The first two UK Boxer prototypes have arrived in the UK ahead of joint army-industry trials, say DE&S.

Boxer is the British Army’s new armoured fighting vehicle.

“The vehicles will form a core part of the Army’s new Armoured Brigade Combat Teams, where it will be paired with Ajax and Challenger 3 to form the cornerstone of the Army’s ability to fight and win wars on land.”

The arrival of the vehicles will allow troops from the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers to begin getting up-close and trialling Boxer, marking a major success milestone in the programme.

“The Boxer platform sets an unprecedented standard for armoured vehicles. From its ground-breaking power to weight ratio and mobility to its cutting-edge threat detection technology, Boxer will be a step change for manoeuvre for the British Army.

Boxer is modular by design to meet these requirements – the same vehicle base can be rapidly reconfigured to fill different roles on the battlefield, from carrying troops across a range of terrain, to treating severely injured service personnel on the journey to hospital using the Ambulance variant. The UK and Germany have worked closely together on the programme, with the vehicle build in the UK benefitting from German expertise, data and collaboration.”

While the first 117 vehicles are being built on German production lines, UK facilities in Telford and Stockport are ramping up their manufacturing capabilities for the remaining 506.

UK production is focused in Telford through Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL), and Stockport through KNDS, with supply chain sub-contracts across the UK, including in Glasgow with Thales.

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.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

96 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Oliver
Oliver
1 month ago

Would live to see an IFV variant – I think the Lithuanian armed forces version with Samson Mk2 remote turret looks very promising – still retains 8 dismounts in back – or 7 is you have extra ammo storage. Mount that (and a command variant) on boxer tracked chassis and you have a winner vehicle which will seamlessly fit into the armoured brigades as it makes them fully tracked. I think wheels for the apc variant and others is still a good idea that we should continue to use/buy in increased numbers. I would like to see more variants as… Read more »

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts
1 month ago
Reply to  Oliver

Given Ajax will be equipped with the CT 40mm Cannon, it would make sense that any Boxer IFV variant should have the same Cannon.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago

That was the plan for upgraded Warrior (WCSP). The logic still stands.

Rokuth
Rokuth
1 month ago

There is a picture out there in the internet of a Boxer with the Ajax turret. Hopefully the MoD will develop it further.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Oliver

The KNDS Tracked Boxer was showcased at Eurosatory in summer 2022.
But MoD has decided not to buy a tracked IFV to replace Warrior, so not much point in wanting to see an IFV in service with th BA.
Fully agree that we will need to replace the Stormer/HVM Starstreak some day but Boxer is a huge and very expensive platofrm.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Oliver

Surely the powers that be will arm some of the UK Boxers properly as IFVs? They only have to look at what others are doing and act. Use of their brains is required.

john
john
1 month ago

Two!! how long until we have 4!!

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  john

I think one is a mummy Boxer and one is a daddy so the idea is they will make lots of baby Boxers 🙂

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  john

Boxer briefs.

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

Jury Prize

Paul42
Paul42
1 month ago

I can’t see the point in having Boxer without a turret?

Steve
Steve
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul42

I can’t see the point of having boxer without active defensive measures, any troops inside will be a sitting duck in a peer or near peer warfare.

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

Spot on 👍

John Clark
John Clark
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

The idea is simple, no cannon, no active defence systems, means any likely enemy will think we must be hard as nails to roll into the fight with ‘slightly’ better protection than pulling up in a mini bus!

This will spread fear in the ranks and make them fall back in total disarray!

Steve
Steve
1 month ago
Reply to  John Clark

It’s the normal gov/mod trick. Focus on the number and cut corners to achieve it. Such as aircraft carrier with no defenses or ships without crews etc etc. I was watching a video about the lessons learnt from the Mogadishu failure and one of the key ones was the need for armored vehicles to ferry troops safely in and out of combat and protect them and yet multiple years later the UK mod sends troops into afgan/Iraq in Land rovers resulting in many unnecessary deaths and loss of public support. If you dont learn lessons from history it tends to… Read more »

Lee John fursman
Lee John fursman
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

Everything we see going on in the world is a bloody repeat of history but it’s only people like those writing here that seem to understand, probably because we are led by rich people with no interest in history or military experience….

Steve
Steve
1 month ago

It’s more simple than that. The UK is not under direct threat and hadn’t really been so since ww2. Which means the general public isn’t worried about defense and therefore does not priorities it. During slow news days or days where the media wany to distract from something else, they report generically on cuts being bad. Succesessive governments have therefore learnt to try and avoid the cut word and instead use snoke and mirrors. The issue is then the government want to be the lap dog of the US and send our troops into wars they are not equipped or… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  John Clark

It’s like not wearing pants under your kilts…

John Clark
John Clark
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

😂😂🤣🤣

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

But we hope they do…. Lol 😁

Marked
Marked
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

Painfully true!

John Clark
John Clark
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul42

I can Paul, its a lot cheaper…..

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  John Clark

Upgraded Warrior would have been far cheaper than any type of Boxer.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Evening Graham, happy New Year to you and all on UKDJ! You’ve got to wander what if, and even having a bit of both in a mixed fleet. Here’s hoping the absolute best for the 🇬🇧 and its people and armed forces in 2024! Same for here in Aus. Regards from 🇦🇺.

Last edited 1 month ago by Quentin D63
Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Thanks mate. Call me old-fashioned (I am sure people do) but Armoured Infantry who accompany tanks should be in tracked IFVs and Mech Inf in the Direct Fire zone should be in APCs (wheeled or tracked). Those Mech Inf guys can follow the tanks and AI Bns at least a tactical bound behind if not more. If there aren’t two or more AI Bns in an armd bde, then Mech Inf could go into the armd bdes – have a mixed bde. Otherwise, APCs in another bde. Long answer and just my thoughts. Thanks for the good wishes. Seasons greetings… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Day one of 2024 down here in Aus. Old fashioned common sense never goes out of date. I’ve enjoyed getting yours and others perspectives on the tracked versus wheeled. It’s not really that difficult is it? Here’s to a brilliant 2024!! Hope you liked the Sydney fireworks 🎇, we’re very spoilt each year.

Last edited 1 month ago by Quentin D63
Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts
1 month ago

Does the army/MOD view Boxer as a replacement for Foxhound and Mastiff or are we replacing Warrior IFVs with APCs?

John Clark
John Clark
1 month ago

I don’t think there are any plans for an IFV currently. They will just keep the Warrior going and hope for the best, that seems to be the general (lack of) plan.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  John Clark

The MoD now does not want a replacement IFV. Boxer is replacing Warrior. Announcement was made in March 2021. That is a firm plan.

John Clark
John Clark
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Let’s hope we don’t get involved in a serious shooting war then Graham, i’m guessing they are planning that we only engage in light constabulary actions moving forward.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  John Clark

I don’t think MoD is procuring Boxer at a whopping £5.4m a pop just for light constabulary actions. It is primarily intended to carry mech infantry alongside tanks in warfighting operations.
Of course it could also be used in Operations Other Than War on its own (without tanks).
Not saying I agree with the MoD view to bin IFVs and to replace their Armoured Infantry with Boxer-mounted Mech Inf – I don’t. We should have persevered with upgraded Warrior (WCSP) – & done it faster and earlier.

John Clark
John Clark
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Understood Graham, let’s hope they at least give it a turret so it can offer a measure of offense/ defensive capability.

Having seen a few videos of the Lithuanian Boxer putting down ferocious and accurate fire, it has to be the way to go.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  John Clark

Thanks John. So far RWS produced by Kongsberg has been ordered that can only take a MG or GMG, not a cannon. Later tranches may have something beefier?

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago

Primarily for FV430 etc I think. Didnt we gift some Mastiffs to Ukraine and then increase the Boxer order by 100?

Last edited 1 month ago by Paul.P
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago

No. Foxhound is with 7 LMBCT.
Pre 2015, as MIV program, Boxer was indeed to replace Mastiff in just 3 battalions in the late 2020s.
Post 2015, Boxer and Warrior were to both be in service.
With the 2019 chabges/cuts, Boxer by default replaces Warrior.
As things stand, a backward step.

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago

Initially it was bought to be part of the grand strike brigade concept. Where its strategic mobility (ability to self-ferry) would allow it to rapidly move to where it’s needed, without requiring additional low loader transportation. Part of the plan was for brigades to do flanking and thunder runs around enemies or through weak spots. Its technical requirements were for a vehicle to protect its occupants from 30mm APFSDS over the frontal arc. But I’ve subsequently heard this is for the sides also. Which if true will make it better than most of its wheeled or tracked peers. The designed… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

They sure need to know what the UK forces might be facing on the battlefield and make sure it’s more than adequate for the task. No point coming second beforehand.

Simon
Simon
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Sound’s about right

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Morning, thx for this explanation. So if I understand your account of the history, the number of Boxers ‘already ordered’ by the time WCSP was cancelled did not, and now does not include any for the IFV role. The issue is simply just that there is no money either to upgrade or to replace the Warrior vehicles.

Last edited 1 month ago by Paul.P
DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Correct, the Army were supposed to have gotten the upgraded Warrior as the IFV and Boxer as the APC. Two completely different roles. Boxer has been subsumed into the IFV role, without a means of providing give support at the moment. However, there are off the shelf options available to remedy this. I’m not sure who was doing the accounting. As the Warrior upgrade was on a fixed price contract. So in essence it was paid for. Boxer was also already paid for. Cancelling Warrior’s upgrade may have been directed by the Treasury, being the cheaper of the two options… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago

Boxer was declared by MoD in March 2021 to be the replacement for the Warrior IFV.
Foxhound and Mastiff have different roles and operate in diffferent brigades to Boxer.

TypewriterMonkey
TypewriterMonkey
1 month ago

Interesting that the Japanese went for the Patria. I wonder how many UK Boxer modules will actually be swapped in practice? Not many I suspect. As we have seen from Ukraine these types of vehicles are vulnerable on the battlefield. With the UK configuration, are they anything more than battlefield taxis?

AlexS
AlexS
1 month ago

Modularity except in edge cases is just a trick to make things more expensive and heavier…

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago

My thought entirely what else can the basic fit be, certainly unless everything is suppressed effectively which is likely a rare and unpredictable scenario in the fog of war.

rst 2001
rst 2001
1 month ago

Yes interesting to see how it works. I guess they can mix and match . If base on one vehicle hit by a mine and module on another hit by a drone then they could quickly get one working :). I think the ability for modular upgrades is useful like anti air , brimstone type stuff . But that all comes down to cost and what uk is allowed to do . Gonna take a while to find out

Matt C
Matt C
1 month ago
Reply to  rst 2001

This. Modularity is about increasing the speed of repair / regeneration from a common pool.

John Clark
John Clark
1 month ago

Battlefield taxi is a tad unfair, I prefer Battle field minibus….

Marked
Marked
1 month ago

UK config – mouth watering target

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago

As Boxers are MIVs/APCs and not IFVs, then they are battlefield taxis.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Well said!

rst 2001
rst 2001
1 month ago

I’m a bit confused again :). I thought our two uk plants had already started making boxers over 9 months ago🤔

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  rst 2001

Must admit I thought there were a number of the prototypes over here already.

Paul T
Paul T
1 month ago
Reply to  rst 2001

Indeed, I thought production had started here 🤔

farouk
farouk
1 month ago
Reply to  rst 2001

“”9 months ago the HR diversity department opened and they are still trying to fill the workforce quota of blind one legged Mexican lesbian welders and fat blokes in frocks Engineers….”” So at one posting , we had a oldish civy bloke running the post room and due to diversity we had on our books a deaf and dumb Asian woman, who in order to keep out of the way was dumped in the post room, where she did SFA and just read books. Anyway he went on leave and a young female clerk (LCPL) was tasked to cover and… Read more »

John Clark
John Clark
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

🤣🤣🤣😂😂, excellent Farouk, sets my Saturday evening up with a good laugh mate…..

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

I think they should have promoted the LCPL for actually doing her job and tasking the woman to work ? SGT would have made sense and made life easier.🤷🏻

Just asking 🤔

Tommo
Tommo
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

Wow is that a Gen dit Forces News would love too do a follow up on that 😀

Tommo
Tommo
1 month ago
Reply to  rst 2001

And don’t forget their Pro nouns the list is ad infernitum 9 months is way too short

John Clark
John Clark
1 month ago
Reply to  Tommo

I think HR will have to outsource the tricky Pro noun list to outside contractors Tommo.

I think they plan on streamlining the Pro noun list to 30, with an extra piece of A4 to add detail in case you feel triggered by your chosen identity not being represented and run for the safety of your safe space.

For instance, if someone identified as a lorry and trailer, will there be HGV parking provided🤔

Gary
Gary
1 month ago

Overwatch and anti tank modules.Although the brimstone equipped Supacats the UK supplied the Ukraine with look very handy.

Macleod
Macleod
1 month ago

Hope it is never called upon to cross muddy fields

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Macleod

It will be and will have to keep up with the CR2/CR3 tanks.

Tim
Tim
1 month ago
Reply to  Macleod

The French have used wheeled vehicles for years now and don’t seem to have any problems crossing muddy fields

Keith wright
Keith wright
1 month ago

I think Boxer will be a phenomenal asset to our (UK) Forces. We should never have left the project all those years ago.
Additionally I think in time the Ajax programme will be very successful dispite the early well documented issues.
What I can’t grasp is how an army of barely 70 k will train for, crew and maintain these 1200+ highly sophisticated vehicles in addition to the multitude of other equipments?

Patrick
Patrick
1 month ago
Reply to  Keith wright

Reservists, that on paper bring it to 100k. But, yes the Army is too small now.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Keith wright

The full allocation to units is awaited if the 1200 total is bought. The initial 600 odd go to 3 UK Division elements.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Keith wright

When I served in REME, we never considered ourselves overfaced with delivering equipment support for a very wide variety of kit, much of it complex – and I don’t recall the User being overfaced. Reduction in size of the army should not bring any issues of the sort you describe.

Keith wright
Keith wright
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Yes, I also served Arte et Marte followed by 25 years on Cr2 as a civvy. While in green we had an army of 160k. BAOR, UK support and NI being our reason de etre which despite healthy moans and groans worked quite well.
In my later years working with the RAC both they and REME were constantly fire fighting to maintain combat effectiveness. Different world.
That said both man and machine are a step up in quality and resourcefulness since my serving days so maybe it’ll all work. Time will tell…….

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Keith wright

Thanks Keith. I occasionally go to Welbeck and Welbeck REME reunions. The last one was based at the REME museum, Lyneham (based in the old RAF Officers’ Mess) – very good and larger and more professional than the previous one at Arborfield. You spent a long time on Chally2! I very much remember the army of 160k (and a TA of well over 50k) – I served 1975-2009. Certainly everyone – User and REME worked hard to keep the availability up – and it was frustrating that spares always seemed to take a long time to arrive if they were… Read more »

Keith wright
Keith wright
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Graham, yes I must go to the museum: guess it is worth a visit? I do the occasional Arborfied Apprentices Old Boys reunions as well. I had a great time on Chally over the years from the early 9 prototypes to the megatron versions 20 years later. Although I was ex VM (Chieftain, Cent ARV, CVRT etc I learnt so much about the top half business end of an MBT which all contributed to such an enjoyable time (largely at ATDU and Lulworth. After production we did lots on post development work, particularly defence systems and armour. I also served… Read more »

Tom
Tom
1 month ago

So the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers will have 2 of these things, to start sodding about with. 2 Boxers… do I laugh or cry?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Tom

Neither. I’d not expect the entire battalion to get the vehicle from the get go for trials.

That surely applies to all defence equipment?

The issue is their current lack of weaponry vs what they replace in Warrior.

David Lee
David Lee
1 month ago

Should have bought cv90 straight off the shelf and k9a2 off the shelf instead of archer

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  David Lee

Yes, possibly.

But General Carter was following the set up of other European nations in 2015 and prioritised wheels over tracks, so our “Strike Brigades” could race to Tallin.
You cannot do that with tracks.

Boxer was initially to be fielded with armoured brigades along side it with Warrior, Challenger, AS90 until plans changed in 2019.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy
1 month ago

I agree, UKR has showed that mobility and speed of deployment is key. The lower chance of a hit given by small profile and high speed more than balances the (slightly) reduced survivability if hit. An FV432 would be toast in Ukraine at the moment. It would be spotted immediately and a track taken out. Boxer has the ability to hide and run away quickly if spotted.

Tim
Tim
1 month ago
Reply to  David Lee

Why would we buy the k9 it offers very little in improvement over the as90 and archer is fantastic

David Lee
David Lee
1 month ago
Reply to  Tim

Archer is a stop gap we don’t even have any in service we don’t use the modular ammunition system it uses archer has no manual back so if the auto loader or any other system fails its useless

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  David Lee

Oh. I had assumed 155mm ammo would be the same across the guns. Archer is good at what it was made for. Same as other guns have strength and weaknesses. m777, as90 etc. The Swedish concept for the system and how they planed to use it before they developed it is probably worth looking into. The polish seem good at taking the krab turret and sticking it on different chassis. Perhaps if the U.K. is going with more archers putting the archer turret variation on a tracked chassis would be a good idea. Ideally fitting a turret to systems already… Read more »

David Lee
David Lee
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

A90 just needs a longer barrel to increase range the krab is a k9 chassis with an as90 turret the ukranian artillery have preferred the as90 over all other 155mm sent to them the m109 a7 is virtually a new vehicle from the track pads upwards

monkey spanker
monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  David Lee

So my thoughts are can a cheaper solution be found than the most expensive tracked artillery which it seems is what the MOD will go for. There are so many truck mounted systems from Ukraine, Czech, Sweden , France that I can presume can be mounted on a preferred truck for the U.K. or a different cannon if that’s what’s needed. An upgraded AS90 seems out of the question as there isn’t enough hulls, not worth it etc. BAE make the archer and the M777 so the skills are there to put a system together. Artillery is always important and… Read more »

David Lee
David Lee
1 month ago
Reply to  monkey spanker

There are enough as90 to warrant an upgrade the archer is a cheap stopgap we don’t have the infrastructure in place to even support archer it does seem the k9a2 will replace as90 when it becomes available

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago

“New ABCTs”

Error, no. Just the same 12 and 20 Bdes, now without 1 A Bde as it was cut/merged as part of the 2015 review to enable Boxer and Strike.

A Division should have 3 manoeuvre brigades, not 2 and DRSB added.

Yes
Yes
1 month ago

It looks and (operates) like something Russia made 60 years ago.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Yes

No.

Ian M
Ian M
1 month ago
Reply to  Yes

No

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Yes

No. Boxer is really clever. You can swap out mission modules.

Just don’t expect it to do quite what a tracked IFV with a 40mm stabilised cannon (or even a 30mm unstab cannon) could do.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Yes

Haha. That’s hilarious. Russia didn’t make stuff 60 years ago on its own. It was the Soviet Union that developed and made equipment. Hopefully you can enlighten me with some names of 60 year old Soviet equipment that’s like boxer.
I don’t see BTR-60/70 in boxer

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Have you ever seen troops try to jump out off or try to get in a moving BTR. It’s dangerously hilarious. Whoever thought of putting the door on the sides between the wheels, needs a medal!

At least with a rear door/ramp, you have the benefit of the vehicle providing protection as you debus. Even Ukraine when they designed their BTR4, used rear entry doors. Russia has kept the side doors going with their newer BTR90s. At least with their new Bumerang, they’ve got rid of the side doors and used a rear door for troop access.

Last edited 1 month ago by DaveyB
Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago

First 117 being made in Germany? I wonder if that’s why Aus is making 100+ Boxers for Germany?

David
David
1 month ago

Would that be the Boxer project that the UK was a full partner in until 2003, when it left? Typical lack of consistency/short termism/lack of proper planning then………

Sam
Sam
1 month ago
Reply to  David

More or less, yes. Before Boxer and Ajax, it’s seemingly been more than 30 years since any armoured vehicles were secured. Which seems utterly ridiculous, but also fits with the spate of cuts and making do.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Sam

Not quite. Trojan and Titan taken into service about 2003/4. But these were low population (33 of each) specialist engineer vehicles.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  David

It was often said that the UK left the Boxer project when it was clear that it could not be transported by C-130 Herc, but the official reason was that the UK wished for a number of reasons to instead pursue options for a MIV within the FRES programme.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  David

It was often said that the UK left the Boxer project when it was clear that it could not be transported by C-130 Herc but this story is hardly believable, but the official reason was that the UK wished for a number of reasons to instead pursue options for a MIV within the FRES programme.

Sam
Sam
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

But isn’t Ajax also really heavy in the end?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Sam

Yes, it is. 38-42 tonnes. Not sure what your point is. We were talking about MIVs some 20-25 years ago, not recce vehs in the 2020s. UK joined the Franco-German Boxer project in 1996 when the project had only been going 3 years. Concepts were being kicked around. Story (not verified) goes that UK wanted a MRAV (later MIV) that was C-130 transportable ie well under 19t. When it became apparent that Boxer would be far, far heavier than that, UK got cold feet and wanted to duck out and instead go into a purely national programme, FRES, where we… Read more »