The Ministry of Defence has outlined its ongoing efforts to modernise the British Army, emphasising investment in advanced platforms like the Ares armoured personnel carrier and the Boxer mechanised vehicle.
In response to recent parliamentary questions, Defence Ministers Maria Eagle and Luke Pollard MP detailed steps being taken to enhance the Army’s lethality, protection, and mobility.
Ares Armoured Personnel Carrier
The Ares platform, a variant of the Ajax Armoured Cavalry Programme, remains on track to achieve Initial Operating Capability by December 2025. Maria Eagle esaid that the Army’s modernisation is guided by a programme of investment worth billions of pounds over the next decade. The upcoming Strategic Defence Review in early 2025 will further refine future capability priorities.
While Ares will provide a critical capability for armoured cavalry, the focus for infantry battalions remains on the Boxer platform. Eagle directed those seeking further clarification to a related answer provided by Luke Pollard, which detailed the structure of future heavy mechanised infantry units.
“The Army is currently undergoing a combined programme of work to ensure our Land Forces will have the lethality, protection and mobility to fight and win against any adversary. Whilst the Army’s modernisation will continue over the next decade with a programme of investment worth billions of pounds, future capability development priorities will be guided by the Strategic Defence Review. The ARES platform is a variant of the Armoured Cavalry Programme (Ajax) and remains on track to deliver Initial Operating Capability by December 2025.
With regards to the current steps being taken to equip infantry battalions, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 21 November 2024 to Question 14825, which explains that planned future operational establishment will see Infantry Battalions equipped and structured around the Boxer platform.”
Pollard had previously said:
“The Army is currently undergoing a combined programme of work to ensure our Land Forces will have the lethality, protection and mobility to fight and win against any adversary. The outcome of the Strategic Defence Review in early 2025 will also guide future capability development priorities. Planned future operational establishment will see the British Army have four Heavy Mechanised Infantry Battalions across two Armoured Brigades. These Battalions will be equipped and structured around the Boxer platform, with the first Battalion due to reach Initial Operating Capability in 2025.”
The British Army is set to establish four Heavy Mechanised Infantry Battalions across two Armoured Brigades. These battalions will be built around the Boxer armoured vehicle platform, which is known for its modular design and operational flexibility.
Luke Pollard explained that the first of these battalions is expected to achieve Initial Operating Capability in 2025. This transition reflects a broader shift towards a more agile and survivable mechanised infantry force capable of addressing modern battlefield challenges.
The combined programme of work for the Army encompasses both mechanised and armoured capabilities. The Ares and Boxer platforms represent key investments designed to ensure that the UK’s Land Forces can operate effectively in a range of environments.
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
Once there were 9 Warrior Bns, plus 6 Bulldog.
Then reduced to 6, and 3 HPM Mastiff Bns.
Then down to 4, with 4 Boxer planned as well.
Then FS detailed 5 Boxer Bns.
Now it is only 4, the 5th Bn was a “mistake” and referred to the Bn which will rotate into the Cyprus role, and so not be set up as a Boxer unit.
This itself is a new development as 1 Division Bns have taken the role up till now, going forward, one will be drawn each from 1 and 3 Division Infantry Bns.
So 4 Battalions out of 31 will have this expensive vehicle.
Hardly ground breaking is it?
The Boxer will equip other units too in the CS and CSS units,
but for a 5 billion plus program only equipping 4 of your infantry Bns with a vehicle, so far, with a MG on a RWS, with no cannon.
Well, it’s pretty crap isn’t it??
3 times more lethal, CGS?
Can we please keep Warrior and use Boxer as additional?
Also, it was reported previously that the Army was looking keenly at the possibility of Ares as a Warrior replacement, and scaling back on Boxer.
This announcement remains vague on that.
I don’t know why they just don’t go one step further and replace the warrior with an IFV version of ajax, The griffin 3 a ajax variant is in the running for the Bradley replacement and the original base variant of the ajax the ASCOD are both IFV’s, And with everything that’s going on in the world I think we need more than 4 armoured infantry battalions, 6 to 8 would be a better number along with an extra challenger 3 tank regiment.
It’s entirely possible that further in the decade we will see Ares converted into an IFV to replace Warrior, and Boxer reverted back to its original APC role. There have been concepts of Ares with a new unmanned CT40 turret and Moog have been pushing their less capable, but cheaper and more flexible RIwP turret with a 30mm plus missiles in both an IFV and C-UAS configuration and the Army have been paying very close attention to both. Whether or not it materialises will all come down to £££.
Ben, to me the conversion of ARES to an IFV is bizarre. We do of course need an IFV, but this approach seems so flawed. GDUK spent billions converting a perfectly reasonable IFV to AJAX and its variants…and this proposal would require a huge sum of cash and much time to reverse the process. Why not just buy ASCOD2 Ulan/Pizarro?
Why would it be bizarre? It doesn’t require any major work or redesign of the vehicle itself. In fact, you could quite easily modify already built Ares vehicles into IFVs at the factory. I think you’re overestimating how much work it is. All that needs doing is removing the equipment racks from the right-hand side of the crew compartment and replacing them with 3 extra seats for dismounts and a gunners position, followed by mounting an unmanned turret to the roof which doesn’t require a turret basket and therefore no major hull modifications. A manned turret would be unreasonable and probably require a complete redesign. Whether it was worth converting ASCOD into Ajax originally is moot at this point, but suggesting we then go back and buy the vehicle Ajax is loosely based on and yet shares almost nothing in common with is utterly bonkers when refitting Ares into an IFV is a relatively easy and cheap option.
A very useful summary Daniele. The situation is truly shocking. From 15 AI/Mech Inf Bns to just 4. Massive reduction in firepower, as you say.
..and as for the statement that FS had a mistake in it, (which wasn’t spotted for nearly 4 years), namely that the 5th Boxer bn in FS did not really exist…words fail me. Why don’t they just admit that they wanted to make yet another capability cut.
Somewhat odd that the press release talks about ARES in the same breath, without stating that it only takes 4 dismounts, and so is not a section carrier…and nothing about the somewhat bizarre plan to turn some of them into IFVs, as you say.
The mistake comment was made in an interesting FOIA request and reply that I have read, which detailed Boxer distribution going forward.
It always irked me anyway, being an ordered type, that one Armd Bde would have 3 Boxer and the other 2!! Both should be at 3, like the 3 Armoured Brigades of A2020 that General Carter tore up, which had 2 Warrior and 1 Mastiff each.
And to add, the 6 Bulldog Bns may actually have been 3 Bulldog and 3 Saxon, that was early to mid 2000s, and I’m starting to forget as the ORBAT changes constantly with the cuts.
Certainly before that time in 1,12,19 Mech Bdes in 3 Division, which was the UK based Division at that time ( as you know ) the 3 Infantry Bns in each were 1 Warrior, 2 Saxon, and thinking deeper Bulldog only replaced half of them, not the lot, I think.
Whatever, a shocking state of affairs and one which not a single General, minister, Defence Secretary or PM has been held accountable.
And that decline goes for the RN and the RAF too, lets not get too poor Army centric!
Hi D, I always appreciate your posts. Although I served throughout the period (to 2009 anyway) I was not keeping close tabs on the entirety of this. Such a mess – Orbats being chopped and changed very frequently and often without underpinning doctrine or logic…combined with massive gaffes on AFV procurements, and very poor political decisions and defence cuts over many years.
Certainly the RN and RAF has experienced much of the above, but seemed to have fewer ‘own goals’.
I don’t think turning Ares into an IFV is all that bizarre of a plan. The reason why the current Ares only carries 4 dismounts is because the right-hand side of the crew compartment is all equipment racks, leaving only 4 seats on the left for dismounts. The IFV drawings that have emerged essentially remove the racks, add another 3 seats to the right for 7 dismounts, a gunner’s position, and an unmanned turret mounted to the roof. Both dedicated CT40 turrets and Moog RIwP RWS with a 30mm and missiles have been shown. An increased Ares order, and cut back on aspirational Boxer numbers, could relatively quickly regenerate an efficient tracked IFV capability for the British Army and leave Boxer in dedicated mechanised brigades.
Nice post. I think a lot of us here like the sound of an Ares plus turret/RWS! The wheeled vs tracked numbers seem very out of balance (pardon the pun) and the survivability of too much wheeled and their current lack of lethality are at least out there and being discussed.
Nice post. I think a lot of us here like the sound of an Ares plus turret/RWS! The wheeled vs tracked numbers seem very out of balance (pardon the pun) and the survivability of too much wheeled and their current lack of lethality are big issues. I don’t think anyone wants the Army to go too “lite”!
Sorry, double post. Last one is the right one.
I’ve read this is exactly what the Army are looking at.
Ben, you have seen IFV drawings for this ARES to IFV conversion? How was that? I appreciate that it should be possible to convert ARES. But you have to buy a hugely large number of this expensive vehicle, go through all the Design and Development work, not to mention Trials, Testing and Evaluation…all of which costs a huge amount and will take years and years. Why do you say ‘relatively quickly’? Most AFV projects take many, many years from Concept to FOC.
You end up with an IFV, but in the most laborious way possible. If you did not get the 40mm stabilised CTAS cannon agreed or integratable then you would have less firepower than you would have got with upgraded Warrior (WCSP)…and the vehicle would be delivered far too late. Who would do the conversion work? GDUK? Aren’t they a bit busy producing the AJAX family of vehicles as it currently stands?
Why not just buy a proven IFV off the shelf, if there is no appetite for resurrecting WCSP (which was not that expensive and was very nearly fully developed) – to ensure faster procurement and almost certainly would be cheaper. Options include ASCOD2, CV90.
I think we’re conversing in two separate threads here which is getting rather confusing. GDLS UK and the Army have publicly shown their IFV drawings alongside other potential variants such as the MCCO Brimstone carrier and the bridge layer, both of which they’ve actually built prototypes of. They’ve also spoken at defence shows about ambulances, C-UAS, mortar carriers, and a whole host of other potential variants.
And yes, of course IFVs are expensive, whether it’s Ares, Bradley, CV90, Puma, or whatever. That’s the price you pay for modern armour, weapons, optics, sensors, and survivability. There is no cheap option for an IFV unless you’re willing to compromise.
The design and development work for mounting an unmanned turret to the roof of an existing vehicle is not that extreme. Trials for the weapon and the vehicle itself have already been carried out so you’re basically just testing a relatively low risk conversion and the new turret. The vehicle doesn’t need any major redesign work, it’s just a weapon station added to the roof and replacing equipment racks with seats. It took the US 2.5 years to do something similar with their Strykers, and they had to modify the roof and suspension of the vehicle, neither of which is needed for Ares as they were built for far heavier loads.
I’m sure GDLS would be willing to ramp up production if they received an order for a second batch of vehicles from the Army, especially as they’ve been pushing it pretty hard at defence shows and trying to secure export orders.
Warrior is ancient and clapped out. A new turret and gun only gets you so far. And more importantly, we don’t have the ability to produce new hulls as WCSP was only ever a stopgap. Not that it would even be particularly desirable to restart production considering it was designed in the 70s. The only hulls we’re manufacturing for the foreseeable future are Boxers and Ajax so take your pick from those 2.
As for buying off the shelf, we could do that. But we get no say on the design spec, none of the manufacturing outside of a few minor local suppliers, and a whole new logistics chain that we now have to cater for that is located almost entirely overseas. And it would almost certainly be more expensive to buy a whole new vehicle than sticking a remote weapon station onto an existing one and building more of them.
I agree. The internal dimensions of Ares are large enough to carry 7 dismounts once the specialists storage is removed and extra seating installed. So conversion into a tracked APC should be fairly straightforward. Turning it into an IFV is trickier. The obvious weapon would be CTA, giving commonality with Ajax. But CTA takes up a lot of space so the choice might be limited to an RWS. Perhaps adopting whatever is finally installed on Boxer would make sense.
Any turret fitted would by necessity be an unmanned one. Options are basically a more conventional unmanned turret from GDLS, LM, or Nexter. Or Moog’s RIwP which is basically an RWS on steroids. Cheaper, lighter, and more flexible, but less capable 1:1 and probably not able to handle the whole ammunition handling system for CT40 so limited to the Bushmaster 30mm or any belt-fed weapon.
Isn’t part of the point of CTA that the gun and ammunition take up less space in the turret?
That’s why it has the funny side loading breech, and the rounds are shorter.
Workable plan with the RWS and the 30mm as a minimum! The 40mm may be a bridge to far but a 30mm is so much better than a 7.62 or a 50 cal! Many of us have been saying the same for at least 2 years mate 👍
I don’t really know how to comment Daniele, although I want to. You have summed up so well what we have left after successive governments fiddling. Bit like Nero and Rome…
I can only contribute so much to this site Geoff, as I have no actual experience or tech, performance knowledge. I know the ORBATS….which are constantly cut!
Sorry for the woe. It is how I know, as you also do, that Labour are no shrinking violets in this shambles either, and actually instigated it, where the Tories have finished it.
Both are dead to me.
Trouble is its not just the Govt in this case its Army – who cannot come up with a simple ORBAT and stick to it. That and constantly wanting gold-plated bespoke small run ( and so incredibly expensive) options. ARES as an IFV fits the same horrible storyline.
Just buy more Boxer forget armoured inf and move on. Army needs mass and tbh a good combo of options is more important than a single weapon system. With money saved from not going ARES IFV they could do other things with Boxer…..get some supporting heavy weapon variants ( Aus army should have done development already – eg 35mm cannon and maybe a 120mm mortar variant….possibly a Brimstone anti- armour akin to old Swingfire could be knocked up as well etc) .
Army needs to start solving its problems, not creating more. Rant over….for now 😁
Now, now, chin up for another punch.
You just know it’s going to happen.
Couldn’t agree more. Lethality? No cannon is ridiculous.
Bill, Very true. It would almost be like going back to the days of the Alvis Saracen, except in a modern ‘wrapper’.
It’s just shocking how UK Armed Forces has been allowed to decline , and without any accountability from Parliament or the public thst can hold govt accountable . I think the only way to improve the situation is legislation to go through parliament to ring fence spending and minimum numbers in Armed Forces , be it frigates, fighters , ifv, soldiers. From what I have read even the Boxer program seems to be going at a snails pace with development ,despite the boxer already in service with other nations ? . I dont see how 1 Battalion will be fully equipped with boxers by end of 2025
It’s totally crap essentially the heavy end of the British army will end up as 2 armoured brigades each with 1 MBT regiment, 2 mech infantry battalions based on a wheeled APC and an armoured cavalry regiment…supported by a brigade of armoured cav regiments and artillery…that is I’m afraid pathetic, we are talking the 70,000 strong army of the the fifth richest nation on the planet and that’s it’s heavy formations.
I always thought essentially a core requirement of the British army post Cold War was to be able to provide a sustained armoured brigade or in dire times surge an armoured division…
Min requirements on the heavy side are
An armoured div or 3 armoured brigades each with an MBT regiment, 2 armoured infantry battalions in a cannon armed IFV and organic armoured cavalry regiments and artillery, CS CSS
Supported by an infantry division that is at least capable of delivering, one proper mechanised infantry brigade to a peer war, with 4 mec infantry battalions in proper APCs ( not protected infantry as we have at present) and organic cavalry, artillery,CS, CSS. Then providing some lighter stability and security brigade, battalion formations.
So for me in first division we need to keep the 3rd MBT regiment, by converting all the challengers to challenger 3, giving warrior a life extension and going back to 6 armoured infantry battalions..the 1st DRSB needs to be changed back to an armoured brigade and the cavalry regiments and artillery spread across other deployable brigades..each brigade should be able to effectively fight the deep battle.
I’m pretty much in agreement with this.
Then you’d be wrong.
There is no support- go hang your head in shame!
Mate I think you will find Daniele is one of the biggest advocates of getting both CS and CSS back to pre 2010 levels! The support which is not there at this moment could and should be if the Divisional level formations are back to real combat strength!
I’d like to see some urgency in the rate of delivery as the current crisis in Ukraine is at a dangerous crossroads.
Barely armed boxer part of a plan to increase lethality? Pull the other one! If that’s the army’s heavy battalions I’d hate to see what firepower the light battalions have!
I am ex green jackets and the boxer is not a good replacement for existing warriers and ajex is too late, and short numbers. It’s sad what’s happening to army numbers, but this was planned years ago, being NATO will pick up what we don’t supply, we are giving NUKES and are new space force, surveillance rather then men on the ground..
Modularity, operability, increased lethality (and where’s the later exactly?), we all get that, but what about survivability in today’s battlefield environments? Focusing so much on the wheeled Boxer and a very underarmed at that (would it survive in an Ukraine environment?) instead of also up armouring with more tracked masse at the front end. Both US and Aus and several European nations are getting new tracked IFVs so it seems very odd that the UK doesn’t see this requirement the same way.
Quentin, As ever a political decision to cancel the upgraded Warrior programme (WCSP). You don’t think the army senior staff wanted to cancel it, surely? The Staff Requirement was for an improved IFV to replace Warrior…and for Boxer to fill the very different Mechanised Infantry Vehicle role.
Looks like we’re going to get a real kicking before we finally have the political will to sort ourselves out. Not only are these numbers wafer thin but what we do possess doesn’t have much more than foul language to throw at the enemy. My eldest is keen on joining up – I’m really discouraging him as I really think the best we can hope for is a gallant defeat in this hopelessly muddled situation.
Not sure what the point of the Ares is to be honest. No fire power and only carries 4 troops.
Role and task specific mate, not infantry!
Shocking, shambolic and shabbadelic! Having finally admitted that UK forces and the British Army in particular, are haemorrhaging personnel at a criminal rate, there wont be anyone left to fill Boxers, Shmoxers, Ajaxes or anything else.
I think the 2025 defence review needs to focus for once on personnel. Why are they leaving, what would prevent those wanting to leave, from leaving? A Military career has to be ‘sold’ differently to the current generation/s. It has too appeal more, it has to be worth more it must offer a career, and not just a couple of years at 100mph, before soldiers get bored, fed up with crap food, fed up of having no prospects, fed up not being appreciated, and fed up of seeing their ‘mates’ earning more on a building site than they do.
Thus far, I have seen little to convince me that the current incumbents will look upon the armed forces any differently, than the clowns who were in charge for 14 years.
It’s way after time for a change in the mindset of politicians and the military. Time to stop looking at the armed forces as a necessary evil, especially with the current political stage.
Best we can hope for is a more ‘righty’ Boxer.
They’re buying more modules for that based on recent expos etc and won’t have money for that plus this back updated Ares.
No matter how fighty or none fighty the kit and Battalions are, without CS and CSS they will last 72 hours at best! Since 2010 we have been quietly losing these essential units while keeping unnecessary, un equipped and un manned infantry Battalions due to the various cap badge mafia! We can easily lose 4 Bns and not notice, and use the PIDs to man the support units. Then, let’s look at the real battle winners which are the RA and get them some more depth fire missile, mobile 155mm, UAVs and anti UAV systems, then some more AD, both Short and long! Sad to say all this as an ex light role infantry soldier, but I’m a realist and understand the changes which are needed!!!!!! PS oh and a 120mm boxer mortar variant and a missile overwatch to replace the good old striker!!!!
Check out recent article on Army Recognition.
They are in the process of ordering the Mortar variant, as well as looking at a Brimstone Overwatch version of Boxer.
There is also supposed to be an Overwatch version of Jackal in the pipeline based upon lessons from Ukraine, know as Wolfram.
*fighty