Luke Pollard MP, Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, visited Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) in Telford this week, meeting staff working on two of the British Army’s most significant modernisation projects, the Challenger 3 main battle tank upgrade and the Boxer Mechanised Infantry Vehicle programme.
RBSL confirmed that the minister spoke with colleagues across the workforce, including apprentices who began their careers at the site and have since developed through training and progression opportunities. He also held discussions with trade union representatives, focusing on how skills development and investment in infrastructure are strengthening resilience across the UK defence sector.
The Telford facility is the largest of RBSL’s UK sites and plays a central role in delivering sovereign capability for the Army. Under the Challenger 3 programme, 148 tanks are being upgraded with new turrets, sensors and a 120mm smoothbore gun. In parallel, Boxer vehicles are being assembled and integrated at the plant, with final production expected to support thousands of jobs across the wider supply chain.
RBSL said its people are “at the heart of everything we do,” adding that the combination of significant investment in infrastructure and skills is creating long-term opportunities for the UK workforce while ensuring critical capabilities for the Army. The company also mentioned the importance of partnerships with trade unions and apprenticeships in maintaining a sustainable pipeline of skilled labour for the future.
Photographs released from the visit show Pollard alongside executives, staff and military personnel in front of a Boxer vehicle at the site, as well as touring workshops and speaking directly with engineers.
Checking up on the Boxer build rate before publishing the defence investment plan?
Or telling them future Boxer buys are shelved, hopefully, apart from a Recovery version and the RCH155. Will save a small fortune that could go towards Patria in bulk, or a LPM type, or the Ajax IFV version.
That Ajax version looked incredible. Blackjax it was called weren’t it?
I’d read of a Blackjax but unsure if that is another proposal or the version that had the article on it here.
Fair enough. Either way, along as it’s got a strong cannon, tow missiles and anti UAV capability id be happy with it.
Still think we should have ordered atleast 300 CH3 aswell
Elliott, ATGMs on an IFV would be a first for the BA. I think there are drawbacks in IFVs taking on an anti-tank role in addition to their Infantry transport, delivery and fire support role.
I would rather have Tank Destroyers that were dedicated to the task, a modern-day replacement for CVR(T) STRIKER, FV438 and SPARTAN MCT – all of which were (bizarrely) withdrawn without replacement.
Blackjax is a pure concept vehicle, separate from the IFV proposal. Its a concept test bed for Modular Integrated Protection System as well as essentially an dual purpose ground and AAW turret for the 40mm with a 85 degree elevation..it’s an ASCOD-type hull and they said it would be the spiral development platform to test concepts..with the Ajax IFV being they buy now ready product.. so obviously up for selling the Ajax IFV with already developed turret and none sovereign active protection while moving potentially in the future to a new turret with AAW capability and sovereign active protection…knowing the army it will simply ignore the buy now option step past spiral development and go for the whole new gold plated concept in one go ready for 2060.
Totally wrong dude. Blackjack is an upgraded Ajax to tempt future buyers.
That’s not what the press release stated, they had blackjack down as a concept vehicle and testbed.. they did not even claim it was Ajax… the media organisations that covered the press release speculated that it was the same hull type and it was sat next to the Ajax IFV which was being sold as a vehicle ready.
As I understand it, Blackjax is the recon vehicle updated with all sorts of new tech, not the IFV. They were displayed next to each other at DSEI, with Blackjax being seen more as a technology demonstrator, whereas the turreted IFV was closer to a concrete proposal.
The turret used on the Ajax IFV is a development of the Warrior turret built for the warrior capability sustainment program (WCSP). GD say the turret is capable of being used for firing trials, but is not the finished product. Although the blurb said it was an unmanned turret, it still has access hatches to make it a manned turret. Though it would need seating and basket to be added. Which would cut the number of pax carried to 6 rather than 8.
The Lockheed turret is designed to be unmanned and that’s the format that is on offer to the MoD. The turret is close to a production level unlike the IFV hull which remains to be developed, presumably using Ares as a starting point.
It’s the Ajax IFV on display that is the concept. It used an ASCOD hull, not Ajax. Not a “concrete proposal”.
I hope it’s a better build quality than current Ajax. Restrictions on its use at the moment on exercise, they’re being completely battered when going places a Bulldog can with 0 issues.
Steve, do say more. A little surprising that a hefty vehicle like 38 – 42t Ajax is not very durable, even in short duration trials/exercises. What areas/parts get battered?
I’ve seen damage to a fair amount of the vehicle, that’s what I’m comfortable saying.
Yep, the Patria and the Nurol Makina Nomad look racing certainties. The Gun Hall in Telford is due to start production in 2026 so it does look like the site will focus on the RCH 155mm and 120mm barrels. That said, are we not still committed to the original 523+100 = 623 Boxers?
The nomad was a bit of a surprise to be honest, it’s seems a pretty good protected mobility vehicle and getting it manufactured in the UK is a good bit of industrial strategy.. I also suspect it’s a bit of a quid pro quo to Turkey to lubricate the typhoon sales.
But like everything it will be how many do they buy. My personal view is all the light role infantry should at a minimum be equipped with a sold protected mobility vehicle like this.
Its also a significant boost up in the level of protection in the British army protected mobility fleet, foxhound is only STANAG 2 ballistic and blast Nomad is standard level 3 in both blast and ballistic and can be upgraded to level 4 in ballistic ( 14.5mm ap rounds) which is a significant up lift.
Not that the British army will, but I believe it’s the only light protected mobility vehicle you can stick a 30mm cannon on the top of…
What Typhoon orders?? that went down the toilet when the Turks chose American aircraft instead.
Most, if not all, of the light armored vehicles in the Nomad’s 10 tonne class can carry up to a 30mm weapon.
Boxers, yes.
But those are the batch 1 and 2 orders. It was widely reported that funding was in place for more to take the numbers to over 1,000.
The builder used to include this order in their financial projections going forward, until recently, as I understand the MoD quietly dropped it some time ago.
Quite right too in my view. Boxer may be good, but its cost is ruinous, it needs to be in conjunction with cheaper types, just as Warrior did not replace FV432 in all roles.
I believe this tier approach is inevitable across all the services as I see no other way to increase mass. T26, T31, RB2 are good examples for the RN. The RAF? Not so easy and I think they would resist cheaper fast jets.
Perhaps the Hawk replacement might have a combat variant?
I’d like to see the Turkish vehicle (Nomad/NMS) acquired (assuming it passes Army testing) but I know of no official announcement or hint that it is the preferred choice.
Have you seen something definite?
I found this on the English language edition of Türkyetoday.com.
“ The British Army displayed the NMS 4×4 armored vehicle at DSEI UK 2025, signaling its planned entry into the military’s armored combat vehicle fleet under the designation NOMAD 4×4.
The vehicle, manufactured by NMS U.K., the British subsidiary of Turkish defense company Nurol Makina, was exhibited alongside the army’s current in-service armored fighting vehicles at one of the world’s leading defense exhibitions.
NMS U.K. will produce the vehicles at a 32,000-square-meter facility located at Tachbrook Park“.
Paul, the orders for the 623 Boxers were contracted for ages ago. Vehicles are being built (at glacial pace). Of course MoD can cancel orders for kit that is in build but why would they? The army is years behind with its recapitalisation, given that an ‘A’ vehicle should not really soldier on much beyond 25 years, ideally. Cancelling anything will set things back way too far.
Daniele, I’d agree to 623 Boxer if the Ajax IFV were ordered instead of a follow-on order. That said, the PM has made it clear he intends to place greater emphasis on the UK defence industry, thus possibly allowing for an additional order? The Patria 6X6 order should exceed the Fuchs fleet, which is relatively small. Ideally, this vehicle should replace some of the Bulldogs as well as the Mastiff? However, I fear the numbers will be disappointing as always, resulting in the retention of vehicles that would otherwise be sold off….so much for simplifying vehicle types.
Starmer will continue to give great emphasis on not buying anything at all.
Maurice, you are possibly mixing chalk and cheese. IFVs are for the Armd Inf, which would have been met by Warrior WCSP and now by something else (probably AJAX/ARES IFV). Wheeled APCs (MIVs) are for the Mech Inf. The army requirement was for about 1200 or 1400 MIVs. Unless that has changed then 623 Boxers represents half the total required. Either a third tranche order for Boxer is required or for some other (much cheaper) APC or MIV like the Patria to be ordered.
Probably having discussions about the implications of reducing our C3 numbers down to 18
Mr Bell, With a fleet of just 148 tanks, we will have the 21st largest tank fleet in NATO, of 32 countries. Not much to write home about.
And It’s only taken 20 years since CH2 was to start being upgrade.
Hi halfwit, I worked for Rheinmetall on the CR2 LEP in 2016 as PM adviser. FOC to be in 2030. It would have been faster to build a brand new tank from the trackpad up.
Back in the day we used to regularly upgrade tanks throughout their life at frequent intervals – take a look at the Wiki entry for Chieftain – 24 different Mark Numbers! (albeit some are minor upgrades, and one u/g was planned but not implemented).
There are times when cynicism is called for, when the latest world-beating nonsense announcement comes out of the MOD or the Government talks about the billions it’s injecting into Defence. This is just a factory visit. It seems to me to be a good thing that there’s interest being taken, because, well, history of Ajax. So I’ll save my cynicism for another time.
Cynicism is my department, for quite some time now, I’m sorry to say.
MoD will make hay out of it, though I’m shocked that having quickly skim read it Pollard is not Grandstanding, which is the SOP.
They say you need a minimum of 170 MBT to be taken seriously, so 186 including spares.
I still in my heart of hearts hope that in the equipment plan they order enough for three type 56 regiments and a 3 squadron attritional reserve, so about 250 MBTs.
Big priority, that.
I think it highly unlikely.
Sadly I think with our leadership there is almost zero chance sadly.
Out of interest how much is it costing to upgrade per tank & how many additional upgradable hulls (over the 148) do we have . In addition I seem to recall reading comments on here saying they had intimated scratch hulls were possible? If so, does anyone know a ball park figure per ‘new’ tank.
Some AI assisted googling returns, “the Netherlands recently signed a contract to purchase 46 Leopard 2A8 tanks for over €1 billion (around $1.1 billion), indicating a unit cost of about €21.74 million per tank”. Have to say I’ve no idea whether this info could inform an estimate for say 100 refurbed or scratch build CR3.
What is happening with Oman’s Challenger 2s? Would they be upgradable hulls?
The Cr2 jigs are still available. The engines, transmission, armor etc can still be produced. And the production chief at RBSL said new hulls could be produced there.
As to cost, there are so many variables, only an idiot would attempt a guess. But @halfwit wouldn’t be wrong if he estimated a basic brand new Cr3 with no additional bells & whistles would be significantly cheaper than either a new Leopard or M1. Probably be affordable to throw in an upgraded transmission to free up the 1500 bhp that the engine is capable of.
I’d guess we could build new CH3’s for significantly less than a Leopard or M1.
But WTF do I know.
Not enough usable hulls for that, barely enough for the 148. I have it on very good authority.