The Ministry of Defence has provided an update on the delivery schedule for the Boxer armoured vehicle programme.
According to a written parliamentary response from Maria Eagle, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, the delivery of Boxer vehicles is progressing as planned.
James Cartlidge, Conservative MP for South Suffolk, inquired about the expected delivery date for the Boxer programme. Maria Eagle responded on 25th July 2024, stating, “The delivery of Boxer is well underway. Initial prototypes were delivered in December 2023 and the first series production vehicles were delivered in June 2024.”
Eagle further detailed the timeline for achieving operational capability, noting, “The Initial Operating Capability is planned for Quarter four 2025.” However, she also acknowledged the challenges posed by broader global supply chain issues, indicating potential impacts on the delivery schedule.
The Boxer vehicle, which will serve as the new British Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV), is an eight-by-eight-wheeled, all-terrain, armoured transport vehicle designed for rapid adaptation to various military missions. It features a unique module design consisting of a drive module and a mission module, allowing it to be swiftly reconfigured for different roles and scenarios.
Boxer’s initial variants include a troop-carrying model, an ambulance, a command vehicle, and a specialist carrier. Equipped with advanced threat detection technology, the Boxer has 360-degree high-definition long-range cameras that can scan for enemy threats even when moving at speed, alerting soldiers inside through a digital display. Additionally, the vehicle is fitted with air conditioning and a nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) protection system to counter various threats.
The modularity and ability to continuously upgrade the Boxer are key components of the Land Industrial Strategy, ensuring that the vehicle can evolve and integrate new capabilities throughout its lifecycle. This approach includes the potential future integration of an Active Protection System and ensuring the mission system architecture is compatible with other services and allies.
Nothing about its weapon system(s). I think we know why!
Boxer is going to need to be able to detect and engage the sort of small FPV drones that will be sent in numbers to such an attractive target
The active protection system will be useful of course – but small drones are proving highly successful in Ukraine against all sorts of Russian armoured vehicles
Drones have been used to target everything including soft-skinned trucks and dismounted soldiers. I don’t see everything having a bespoke anti-drone system, any more than every platform in the army ever had a bespoke system to counter enemy attack helicopters, ground attack aircraft, tanks, ATGWs etc etc.
Certainly the British Army has a counter-drone programme comprising a number of projects. Enemy air is currently best countered by purpose-made point and area defence weapons operated by specialists.
Small Russian drones are causing immense problems across the whole front in Ukraine. They are frequently operated in numbers, with one higher up used as a spotter drone, the others are the attack drones. Both sides have learned how to synchonise their final attack to strike their target from different directions simultaneously. Boxers anywhere near an enemy concentration would be extremely vulnerable Russian drones can be detected by the RF that they emit, even though their signals may be encrypted, and Ukraine servicemen in the front line trenches have electronic equipment that can detect them. Successfully engaging small FPV drones… Read more »
The point I was making is that enemy drones would not just target Boxers. they would target everything down to and including a single dismounted soldier – I have seen a video of a UKR drone doing exactly that.
There seems to be this view that everything should have a bespoke anti-drone system. That is not realistic.
We have never fitted an anti-aircraft system to every platform. The BA is developing a counter-drone policy and equipment to match. It really does not mean that every BA vehicle will end up having an anti-drone system.
Ah, but it has a 360 degree system to alert everyone of potential threats, and .might even have, at some stage, and when budgets allow, a self protection system (unspecified). Perhaps by 2030…the year we have everything.
AA
I admire your optimism. FOC for Boxer is 2032. As Daniele pointed out in another thread yesterday, it’s a glacial production rate.
All Boxers can detect drones 360 degrees? OK I did not know that. Do you have details?
I do not ever see all BA vehicles having self-protection systems to counter everything that might pose a threat – drones, tanks, ATGWs, ground attack aircraft.
But the BA does have a counter-drone programme. Does not mean a bespoke 1/drone system on every vehicle will result.
Says so in the article..can detect threats 360 even when moving. Doesnt say the exact level of threats, though. I would like every Boxer to have an AWS that could possible provide a level of drone protection.
AA
Seems to just be a camera system.
a/drone, not 1/drone!
Any IFV variants planned yet?
Imagine the lift in morale if they actioned this and even prioritised it? Maybe there’s stuff going on in the background as they can’t really ignore it. Just hope it’s a good quantity and a sensible mix of wheels and tracked…if there has to be wheels…lol 😏
I see Nicholas Drummond is hammering on on twitter about Boxer, both wheeled tracked (which looks bloody ugly) and now Dingo (looks a bit ordinary and is it as good as the Bushmaster?), loves his all things wheels. Hope they’re other expert voices out there to listen to and the best options chosen. Keep on trackin’.. 🇬🇧
He has a bit of a vested interest I think?
Isn’t it odd that James Cartlidge, MinDP at the start of the month, is asking Maria Eagle, new MinDP, for information he already knows? It hasn’t changed all that much in the last three weeks, James. What did you think was going to happen as soon as you left?
I thought that!
Parliamentary procedure. A designated member from the loyal Opposition benches is asked to put a question to the Minister. Recent Parliaments gave that task to Kevan Jones, a Labour member if you recall. By this means the Ministry avoids accusations that it not only answers but asks its own questions. By tradition the Police Federation is represented in Parliament by an Opposition spokesperson.Of course, any Honourable Member can ask supplementary questions of the Minister following this opening exchange.
P.S. I ought to have also mentioned the Opposition spokesperson is selected (by their own party) for their knowledge and interest in the work of the Ministry involved, that is clear in this case. Previously Jones, on Labour’s right, was interested in defence matters. Jones has been gazetted for a life peerage.
Ah. So this was Cartlidge bowling underarm so to speak. I suppose it would be bad form to respond with, I refer the Honorable Gentleman to the answer he himself gave on the 2nd May. I admit I’d have found that very tempting.
But why ask such ‘bone’ questions? Why not ask about Government intent regarding reversing cuts, increasing defence spend, reducing capability gaps?
Because after 14 years in power, cuts in everything, complete dismantling of parts of industry you don’t ask questions when you really don’t want the obvious and embarrassing answer.
“We have been in charge for 7 weeks and are still busy trying to make sense of the mess you left us after 14 years”.
It’s like pulling the pin out of a hand grenade and then sitting on it. 🥴
“It’s like pulling the pin out of a hand grenade and then sitting on it. 🥴”
😆
Daniele, how did you input your points to a previous SDR?
I recall there was a webpage linked to the review on MoD website, inviting feedback. I think….was a while ago now.
👍
Fair point. Just makes Cartlidge look a fool asking questions that he knows the answers too.
If I recall it was a labour government that left us high and dry with no aircraft carriers or harriers to fly off them you can’t blame the tories for everything
You don’t understand how this works. The question goes into the record. Hansad. That’s the ‘Bible’ of Parliament and cannot be altered ’round the back’. This question opens the door to other Members on either the opposition side or governemnt benches to ask further questions. They do. It may seem ancane to you and me but this is how its done. It’s a shame more people don’t care. Parliamentary procedure was altered by Mr Speaker solely because a baying mob of immigrant Islamists demand blood outside the ‘Mother of Parliaments’ and noone in authority took any notice of this assault… Read more »
Hi Barry, I had hoped I had a little more knowledge than most. At Staff College we studied Parliamentary organisation and procedures and visited the House of Commons. I did another tour of the HoC with a community group some years later and on a third occasion I watched a defence debate from the Strangers Gallery. I watch PMQs on TV quite frequently. I thought the writen record was called Hansard, rather than Hansad – and have not suggested it could be altered. I’m certainly aware of an MP asking an initial question and then a supplementary – but does… Read more »
My typing is purely single digit and wayward. Don’t let it bother you. Most of what gets said in the House is pure performance; often the place is deserted. You will know I gather, about voted through ‘on the nod’? The Minister here and her ‘oppo’ will have had off the record conversations around the back and these are frequently cordial, first names basis. As for the dumb question, it’s like ‘one outside the off stump’ to start. The kind of deep conversation we read on these pages wouldn’t suit.The ‘work’ goes on in Committee (where there is a lot… Read more »
👍
Standard stuff, scripted on the record questions designed to set a datum point.
This will be brought out in a year or so criticise the government on its lack of etc, etc, etc….
Same old
Has a varient of the Boxer been given totbe UA? This would prove a useful test in identifying faults.
So we’ll be pootling along in Bulldogs until they are at least 70 years old.
Rather a sorry state of affairs.
Yes, yes. All very interesting. But the more important question is does it have a boiling vessel?
Some questions for Maria Eagle! What is the specific definition here for IOC? How many vehicles and issued to what type of units? Is Industry really only building 65 per year? What about tranches to increase numbers above the very small figure of 623? When does the SPG get built?
I have a serious question that people on here may be able to answer….
The original contract for these stated up to 1500 Boxers may be bought. I see we have ordered 623 so far in various forms with another small order to follow for other requirements. Does anyone know if we have any plans for the rest to be ordered? Looking for sensible answers from people that may know the real answer.