The Ministry of Defence has unveiled the first fully British-made Boxer armoured vehicle at the International Armoured Vehicle Conference in Farnborough, marking a significant milestone for the UK’s defence industry.
As part of a £5 billion investment, the Boxer programme will deliver 623 advanced armoured vehicles to the British Army, supporting more than 6,000 jobs nationwide, including 400 in Telford and Stockport and 1,000 across the UK supply chain.
Manufactured by Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land in Telford, the Boxer showcases the UK’s growing expertise in defence innovation. Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, Maria Eagle MP, highlighted Boxer’s transformative impact, stating, “The home-grown production of this world-class vehicle exemplifies our Government’s Plan for Change, deepening our partnership with industry to deliver thousands of highly skilled jobs and drive growth across the UK.”
Boxer, an eight-wheeled, all-terrain armoured fighting vehicle, is designed to rapidly transport soldiers and mission systems across diverse military scenarios. Its modular design allows for quick reconfiguration, ensuring adaptability for future missions. The vehicle forms a cornerstone of the British Army’s modernisation efforts, alongside the Challenger 3 tanks and Ajax platforms.
John Abunassar, CEO of Rheinmetall in the UK, praised the collaboration, saying, “The unveiling of the first British-made Boxer is a historic moment for UK defence manufacturing. It not only symbolises the return of armoured vehicle production to British soil but also underscores Rheinmetall’s commitment to delivering sovereign capability, innovation, and economic prosperity for the UK.”
This development aligns with the UK Government’s Defence Industrial Strategy, fostering long-term partnerships between government and industry to boost regional prosperity, skilled jobs, and national resilience. The strategy, open for consultation until February 2025, will be published later this year with a remit extending to 2035.
Boxer’s production builds on lessons from international partners, including Germany, Lithuania, and Australia, reinforcing the UK’s commitment to global defence collaboration and innovation.
A 36 tonne truck with a .50 cal. Yay!
To be followed one hopes by a few hundred Boxers with a 30mm RWS.
Agree entirely!
But guns and ATGM’s cost money, and to be frank, they can be quite dangerous… But this does seam like a lot of money for very little in terms of lethality (and we are, apparantly, aiming to triple lethality).
This is a vast reduction of lethality. We could have had upgraded Warrior for our Armd Inf with a stabilised 40mmm cannon. That would have defeated enemy BMPs…and more (Bradley with its little 25mm cannon has disabled Russian tanks in Ukraine).
Quite likely that BMPs will defeat these Boxers.
IIRC Boxer is only rated for 14.5mm so a BMP wouldn’t have any issues.
Hi Tomartyr, the max calibre weapon for the Kongsberg RS4 RWS is indeed a 12.7mm, but it would not surprise me if we were only fitting a 7.62mm MG as MoD has plenty of those.
Full list of weapons suited for the RS4 is: Browning M2 and WKM-B (12.7 mm), M249 (5.56 mm), M240, UKM-2000C and M134 Gatling (7.62 mm), MK19, MK47 and H&K GMG (40 mm grenade launchers with airburst option), various Non-Lethal effectors. The RS4 allows for M240 (6.62 mm) coax kit orvarious ATGM integrations.
Wonderful. Equipped to defend itself from …ermmm, practically nothing.
Alarming to think that Boxer is likely to come off second best if faced by even a very old BMP-1.
Well it’s only option is to run away…better hope a 30-40 ton wheeled vehicle can run away fast in deep Eastern European mud….
Absolutely. Fucking shocking that anyone in senior army leadership just accepts this. Its not like we have a huge Army that can afford losses operating in the manner the Russians do.
Also completely lacking in any sort of drone or ATGM defences. Has nobody learned anything from Ukraine?
If these deploy as they are now they are nothing but targets. It’ll be the snatch landrover scandal all over again.
Hi New Me, of course senior army leadership had no part in the decision making process to equip the AI with the Boxer. The army had specified a Requirement for an upgraded Warrior for the AI and a Requirement for Boxer for the Mech Inf.
Political/financial decision to reduce the lethality and cross-country mobility of the Infantry in our two armoured brigades.
Ajax and Boxer combined are, what, 14 Billion, or was it more?
For that outlay, for 1212 vehicles, not a single Infantry Battalion is yet scheduled to be correctly equipped with the different versions required, from Mortar to 30mm Cannon to ATGW to a Striker replacement.
There are more C2 versions between Boxer and Ajax than there are Infantry Carriers.
Why is that?
And the army fan boys in the media and online target the RN and Aircraft Carriers for the militaries ills?
I also read that HMG continue to refuse to release the NATO Defence Planning Capability Planning reports detailing WHAT NATO wants members to be able to do. Handy, as then one can not openly judge how much HMG are ignoring them.
The Netherlands has no such issues, and is happily putting 30mm Cannon on vehicles, as the NATO requirement.
NATO also requires Brigades and Divisions to have THEIR OWN ENABLERS. The lack of these in the British Army I have highlighted countless times, leaving some of our Brigades paper formations unable to deploy without substantial reservist support.
I’ll also be interested to see how much of Boxer Labour claim as their own, considering they have ordered nothing, and actually withdrew from the program in 2003, and cancelled all follow up programs, directly leaving the Army in the mess it is in now.
Careful what you claim, Pollard and Healey.
When you think the fucking idiots cancelled the upgrade of 380 warriors because it was going to cost 1.5 billion…which is around half the price we are paying per boxer.
It beggars belief…especially because the evidence coming out of Ukraine is that the infantry fighting vehicles of the armoured infantry are massively important..that section cannon is an irreplaceable asset on the battlefield..the other evidence is that is functionally irrelevant what armoured box the mechanised infantry turn up in as long as they have a reliable armoured box that gets them to where they need to deploy.
Essentially the learning from Ukraine is that the army has pissed its money away on a profoundly sub optimal set of choices for the infanty. Instead they should have
1) spent 1.5 billion on the 380 warriors upgrade with the 40mm for 6 armoured infantry battalions
2) purchase a armoured box for everyone else like the VBMR Griffon..something like that should cost no more that 1.5 million each so 3 billion would buy you 2000 of the things…essentially you could give a decent modern armoured against 14.5mm rounds and mine resistant to every single infantry battalion in the army..
Total cost 4.5 billion..that’s a billion less than we are paying for 650ish boxers…
Jon, This was not a decision made by senior army leadership.
I’m not sure on that, Graham.
I believe it was General Carters baby to bring forward MIV Boxer rather than wait, as part of the Strike Bdes fiasco that wrecked the existing 3 AI Bdes we had at that time.
Sure, HMG are responsible for funding.
But why did he do that? Seeming as the accepted plan, A2020, was less than 5 years old and clearly decided to upgrade Challenger, the Armoured Cavalry, and Warrior, FIRST?
The MIV program, which was Boxer, was a footnote to happen later after 2027, after the other 3 programs had been paid for.
Hi Daniele, I have heard you say this before and you could well be right but the decision to cancel WCSP and to replace Warrior by Boxer, was a political decision.
Why would Carter have brought Boxer forward? It was his idea to introduce Strike brigades with Boxer as you say, so I presume he was focussed only on his pipedream/legacy. Maybe he was worried that if Boxer remained ‘at the back of the queue’ a future Government might overlook or cancel it. Don’t know – only guessing.
Just to note Jon, I believe that was due to General Carter deciding MIV ,so Boxer, could not wait until 2027 and it was brought forward alongside spend on Ajax, WCSP, CH3.
Something had to give.
WHY was the original, sensible plan from 2010 not followed?
Yes indeed, the whole strike concept has rather screwed the army over…the thing is it was a concept that has no proof or real validity to the concept for a European battlefield, its essentially assumed the modern battlefield would be permeable…but in reality in the European context that is generally not the case especially in the Eastern European mud seasons…You still have to punch your way through and you cannot be fluid when your logistic trains are bound to roads..strike essentially requires massive dominance in ISTAR, air space dominance and the correct terrain….but for some reason some in the west decided it would work everywhere against everyone…
As for why was the plan not followed…which one I get confused…
Always liked plan that came out first in the defence basing review, the 5 multi role brigades idea each with a MBT regiment, armoured cav regiment, armoured infantry battalion, Mec infantry battalion and 2 light role infantry.. that seemed balanced with 2/3 of the army being focused on the heavy formation end of things.
Even the actual end army 2020 was pretty good with a proper armoured division of 3 heavy brigades, air assault brigade and the adaptable force division of 7 infantry brigades…although in reality those 7 infantry brigades held a lot of paper tiger infantry battalions it did mean that the essentially the army could deploy a heavy brigade, air assault brigade and an infantry brigade into a proper divisional effort and sustain that effort.
In reality it was all on general Carter in 2015 as you say..it was he who decided that he would move the armoured division from a sensible 3 proper heavy brigades with an MBT regiment, armoured cav, 2 armoured infantry and 1 mec infantry…to only having 2 heavy brigades and then creating the elusive 2 meduim strike brigades..and then as you say the entire armoued vehicle procurement process was essentially hijacked by his desire for wheeled armoured vehicles for the strike brigades… at the same time pretty much gutting the adaptive division, by stealing a brigade to turn into a strike brigade ( which never happened ) and then stripping out five light role infantry battalions and turning then into under strength specialists battalions…but most telling was the bonfire of CS and CCS that Carter undertook…removing three battalions of mechanical engineers, one regiment of engineers, one medical regiment, one field hospital and a logistic brigade HQ…., but then even that plan was not followed…
It’s interesting because we always blame the governments..because they in the end are the final arbiters and the buck stops with them..but the same thing happened with the RN and yes Cameron delayed the frigates until they fell apart when he got in in 2010 and Labour hacked the T45 programme down…to 6…but the RN did burn many hundreds of millions on design and concept work over a decade on the frigates and about three different concept programmes.because it could not decided what a frigate should look like..if it had not wasted that money and all the money on refits…it could have had a decent frigate program up and running by 2010 with 17-20 on the order books…with T45 it could have gone for a slightly cheaper AAW destroyer and the UK did not need to walk away from the horizon..in the end the issue was it paid 1 billion per destroyer when it could have got them for .75billion per destroyer..as that was the budge and that is what France ended up paying.
Source regarding section cannon in Ukraine?
Everyone laughs at the project. Yet for some reason the Boxer project is escaping the radar . The build schedule looks quite poor , and as far as I am aware they are still undergoing trials even though in full service in other nations . Then ofcourse their is the firepower issue . But I guess the firepower issue of 30mm cannon and stuff would mean committing these for ifv vehicles , which I font believe we are fully committed to , because of cost /politics and maybe an actual tracked ifv down the road which is well over the horizon at the moment
Edit laughs at the Ajax project
Rst, I have stopped laughing at the Ajax project. The problems were fixed, after a fashion, and these vehicles, long overdue, will soon come into service. Although I think they are unlikely to be that stealthy (meant in the old-fashioned sense) they are well protected, exceptionally well armed and have good cross-country performance…not to mention an outstanding sensor, dats fusion and secure comms/networking capability.
Hi Daniele, I easily found the NATO Defence Planning Capability Review for 2021/2022 for Slovakia. It was in the NATO archive and was Unclassified. As you say finding a current one for UK is impossible. Much MoD info that used to be in the public domain is not now. The Defence Select Committee critically commented on that recently.
It will be interesting to see if they can keep up with tracked vehicles on cross country terrain previously wheeled vehicles were sadly lacking this ability.
Brian, I too have said this. The issue is most acute when that terrain is rain-soaked and the vehicles have to plough through thick glutinous mud, as is often the case in Eastern Europe between late autumn and early Spring. Snow and ice will also prove challenging to traverse at speed on a wheeled vehicle.
Not just mud, soft sand is also a problem for heavy 8×8 AFVs. Not that we ever go anywhere that has soft sand.
Not just eastern Europe try Salisbury plain!
Still only 623 ordered. Army requirement was for more than twice that.
I believe funding is in place for nearly double the current contract for 623.
I believe the army requirement was around 1500 armoured vehicles + the 360 warriors to be upgraded..so close to 2000 vehicles…if any form of sanity had been in place they could have got 2000 decent 25ton APCs for 3 billion and well as the 360 warriors for 1.5 billion…or a billion less than they have spent on 650 boxers.
Think this is pure MOD hype as don’t expect 50% by value is British, e.g. the engines might be assembled in UK, a screw driver plant as all the components come from MTU in Germany and expect MOD classify them 100% British.
Notwithstanding all the mistakes of the past we should celebrate this news. It marks the success of a lot of hard work and skills transfer by Rheinmetall.
The first tranche are indeed APCs, expensive but good. The 50cal RWS can also mount a pair of Javelin I think. Unless there is some kind of Dr Who resurrection performed by the SDR Warrior will stay dead and Boxer is the future. I would expect to see announcements on other variants around the time of the SDR.
Paul, are you sure our Boxers will have 0.50 Cal MGs in the RWS? There are so many 7.62mm MGs that could be fitted.
All the Boxer variants have long been declared for Tr1 and Tr2 orders. MoD is buying two tranches (so far) totalling:
146 Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV)
60 Engineer Section Vehicle (ESV)
62 Recce/Fire Support Vehicles (Recce/FSV)
28 Mortar Carrying Variant (MCV)
50 Equipment Support/ES Repair (Rep)
158 Command-and-Control (C2V) and C2 Utility (C2U)
19 Observation Post Vehicle (OPV)
24 Beyond-Line-Of-Sight (BLOS) observation platforms
11 Electronic Warfare and SIGINT (ESWI) platforms
65 Ambulance
Is this supposed to be the equivalent of the EBRC or the Griffon? Seems under equipped
EBRC counterpart is Ajax, Boxer is more a Griffon counterpart. Griffon also only carrier 50cal
A browning up top have they learned nothing from Ukraine ffs
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. If anyone has watched the interview with the colonel from REME and two NCO’s from 1 RRF, they all speak through gritted teeth. One of those “don’t criticise or make a less than positive comment” interviews on it.
I am past the point of feeling despondent about the government, MOD and how short-changed are our Armed Forces.
The good news is that thanks to Boxer’s modularity the firepower can always be increased at a later date.
The bad news is that this means nobody ever has to be the one who makes a final decision, and so the buck passes on.
I don’t understand why anyone with previous military service should be surprised. By the time they decide on manufacturers then R & D change the spec during manufacture, then the trials. Then the delays bringing it into service. By which time the price has increased by 200%. We all know by this time it is out of date or not fit for purpose. Then we are stuck with it for 30 years. But hey it’s new!
I am fairly sure Boxer is being bought as a firm price contract.