Rolls-Royce will deliver a total of 523 mtu Series 199 engines for the Boxer Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV) for the British Armed Forces.

Rolls-Royce business unit Power Systems recently signed contracts with its partners Krauss-Maffei Wegmann/WFEL and Rheinmetall Landsysteme/Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land covering the delivery of 523 engines between 2022 and 2030.

“Rolls-Royce will deliver engine components to its subsidiary Rolls-Royce Solutions UK where engine assembly, acceptance tests and painting will be done, sustaining new and existing jobs at the facility. Boxer MIV for the British Army will be the first version of the vehicle equipped with Rolls-Royce’s mtu 8V 199 TE21 engine, delivering 600 KW, 70 KW more than the mtu engines in previous versions of the vehicle. The mtu engines will power all Boxer vehicles on order for the British Army: The British government recently ordered 100 additional Boxer vehicles for the British Army.”

Andrew Munt, Boxer Programme Director for WFEL, said:

“Boxer vehicle hull production is now well under way here at WFEL in Stockport. As we move into the vehicle assembly phase, we are delighted to contract with Rolls Royce for the supply of mtu engines.”

Colin McClean, Managing Director for RBSL, said:

“RBSL is delighted to have secured further UK content for the Boxer programme together with long-term support for such a critical part.  The powerful mtu engine will be the heart of the British Army’s new Boxer vehicle. Rolls Royce are a welcome addition to the team.”

Knut Müller, Vice President Global Governmental at Rolls-Royce business unit Power Systems said:

“The Boxer MIV project is a very important part of the modernization of the British Army. To support this project, we have made a big effort to enable manufacturing of our proven mtu Series 199 engines in the UK for the first time. We are proud to contribute to the British Army’s mobility and agility with our engines made in Britain.”

According to a statement from the firm:

“Boxer MIV is one of the world’s most advanced wheeled armoured vehicles, offering outstanding mobility and protection. Boxer will form an integral part of the British Army’s Brigade Combat Teams capabilities. It is in service and on order with various NATO nations and Australia. One of its key characteristics is its modular set-up, consisting of a joint drive platform and different mission modules. The British Army will receive four different variants of Boxer, encompassing infantry carrier, specialist carrier, command post and ambulance vehicles.

All Boxer vehicles for the British Army will be powered by mtu 8V 199 TE21 engines with a power output of 600 KW. Their increased power output allows for enhanced operational mobility and agility despite the vehicles’ higher weight due to improved protection. It also enables a higher electrical load. There are now two versions of the Boxer vehicle available to ideally fulfil the varying operational needs of customers, either powered by mtu Series 199 TE20 or TE 21 engines with a power output of 530 or 600 KW, respectively.”

Tom Dunlop
Tom Dunlop
Tom has spent the last 13 years working in the defence industry, specifically military and commercial shipbuilding. His work has taken him around Europe and the Far East, he is currently based in Scotland.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

63 COMMENTS

  1. Imagine if we have just gone with boxer all those years ago and saved the entire FRES cluster f**k that is the British army land vehicle program. it’s great that British companies have been able to integrate in to the supply chain but it’s nothing compared to what could have been if the army had its act together.

      • Hi Daniele,

        I remember reading a summary (on here I think) back in 2019 that suggested that the Army / DE&S had pissed £5billion (if I remember correctly) up the wall and delivered precisely NO AFV to the frontline units in 20 years!

        That’s £5b we could really do with right about now. Where was the sense of responsibility? It is bad enough when projects over run, but to deliver nothing that is just taking the piss…

        Oh, well siad all before, better get on with the DIY before the sun gets too high.

        Cheers CR

        • Morning mate.

          Yes, you’re correct. That is over a several programmes, including the FRES fiasco that has just continued.

          The usual line from the pro army journalists and ex officers is that it is all the RN’s carriers fault.

          There is no responsibility! There should be, but that is modern society we live in isn’t it? It is never ones fault, especially the higher ups from ministers to brass.

          • Hi Daniele, I’ve had this said to me before- even that the RN took money from the Army’s equipment budget in order to pay for their shortfall in the carriers. “That’s very interesting” I said, “I’ve not heard that before, could you send me a link so I can find out more?”. The reply was something along the lines of them not having any details but it’s widely spoken about.
            I’ve not found any written record of this happening, so find it hard to believe.

          • Agree, I’ve seen it said here too.
            Inter service rivalry alive and well. At least the RAF and RN get something for their money.

          • Because it’s BS. It comes from the people responsible for the Army’s 20 years of gross incompetence. Some of whom are and were at very high levels in the Army and even the armed forces. 😉😉

    • I’m not entirely clear on why we pulled out of it in the first place, does anyone in the public sphere actually know…?

  3. The build rate is too slow and the UK needs more than 620 odd vehicles. In truth, I don’t believe the MOD intends to bolster the Army’s armour other than the current dilatory plans with Ajax and CH3. Intelligence is probably telling Whitehall that Russia is now a spent force in terms of conventional armour and the UK need not expand its assets. The reality may be different but so what?

    • Having very easily won this technology Turkey shoot, using only the less integrated weapons system, it is very easy to become complacent?

    • Honestly, I think that assessment of the current condition of the conventional Russian force is accurate. They are in no shape to start threatening any NATO countries in the Balkans or elsewhere, and won’t be for the next 5-10 years.
      BUT, that should be seen by the MOD as some God-given breathing room to get a solid, integrated modernisation programme in place for all branches so that we overmatch them when they inevitably get bolshy again. Rather than an opportunity to strip capability back further.

      • The Ukrainian crisis is quickly being shifted away from the main focus of government, which when it reconvenes will be too busy attempting to stop a social meltdown over utilities. Any additional money earmarked for the MOD will be subject to endless scrutiny as will all other government departments as ways and means are determined by the treasury. The Russian invasion is failing and most observations indicate its fighting ability is now seriously compromised, so much so, it plays right into the hands of those who want the exchequer to place all efforts on ‘cost of living.’

        • To be fair to them, the government’s responsibility is to manage/run the country in such a way that world events and macro-economic factors (like global supply chain and energy impacts) don’t adversely impact the “common person’s” life too much. So this cost of living thing is a major consideration.
          I find myself halfway between two opinions, and I lean a bit depending on my mood. One the one hand, I think we have become overly used to / reliant on easy access to energy for our daily lives- to the extent that comforts are seen as necessites. I’m not talking about people who have to make a choice between heat and food, but about people who think that sitting on the sofa in the evening with a jumper and (potentially) a blanket on the knees is unthinkable. Likewise, many don’t really take seriously the opportunities to reduce energy use around the home- like thinking about when windows and curtains are closed/open to minimise heating/cooling. Again this isn’t going to fix the problem, but it certainly eases the extremes. It wasn’t so long ago that frost on windows was normal, and we just dealt with uncomfortably colder conditions. On the flipside, our governments have consistently allowed big energy companies to be sold off abroad, and strategic storage to be cut to the absolute bone in order to cut costs and maximise profit. It was highly likely that these decisions benefitted ministers’ friends and future prospects, in my opinion. The consequences of this have come back to roost and are now impacting people who had no say in that original decision, and it most certainly is now the government’s responsibility to put that right as far as possible. The economy has in the past benefitted from these decisions (at least in the short term), and now it’s got to pay up. A lesson to be learned in short-term gain vs long-term pain that people in decision making positions consistently fail to learn. As I said, two opinions that I somehow keep in tension!
          All that said, I agree that cutting the military budget now is just another example of short term wins at the expense of long term damage. And given the current state of the military, that would be damage that could take absolute decades to undo if we cut any further. The solution is definitely not cutting taxes, nor making cuts at a point of economic downturn. It is to follow economic good practice and to stop treating national debt like personal debt, to make some careful plans, and to borrow. Not wildly, not without a firm plan to cut borrowing and pay down some debt as the economy recovers. But It is what has consistently worked throughout the history of modern capitalism and I don’t see an alternative. Even conservative governments have done it in the past, both Republican and Democrat parties (both of which are fiscally right of even our Tories) do so, so it shouldn’t be unthinkable.

          • Hi Joe,

            Nicely balanced and pretty much where I am has well. Although I would also suggest that the supper rich have got somewhat too rich. At this year’s Dazos conference a group of billionaires reportedly called for a wealth tax to help with Climate Change and Bill Gates recently announced he was going to take himself off the rich list by put $20billion into his foundation! If billionaires are calling for a wealth tax things must be really out of sink..!

            The other thing I would point out is that whilst this current crisis is being caused by the Ukraine War which will end at some point, climate change is going to have the same effect on food supplies but I don’t see that ending anytime soon.

            Many have assumed we would not see the real effects of climate change for at least another 20 to 30 years, however, with the Ukriane’s harvest only slowly getting to market it appears that with countries like the UK and France seeing their harvests down by 20% or so the food markets are going to be very tight for quite sometime to come.

            As ‘rich’ countries (and assuming the politicians actually ensure fair distribution of supply..?) we should be alright, but developing countries will get an early introduction to the horrors that await our children and grand-children…

            All of which will drive instability. Our governments are rapidly driving us into a very nasty corner.

            Cheers CR

          • I think the issue is that the electorate have allowed themselves to be believe that if you let liberal democracy, individualism and market forces operate to optimise profit and growth then things will work. But they don’t. Individuals do not make choices which are in the common good so eventually you reach a situation in which everyone is in trouble and the poorest are in real trouble.
            Examples. Privatised water companies have sold off reservoirs which could be easing the water shortage. Fixing leaks costs money and lowers profits. Polio is returning to London’s sewers. Privatised energy companies can’t make enough profit in the short term to satisfy shareholders and the market by building expensive nuclear power stations and tidal barriers, so these don’t get built and we become at risk of blackmail, dependent on autocratic regimes for our energy. Supermarkets can’t make enough profit by charging customers the true cost of producing their food, so farmers go out of business. There are just some things like food, water, energy and probably rail transport and health care where longterm security and planning needs to be done by government on behalf of the nation and if necessary paid for out of taxation.

          • Again I pretty much agree with what you are saying.

            Not sure our current politicians are capable of smelling the coffee even if they did wake up! If those who felt left behind before the current cost of living crisis has even really hit home don’t start throwing their teddy bears around this winter I’ll be amazed. We need change, political, economic and environmental and fast. We need to be inclusive and I’m not just talking about those groups identified in the equalities act. I’m talking about those who are staring down the barrel this winter who are excluded from opportunity by system that judges people on where they come from rather than on where they might get to.

            Politicians love to talk about opportunity and leveling up, but they haven’t delivered much of it in my life time! Oh well, we can but hope and do what we can.

            Cheers CR

  4. The Army mustn’t follow the Navies lead and go FFBNW. I cant see an armed version. Seems to be the new normal doesnt it? Pathetic.

    • Perhaps they are waiting to see what happens with Ajax in December before deciding what to do. A turret takes up space in the vehicle.
      Personally I think they need tracked vehicles for heavy vehicle group centred around challenger, and then light vehicles like a CVRT style wheels or tracks that’s easily deployable. For that though they need the heavy transport vehicles and the airlift for the light stuff.
      Ukraine has shown no vehicle can withstand a top hit from a man portable missile. So is it worth building vehicles so heavy?

    • I would suggest that FFBNW has actually been what got the navy a very reasonable recapitalisation programme, keeping it in the game with modern respected platforms…..and the army that wanted everything still being stuck with designs that were started when I was born ( and I’m officially more old than young). I’ve said it once today and I will say it again (as Voltaire was a clever bugger) “ Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien” or if you prefer a more modern interpretation trying to get 100% leads you to getting nothing very fast…as per the 80/20 Pareto principle…..

    • The infantry carried will have a remote 12.7 mg. I don’t know what the special carried is it now it will be armed

      • The .50 cal is a powerful weapon with a good range. Is it enough for every situation? I don’t know. With the 40mm CTA guns sitting around from warrior upgrade and maybe being on Ajax it could become a module for the future. I don’t know if any ammo has actually being bought for the guns yet.
        I think a heavy armoured unit should set up shop in the Baltics permanently for x years. Challenger, IFV, support elements, all the necessary bells and whistles. With that we take permanent Baltic air patrol role also. It shows nato we are serious and it actually gives the army some kind of direction. They seem lost in what it is they are meant to do with the current numbers.

        • AFAIK Boxer as ordered by the UK is mostly an APC, a lot of posters here are wishing for a more heavily armed vehicle that is more like an IFV, I don’t think that will happen.

          • Don’t think you are too far from the truth. Out of the 650 or so we have ordered some 200+ are APC, the rest (400ish)are a combination of Ambulance/Comd and specialist carrier variants.
            With the RWS that has been selected, some have speculated that we might fit Javelin to some and possibly swop out the 50cal with a 40mm auto grenade launcher as it fits. Not sure how accurate that might be though.
            We still have to wait to discover what other ‘fighty’ variants we are going to get!

          • I think the next I.F.V the army takes on will have tracks, I really don’t think we will see up armed Boxers.

          • I really hope that you are right with that view. I’m totally unsure what the army will do, though must admit that as things currently look, doesn’t look likely, who knows!!

          • 50 cal is good, GMG is also good, but not good enough for an IFV mate as I’m sure you are aware! As you say we need more “fighty” versions and less C2 and ambulances! Although the overwatch variant, if correctly equipped, would be an excellent replacement for the long gone but not forgotten striker! The “fightys” need at least a 30mm and AT missiles, but also as a priority a 120mm mortar module should be ordered! My shopping list is long but my realism is sadly longer and don’t expect much! Cheers.

          • Wouldn’t disagree with you mate, but I do wonder, given that we will need to finance the development of any ‘fighty’ variants other than the recce (Australia) version, that we might go and buy something off the shelf. Looking specifically at the Polish Nemo mortar version. Ok it’s not on Boxer, but it’s developed and in service. How many would we need, 60ish perhaps. To my un army mindset, that’s a niche product, large costs to develop, so buy off the shelf. Same goes for a 120mm gun version, go buy the Centuro 2, or a Patria Cockrill 105 mm gun fitted version. Again none Boxer, but again if we buy one it will only be 60-80 ish. Fit the same engine and drive train and you have some commonality and saved loads on development!!

          • Agreed, do all the support varieties need to be Boxer based, nope, same as do the C2 and ambulances need to be! Certainly already thought about the Cockrill 105mm. As for numbers for the 120mm will depend on how many Battalions are eventually equipped but deffo minimum 40 units, 4 Bns x 8 per Bn and training! I’d also go for the rest of the Inf, to include light role Bns to go the way of the 120mm. Keep the 81s for Para Insertion and the “Ranger” units mate. But alas that is just the tip of the Army’s “essential requirements and changes” list, the Army has fell off the cliff at the moment and shit needs changing fast. Chers.

          • I do wonder about so many ambulances, c2 etc. part of me thinks thinks it’s because the army don’t have a clue what they want with fighty things until they get Ajax and warrior sorted out.
            I still think they need a tracked IFV with 30/40mm gun and a few missiles to operate with the tanks. Maybe wheels can go anywhere a tank goes at the same speed but I’m still doubtful. Boxer will have its uses but needs more options. The Finns have a 120mm mortar carrier I think. a swing fire type vehicle would be useful as well using brimstone or a new missile with bits of NLAW, brimstone to keep devlopment cheaper.
            Still think a light vehicle would be great. A real scimitar/scorpion replacement, Easy to deploy while bringing a 30mm+ gun, make one with a MLRS pod on the back etc.

          • Gabs has covered this at length. So far our 623 Boxer can only equip 5 of our Infantry Battalions due to the minimum number of Infantry section variants ( 89 I recall? ) and the large number of C2 and ambulances going to other formations.
            When you add the 500 plus Ajax and the reality only 198 are the Scout recc variant that is a lot of C2 and other variants.

            When the army is now going down to just 5 mech Bns and you have 1,000 plus vehicles incoming.

            They could use cheaper vehicles for those other roles and concentrate the expensive assets at the fighty end, but others have suggested those roles are no less important regards the whole force.

          • OK, my 198 are the “Strike Recc” variant and the GBS and JFC types are also turreted, thus Ajax and bringing it to 254.

          • Yes mate I still read Gabs blog quite often. All roles are important mate and in asymetric warfare it would be ideal to have everyone protected to the same level, but financialy, I dont think its feasible. More fighty versions needed as is 120mm mortar and 155mm Arty. Cheers.

  5. So the Boxers can reverse out of trouble as they have no offensive weapon system!!!!! (Yet?) And even the spokesperson for these firms are taking the “agility and mobility” shit! Give it a break, buy the 120mm mortar and 155mm modules, give the rest a turret with at least a 30mm and some Jav, and then start giving it the spin!

    • I think what must have happened is that when the money ran out and WCSP was cancelled the MOD were inspired by an exceptionally agile and adaptable vision and decided that all we needed were Boxer APCs.

  7. Any chance of delivering a turret and cannon as well? You know, so that combat vehicle has a remote chance of surviving meeting anything in combat? Shock horror surprise, the enemy also has an irritating habit of engaging in combat as well…

    • Which is not good enough. We should hopefully be increasing into some of those other variants. NLOS, AD, 120MM mortar especially.

      • See my “do it right the 1st time” thought process is lease/buy 1 of each variant and test the fleet properly by lads/lasses who will actually use them. Say 50 troops no more than 10 officers and no rank above Captain in my opinion and only 1-2 of them. Then abuse each variant until we have a buy list. Surely that’s these fast “strike” units with equipment that’s supposedly agile and versatile as f@&k according to MOD😂.
        Fantasy fleet has to be the complete list in decent numbers to serve everything but heavy armour units, including the engineering recovery and bridge. In my eyes commonality of main parts and chassis across the entire light armour/infantry could solve a large budget issue in the long run.

  9. To be honest, Boxer was ready for production, most of the trials completed and the expenditure on jigs and trials tapering off
    Suddenly, (MOD speed, actually sloth speed) suits started saying things like, it’s too big for the ITDU Garages and we’ll need shipping containers for the spare modules…no one had noticed it was quite chunky
    think gravy train, trials make jobs..!
    The inevitable German intransigence also gave rise to a few problems
    They decided it was basically a large minibus. And wanted it to meet crash test rules. Yes, sending 30 tonnes of armour into a concrete pillar, see if the crew survived.
    Since the crumple zone on a Boxer was about 5mm, the crash dummies would have been dismantled. But it took months of trips to Munich to eventually get the demand shelved
    But, bright spot is, although our cost per unit will be so much higher, we will not be worried by those nasty offsets that usually come, if we get 20% By value it will be good. Better than it being 50% British

  10. Not much of a new UK production line. If you read the full PR on the RR website, then right at the end it says this investment will sustain up to 10 jobs in the UK! So the British content is to screw the main parts together after they arrive crated from Germany, give it a quick wiggle and Fred freshens up the paint.

  11. Rather than create the wrong impression that this is a major boost for UK PLC, maybe it was worth mentioning that the RR engines are Not actually being manufactured in the UK, just assembled here. The engines are actually German. Again one more oppotunity to support the UK manufacturing base ignored.
    Given that there is a significant risk the output from heavy German industry may about to be severely restricted and delivery of these engines is kicked into sometime in the future, as Putin turns off the gas tap, it may be prudent to grease up the Warriors in store

  12. Could we triple the order, increase manufacturing capacity using foreign aid money and donate a couple of thousand to the Ukrainian Army?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here