Video shows new Ajax armoured vehicle firing on the move

Google and exhaustive reading of the comments sections are your friends 👍

You probably need to spend less time doing that and more time studying for your exams. Just my prospective as a Grandparent !

It’s the summer after GCSEs, so I’ve got nothing to study!
When I’m in the house, it’s this or computer games and I know which I prefer.

That’s probably max effective range rather than overall range.

Yup

The shorter barrel probably reduces penetration as well then.
Is there any chance of using the longer gun on land?

I think it might be as someone said above, that the Naval Bofors MK4 has a much longer barrel and hence longer range than any of the vehicle-based cannon.
CTAS claims 4km range using APFSDS but Bofors claim 7km for the naval mount.
I don’t know how transferable the different barrels are, and how ridiculous one would look on an Ajax, but that is probably where the difference comes from.

We’d go bespoke. Jobs for officers and a Braid… Stand down Mr Moore, sir, there’s a good gentleman.

The Gentleman has a bottle, sir…..

😉 😉

I know what you’ve been watching. Rather good film that.

Irreplaceable actors although quite dated, we’ll never see an up-dated version.

Zulu Dawn was appalling, the acting and the outcome.

Stay well, keep smiling Daniele.

If only the “sing off” actually happened! 😆

That’s a good point… 😉
Swidt? 😉

Read a book on the Zulu campaign and it never suggested it didn’t!

Source, Daniele?

Just Google searches on whether any such thing actually happened.
Might not be accurate.
I’d think it most likely they were too busy trying to survive than engage in signing contests!

🙂

Another option,pretty obvious to me, is if you wanted to put a CTA 40 Turret on Boxer how about using the now homeless LM one developed for Warrior CSP, because it should be (A) more compact – ie smaller and lighter than that used on Ajax,(B) its already designed therefore cheaper and (C) the Cannons have already been made and are currently without an obvious use.Maybe IanM can confirm it is actually smaller and lighter ?.

Fair point, I hadn’t thought of that one- how far through design on it did they get? It’d probably (in theory at least) also be closer to British Army requirements off the bat.
In my book, both Ajax and the LM turret are missing something critical that Bradley and French AFVs have (if I recall correctly): a box launcher for ATGM. You can get them for Javelin, which we already have in service, and in my view fits with Ajax’ mission statement of Scout/Recce in force very well. I’m pretty sure you can also fit Javelin on the Kongsberg RWS that we’re fitting to Boxer, which is another no-brainer for me. Not saying that’s the best replacement for a proper turreted version, but it’s a relatively simple improvement.

The WR turret has a much smaller turret ring diameter than AJAX’s 1.7m so that suggests a smaller internal volume. The majority of the gubbins for the CT40, AHS and loading system is external to the turret.

The LM turret with 40mm CTAS has already been fitted to wheeled Boxer as a demonstrator – see the thinkdefence.co.uk article.

The Ajax turret would be problematic on any IFV, not so much because it’s tall, it is that. But because it’s turret ring is really wide. Og spec included a requirement for a 120mm DF variant, that never got ordered, but it means the turret ring is bug enough to fit that gun. Which in turn very much limits space for dismounts.

We really should get a 105mm Fire Support variant for Ajax.
With all the furore about retiring the 105 light guns having vehicles capable of replacing that would help, especially if they had fire control for indirect as well.
Do you mean that a gun of that size could be fitted without changing the turret, or that a new turret would fit on the same ring?

Personally, I’d rather get an AD version first, but I like the idea of a 105. The question will be how far they can elevate the barrel for Indirect I expect- not sure how far a breech that size will be able to drop inside the turret and chassis of Ajax…

Wouldn’t have to be far, 20 degrees or so, to give a pretty significant indirect fire range.
Do we want AD Ajax, Boxer or both?
Ukraine would suggest a longer ranged system, though with a cannon for counter-UAV.
Ajax would be a good replacement for Stormer as it worms alongside both Ch3 and Boxer, but we might prefer the commonality of Boxer itself.
There are so many extra options for Ajax that we might as well go the whole hog and add a second order including a wider variety of more niche types.

How long is the back end of a 105?! Even 20-25 degrees would be bringing the back end of the breech relatively low- not counting for recoil.
Boxer or Ajax AD variant? Very good question, I don’t know. I’m tempted to say Boxer if I had to pick one, to be honest. At least that way, it’s a module that can be swapped in and out as necessary. My preference would be something that’ll launch a missile with the range of LMM/Mistral (I think they’re both about 8 km?) and an autocannon. That said, the latest Russian helicopter-launched ATGMS are pushing 12+ km range, so that may not be enough… I would also hope that, should Ajax and Boxer variants be procured, that the armament would be same, just bolted together slightly differently.
I agree- a second batch of Ajax makes sense, I have my own personal list of variants I’d like to see! Turreted 120 mm mortars, Brimstone launcher. If it doesn’t also form the base for a (presumably stretched) IFV and APC once the Army finds the funds for a programme, I’ll be frustrated…

The Cockerill 3105 turret says it can do +42 degree elevation.
I can’t find any data on the turret rings of either that or Ajax, but they fitted the Cockerill to an old Leopard 1 so they are probably comparable.
The quick solution could be to just use an adaptor to fit the new turret, with basket, into the existing ring. Ajax ought to be tall enough and there are the same number of turret crew.
I’m not sure about Boxer/Ajax for SHORAD.
We need the Stormer replacement to keep pace with MBTs and operate on the front line, so a tracked and more heavily armoured option would be better.
On the other hand, Boxer offers the force multiplier effect of the modularity.
It’s more difficult to compare costs because a base Ajax or Ares includes top-level sensors etc and so SHORAD would probably cost roughly the same, but a Boxer would cost much more than the APC module, more comparable with the RCH.
IMO, the extra size of both options means that we can set our sights higher than the basic Stormer setup as has been shown with CGI on Boxer.
Either we include a cannon and many more reloads than is currently carried or we pick a new system.
I imagine some sort of development of the surface ASRAAM that was seen in Ukraine would fit on both platforms and provide c.20km of range, comfortably outperforming the new ATGMs.

Extra range is always nice, but Google tells me ASRAAM is £200k per unit- that’s a great return on investment for killing a helo, but less so for killing UAVs. Perhaps we can come up with a system that you can load and launch both ASRAAM and a.n.other shorter range SAM for lower-tier targets?
Just identify target and range, select your missile, launch.

The Russians are of the same opinion; their new edition of Pantsir (I can’t remember what it’s called but it’s easy to find articles on it online) based on Ukraine has a mixture of a few large SAMS (the usual type) and 20 very small ones specifically for counter-UAS.
If we wanted to go down that route then I think a mix of ASRAAM and HVM/LMM would be the answer.
Say a central turret on either Boxer or Ajax (or both) that contains a very large E/O turret on an extensible mount, the ADAD and the targeting array for the smaller missiles.
Either side of that on an elevating mount you have two vertical pairs of ASRAAM in launching boxes.
Outside that you have 8 small tubes à la Stormer.
It would be a significantly larger turret than the current system but has the additional capability of larger sensors and the ability to fire ASRAAM.

Hmmm, not sure I’m entirely comfortable with being in the same thought lop as Russia… 😄 That said, their concept of AD is generally solid, even if it’s not always executed well in terms of the capabilities of the equipment and/or operators.
I think that would be a good idea, although personally think it’ll probably turn into boxes rather than tubes, from the point of view of ease of packing, logistics, use of space etc. That’s me being pedantic on what you’re saying though!
The only concern with that is the sensors- that’s an IR-guided missile and a laser/matrix guided one. No radar. That could be really good, or provide limitations. I’m not sure which, or if it’s both…

I thought that radar might not be such a good idea because in a full-scale maneuver war it becomes more of a hindrance than a help due to RWR systems.
Do you mean boxed StarStreak? I don’t think that’s really possible because the tube the missile launches from will always be circular; the most efficient pack is the triangle shape rather than a square stack.
ASRAAM would either be a very large box (same wingspan as Sea Wolf) or a folding-fin version would need to be developed.

Ah, thanks, hadn’t realised that was a requirement for Ajax. May go some way towards explaining why they had trouble with only the turreted variant and all the others, like Ares etc. were OK. If the turret ring is so wide, there’s less “meat” of metal around it to structurally hold it and manage vibration, torquing effects, vibrations, etc.
Don’t want to be trying to get that onto Boxer, then…

You are right. Nexter T40 Turret has already had some trials with Boxer, and the French VBCI 2

As we don’t have any A vehicle capability left I suppose we will buy from the French further degrading the UK supply chain and logistics support ability

Well, we’ve successfully built two turrets (the Ajax one and the Warrior CSP one) in the last few years, so all is not lost, in terms of AFV turrets at least.
My concern, with relation to Boxer, is that an IFV variant with an autocannon is already not in the existing budget- it would be very much an extra. I am normally very much a supporter of domestic production where possible, and I would far rather use either the Ajax (apparently likely unsuitable) or the Warrior CSP one if we can. But designing another turret from scratch is not on the cards for a capability that isn’t even on the list, and if it comes down to not having a properly armed IFV or having a French turret, I’ll go to Paris and sign. We get market share from the CTAS 40 gun and the comms systems anyway, at the very least.

Of course BAE have the MTIP 2 problem solved?

The thinkdefence Boxer article shows the LM 40mm CTAS on the wheeled drive module as a demonstrator.

Thanks for the pointer- I should check up on TD more often to see when he’s updated stuff, they’re always a good read!
I did have a quick look, but only image connected with the LM Warrior turret was apparently of a Patria AMV? Regardless, they’re of similar size and form, so can’t imagine it would be difficult to fit to a Boxer module. It doesn’t look too big or bulky. Am I seeing a box launcher on the left of the turret, or is that my optimism running away with me?!

The TD article was all about Boxer, especially the variants of Mission Module. I would be surprised therefore if they had a picture of a Patria AMV in a Boxer article.

It seems that there are at least two TD articles on Boxer – we may have been looking at different articles.

I am now looking at the one entitled: “Boxer Armoured Vehicle — Details and Variants. Post published:November 5, 2022:

but I was looking at a different article previously. I can’t now find the picture I referred to as it is a different article.

Box launcher – presumably for at least a brace of ATGM – I have mixed thoughts about an infantry carrier having a long range AT capability. I think Germany removed that from Marder, years ago? An infantry carrier (especially an APC) mainly exists to safely transport infantry from one dismounted position to another. There is something fairly wrong if it chooses to engage 1 or 2 tanks whilst doing that. It could draw attention to itself if in some sort of cover and invite incoming tank fire.

I have looked again at that TD article. A photo is captioned ‘LM CTAS, 40mm’. I am quite sure it is a Boxer, not a Patria as it looks like Boxer and it is a Boxer article. Vehicle has off-white painted towing eyes. Text near-adjacent talks of a twin retractable ATGM launcher (with Javelin, MMP or Spike ER).

As I said I have doubts about equipping infantry carriers with ATGM – what do you think?

I do wish that posting links didn’t result in immediately being sent into moderation purgatory..!
You would be far more qualified to identify what is a Patria and what is a Boxer, however the image you’re describing doesn’t sound like the one I’m looking at; 2my” one is painted in desert tan, and is ~70% of the way down the article ‘Boxer and the British Army- An Illustrated History’, hence it includes a number of the other competitors to Boxer through the ages as well. I suspect we’re talking about two different pictures in two separate articles, which is good news because it shows the LM turret as easily integrated on multiple platforms!
With regards box launchers you make a very valid point- particularly for APCs. In all honesty, in my mind they make more sense for Ajax to be honest; scout/recce by force- pushing forward and giving the hornet’s nest a little kick so to speak. I believe the US Cav use Bradley in a similar fashion, and they have TOW launchers. I know that Strike is a bit out of date, but again applicable to Ajax’ role in that structure if it’s essentially to be used to provide the ‘heavy’ part of the force.
An ATGM on an IFV (which is essentially the role we’re talking about for the hypothetical Boxer with turret), whose role is to provide fire support to the dismounted infantry beyond a simple battle taxi role, I could go either way on. They certainly shouldn’t be assaulting onto positions that have armour, but I don’t think that can be discounted either…

Strike brigades are very out of date but the term ‘Strike’ has survived in the title of 1 DSRBCT.
When we only really did recce by stealth it was anomalous to equip a recce vehicle with ATGMs, but we fitted ATGMs to recce variants – some of the Fox for example.
We fitted ATGMs to specialist Tank Destroyers (TDs) – Spartan MCT, CVR(T) Striker, FV 438 – very sensible when you are up against large tank armies. We need replacements for such systems which ent out of service a very long time ago. The Boxer Overwatch veh should get ATGMs?

Absolutely, recognise that Strike isn’t really applicable these days. Although I’m less clear on whether Ajax would still be expected to provide direct fire “heavy” support to Boxer MIV in the field in whatever ORBAT replaces it. If it does, then I’m inclined to think that ATGM would be a wise addition.
I didn’t realise that ATGMs were so widely fitted to be honest, but agree they need replacement. What’s the brief on Boxer Overwatch at present? I’ll admit I’m not familiar- is it the one with a bunch of Brimstone?

Yes but then you end up having to deal with the logistics for 2 different calibers of ammo

Just found out the Nexter T40 turret has been trialled on Boxer.

Could have gone with Bofors 40 mm as same round used on CV90 and Navy ships with that logic ?

“Better than Nothing”…a sad indictment of the position we find ourselves in regards armoured vehicles.

Yes, stop gap in the RAC – Warriors have never been more useful! Probably accounts for the reason why we have sent no Warriors to UKR (I think).

Keeping Warrior in service as is, in the AI Battalions gives them a better vehicle than Boxer would be, but its shelf life would be limited without any of the upgrades once mooted under WCSP. I think you said you would put the Boxers already ordered into 7 Lt Mech Bde?

Yes. And give the Foxhounds to 4.

Sounds like a plan.
OT. Alarm bell ringing – Rachel Reeves has ordered spending Departments (including MoD) to find savings within a very short timeframe – article on page 10 of todays ‘i’ newspaper according to BBC website.

Why am I not surprised?

Reeves is actually launching an austerity era, not a growth programme.

Kept their Unions backers happy though, 1st priority sorted.

Appreciate that FOC is then, but it is edging towards IOC. I am generally cynical so can usually spot the propaganda! However, I did not spot any falsehoods in this article.

I’d like to see the Kerch bridge comprehensively demolished. The US has the 30,000lb GBU-57A/B Massive Ordinance Penetrator that could target several supports, making rebuilding a huge, long job, limiting resupply, isolating Russian forces in Crimea.

Your right on the bridge it would take a massive effort to do the job properly but hopefully they are not clearing air defences in Crimea for nothing🤞

I’d also like to see it demolished but Ukraine is a bit limited into how it can do it. By sea has worked but Russia has pretty well blocked Sea Drones. Storm Shadow / SCALP can do it but you’d need a lot of them, same can be said for ATACMS.

Yep the US does have a couple of bombs that could it, but how do they get there to be dropped ? I can’t see the US handing over a B2 to Ukraine and the US doing it themselves is a really bad idea.

Russia is most definitely on one end, Crimea which has pretty well been absorbed into Russia is at the other end. Either way it would trigger a World War.

Much better to keep hammering the Russians till they have to talk sense.

Have read several articles since 2022 which indicated Orcs have established an alternative rail network to resupply Orc infested areas w/in UKR. Not certain re validity of reports. Anyone? 🤔

Wouldn’t those rail lines then be within range of GMLRS/HIMARS/ATACMS/SS?

Possibly, not certain re latest iteration of Sleepy Joe’s UKR’s ROEs for this conflict. Certainly intuitively sensible. Reality? Dunno…🤔🤞

You must know why NATO can’t deploy troops into UKR to fight alongside their troops? A NATO/UKR vs Russia war is WW3. NATO is meant to prevent WW3.

Question: how is Ukraine doing in the Kursk region, have they captured any more land yet??

They’ve been advancing relatively quickly according to Russian Milbloggers, about 30km in the last few days, but the Ukranians themselves are being understandably quiet.

Thank you

Hi M8 As you know “Green is just so not my colour”, but could you enlighten me about something please ? I’ve looked at all the numbers of Ajax and Boxer, what they all do and how many of each version we are buying
I see we are buying around 1200 Vehicles in total, but only 156 ICV and 93 APC ! So what do the rest of the infantry use to get into combat and fight from ?

It is a good question. Bare with me as I go off on one and try and give some background.
Myself, Dern, and Graham have crunched the numbers before on the number of Warriors per AI Bn currently, and how few infantry carriers are in the Boxer order. I don’t recall Graham reached a definitive conclusion. I recalled there were around 40 Warrior in a AI Battalion.
And I may well be wrong I’m basing that on some very old bookd I have from BAOR days.
One needs to understand the structure of the infantry ORBAT for a start.
We start from a low baseline, as before the Boxer/Strike Bde thing there were only 6 Battalions on Warrior and 3 on Mastiff, classed as
HPM Heavy Protected Mobility Battalions.
So 9 Battalions, 3 per AI Brigade, of which we had 3.
The next plan, Strike, saw an ORBAT of 4 Warrior and 4 Boxer Battalions. 2 Bns each in 2 Armoured and 2 Strike Brigades.
Already a cut, one Bn less in armoured vehicles.
Then that all went.
Now, there will only be 5 Boxer Battalions as things stand. 3/2 for the 2 ABCTs.
Ajax remember does not carry Infantry Sections from the Infantry Battalions Infantry Companies. Its Ares variant will be used to carry support teams, ATGW teams from AT Platoon from the FS Coys, RE sections, and so on.
The Ajax “Scout” turreted variant I hope will still be issued to the Recc Platoons of the Boxer Bns, as Scimitar was to the Warrior Bns, but no one seems sure, I’m certainly not.
So Ajax is primarily for the RAC, with others with the RA, RE, and REME, NOT the “Corps” of Infantry.
The other infantry Battalions of the army are either Air Assault/Para, Light Mechanised in Foxhound, Light Infantry, so on foot or trucks, SFA – Security Force Assistance Bns, very small units with a training role of friendly overseas forces and groups, or are in Ranger Regiment, who use other vehicles as needed.
To cut through all that waffle, the British Army’s Infantry Battalions have for years had a small IFV component and future Boxer component compared to the number of Infantry Battalions in the army will remain very small.
We’d all like to see greater mechanisation, but after the UKR war lessons and the vulnerability, maybe lighter is the right way to go??

Great answer! I am trying to remember the details of that earlier convo.

Number of Warrior IFVs (FV510) in a battalion – must be 14 per AI Rifle Coy, so 44 per bn (ie three rifle coys plus 2 for BHQ, unless they have the Command Vehicle, FV511). Then there are WR variants such as the REME wagons (FV512, 513) (and Bulldogs of course for Amb and mortars). Not sure if the Battalion’s A/Tk Pl has FV510s? Need Dern on the case!

Boxer order – Tr 1 is for 523 vehs of which a mere 85 (as we discussed) are Infantry Carrier Vehicles (ICV). Tr2 is 100 vehs of which 61 are ICVs (new info).
Total 146 ICVs so far, but there must be further tranches coming along, as that would kit out just three battalions (+ Trg Org, Repair Pool, Attrition Reserve stock)?

Mech Inf Bns will also of course have a number of the Boxer variants: Recce/Fire Support Vehicles (Recce/FSV)
Mortar Carrying Variant (MCV)
Equipment Support/ES Repair (Rep)
Command-and-Control (C2V) and/or C2 Utility (C2U)
Ambulance.

And another great answer.
I’d forgotten the Boxer Recc/FS vehicles.
That makes me think they will go to the Recc Platoon and not Ajax Scout.

14 per Coy? 3x section vehicles per Platoon, 3 Platoons a Coy, so 9, plus?
Platoon HQ and 2 Coy HQ vehicles to get 14?

Yes, that solves an earlier query about which recce vehicle for a Boxer battalion.
Platoon – 1 Boxer ICV (ie APC) per section plus 1 for Pl HQ – total 4
Company – 3 Platoons of 4 vehs each plus 2 for Coy HQ. Total 14.
Just my estimation, not seen a document as such.
Plus, the Coy’s REME fitter section from the LAD will have ES Boxer variants.

Not bad mate👍just one thing. An RE section won’t fit in a Ares they are a similar size to an infantry sect. I believe Ares will be used for engr recce and probably TP CPs. So that puts the sections either in boxer or 4 ton trucks! Or dare I say it keep the 432s.

Thank you for that correction mate.

Could you clarify TP CPs, because it has a different meaning to me. Now, I’m in sarf London, hope to visit 253 Provost and understand EVERYTHING that has changed.

Troop command posts👍😉

You total, absolute tw@t! I was just getting my sock ready thinking about RMP TP CPs!

Go away!

😂😂

ARES is also to be used for moving other small specialised teams under protection – dismountable ATGW teams etc.

ARGOS is the RE recce veh, fitted with a dozer blade and gap measuring software in the SDW.

Really should have looked that up shouldn’t I👍🙄😀

😎

Hi mate, Daniele got there first, as always (…and I am retired with time on my hands wheras he has a busy job keeping the railways running!).

Your question is an excellent one and one fully answered by Daniele.

The very short answer is that only a percentage of the Infantry are in ‘A’ vehicles (armoured vehicles) such as Warrior and Bulldog (and Boxer in future) of course. Some Infantry units are in the less well armoured, Protected Mobility (PM) vehicles and some are in soft-skinned (unarmoured) vehicles or are on foot.

😕 True. When I served it was considered to be career suicide to criticise or critique a senior officers ‘vision’, plan or whatever (it was why I didn’t get promoted above Major!).
Fear of criticising a senior officer probably was the case even at Army Board level.

22 SAS has the right idea with their ‘Chinese Parliament’.

Do the RN and RAF have these problems?

And you challenge me for my Braid comments.. 🤔

Hi DB, I seem to recall that your Braid comments have often been sweeping generalisations about an entire group (all senior officers) rather than a specific senior officer and without evidence, references, or links following some ‘Defence cock-up’…and without recognition that other factors or other groups of persons (politicians, MoD civil servants, Industry leaders, Treasury officials) may have played any part in the issue.

I think it is fair to call out certain past CGSs by name for frequent or catastrophic changes to the structure of the army’s Field Force (ie Orbat) or a doctrinal shift without considering equipment ramifications.

I have no idea.

Thanks. It feels like it is just an army thing to frequently change doctrine and Orbats, almost with every new CGS.

It’s a great thought but then where do you field the 623 Boxers that have been ordered? Who is going to ask the Treasury for the money to resume the WCSP programme?

Well thinking back to 3 years ago the plan was to always order around 536 boxers as well as upgrade 380 warriors upgrade (250 having the lethality upgraded as well, 140 just the life extension upgrade) this 900 ish vehicle fleet was to equip at total of 8 armoured infantry and mechanised infantry battalions..with 4 protected infantry battalions..( heavy and light mix) if they just return to that reasonable plan that was being implemented it will use most of the boxers ordered.

The MOD only ordered a hundred extra boxers when they cancelled the warrior upgrade ( 380 vehicles)…( basically cutting back on the plan to have 4 armoured infantry battalions and 4 mechanised battalions and 4 protected mobility battalions..to a total 4 mechanised infantry battalions and 9 protected infantry battalions in foxhound or mastiff ) of so there is not that many extra ordered in reality. The MOD are going to order 50+ artillery systems based on boxer so I’m sure they can shift some into that contract…which leaves maybe 50 extra hulls over what they had actually planned to have anyway..I’m sure they can do some with that or just cancel 50 hull…

Its simply not reality that the MOD ordered loads of boxers to replace warrior..the MOD ordered 536 back in 2019..and an extra 100 in 2022 to mitigate the loss of almost 400 warriors…( as well as keeping a larger amount of light protected infantry than it wanted)….keeping warrior is more of a reset back to the plans pre 21.

As for asking the treasury..that is what the review is for..let’s see if they are brave or corporate “not rocking the boat” drones….as I would always instruct my consultants when we were looking at service redesign…your job is not to think about what can be cut or afforded, your job is to tell me the minimum safe set of capabilities and capacity you need to deliver…I then would go and argue with the directors of finance and board about funding allocations and compromises…

I hope I did not suggest that the MoD ordered 523 Boxers (Tranche 1) with the intention they replace Warrior. That clearly was never the case – they were to meet the MIV requirement.

I do know that upgraded Warrior was to replace in-service Warrior in the AI Bns of 3 Div, and that Boxer MIV was principally to enable the Mech Inf in the two Strike brigades of 1 Div to have a new APC for that role.

Then Strike brigades were cancelled etc etc.

The 100 Boxers of Tranche 2 ordered in April 2022, followed on from the March 2021 announcement of cancellation of Warrior upgrade and the political decision to replace Warrior by Boxer.
I agree that Qty 100 is a small order and that more Boxers are required – I seem to recall that funding for a total of 1,016 or 1,018 was earmarked – and even that apparently is still short of the army’s requirement.

The Army staff write the Staff Requirement (Key User Requirment document etc) and it clearly states how many of an equipment are required; it is not constrained by budget availability – that all happens later.

Of course the SDR will look at the capability required (required, not ‘wanted’) by the army in both 1 Div and 3 Div (and elsewhere).

I am sure that the army still has a Requirement for a new or upgraded IFV for the AI in 3 Div – that could be met by reinstating WCSP in whole or part, buying a new IFV or modifying Boxer APC to become an IFV (ie. fit a cannon).
Those 3 options costs money and Treasury may argue that Boxer APC is what has been provided (at vast expense) instead and the army must just ‘suck it up’.

Our, on top of their game, Labour front Bench.

Troops need firepower, B52s are Septo/Octo, genarian, so WCSP is a clear winner that delivers lethality to the British Army and allows us to exploit networked firepower to deliver force multiplier effects on future enemy formations.

How did I do?

Great use of ‘management speak’! Just the sort of thing a politician might say about the Warrior upgrade programme, but only when it was in favour!

I’m a simple AO in a government department, thank you.

Thanks DB. I worked alongside plenty of AOs in HQ QMG and DLO Andover and DE&S.

Speak with Danielle, should you fancy a cup of tea.

😎 Only 1 L please David, I’m not a woman.

Auto correct is not my friend.

Sorry Daniele

Ok mate.

Many thanks Ian!

Ok, that may well be true.

Some Warriors have already been taken out of service – 789 built for BA in the mid-80s. 770 held in the 2016-2021 period; down to 721 in 2022, 625 in 2023.

Don’t have the 2024 figure but I bet it is less than 625. The post-Integrated Review 21 had a funded position for 540 platforms.

You feel like they won’t reverse the WCSP decision at this point, so hopefully we’ll get to see them on a future tranche of Boxer.

There must surely be more Boxers confirmed ordered soon, due to the sheer number and kind of vehicles being retired by 2030

I’m far from expert but tend to agree. So if we want a tracked IFV another option might be an IFV version of Ajax, which was after all developed from Ascod, an IFV design. How quickly could that be developed? The UK production line for Ajax looks to be in a higher gear compared to Boxer. Horses for courses?

Thanks for your thoughts. I think I was only joking that MoD might scrap perfectly good state-of-the art WCSP cannon. They would surely keep them as spares for Ajax, if nothing else.

Why would they put them (and surely the LMUK WCSP turrets too) on Warriors when Warrior is being withdrawn from service from the middle of this decade, as Boxer comes in?

I don’t see WCSP being resurrected, as that would mean a reversal of the already-declared Warrior out of service decision, and poses a problem as to where to then put the Boxers – presumably 7 Lt Mech Bde in 1 Div is a possibility.

We do need to buy additional Boxers, assuming there is no reversal of the decision to withdraw Warrior from service – 623 vehs is not enough. Some of them at least should be given more firepower than some sort of MG in a RWS.

Agree the Boxer direction is set, that more are needed and that Warrior’s days are numbered. Also agree that RS4 looks not to be sufficient lethality if Boxer is used as an IFV. The defence review will provide a welcome pause for thought so that the army and the MoD can get their ducks in a row; and it will result in an approved budget.

Boxer is not of course an IFV if it lacks a cannon; that is the key defining feature of an IFV. If it just has a MG, then it is an APC.

Defence Review to create a welcome pause…interesting comment. Many think it defers possible increase of the defence budget by a year – great news for Ms Reeves. It may lead to certain procurement projects slowing down in the next 12 months.

Morning Graham, I’m clear on the the APC – IFV distinction I think. Just don’t confuse me with MIV.
I see several reasons to pause, and several functions who will benefit from a short pause. The first as you hint, is the Treasury. Reeves needs to get current spending in control; hence her call for ‘in year savings’. Once that is done she can plan for the consequences of the defence review, which might well be more than the election headline 2.5%. Thirdly I think we need more time to digest what we are learning from the fighting in Ukraine, both new and existing technologies. In other words, to do the defence review, which will also benefit from a better understanding of what wars we are likely to be fighting, against who and where? A lot can happen in 6 months in Ukraine, Israel Palestine, the US elections, UK-EU relations. My guess is that will end up increasing the size of both the army and navy and investing in next generation weapons. A labour govt will want to dovetail defence strategy into the economy, leverage EU relations and foreign policy objectives and create UK jobs. They will plan holistically.

Thanks. MIV (Mechanised Infantry Vehicle) was the generic MoD programme name for a vehicle that was originally going to replace: Saxon APC, the remaining FV430 series and non-turreted CVR(T)s.

It became FRES(Utility) and under that title, contract was awarded for procurement of Boxer, by which time many years had elapsed and SAXON had long since gone and it was decided that non-turreted CVR(T)s woudl be replaced instead by Ajax variants.

The Mechanised Infantry would operate Boxer in the two Strike brigades, medium weight brigades. Then the Strike brigades were cancelled…..

I have intentionally missed out some details in the above multi-decade narrative in the interest of simplification and brevity.

The IR Refresh 23 and its associated Defence Command Paper DCP 23, followed only 2 years after the 2021 versions. The sole aim of the 2023 work was to learn lessons from the war in Ukraine.

The new Government still needed to do a SDR of their own – all new governments do.

I should have referred to VBCI as a wheeled IFV, not APC, due to the cannon.
Interesting thought you have. Not sure how difficult it would be to resurrect the WCSP programme. It would certainly cost, but the offset should be a smaller overall Boxer order (623 ordered so far, and there should be more tranches to follow).

Re ‘HMG is **itself etc’. I wouldn’t put it quite that way, but I agree there a possible outcome of the defence review which sees WCSP re-instated; and urgency would be a driver of that decision. The other driver would be that the labour govt will ditch ideology in favour of pragmatism if they see a Pareto solution: 80% of the benefit for 20% of the cost and time. Conventionally, once the MoD takes a decision then it burns its bridges, no going back e,g, scrapping TSR2 tools. But Warrior is still in service. We have given protected patrol vehicles and FV432 to Ukraine, but were not these the vehicles that Boxer was intended to replace? As I understand it the only reason Boxer got into the frame as Warrior replacement was that the money for WCSP was suddenly withdrawn. We have indeed ordered Boxers, but not as I understand it in numbers sufficient to replace Warrior. The fact that I see KMW displaying a tracked Boxer tells me that they think the UK still wants a tracked IFV.

Indeed, but when they binned the warrior upgrade, they in reality did not replace it they simply planned to cut the armoured infantry battalions completely..essentially at the point warrior was cut they went from a plan of 4 armoured infantry battalions, 4 mechanised battalions and 4 protected mobility to simply having 4 mechanised battalions and 7-8 protected mobility….so in reality the warrior upgrade programme was not replaced by boxer..it was simply cut and they spun it as a being replaced boxer..what it was really replaced with was an increase in the foxhound equipped protected mobility bastions..after all before 2021 the plan was to have 380 updated warriors and a final order of boxer that was north of 1000….at present all the MOD has contracted for is 600+ boxer…they are still missing many many hundreds of AFVs…that at present seem to be being covered by utterly inappropriate use of foxhound ( which really should be a vehicle pooled for the light role infantry to use when deploying to unsafe areas).

So I do think there is a chance that the review will actually bring back some form of warrior life extension…after all it will be a hell of a lot cheaper than buying new boxers.

Boxer was actually originally meant to replace Mastiff, in 3 HPM Battalions.
Not 432, not Warrior.
Starting in 2027 once other programs were complete.
It was brought forward and No1 priority as part of Strike, a cuts exercise typically dressed up, where 6 Warrior Bns and 3 Mastiff Bns would become 4 Warrior and 4 Boxer, and the army moving to a more heavy medium light mix rather than heavy light.

Yes, I think you called it right Danielle; the orbat was driven by the requirement for cuts. However, the climate for defence is changed. I think its more likely than not that the defence review will recommend an increase in army numbers.

Better than nothing, would just need a mental shift to 2 vehicles a section rather than one.
Could also be used for ATGM teams as a heavy armoured role.

And would produce a small-capacity IFV

So, it could carry half a rifle section – ie a Fire Team. We would need twice as many.

Much easier just to buy ASCOD2 Ulan/Pizarro IFVs which of course take a full rifle section if we wanted to go down that route. There would be probably fair commonality with Ajax family… or possibly not…haven’t got the details.

I think we are out of the IFV business for a (long) generation ie until Boxer is out of service.

Same reason we procured Spartan, for carrying small teams of specialists who do not require a full section carrying vehicle. E.g Javelin ATGM teams, or Recce Engineers

I heard that phrase a lot ‘reinvent the wheel’. Yes, the army often does that.