

          • Maybe it’s because it’s a shite, very late loggie convoy, with no fuel, shit scared soldiers and the command and control which would make the Iraqi army look good!

          • Check out Pete’s Twitter links on that convoy over on the RAF F35 thread mate. If true, and the many factors the Twitter guy explains seem to be, it is hilarious.

          • I noticed that had gone as well, pity as this was an interesting link. one thing it pointed too was a very poor stranded of maintenance on the vehicles being used

          • Yes. And now on Twitter there is film of civilian buses trucks and vans on railway flatbeds moving west somewhere in Russia.
            They concluded either already they are running out if military vehicles, or they would be used to move, evacuate civilians.
            Farcial if the former but their vehicle fleets taking a beating from what is reported, never mind those abandoned in the mud.

          • I’ve heard that the Ukrainians are claiming over 30 warplanes and over 30 helicopters downed so far.
            I also heard that the Russians were moving to night operations rather than daytime, which suggests they’re very concerned about manpads.
            But it’s surprising the Russians still don’t have air superiority given their advantage of numbers.

          • I did hear just yesterday that lead elements had been hit by the UAF and that the Ukrainians has made some attacks on its flanks in several places.

            I’m beginning to think they don’t need to, with it being stuck there so effectively it’s been neutralised. According to Radakin some of the Russians in it are so demoralised that they’ve abandoned it and fled into the woods to camp. At the moment, the troops in it need food and fuel but it’s not contributing anything to the war effort.

          • If I were a Russian in that convoy and it was not going anywhere I would set up camp in a nearby wood. Line of trucks is a juicy target for Ukrainian Air or Arty.

      • They’ve blown a bridge ahead of it and have started hitting vehicles at the front and in the middle. Possibly a major issue is just the number of vehicles to hit in the convoy.

          • Because some of us actually do some research rather than talking out of our arses like you 🤷🏻‍♂️

          • I like the some of us. You really are a little know all turd in the water pipe. I wonder what job you do in life to make you so cocksure? I presume, as you appear to be so knowledgeable about what is happening in Ukraine, you must have your own satellite up in the heavens.

            Out of your arse’ reads better than ‘out of our arses like you’. Maybe grammar is not one of your strongpoints.

          • One that pays way better than a loser like you could ever dream of. If you’d bothered keeping up with the Pentagon briefings you’d know the situation with that convoy, or are the words they use too long for you? You attempt to correct my grammatically correct statement is hilariously sad, did you actually have any kind of education?

    • Israel is a small nation and cannot withstand large scale military casualties, hence the overwhelming protection of Namer.

      It is however only an APC and with feeble firepower – a single M2 Browning HMG with design antecedents dating back to 1918.

      Its 70 ton weight must limit terrain access, and strategic transportability is poor.

      Not a good option for the British Army.

    • The IDF are now looking at smaller vehicles for urban warfare as a result of that experience. I have read that hezbollah fired numerous ATGWs at the merkava to find it’s weak spots. But it is still one hell of a tank and at £5m each the uk could do a lot worse than buy these with an auto loader, configured to carry 4 inf dismounts. Then we have a ready made armoured force on one platform.

      I am not wedded to CR3 I just want the right capability in the right volumes

    • I know you advocate the Israeli NAMER for Brit Army, but won’t that sink in the mud, at 70 tons weight? I just wish the MoD would do the WCSP upgrade on Warrior and keep them for another 10 years or so.

  7. Why is the wheel being re-invented? Is there not already a supply chain in situ for a vehicke that has been in service for…

    This will boil my piss unless there is a sub contractor pays agreement that delivers lower unit costs at 100% quality.

    Happy to be corrected.

  8. How will Boxer vehicles bring new capabilities to the British Army?

    “The Boxer vehicles combine long-distance road deployment with all-terrain mobility and bring new capabilities to the British Army.”

    • With the images of Russian tracked and wheeled vehicles stuck in the mud is boxer really able to move off-road as well as the advert says. Suppose my question is would U.K. vehicles of made it through the mud that stopped the Russians.
      I saw one explanation that said Russian wheeled vehicles are badly maintained and there central tyre inflation systems are not working and they have old badly made wheels/tyres etc. My thought is this cannot be every vehicle

      • I have seen the manufacturers video of Boxer driving through a 60-80m length of muddy track. Doubt it would go as well on a longer stretch of glutionous, deeper mud.

        I had not seen footage of Russian tracks bogging in – but of course that can happen in very severe mud.

  9. Lots of especially designed light weight quad bikes fitted with stingers and ATMs? They are good for whizzing around on – and a bit cheaper than Boxers. Will this comment get past know it all Sean I wonder?

      • I’ve signed not because I want war but I want this discussed by parliament. There may be possibilities beyond a full no fly zone. Options need to be debated and pursued or discounted based on risk to Ukrainian civilians, our armed forces and a wider conflict.

  12. Quick question

    small thing but,

    in the photo the boxer has the racking across the rear like the Australians, are we buying that as I thought this is an extra we hadn’t selected.

  13. If there is a mini defence review in light of Ukraine, I hope the British army gets some Boxer with the 105mm Cockerill turret for firepower + the Oerlikon Skyranger with 35mm gun with radar/EO to shoot down drones.

      • DM sorry for the delay, I could not get this box to type. Blame Putin, I do. The others were right. The Army had Bofors 40/70 while the RN were stuck with 40/60. The Army ditched the 40/70 for Rapier. Given how temperamental Rapier was in the Falklands, a few 40/70 might have been handy. There was a prototype Scorpion AA tank with twin 30mm, but it was never ordered. Postwar, the Army had project Ratefixer. A semi auto version of the wartime 3.7″ (94mm). They got it up to 75 rounds per minute. Then they dropped it for missiles. Shame, might have made a good naval gun. Yes the RAF reg used a few liberated Argentinian 35mm. I think the radars lasted longer. I think the British Army has not done AAA, because it thinks it will always have air superiority. A dangerous assumption.

        • Yes, always wanted AA guns complementing SAM in the army.

          I knew that the RauxAFR had a squadron of AA as booty from the Falklands. One of them now sits outside the NADOC of all places.

          I did not know about any of the rest, so thanks for those details all.

        • Hi John-interesting post thank you. I’m no expert on AAA, however I’ve seen the Oerlikon 35mm in action, its a best of a weapon. I recall they notched up a couple of sea harrier kills(+two own goals) in the Falklands conflict. I’m unsure how vulnerable their fire control radars are to jamming however.  

  14. Give Boxer tracks, reactive armour, and a 120 MM gun and it has a chance, otherwise its just another glorified battlefield taxi. OR if the eejits in the MOD insist on going this budget route we need at least 3500 or more of em. IFV, AT and AA rolls but we need a lot more than is being proposed. AND they are going to need a lot more avaiation assets in top cover roles.

    • Should not have shut vickers defence systems in leeds can buy new houses on the site but no more heavy armour

    • I have a question on tracks, can we not do a special tyre tread that rubber tracks slot onto and have the best of both worlds.

      I suspect this isn’t easy but perhaps 1 track per 2 wheels (4 in total) might be a possible solution.

      not sure if this is even a sensible idea, but may be an option for extreme conditions as the boxer has excellent all terrain capability by all accounts.

  15. I really hope that the UK sets up a trading estate dedicated to combat vehicles with a facility like the boxer one in Australia, getting all its steel from the uk. I don’t care where it is in the UK but it needs to be able to produce 2000 vehicles of all types per annum.

    now is the time to get this capability up and running in a centre of excellence, the Aussies have done really well with there land 400 programme and their factories for land and T26 should be replicated here.

    we have to replace the Man fleet at some point and I assume the 2.5k JTLV order is still needed.

    And as for warrior and Ajax one can only assume replacements will be needed, even if that is Ajax mk2 (heaven forbid)

    lots happening in this space now and time for us to get an industrial strategy that can support an annual fleet replacement programme with ringfenced money approved by all parties and ratified by Parliament. This is good business all round if done properly.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here