As part of a government-to-government agreement between Sweden and the Slovak Republic, the Ministry of Defence of the Slovak Republic has signed a $1.37 billion agreement for the delivery of 152 CV9035 infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) from BAE Systems.

The CV90s will be produced and delivered in several configurations with the full cooperation of Slovak industry including ZTS – ŠPECIÁL as the main industry partner to BAE Systems. Other Slovak state-owned and private companies will take critical roles in producing the vehicles and supporting the program in the longer term.

According to this news release:

“The Slovak Army will receive the newest iteration of the CV9035, known as the CV90MkIV, with the latest advanced capabilities and digital technology. The vehicle combines improved battlefield speeds and handling with an upgraded electronic architecture to support future growth and meet the needs of the evolving battlefield.

The Slovak CV90s will be equipped with the new state-of-the-art D-series turret with a 35 mm gun. The turret provides CV9035 crews with improved protection and amplified combat efficiency through the latest generation of sensors, artificial intelligence and augmented reality software, increasing the CV9035s multi-domain capabilities on the battlefield. The Slovak CV9035 will also be equipped with Elbit Systems’ “Iron Fist” active protection system (APS) solution and an integrated, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems’ SPIKE-LR, an advanced anti-tank guided missile.

Of the 152 vehicles, 122 will be delivered in the infantry fighting vehicle variant. Twelve IFVs will be built in a new configuration for the Anti-Material Rifles and Grenade Launcher Squad. The remaining vehicles will include Command & Control, Reconnaissance and Engineer and Recovery variants, aimed at providing specialist combat logistics support. The contract also covers training and education systems, as well as tactical simulators.”

You can read more about this here.

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

230 COMMENTS

      • Not to be confused with the other failed project …WCSP for a future IFV…
        It’s difficult to keep up with the failed projects.
        I’m still holding out for a Christmas Ajax miracle.
        Boxer is too expensive for the IFV ….maybe we will get a cheap stocking filler 😂

        • I hear WCSP was cancelled largely because the production contract was not funded by the beancounters, but the programme was also running slow and somewhat over budget.

          We are buying Boxer to replace WR IFV – this was announced in May 2021.

          • Yeh, I think you might have told me that before. I’ve just got a feeling in my water about that decision.

          • Curious, if Ajax is ultimately declared a failure and neither a version of Boxer nor CV9035 can be contorted into the recce role, what viable alternative exists?

          • If what I’m told is true. (No reason to think otherwise.) I think the manufacturers will carry the can for the poor quality product and eventually deliver the required vehicle. But who knows how long that will take?

            The MOD should bite the bullet and purchase a limited number (50+) of “off the shelf” replacement vehicles. As an emergency measure. Fennek comes to mind or a version of CV90. It was one of the original contenders for the contract. In the perfect world GDUK would foot the bill.

          • Various reports here state that Ajax passed its User Validation Trials, so its time to ditch the ‘failure’ word. It next proceeds to Reliability Growth Trials.

            [Both Boxer and CV90 have long had recce variants and there are many armoured recce vehicles on the market, both wheeled and tracked].

          • The 623 (was 589?) Boxers ordered so far may well only have a MG in which case they are mere APCs – they are intended to replace 432/Bulldog and it was intended that they equip the infantry in 2 x Strike Brigades (Now one such brigade ie 1st Deep Recce Strike BCT).

            However these are not the Boxers that replace Warrior – I don’t believe those have been ordered yet – they must have a cannon to be considered to be IFVs and so to be a true Warrior replacement (also hoping the mobility is as good as WCSP). I would be horrified if the Boxers to replace Warrior did’nt each have a cannon.

        • More worryingly perhaps is the fact that the Ukrainians have been asking for more Infantry Support Vehicles of one kind or another preferably ‘tracked versions’. Experience in the field is probably worth noting.

        • C’mon Ian, your ear is closer to the ground on this issue. Is there going to be a decent Xmas pressie regarding Ajax. You’ve mentioned before, that a lot of the issues have now been addressed.

          • Hi Davey, my ears are 6’ from thr ground😁. The ‘paperwork’ is sat on Ben Wallaces desk as far as I’m informed. The UVT’s went well with the data being accepted by the MOD. Fingers X’d BW wants to put out a nice Xmas prezzie.
            Cheers

          • What constitutes the definitive decision point for approval of acquisition? UVTs? RGTs? Some additional trial? My contention is real world performance data would generated by a trial in UKR. Believe that would yield all the info anyone could conceivably request

        • Please explain the difference in roles between Apollo and Atlas models. Presumably the roles are complementary and to some extent overlap. Thanks.

          • Ares and Athena will definitely bith have capacity for small numbers of dismounts (Athena by destiny should have a large space in the back for a CP. It’ll be unit SOPS whether anyone rides in there or if HQ elements will all have their own vehicles).
            Trying to remember if Recce Engineers have dismounts, I suspect the answer is yes. At any rate I think Argus and possibly Apollo might carry dismounts.

          • Interesting…Ares has the only description that states it “will deliver and support specialist troops,” thus prompting my question. Thanks for the additional info.

          • Apollo repair variant.
            Atlas recovery variant.
            Not sure if they have seats for dismounts – they would/could be used to carry the crew of the dead vehicle they are attending to.

          • I imagine Apollo would also have to carry the LAD crew that will work on the dead vehicle, which is why I was listing it.

          • Atlas is a recovery vehicle. Ie its job is to go out, find a broken down Ajax, and tow it back to a rear echelon. Possibly under fire. Possibly with obstacles in place.
            Apollo is a repair vehicle, it takes the is used to do in field repairs (hence the crane, remove power packs) on chassis that Atlas has recovered, or tow vehicles that need even more in depth repairs to the nearest depot rail head, not under fire.
            I don’t have the details, but I’d suspect that, aside from the obvious crane and dozer attachments, Atlas will have a lot mire TI and sensors than Apollo.

          • Both have LSAS giving almost 360 deg view around the vehicle including TI front and rear. Both platforms have the Kongsberg remote weapons station with colour and TI cameras.

          • ATLAS is a recovery vehicle equipped with an hydraulic winch and earth anchor to pull casualty vehicles out of the mire. APOLLO is the repair variant, towing a trailer carrying a powerpack, using it’s crane to R&R u/s packs. Both vehicles can tow.

            • 38 Recovery vehicles (Atlas)
            • 50 Repair vehicles (Apollo)

            We are buying the above for use by REME.

            Atlas Recovery extricates a casualty vehicle from a bog, minefield etc if required – conveys said casualty to a point of repair, but obviously does not do the repair. The Atlas variant is fitted with a recovery package that is optimised to provide the most effective means of recovering a casualty vehicle. It has a crew of three. An Earth Anchor is provided to prevent the vehicle skidding over the surface when winching. The main crane is a 300Kn winch and there is a auxiliary 8kN winch.It is fitted with the remote weapons system for self defence.

            Apollo repair variant can be used to tow battlefield damaged vehicles and lift heavy engine power packs. It will be able to tow a trailer containing spare parts and equipment to enable mechanical engineers to work on repairing damaged and defective vehicles close to the front line.
            The 5 tonne crane has its own stabilisation system to stop the vehicle falling over when lifting large heavy loads. The crane can be powered independently of the vehicles engine so that it can change its own engine power-pack. It is fitted with the remote weapons system for self defence.

            The only overlap is that both vehicles can tow a casualty – but essentially they are doing fundamentally different roles.

          • GM, appreciate the extended answer; even I can no longer be confused re respective roles. Thanks. 😊

          • A good description Graham but if I may make a clarification; the main winch is rated at 250kN and the Aux winch is only to be used to pull the main winch rope out and back to the anchor point.
            Cheers

        • Good link. I am amazed that Ajax has no telescopic mast-mounted sensors. CV90 recce has such a mast and the venerable Canadian Coyote (developed in the early 90s!). I think our UK MoD Requirements Manager screwed up.

        • Exactly this circular argument really does taking on a whole dynamic of its own where truth and reality start to become simply factional based on extreme interpretations. Ironically it has often been similar dogmatism that have plagued UK Defence decisions over the decades that have left us with such a limited domestic industry in many areas particularly land.

          • Yes, well said by both of you. The importance of a domestic military industrial base cannot be overstated. BAE have too few eggs in the UK basket at present. (Relatively speaking.) Awarding them the contract to produce CV90 recce variants here in England, would have been a very sensible decision. With a knock-on effect for the IFV contract. They are after all primarily a British concern.

          • I recall when we had 5 AFV manufacturers, who all made good kit – Alvis, GKN, RO, Vickers Defence, VSEL. All swallowed up by BAE.

            I saw merit in buying CV90 recce from BAE, but it seemed to be dismissed too readily, back in the day, in favour of GDUK’s Ajax – would be interesting to really find out why.

          • And the MOD paused buying large manoeuvre equipment to fund Blair’s wars and Army had no interest in pushing the point as European theatre war was not in the agenda and China were mates.

            How times change.

          • Not only did MoD not buy replacement armour, it failed to properly upgrade what we did have.

            Both heavy and medium armour is of course not only intended for use in Europe but has also been deployed in the Gulf, Former Yugoslavia (Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia) and Iraq – over the years – and Warriors were used in Afghan.

      • Despite the fact that some are to be utilised in the Recon configuration. Clearly one presumes a recon config that doesn’t match up to the Ajax variant though such a variant is pretty useless if it can’t actually be used for recon…. or indeed anything at all. Let’s pray.

      • Can we not use drones ror recon and ditch the Turkey of a project Ajax? Or else buy a recon CV90 at least it works and is not a money pit…

        • Drones and Ajax preform very different roles though. Formation Recce is effectively a combat screen, physically stopping enemy Recce and deploying long term OPs (Think parking an Ajax several miles away from a cross roads and watching it for multiple days).
          Drones, particularly at the tactical low end, are a non persistent scout and harrasment tool. You put a drone up, look about for an hour or two, then bring it down and charge the battery.

      • CV-90 family is so much more than just an IFV…
        22 different variants in service with 8 nations now, Slovakia pending and the USA still looking at it to fill their needs….

        CV-90 and Ajax (under the name Scout AV) competed against each other for our FRES competition….

        Shame we went with Ajax, 1280 CV-90s build so far..

          • Baroness Goldie said: “I thank the noble Lord for his kind comments; I felt as though I was in perpetual transit until I walked through the front door of this building.
            This has been a rocky road, as I have acknowledged before. To be honest, I think that where we have got to now represents a seismic leap forward; that is, the successful conclusion of user-validation trials”. 

            They have clearly completed the User Validation trials.

          • I’m not so sure. It depends how what she said was written down. Commas or full stops for the pauses You are probably right but I would like to hear it or read it from a second source. They got through the trials at lightning speed.

          • Let’s just hope the problems have been solved and AJAX exceeds expectations. (Not just a bodged fix.) The entire debacle may prove beneficial in the long run, if lessons have been learned. But considering we are talking about the civil service. Don’t hold your breath.
            Careers, heads and testicles should roll for this.

          • As Ian.M posts below the issues have been fixed and RG trials are going ahead. Certainly we could look back in anger; alternatively we could commend both the MOD and GD for the mature way they have worked their way out of the mess: grace under pressure has wrought results. I’ll bet Wallace is planning on the basis that Ajax will enter service. It’s a big piece of the army jigsaw and defence spend.

          • The Defence Secretary himself announced it 2nd of November to the Defence Select Committe.

            Mr Wallace: I have some good news.

            Mr Francois: You’ve cancelled it?

            Mr Wallace: It has completed its user validation trials.

            Chair: Has it passed its trials?

            Mr Wallace: Well, I get a daily report. I have asked for a daily report on its trials. It has completed its user validation trials. They will now analyse the data, but every day had to lead to another day; if it failed a day, it couldn’t then proceed. It has gone through the whole user validation trials.

          • Thanks. So, for the initiated is there a difference between user validation trials and reliability growth trials?

          • Yes, very much so. The UVT is for the User to validate the vehicle against the Requirement documents/Tech Spec.
            But such brief trials do not confirm if reliability over time is acceptable – more prolonged trials, RGT, are needed for that.

          • I should also add that Wallace distinguished having completed the trials, which he was unambiguous about, and having formally passed them. Also these trials don’t say whether Ajax performs acceptably, just whether it can actually be used. He went on to say:

            It will commence its reliability and growth trials, hopefully, in December or January. Those are the main trials where you can drive it around and see how long it takes for the turret to fall off and all that sort of stuff, which is really important for the last main phase.

            As soon as I know whether it has passed its user validation trials, which should be as they analyse all the data, I will let you know, but for the first time, it has got through that. Those are the type of trials where, previously, people couldn’t use it because it was too noisy and there were vibrations and so on. It has got through that.

    • The update about Ajax was meant to be announced in December but I think it’s been put back to the start of next year. It is in testing and some reports are positive. Fingers crossed they have fixed the issues long term and the vehicles can get into service.

          • Good morning Daniele,

            Would this be a valuable addition to include in our portfolio for Boxer?

            MBT and IFV in ONE – New German BOXER Tracked IFV

            Link

            And this of course.

            Rheinmetall BAE Systems Ltd (RBSL) has unveiled its Brimstone missile-equipped Boxer vehicle concept demonstrator for the British Army.

            The Boxer Overwatch has been developed in collaboration with MBDA for the British Army’s Mounted Close Combat Overwatch (MCCO) capability requirement.

            Link

        • Thank the Gods! I look forward to reading a detailed release on the subject. Can we assume the hulls have been reworked or at least modified without any future issues arising.
          Let us hope that lessons have been learned and the necessary behinds have been well and truly booted out the door.

      • That will certainly be a relief and potential good news at least we really do need them. That said I still worry that, as these vehicles wear over their lifetime that the (I fear) shallow leeway in safety margins gained will decline back into further breaches that raises a whole new potential for crisis management. Or to prevent that they will preserved by minimising use for training purposes. I fear this will raise its head again in best case scenario in mischievous mouth pieces like the Mail on regular occasions.

        • It depends on the nature of the causative defect(s). If it is structural or mechanical in nature and consistent throughout the production run. Poor manufacturing tolerances could mean the problem is limited to one batch. We need to know precise details to fully understand.
          The BAE team responsible for their bid, must be either breathing fire over this or laughing their collective socks off. The more patriotic amongst them will be crying into their beers.
          Yet another MOD SNAFU.

    • It was reported in Overt defence that GD would be testing their fixes in January at Bovington. Also GD are after a Reliability and growth trials manager if anyone fancies the job?

    • Ajax update was posted 21 Dec in Parliamentary written reply – my source is:

      https://www.army-technology.com/news/no-realistic-timescale-the-uk-ajax-armoured-vehicle/

      Apparently the User Validation Trials were ‘limited’ but it seems that the fixes by GDUK were satisfctory. Reliability Growth Trials commence next month and may last until Q1/2025. If all goes well, vehicle may enter series production and be fielded soon after. At least an 8 year delay to ISD – that would surely be a record!

  2. That sounds like an absolute bargain, 152 CV90 for only $1.37b!! Which equates to roughly £1.12b. Why is the army soldiering on with Warrior when proven kit like this is available at such a good price?

    • It’s a very valid point. I Don’t think the funds are there. Warrior upgrade was going to be cheaper than new vehicles. Short term savings.
      If they could be bought quickly the warrior could be gifted to Ukraine.
      The army seems to be constantly changing its set up, what it needs for the roles etc.

      • Didn’t we blow £1bn on warrior with nothing to show for it. I know the original plan was to upgrade around 450 vehicles that kept getting cut and cut to something like 250 but it was always a false economy as the increased cost of maintaining 40 year old vehicles would have been far higher than just buying new to begin with.

      • Trouble is they can’t be bought quickly even if we wanted them! There is a queue for these vehicles and we would be at the back of it.

        • I question how far at the back we would be. In fact, I might say we’d be in front. If we stop looking at the US, which barely buys anyone’s land warfare stuff except its own, the UK would be able to place the by far largest order. Size matters. France could come close but they don’t need CV90. Neither does Germany.

      • I think it was a big mistake to cancel Warrior IFV upgrade (WCSP) – it would certainly be cheaper than new vehicles which are to be Boxers.

        No idea yet what the Warrior disposal plan will look like but it won’t happen for a few years.

        • Clearly, the Ukrainians think the IFV is an integral part of winning the war against Russia, hopefully, we will end up with the right choice for our armed forces.

          “Ukraine also made an appeal this week for more weaponry. General Valery Zaluzhny, the head of the Ukrainian armed forces, told the Economist: “I know that I can beat this enemy. But I need resources. I need 300 tanks, 600-700 IFVs [infantry fighting vehicles], 500 Howitzers.”

          https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121

          • I am not sure how much the Ukrainians have used their IFVs thus far.

            The choice to succeed Warrior IFV was made in May 2021 – we are buying additional wheeled Boxers for the Armoured Infantry – no idea what type(s) though – essential that all those replacing WR IFV have a beefy stabilised cannon.

          • Of course we have an in-service MBT (CR2) and a successor MBT (CR3) – and a plan to replace in-service Warrior IFV by Boxer (hopefully a cannon-equipped Boxer).

            Undesirable compromises abound in a vehicle that purports to be an MBT and IFV in one, and tactically it would be very hard to employ.

          • Puma IFV can only carry 6 dismounts and has only a 30mm cannon (albeit stabilised). WCSP would have had an advantage in both the above factors. But Puma is well regarded.

        • Cancelling Warrior was 100% a mistake. But something had to go, and honestly, the refurbished 40 year old vehicle was probably the project to cancel, given that Boxer could Sat kleadt cludge into the role.

          • Your last sentence does not make sense.

            Warrior with its upgrade (WCSP) would have been excellent and much better VfM than buying a new replacement vehicle – just needed a bit more development time.

            Boxer can only replace Warrior IFV effectively if every single one has a beefy (30-40mm) stabilised cannon and if it is definitively confirmed that it has at least the mobility of the cancelled upgraded Warrior (WCSP).

          • Presumably, the Boxer could be retrofitted w/ a stabilized 30 mm cannon during a future update? (Not a terribly efficient way to run a railroad, but needs must…). Mobility issue addressed in RGT or Ops trial?

          • Already available it appears.

            “BOXER LANCE is operated by a crew of 3 and can carry up to 8 dismounts. Its design philosophy of modular Mission Module and LANCE turret system allows for maximum versatility and performance on a common BOXER Drive Module.

            This IFV variant is armed with the famous Rheinmetall MK30-2 dual feed medium calibre cannon with air burst capability and can carry two additional ready-to-fire SPIKE anti-tank guided missiles.

            The manned LANCE turret offers a variety of optional configurations including an independent commander’s sight for hunter-killer or even killer-killer capability by the integration of a secondary Remote Control Weapon Station and features:

            • Fully stabilized 30 mm Rheinmetall MK30-2 machine cannon with airburst capability (also suitable for other types and calibers),
            • 7.62 mm x 51 mm coaxial machine gun,
            • integrated fully digital stabilized fire control system supporting integrated armament and
            • best protection of the crew (completely in Mission Module), best overview (closed and open hatch operations).

            BOXER LANCE provides its crew with extraordinary survivability and protection against mines (AP, AT), IEDs, corresponding ballistic threats (incl. artillery fragments), NBC threats and detection (radar, noise, solar loading) in addition to its superior firepower.”

            Link

          • When we order the Boxers that specifically replace Warrior IFV, they should be ordered with a stabilised 30mm cannon.

            The noise and vibration and other issues (cannon sometimes jams?) have supposedly been fixed by GDUK and the improved vehicles assessed in the User Validation Trials (UVT) which were completed. I don’t know if MoD has ploughed through all the UVT data and given their assessment – hopefully it was/will be that the factory fixes all worked just fine and dandy. Vehicles now on RGT to establish reliability levels and improve upon them.

          • As I said, and then skipped for time, to FormerUSAF, butter fingers and rushing to type a reply on the phone before signal cut out.

            Warrior would have been excellent, but the hulls would still have been 40+ years old, ultimately it would only have been a temporary fix, so if any of the three projects had to go, that was the one unfortunately.

          • Hi Dern,
            From Wiki – 789 received between 1987 and 1995.

            So not quite as old as 40+ years but not far off it.
            I was so used to serving with very old kit that I got very used to it – now 432s are 60 years old and CVR(T)s are 50 years old. I think Warrior could have gone on as WCSP to the mid-2030s.

            Reminds me of a sort of parallel story that the RAF in the run-up to the 2010 Defence Review had to come down from 3 to 2 types of fast jet, so they gave up Harrier, which was a blow to the army who liked its CAS capability in Afghan and its ability if required to operate from austere locations – (plus for the RAF maintainers it was much cheaper to maintain than Tornado).

            The thing is, are we getting a new IFV quickly and one that is at least as good as, if not better (qualitatively and VfM) than WCSP Warrior? I very much doubt it.

    • Cost per unit is @£7.2 m. The Ajax contract is @£8.8m per unit.. Both are far more expensive than Boxer.
      The news on Ajax seems to be more positive: noise and vibration issues resolved and reliability and growth trials to resume in January.
      I’m still not sure why the ministerial announcement on this on 5 Dec has attracted so little attention.i

        • The update was given in a written parliamentary answer by Alex Chalk, Minister for Defence Procurement. It was also discussed in H of L. I found it on the parliamentary website.

      • Perhaps because it was ‘good’ news the usual media suspects do tend not to buy into that concept… unless it suits them.

    • This is an IFV article.
      Army is not soldiering on with Warrior IFV – the WCSP upograde was cancelled – Warriors will be scrapped/sold and replaced by Boxer.

    • Because we decided to change our minds several times about the structure of the army and the equipment needed; came out of the programmes providing the equipment, then joined in again; thought about a proven product with Bae but decided to go U.S./Spanish for a vehicle that doesn’t work. I c0uld go on.

      • This goes way back to the early to mid 2000s Geoff. You’re right, constantly changing their minds. Now they need to stick with Ajax and get it into service.
        Boxers will eventually number 1,000 plus, hopefully suitably armed.

        • Agreed. Twenty years of all that bad in decision making, first one thing, then another and back again. Without all the dithering the army could have had at least four armoured brigades five or ten years ago or a mix of armoured and mechanized, whatever. As you know I still have doubts about tracks and wheels but only time will tell. I just hope they can get Ajax right.

  3. Great news….for Slovakia. Let’s hope the UK MoD can sort its s**t out in 2023 and start making some decisions that are achievable, affordable and most importantly, right for what the need is.
    Personally I think a tracked IFV is still something that is needed, if just for ‘doorstep’ use for Europe. It wouldn’t take huge orders for these, just enough to compliment the heavy forces.
    I don’t know enough about Boxer to say whether that is enough for ‘all’ our needs but I understand it’s great for many things, but will it cut the mustard accompanying heavy armour on the European plain? Other countries that have or are going to purchase it, clearly don’t think so.
    What are we going to do with Boxer that’s so different to them in the same environment, or are they all wrong?
    Interesting times!

    • The problem is that most of the Boxers we have ordered are the APC variant that will be armed with just a machine gun, The army needs new IFVs.

      • Therein lies the problem. The boxer can clearly have a ‘bigger’ gun et all, but once warrior goes, that’s it. No more tracked IFV capability.
        Are we to now abandon the concept completely or rely solely on Boxer for everything, including turning it into a wheeled IFV and settle with that?
        I can’t see that being a good idea in Europe, big I guess there is also the fact that nothing without a reliable/robust counter measures system is safe from ATGW now.
        Maybe we do invest in a ‘separate’ development on the Boxer as a potential IFV solution as well due to that? Will it cut the mustard in all operating environment or do we absolutely need a tracked IFV as well? Need to pull our finger out and get something as warrior is going very soon. So much needed with not a lot of funding available…some more hard choices are evidently going to have to me made😞

          • …except that tracked Boxer is built by KMW, not ARTEC and has no commonality with the wheeled ARTEC Boxer.

          • KMW is a primary shareholder in ARTEC, along with Rheinmetall.

            While the bases don’t have component commonality, the modules are all common and what fits on wheeled also fits on tracked, and vice-versa, once weight limit and distribution are accounted for. That hugely reduces integration and lifetime maintenance costs. The UK wheeled Boxer bases are built by a WFEL, a subsidiary of KMW, not of ARTEC, so building tracked bases, also in the UK, should not be an issue.

            The UK modules are built in Telford by Rheinmetall-BAE. They will profit by more bases being built, as more bases mean more modules.

          • Thanks Jon, my source was clearly less comprehensive with its content but was correct in stating that the wheeled and tracked Boxer chassis are not common, which is understandable given that drive lines would be so different.

            I am fairly sure that MoD has not ordered those Boxers for what we used to call the Armoured Infantry (ie Warrior bns) – there is therefore an option to consider tracked Boxer with a stabilised cannon ie a true IFV with great mobility. Still a heck of a lot more expensive than proceeding with the Warrior upgrade.

          • According to Janes, that’s the maximum weight, not the starting weight. The dispay version was armed with a KMW RCT120 remote-controlled turret armed with a 120 mm smoothbore gun with an automatic loader.

        • If the ordered Boxers had a 30/40mm cannon and ATGM we could have some confidence that we have retained some capability of the Warrior. Unfortunately, that is not the case and I bet the MOD bean counters won’t be interested in buying any upgrades.

          • It would definitely be a useful addition. Would it then be classed as an IFV? Modularity is the ‘word’ these days, can they make it into a viable IFV and what are the compromises other than the obvious ones? A decent Active PS on it may well be enough as far as overall protection goes, to make it a viable option without the need for a tracked one??
            Have wheeled vehicles closed the gap sufficiently in the areas that has made tracked vehicles the deciding feature for an IFV in the past?

          • An AFV is only an IFV if it carries infantry and has a cannon. Traditionally they have all been tracked but there is acceptance of IFVs being wheeled if they are of very high mobility and can keep up with tanks in all terrains and in all weathers.

          • Well until a decision is made on whether we get a new tracked IFV as well as boxer (and ideally after a deep dive into IntReps from Ukraine and current user feedback via Warrior crews TTPs in the Baltic states etc) let’s also hope that if we don’t/can’t/won’t procure a new tracked IFV, that the boxer proves capable of being as good as a tracked IFV in the roles that we would be using them in, in the environments we would be using them in.
            If not, then that will mean our troops will be on the back foot before we even start.
            Then having APS won’t make up for the fact that the wheeled vehicles won’t get there, keep up etc. its not as if we would be fighting a ‘different’ war than our allies in the same operational theatre. Is that not what our war fighting division assigned to NATO is there for? If we couldn’t operate with them, in support of them etc, what’s the point of deploying or offering it in the first place?
            We have a lot of fingers in a lot of pies all over the world, I just wish the fingers weren’t quite so brittle in some areas, not with quality of personal, but quality of equipment to do the job with the best chance of success. Overmatch is a must when the force one puts out is not as numerically superior…and that is the story of the UK armed forces (except the navy way back when) for centuries.

          • The decision was made in May 2021 to cancel Warrior upgrade and to replace it with wheeled Boxer, therefore we will order additional Boxers for what we know as the Armoured Infantry. I have my doubts as to whether it will be able to keep up with tanks across all terrains and in all weathers.
            There have only been 60 APS ordered for 148 CR3s, so I am not pinning my hopes on any or all Boxers getting APS.
            I am not optimistic about the present or future army, paticularly operating in high intensity conflict (warfighting) a peer or near-peer opponent.

          • The answer is in many scenarios yes (time of year & conflict location being obvious ones) but inevitably some scenarios certainly not, it’s the balance and a large grey area between those extremes where making the right choice or balance of vehicles overall (or not) clearly lies.

          • I dont believe we have yet ordered the Boxers which are to replace WARRIOR.
            We have ordered the Boxers that replace 432/Bulldog and provide carriage for Infantry in the Strike brigade, not Infantry in the armoured BCTs ie IFVs.

          • I think the APCs are for the armoured BCTs. It’s hard to tell from Future Soldier, but I don’t think Deep Recce Strike BCT will have Boxer at all. It’s all cavalry and artillery, so will there be IFVs or APCs? It’s already been stood up, so maybe someone will know what the current position is.

          • Our armoured bdes (now BCTs) had APCs (Saracens then 432s) up to the intro of Warrior IFV from 1987. It would be a ridiculous retrograde step to go back to APCs – so the Boxers replacing Warriors must each have a beefy (30-40mm) stabilised cannon – ie to be wheeled IFVs.

            You are right that 1st Deep Recce Strike BCT primarily has just cavalry and artillery – and no Infantry – I have clearly had a ‘senior moment’ – so certainly no Boxer APC or IFVs in this bde, but possibly some Boxer variants?

          • A couple of years ago the Strike brigades were going to be Boxers and Ajaxs in tandem, but they changed it.

            Some of those Brimstone Boxers (Overwatch) would be nice for Recce Strike.

          • Thanks Jon. I temporarily was thinking of the Mk1 Strike brigades!
            Brimstone sounds a very good acquisition for the army.

        • MoD declared in May 2021 that Warrior upgrade (WCSP) was cancelled, that Warrior would ‘gracefully decline’ and then be replaced by Boxer. So yes, UK is coming out of the tracked IFV business….except that KMW has what they call a tracked Boxer but this seems to be misnomer as a. it is not built by ARTEC and b. has no Boxer heritage. Puzzling.
          I expect we will buy ARTEC’s wheeled Boxer and not the tracked KMW vehicle as an IFV, but they better all have a beefy stabilised cannon. Even so I am not convinced they will be as good as a tracked IFV.
          An IFV has to be able to cross all terrain that a tank can cross and at the same speed. CR2 is fast over the ground, many saying it is faster than Abrams; CR3 is bound to be quicker. Also tracks are better as a rule in snow, ice and deep glutinous mud.

          • Even if we do gift a good number of Warriors to Ukraine it won’t be until we get their Boxer replacements – probably in 2-5 years time!

          • According to UKDJ 6 Sept 2021, the UK has a total of 759 Warriors in service. Can I conclude from this that we could gift Ukraine the 300 ( tracked) IFVs they have said want and still have enough to soldier on with Warrior until the Boxer IFVs arrive?

          • We bought 789 Warriors which were delivered between 1987 and 1995. I would be amazed if as many as 759 were still in service given the number of defence reviews (ie cutbacks) since first fielding. They are of course a mix of variants, 489 of which were IFVs carrying an infantry section.

            Assuming all those 489 are still in service or are at least fit to fight, then 300 would be a sizable chunk out of the Orbat.
            What is not clear is how many variants Ukraine would require and if those were in addition to the 300 or included within it.

            I doubt the political instinct would be for as many as 300 Warriors to be gifted plus of course the spares, special tools, training aids, publications etc etc.

            In short, 300 sounds far too many for the British Army to lose and still maintain sufficient for our own Field Force, Trg Org, Repair pool and Attrition Reserve.

          • A considered reply, thanks. Ukrainian general Zaluzhny has said, “I need 300 tanks, 600-700 IFVs (infantry fighting vehicles), and 500 Howitzers
            i just wonder where these are coming from.

        • Yes and the reason for that has been the ongoing habit in what is deemed a peaceful environment of pushing short term solutions or putting off alternatives to that till the next ‘guy in the job’ has to make it’ rinse and repeat. After 20+ years of this we are both in a desperate state and in a horrendously expensive scenario to finally solve it, with inevitably now whatever we decide, an operational gap is there that we are hoping doesn’t come back to bite. Arguable with the limits we can provide Ukraine or defend ourselves it is coming back on what is already our front line in reality.

      • Those Boxers that have been ordered already are not for Warrior replacement. I think they are for 432/Bulldog replacement – and were also originally to provide a vehicle for infantry in two x Strike brigades.

        MoD has yet to order the Boxers for WR replacment – no-one really knows what spec they will order, but they must all have a stabilised cannon to be credible.

        • Is there a relationship between the number of MBT and the number of IFV? If we are planning to have 148 Challenger 3’s does that imply a certain number of IFV?

          • We are buying 148 CRs but that does not of course mean that 148 tanks are in the Field Force. We will deploy two Type 56 armoured regiments ie 112 tanks in the ‘Future Soldier’ Orbat.

            Within 12 Armoured Brigade (ie BCT) there will be one armoured regiment of 56 tanks and two mechanised infantry battalions (if my maths is right that will be 88 IFVs for those two bns). Of course there are other units in the bde, but we are only looking at tank and IFV numbers here.

            Within 20 Amd Bde, there is one armoured regt of 56 tanks and three mech inf bns (ie 132 IFVs for those three bns).

          • I only counted Warrior IFVs, not all the variants.
            It would be tragic if people believe that IFVs are extinct and that we need to take close fire support cannons away from the Infantry – lives will be lost, and objectives not taken and held.

      • There is an argument around that the IFV has had its day that with modern infantry weaponry they are simply not survivable actually fighting on the front line and that battle taxis with demountable troops operating independently of it are more practical and desirable. No idea if that is a valid argument but there will be occasions that such vehicles with a cannon will be greatly advantageous, I suppose the question will be how often and when. Again Ukraine will likely give us some level of enlightenment.

        • There have always been weapons that can take out a IFV – this is not a modern phenomenon.
          I don’t see that deleting the cannon and reverting to APCs improves the survivability of the Infantry or is more desirable or practical. The IFV cannon provides fire support for the infantry whether mounted or dismounted or in the offence or defence – and so adds to their protection.
          If the Russo-Ukraine war is to be our one and only source of learning battlefield lessons, we should ask the Ukranian and Russian armies if they favour losing their infantry cannons. I bet none would say that they would.

    • We have used our tracked IFVs (Warrior) operationally many many times since they were fielded in the mid-80s.
      I believe only France supports tanks with wheeled IFVs – no idea if it is successful.

    • And as I said above there are suggestions that Ukraine is favouring tracked vehicles even when presently it wants everything it can get. I think in reality for the UK most of the time a wheeled vehicle will be fine indeed a lot of the time advantageous but that there will be times and conditions where tracked will be a big advantage and perhaps even a necessity. I would be deeply concerned if the MoD were to ever claim otherwise because that would be for show and cost purposes certainly not practical.

      • There was a report that Ukraine said that their advance in Kherson Oblast was slowed up by only being able to use tracked vehicles in the mud which supports what you say.
        Still, as long as no one attacks us on land in Autumn we’ll be fine

    • Just wondering if it’s occurred to any country to donate some Boxers to Ukraine, and see how they perform in the real world? The mud season in Ukraine/Russia must be the toughest environment for wheeled vehicles to operate in.

  4. Plenty of projects fail…but they need to come to a decision because we can be buying of the shelf products that much like the CV90 that seem to be reasonably successful, that can be upgraded to what the Army needs.

    Its a good one for BAe and jobs 🤔

    • Plus the news for big orders of the improved Viking variants they are on a role…if not vehicles predominantly manufactured here sadly even if the engines are for the Viking. Bae’s investments in Scandinavia are clearly are paying off. Shows what we could have achieved here too with some clear thinking and vision.

    • I think most of our armoured vehicle (and perhaps soft-skinned vehs) projects, going forward, should be MOTS. We cannot go on wasting 10 years getting bespoke equipment to the Field Force from initial concept. In general, we buy very small fleets of armoured vehicles and the cost of Non Recurring Engineering (NRE) ie Design, Development and Testing, is poorly ammortised over a small fleet, thus the unit price is high. …and we avoid procuring questionable quality kit if we buy proved equipment.

  6. APS on every wagon! Exactly how it should be, MOD take note, Ukraine has shown, amongst many other things, how unsupported and badly handled Armour can become death traps. Even well handled armour is at risk. APS should be default setting on every single Armoured bit of kit we have.

  7. I don’t know much about land vechicles so can someone explain to me please:

    1. What’s the advantages and disadvantages of tracked over wheeled and the other way around?

    2. What’s the difference between all the acronym vechicles? Like apc, apv, ifv ect?

    • Now this request will need some serious keyboard time, as the subject matter is vast and, opinions vary. Im sure our resident SMEs will crack on with this.

    • The biggest difficulty with heavy tracked vehicles is their long range mobility. MBTs need wheeled transporters to get them to the combat zone. The US army set up 8×8 wheeled Stryker brigades to allow long range self deployment: they can move further far more quickly. France has chosen an all wheeled solution with its Griffin APC and Jaguar IFV. They will have no tracked vehicles to operate alongside their tanks.
      The weaknesses of wheeled vehicles are their limited mobility over difficult terrain and a much lower practical upper weight limit. It is not possible to give them the same armour protection as a tracked vehicle. To maximize protection, Israel has developed a tracked APC, Namer , based on the Merkava MBT. It weighs over 60 tons and will have the same mobility issues as an MBT.
      An IFV ( infantry fighting vehicle) is really an APC ( armoured personnel carrier) with at least a 20 mm main gun. First developed by the Soviet Union, they were originally designed to allow infantry to fight from inside the vehicle. The US Bradley could do this but in practice never did. Later IFVs dispense with this. In practice ,IFVs have operated like light tanks.
      There is an interesting article on the Wavell Room website on the IFV vs APC roles and capabilities.

      • You have got yourself a tad confused fella. The Jaguar isn’t an IFV, it’s a 6 wheeled Recce vehicle which shares many of the same components as the Griffin. The French use the VBCI as their wheeled IFV.

        • Sorry. Yes the VBCI is in terms of weight an equivalent to Boxer but because it has a 25 mm main gun is classified as an IFV. ( Boxer remains an APC unless and until it is up armed)
          The Jaguar has the 40mm CTA gun we planned to fit on Warrior and Ajax. Interestingly, the French designate it a reconnaissance and combat vehicle. Like Ajax, it has a crew of 3.

      • Ah thanks, so really if you had an unlimited budget you would want wheeled vehicles to be like a first responder, hold the line and harass the enemy until you can get the heavier tracked units to the front.

        I’ve noticed that the Italians have basically a wheeled tank which not many armies seem to have.

        • Both Italy and Japan have developed an 8×8 vehicle with a 120 mm and 105 mm gun respectively. Part of the reason is the mountainous terrain of each country, not generally suitable for heavy tracked armour. So the wheeled vehicle is intended to move fast, mainly on roads.
          Just to be confusing, the Japanese vehicle is variously described as a heavy armoured car, a tank destroyer and assault gun! The USA fitted a remotely controlled turret with a 105mm gun to their Stryker 8×8. It was not deemed a success and will be discarded.
          The USA has had several failed goes at a replacement for Bradley IFV. But 2 different vehicles have been ordered: one a modernized turretless APC based on the Bradley; the other is a mobile protected firepower vehicle, based on GDs Ascod platform and armed with a 105 mm gun. Trying to design a vehicle with heavy armament and space for 7/8 infantrymen is difficult. Maybe these designs suggest that in future the 2 functions will be delivered by 2 different vehicles.

          • Or two versions of Boxer perhaps; one with the RS4 0.50 cal remote weapon station and one with the RT60 30mm turret?

      • Peter the IFV carries troops into close contact and provides immediate fire support on the objective mate, not really like a light tank! But well presented answer to Northern!

        • Apart from my mis categorizing Jaguar!
          The main role of an IFV is as you say to deliver infantry with fire support, typically alongside MBTs. But in the Balkans for example,, Warrior’s 30 mm cannon was the heaviest weapon available. Neither UK nor USA deployed MBTs to Afghanistan either so Warrior and Bradley often acted in a role that would previously have been performed by a light tank.
          It’s surprising that in 40 years, UK and USA have only developed a single tracked IFV design each.

          • Both the Abrams and Chally’s 120mm main gun were sorely missed in Afghan. The 30mm Rarden on Warrior and Scimitar was ok, but its HE shell’s explosive content was too small. When trying to make doors in mud brick walls, the 30mm shells made nice dents or perfect holes. Which is why we resorted to using premade breach charge frames, to blast a hole in the wall. Sometimes it even needed two, as the wall was so thick. Or we resorted to wasting a Javelin to make a breach. Which soon got stopped due to the cost per shot.

            My last tour was embedded with the Canadians. They had Leopard 2s, whose HE shell easily breached the walls. The Chally’s HESH shell would have done the same, seeing how they performed in Iraq.

            It would be interesting to see how the CTAS 40mm HE shell would perform against mud brick walls. Is the explosive content enough to make a breach?

            Where there is limited strategic capability, in places such as Afghan due to the distances and countries needed to pass through. It does build a case for a more heavily gunned vehicle that has strategic mobility. That can be airlifted to the operational theatre.

            When Norway sent their CV90s to Afghan, there were two or three of them fitted with the Soucy band tracks as part of an operational trial. Apparently the crews absolutely loved them. Particularly for the quieter and less fatiguing ride. But more significantly due the less maintenance hours required to maintain them. The tracks performed far better than expected. When one of the vehicles lost a track due to an IED. The crew quickly repaired it by lacing it together. Which was enough to get them back to the fort.

            The Dutch CV90 Mk4’s are all being fitted with the band tracks. As are the new Norwegian ones. Not sure about the Slovak ones. But one thing the band tracks will give you, is much better strategic mobility, as they can travel much further without the need for constant track maintenance. Something I’m hoping the Ajax program has incorporated?

          • Yes, but Soucy the manufacturer, call them composite rubber tracks (CRTs). See link below

            https://www.soucy-defense.com/

            The ones they’ve made for the CV90 were rated to 45t. Though I believe they can go over that figure, but it shortens the track’s life.

    • I wonder what price these will come in at compared to the Chally 3. Weight reduced to 59 Tons, 130mm main gun.

      Panther KF51: a new tank from Rheinmetall, which will replace the Leopard 2
      https://mezha.media/en/2022/06/14/panther-kf51-a-new-tank-from-rheinmetall-which-will-replace-the-leopard-2/

      Rheinmetall identifies markets for KF51 Panther tank
      13 DECEMBER 2022

      “Alexander Kuhrt, Rheinmetall’s director for its tracked vehicle product portfolio, expressed confidence in the Panther’s prospects on a NATO market estimated by the European Defence Agency at 500–800 or more vehicles in 2025–35, including upgrades, growing to 5,000–8,000 or more MBTs after 2035.”

      https://www.janes.com/defence-news/weapons-headlines/latest/rheinmetall-identifies-markets-for-kf51-panther-tank

      • We won’t need anything like these, it has a horrible nasty big gun that could do serious damage, long term after market support and upgrade potential, it may well turn out to be reliable too.
        Absolutely unsuitable for the British army.

      • ‘The previous German tank, called the Panther, was the Panzerkampfwagen V Panther medium tank. And it was one of the best tanks of World War II, which very well fired Soviet T-34s. So it seems that Rheinmetall is proud of its new development and has high hopes for it.’ What they don’t mention is that it was horribly problematical and unreliable. I hope for Steve’s ambitions below this one actually does turn out to be reliable.

      • With the links that CR3 has provided Rheinmetall in the MOD they have got to be in the running for CR3 replacement in the future! Mind you if NATO doesn’t change to 130 mm we would be in the same situation as now ie different ammo for our tanks than the rest of NATO still on 120 mm.

        • Surely that was part of the understanding with Rheinmetall, that the UK gets a piece of the development of the next generation eurotank.

        • At the moment, there is no need for the larger 130mm gun. The Rh L55/120 still overmatches any expected “real” tank that it will come up against. This is based on the performance of a Ukrainian T72 taking out a T90 with its older 125mm main gun. Which has significantly less performance than the Rheinmetall gun.

          If Russia had the funding to go down the T14 Armata route. Then yes, it would be worth it.

          • Will it also overmatch all current and projected ChiCom, NK and Iranian MBTs? Presumably someone is tracking this.

          • Without the real tanks to test against its all theory. However, the Challenger 2 L30A1 120mm L55 rifled gun has been tested on a T80 MBT that was privately acquired. This tank is supposed to have better armour than the T72M. Though is supposedly a generation behind the T90. The results have not been released, but there has not been a sudden need for new ammunition. Which could mean that the CHARM APFSDS round is still ok.

            A duel that was captured by drone between a Ukrainian T72 and a Russian T90. Showed the T90 being knocked out by the T72. Though the distances between the tanks was never more than 1km and went down to near 500m. The T72’s 125mn gun is a generation behind the T90’s. Yet it still defeated the newer tank.

            The Rh L55/120mm smashed the NATO penetration test using the latest German D63 tungsten carbide APFSDS. Yet the latest US M829A4 can also smash the NATO test, even when fired firing the shorter L44 barrel.

            The Iranian tanks are based on T72s, are they like the Iraqi Babylon upgrade, which was hopelessly outclassed by both Abrams and Challenger. It may be on par with the later Russian T72Ms, though unlikely to match a T90. North Korea is a bit more interesting. Very little reliable information is known about their MBTs. Though the running gear looks like it’s from an old T55. There is a passing resemblance to the Chinese T99. But is it just for show and the tank is basically frilly window dressing?

            China is a conundrum. They have not exported any of their modern tanks except the VT4. Which apparently is very similar to a modern T72M early T90. The mainstay of Chinese MBTs is the Type 99. Again the chassis is based on the T72. It uses the same underfloor carousel used to feed the auto loader as the T72. But uses a more Westernized design in turret. It’s likely to be better protected than the contemporary T90M.

            Of the three Western MBTs (excluding Leclerc and the Ariate) Challenger 2’s gun probably has the weaker armour penetration value, followed by the Abrams. With the Leopards 2’s L55 topping the charts based upon muzzle velocity. If Challenger did ok against the T80, the T72 and T90 should not be a problem. Which also means other Nations tanks should not be a problem. Like I said earlier there has not been an urgent operational requirement to upgrade the CHARM3. Both Abrams and Leopards with their better APFSDS should also have no problems.

          • DB,
            Appreciate the comprehensive answer; actually provides some data to back my intuition. My real concern going forward, of course, is the ChiComs. Given their armaments program, it is only a matter of time before they revisit something as essential as armor. They will not seek to copy the Russian design next time; they will be seeking all the Western designs through industrial espionage, and down selecting or combining features of the best. The West discounts them at it’s peril. 🤔😳

  9. Well at lest the Slovak Army haven’t had the fun and games like we have with Ajax ,good luck to them.According to Forces news decision on Ajax at the end of this year.Hopefully MR Wallace puts a stop to this project dragging on for once and all.

  10. Perhaps we should buy a load of JTLV off the production line in US and configure with all the fancy gear we can then give all of our current armour inventory to Ukraine. It’s very dramatic, but it does allow us a clean slate.

    Do we go all boxer, do we go boxer and KF/31/41/51 or do we do something else. Like Ajax and Abraham’s X.

    The problem is even after all the debacles around Land equipment, I do not see a valid strategy at all. Starting with the rifle it looks as if we have 3 or more in inventory now and the rangers are maybe wanting another type, no wonder thy can’t even sort out vehicles.

    The military should need no more than 10 main vehicle fleets, probably less given boxer / HMT /HX3 modularity, time to decide what the big brush approach is and get the simplest platforms we can to meet th requirement.

    • JTLV is a light (10t) 4×4 wheeled replacement for Hummer. It is not a heavy-ish medium weight IFV, which is what this article is all about.

      • I know Graham, but it is available now, is relatively inexpensive and comes in a wide range of variants.

        perhaps we take the capability gap on the higher end stuff instead of persevering with legacy kit, send it where it is needed, come up with a strategy to build new fleets in the UK and go from there.

        as I said, this is a dramatic solution, but I think we are past the tipping point for AS, warrior and CR and would be better served going all n on boxer and the KF range of tracked vehicles (Inc. IFV)

    • JTLV, is that a serious suggestion? All the fancy gear that would need to be loaded on it would I fear likely make it useful only in a Beirut car park on a good day. It’s hardly an Ajax or Warrior replacement or serious frontline fighting vehicle useful as it no doubt is.

      • Short term yes, longer term no…

        ajax isn’t ready and warrior is less than ideal, do you think it’s fair to send our war fighting division into battle with hose vehicles or should we admit we don’t currently have a war fighting capability and change our operations to light only.

        which is more dangerous, sending people to war in crap equipment (Land Rover snatch anyone) or not sending them at all as we until we have the right kit.

        maybe we alter the Ajax contract to give us 300 IFVs and 200 other types to generate a brigade, until the others come on stream.

        but it’s a serious question, asked by TD but one I subscribe to, should we finally divest from legacy platforms – sending them to Ukraine and move forward… I think we do and JTLV and Polaris gives us hot high volume production lines of cheap interim kit while we set up our own high end production facilities.

        we will probably soldier on… but isn’t that hat we have been doing with the same kit for 20 years… when do we call time..

      • It could be HMT and foxhound if we can manufacturer it..

        it’s not long term but HMT with brimstone, camm, 120mm mortar, 105mm gun etc, 50 cal and perhaps 200 jaguars from France may give us an interim solution until the better stuff shows up

  11. A very good spec including 35mm cannon, LR ATGM, AI, Augmented Reality s/w and Iron Dome APS. Will our Boxers replacing Warriors have such a good spec?

        • Because ARES is a member of the AJAX family which does recce, not Infantry carriage.

          Also we have an IFV – Warrior – which was supposed to be upgraded (WCSP) however the upgrade was cancelled and we will now buy more Boxers (hopefully the ‘IFV’ version with a cannon).

          • Yes. I know that,what I am getting at is why wasn’t there an IFV in the Ajax family from the start of the program to replace Warrior!

          • If you are going to give the same answer dont bother.
            it would have made sense surly to include in the family of ‘recce’ vehicle an option for an IFV! After all there are now variants coming out offering AD etc. we then could have had a complete series of vehicles based on the same platform. Now then IF all the ‘recce’ kit was stripped from Ajax would there actually be room for an infantry section?

          • Some manufacturers develop a recce vehicle variant from a ‘roomy’ IFV – ie BAE with its CV90. I think that is a very good way to go if you are accept that you end up with a large recce vehicle (hence large physical signature).

            I have never heard of anyone doing that in the reverse direction (ie create a IFV variant from a recce vehicle) because the recce hull will be too small. The highest number of people that an Ajax family vehicle can take is 7 (3 Crew and 4 dismounts) – that would not be enough for it to be an IFV as you need there to be seats for 7 dismounts (plus the vehicle commander dismounts to command his dismounted section). I doubt that stripping out all the recce kit (much of which is external to the vehicle) will enable 3 more seats to be fitted inside.

  16. Another thought whilst I find myself able to have them with the lowest chance of being summoned for something…. & apologies if I’ve missed this already, I’m coming in cold here😬
    Does anyone know what has happened to the 500+ 40mm guns we had a contract for to fit out Ajax & Warrior upgrade?
    Do we have them physically, or are they still ‘on order’ so we have a choice with a penalty involved?
    Have we lost them and the cost has to be written off or are there plans to put them on (a) platform – boxer?
    Maybe it is just me, but there doesn’t seem to have been much mentioned or referenced about this for a while…?
    I’m just curious after watching a another video on CV90, and as hard it is to second guess anything the MOD do, I’m wondering if we do indeed ‘have’ them, so unless we sell them on there must be a plan to use them somewhere on something?
    I also wonder if the MOD would want to go down a different route due to the expense of the ammo in comparison to other gun & cheaper calibres?
    Could we have both, but would we want 2 different calibres?
    So many questions, but any good answers may give an indication of where we eventually do go in regards to whether we adopt a dedicated IFV- (or that ‘type’ of vehicle) tracked or/and wheeled and how we eventually accomplish armoured recce wheeled or tracked. Is there a ‘DS’ solution to this or a manageable, negligible ambiguity between platforms that doesn’t make it worth the extra cost to do both?
    I’m trying to lean into an option, as it’s frustrating the hell out of me that there isn’t enough priority & progress in getting our people the best possible kit to offset our numerical disadvantages. What is the best option? 😩

    • The 245 x 40mm CTAS cannons for Ajax should be with Lockheed Martin (LM) who build the turrets for GDUK and will clearly be installed during turret assembly. By all accounts Ajax has completed its User Validation Trials following rectification of faults relating to excessive noise and vibration, it is hoped the data will confirm the fixes all worked and that the vehicle now embarks on Reliability Growth Trials.

      The 40mm CTAS cannons intended for the Warrior upgrade (WCSP) should have been supplied to LM who were to make the turret. The WCSP has been cancelled, so the cannons will surely be returned to MoD as they were Government Furnished Equipment. I do not know of the plans for them – they could be held as replacements for Ajax when their barrels are eventually shot out – or sold off – or combination thereof.

      I doubt they will be supplied to the builders of the British Army’s Boxers as I don’t think they have been integrated with any Boxer turrets, but it is a possibility. Maybe the LM turret (as designed for Ajax/WCSP) could be mated to the Boxer chassis.

      Other armament options for Boxers acting as IFVs in replacement for Warrior might include:

      • the Israeli-made RAFAEL Advanced Defense Systems Samson Mk II RCT turret, mounting a fully stabilised Orbital ATK Mk 44 30 mm dual-feed cannon – as supplied to the Lithuanian army – or
      • the Rheinmetall Lance 30 mm two-man turret, fitted with the Rheinmetall Mauser MK30-2 dual-feed stabilised cannon as fitted to Australian Army recce Boxers.

      You are right that 40mm CTAS ammo is very expensive – about 5 x the price of 30mm. We really would not want both 30mm and 40mm in service together.

      In answer to your key questions:
      -Ajax is to be our armoured recce (& Strike) vehicle – but I do not consider it to be the best option – I favoured a smaller, cheaper, lighter, tracked recce vehicle with low signature (and was not wedded to 40mm armament) and
      -a larger, tracked Strike Vehicle with LRATGW and cannon, which could have been an IFV variant.
      -Boxer is to replace Warrior IFV (MoD May 2021 statement) but we have no details as to armament at the moment. It is assumed to be wheeled but could be the KMW ‘Tracked Boxer’. Clearly all need a stabilised cannon to be considered an IFV.

  17. Does anybody know how BAE’s corporate structure work? does the UK get any money from this subsidiary? By the UK i just mean BAE parent company, so that it could be invested in the UK.

    • Yet another reporter who thinks that an IFV is a tank. Anyway, shows that Puma needed a Reliability Growth Trial before fielding. Seems to be an issue with the unmanned turret.

  19. It appears Germany is upgrading its Pumas and investing in all-terrain vehicles

    Germany approves Puma retrofit, BvS10, and rifle procurement19 DECEMBER 2022

    On 14 December the budget committee of the Bundestag, the German parliament, approved the retrofit of Puma infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) and the procurement of BvS10 all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and Heckler & Koch HK416A8 assault rifles.

    LINK

    German Army Picks Heckler & Koch’s HK416A8 as New Assault Rifle
    LINK

  20. I heard people on another site saying the Germans are having real problems with the Puma vehicle. Does anyone have any info on that?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here