WFEL, a key partner in the manufacture of Boxer armoured vehicles for UK MoD, has awarded a three-year contract to Chesterfield-based Wesco Anixter for the supply of components to be used in the assembly and integration of the Boxer vehicles at WFEL’s Stockport defence manufacturing facility.
This contract comprises a Vendor Managed Inventory agreement (VMI) to streamline WFEL’s inventory management, with Wesco Anixter replenishing WFEL’s stock levels based on data delivered by electronic data interchange (EDI).
This managed supply solution includes both direct parts such as Fasteners and Fixings and indirect production consumables, allowing Wesco Anixer to work in close collaboration with the WFEL team to “drive continuous improvement and process efficiencies as part of the value-added supply chain services”.
The awarding of this contract by WFEL means that a number of UK jobs at Wesco Anixer will be both created and sustained to fulfil the three-year contract.
Commenting on this latest contract awarded as part of WFEL’s UK-wide Boxer vehicle supply chain roll-out, WFEL’s Managing Director, Ian Anderton, said:
“WFEL demands components of the highest quality from its sub-contractors, together with exceptional service levels – and Wesco Anixer meets our rigorous requirements in this respect. We are, therefore, delighted to welcome Wesco Anixter to our ever-growing UK supply chain, as we move closer to delivering the Boxer armoured vehicles to the British Army.”
Following an extensive technology transfer programme from Germany, the UK Boxer Programme is creating 120 additional jobs at WFEL.
Hasn’t one of the main lessons learned in Ukraine being the reinforcement of the view that wheeled vehicles are considerably inferior to tracked vehicles on soft ground? I read that one of the senior Ukranian commanders said a lack of tracked vehicles had slowed down their operation to retake Kherson.
Add in the lack of a turreted 30mm cannon and Boxer seems like a step down from Warrior which I understand it will be replacing. Would we not have been better off with a mix of Boxer and CV90?
Ummmmm😎
my understanding is we are getting an amount of ajax afv along with recce and a few other variants, lord knows what is going on in the minds at the mod because I think they don,t know themselves.I know warrior is outdated but it would have been nice to keep them even if it,s just for the reserves to play with, but the bean counters don,t like us having too many things god forbid if we have anything that looks like we actually have defence…
We are getting 198 of the Ajax recce/strike variant. It will provide fire support for our tanks and infantry. ARES will carry the troops, albeit just armed with a 50 cal. We have 600 odd Boxers on order, with funding allocated for 1,000. A number up to 1,300 has been discussed. Hopefully a good amount of those will be an IFV variant. We will still maintain an all tracked option, while having a more expeditionary force with Boxer. The final make up of that program will determine how successful the force structure is. Lets hope for plenty of IFV, mortar,… Read more »
Sorry mate you have that a bit wrong! Ajax is a recce vehicle and most definitely will not be providing fire support for anyone the gun is for its own defence, Ares will carry specialists teams of RE recce,RA fiire control etc not infantry.
RobW is correct insofar as the earlier plan was to use 2 of the Ajax regiments in the “Medium Armour” role as fire support for Boxer Btns.
So I get what he meant.
Ah so no plan survives contact with etc etc 🙄😄
Never does when the abomination called Strike is concerned or with the Army board about, they change the plan ever few years and no reorg is ever complete before the next one ( cuts ) arrives.
Is that still the plan?
No. Now 2 of the Armoured Recc Regs ( With Ajax family ) are going to where they were originally intended when 1st ordered before the Strike monster surfaced – namely one for each AI Brigade. The other 2 are a part of the Deep Recc Strike Bde, teamed with MLRS and other recc assets. Ajax ( Scout – turreted version ) should hopefully still be part of Armoured Regiment Recc Troops as CVRT are and other members of the Ajax family will be with units of the RS, RE, RA in those brigades. CVRT Scimitar currently serves in Recc… Read more »
And as usual I forget the REME’s Armoured Close Support Battalions, sorry Ian and Graham!!
👍😁
Many thanks Daniele; as always you keep on top of things.
Still going to be used for that in the Deep Recce Strike BCT. The rest will be part of the Armoured BCTs. At least that’s today’s plan.
Yes, as I outlined above. 👍 Though whether they will be used in a FS role in DRSBCT I’m curious, as their ace is their sensors, not their gun.
Sorry, replied to the wrong post. I assume from govt descriptions of the BCT that they will be used in a FS role. Would hope so seeing that GDUK paid LMUK $1m for the turrets and gun. £3m each.
$1b for Ajax turrets
I should know better than to comment on anything army related 🤣
But if Ajax isn’t now being used for fire support, why get 198 of them?
Because with 4 Armoured Recc Regiments in the “Armoured Cavalry” role to fill, each with 3 Recc Sqns of Ajax Scout plus possibly in Armoured Regs and AI Bns too ( as detailed in my post above ) they need them, and number will include attrition reserves, training pool, others at Ashchurch, with the Land Training Fleet and the LWC at Warminster, and so on and so on.
Plus the original assumption was for 4 Brigades worth of Recce not 2.
Thanks for explaining. As you may have guessed, army ORBAT is something of a mystery to me.
AFAIK the current batch of Boxers on order will be the APC variant armed with a machine gun, other variants are command and ambulance, and no IFV variants so far.
Correct, but more are coming.
Isn’t the whole point of Boxer is that it’s modular. Doesn’t matter what “complete” versions we buy , they are a chassis and a module. We are currently buying x modules and x chassis and getting x Boxers. If we buy 40 IFV modules and 30 ambulance modules and 60 mortar modules – or whatever – we don’t need to buy every module a chassis – like we don’t need to buy every chassis a module. If you have 100 chassis, 100 APC modules, 30 ambulance modules and 10 mortar modules you can field a max of 100 APC (alone)… Read more »
Hopefully that will work in the real world but you would have thought they would been shouting that to the roof tops if it was in the ‘plan’!
Modularity is at this level a trick to getting politicians to pay more.
No one will change the modules.
Brains – “I’ve got a great idea for Thunderbird 2, build one flying ship with 5 interchangeable mission modules, that way you can cover many missions with one aircraft”.
Mr Tracey -“Great idea, build me 5 Thunderbird 2s with the 5 different mission modules”
Brains – “But that defeats the whole USP and idea of Thunderbird 2 – and will cost a lot more – why ?”
Mr Tracey – “We will never be bothered to change the mission modules, what’s the point”.
“IF we buy IFV modules”, My point is we have not done that, and there is no indication we will. My concern is the MOD is cheaping out and buying the most basic lightly armed variants.
That’s fair enough, but my point is – doesn’t matter what we buy at this stage and the cheapest makes sense. Buy more expensive modules later and mix and match as needed. Same principle as the Type 31. Buy the cheapest fit out, get them in service and then modify at your leisure – can’t modify something you don’t have. Buy the cheapest version and upgrade as you can afford to. Much better to have something that is upgradable – even if you never upgrade – as at least you have something. Waiting until you can afford the top spec… Read more »
I think we cannot afford any more FFBNW mentality given the changing global stance of Russia, China, and Iran, we need peer-matching/overmatching capabilities ASAP not years down the road.
If you did buy a lot of cheap ones you would need tongs! Lower quality, higher quanity! Or you could go to the manager of BAE and Ajax and force them to give the best ones for free!😂 But good quality ones are good because tanks are now able to be blong to bits more easily so for example the Challenger II probably has the best armour right now it’s like 70 tongs or somthing most are 50! Somone told me tanks are useless in village fighting, and open battles but are good in flanks?!🙄🤔 But we could get elite… Read more »
Are you aware that there is now a tracked hull, which can accept all 20 of the different modules for the wheeled variant, plus some extras. Making it good for the penny pinchers, probably bad for the soldiers and the army but that’s a long story.
https://www.kmweg.com/systems-products/tracked-vehicles/boxer/boxer-tracked/
Yes its like a horse. You can put more or less anything on it. A man in a cuirass or even a Maxim in a broken down state!
The words ‘modular’ and ‘modularity’ can mean different things to different people – to me regarding Boxer it means swapping between different variants on the production line,not on the Battlefield.
The battlefield – that would be crazy. Who mentioned the battlefield ? Changing modules – which the manual says takes an hour with a crane or a Jack – gives you the ability to swap modules from broken down or damaged chassis at repair depots or at an FOB before engaging anyone – thereby maximising the assets you have. If you can fix a broken down IFV by swapping an APC or ambulance module or even transfer the IFV module to a spare chassis. Some modules could conceivably be used without a chassis – stick an IFV module in a… Read more »
Also utilising the modularity of Boxer means you can transport 2 Boxers in 3 A400. Take 1 chassis each in 2x A400 and 2 modules in the 3rd with some jacks. If you plan on transporting a couple of Boxers in this way then what module you put back it at the destination doesn’t need to be the one that was on it when you left. Forward deploy chassis only and you can then fly out two of whatever modules you need there 2 at a time by A400. If you have 4 Ambulance or APC boxers somewhere like say… Read more »
Fair enough Battlefield might not be the best word – substitute it for Deployment ( anywhere from home depot /motor pool to Battlefield) that’s closer to what I meant, I’d agree with Alexs, once bought I’d be surprised if the modules ever got swapped out.
Fair enough. If the ability for a handful of men and 4 jacks to convert 4 APC or 4 ambulances into 4 IFV in under an hour without any specialised equipment and in austere conditions, doesn’t appeal to the Army then so be it.
They may as well have bought something that had fixed variants if they didn’t think the modularity and ease of swapping modules at will was worthwhile.
I’ve been saying this since the now old idea of mixed strike brigades. Just another mess the army got themselves into…
I’ve been thinking about this, and I’m not sure that the insufficiency of wheeled vehicles has been shown in Ukraine. We had the initial spectacle of the Russian armoured coloumn outside of Kiev, but weren’t these tracked vehicles? Furthermore we had Ukrainians attacking from quad bikes, which are wheeled. Then we had positions where Ukraine flooded the ground and neither wheeled nor tracked could pass (perhaps an argument for amphibs). Maybe a lack of tracked vehicles slowed down the ability to retake Kherson, but that wasn’t in the wet season anyway. On person’s anecdotal evidence feels like confirmation bias to… Read more »
does tracked reduces mechanical reliability compared to wheeled
Once the ground hardens up again, wheeled vehicles will do fine off-road. In a lot of images of BMP-1s, they show that they to have struggled in the mud just as much as wheeled vehicles, due to the narrow tracks they use. One of the main lessons learned is that the Russian BTR series of 8 wheeled APCs are death traps. If hit, trying to get through the two small mid-compartment doors is apparently a nightmare. Which is one of the reasons you see a lot of Russian troops riding on top of the vehicle. The mid-doors also do not… Read more »
The BTR60 & BTR70 also had petrol engines as well which isnt good if the vehicle gets hit
I agree if we are going to Moscow next Spring we better upgrade those Warriors. Now The Russians are taking their T54 and T55’s out of storage; maybe we should think again about our Conquorers. I remember Mr Norman was in the TA and slated to fight one in Germany. I thought that was super cool.
Oh No! you mean we scrapped all those and the Centurians as well? Darned fools in the Treasury.
drove a beetle in my time and it would fly over potholed roads , hitler did design that – air cooled, light front end, rear driven to go to moscow.
Steve, I haven’t gone through all the replies, but did you know that there is now a tracked version of BOXER being marketed. The tracked hull accepts all the modules developed for the wheeled vehicle and more. Archer 155mm artillery being one of them. (Or so I’m told. Can’t confirm.)
https://www.kmweg.com/systems-products/tracked-vehicles/boxer/boxer-tracked/
The RCH 155 look strange.
https://www.kmweg.com/systems-products/wheeled-vehicles/artillery/rch-155/
They’re using EDI, does that mean EDIFACT standard messages? I was coding software for those in the early 90’s.
Surely a REST based API would be better?
My knowledge extends to switch it off and back on so absolutely clueless.
EDI is a generic term that doesn’t dictate a particular solution or API.
cant we keep boxer while upgrading warrior i doubt treausry will allow that
Any intention to give it some firepower? Or are we going back to the 1960s concept of an apc just being a glorified taxi? The world moved on from that decades ago, only the British army seems hell bent on giving its infantry less firepower. Whilst everyone else gives their infantry a vehicle that can fight its way on to an objective then continue to support the infantry.
Hope to God not, as things stand that is one of the most expensive APC taxis out there.
Boxer is not an IFV though.
So RWS are on order and Javelin will go on those. Lots of rumours of other variants they are looking into, so waiting for news of those with Cannon, 120mm Mortar, Overwatch with Brimstone, and so on.
There’s an interesting view on Wavell Room website about the merits of APC vs IFV from a former soldier. Worth reading.
Thanks, that will be interesting.
Patrick Benham Crosswell on 5/82022.
The issue I had with it is that it looks back to a time before connectivity and not forward. The idea that an IFV can’t pick out targets because vehicles in front obscure the view should not hold in the future, when the vehicles in the front will relay positions to local units automatically, as will the drones above. Also the idea that AFVs can’t surpress the enemy as it can’t depress its main gun was belied by the scenario that the article itself was positing, that there were many IFVs in formation. Can’t an IFV behind support an IFV… Read more »
The article is very specific about the problem with IFVs. I don’t know enough to judge whether the author’s concern is well founded. But thinking more widely about the IFV as a type, it has never really been used by Western forces in it’s original role- crossing devastated, possibly radioactive terrain with the infantry squad fighting from within the vehicle. Bradley originally had firing ports,now sealed, Warrior didn’t. So the IFV delivers it’s squad to the frontline where they dismount to fight on foot, just as an APC would. Would it not be better to separate the functions of infantry… Read more »
“Would it not be better to separate the functions of infantry transport and fire support into two separate vehicles.” I think fire power and troop capacity will be far less, not greater, as both vehicles together cost as much as two IFVs not one. Each Boxer APC carries 8 dismounts, and each IFV carries 7 dismounts (with a KMW 30 mm automated turret, although the commander can also dismount leaving the driver and gunner). So for the same money you carry 14-16 dismounts instead of 8. Similarly you have two 30mm or 40mm guns instead of one. Then you also… Read more »
Both of the newly ordered US AFVs are tracked. Their performance versus wheeled platforms isn’t really the issue, though I agree that mixing the two as in Strike and now Deep Recce BCT looks problematic. My point was really that an IFV, whether wheeled or tracked, imposes design constraints. FV 430 could carry a full section/ squad of 10, the M113 even more. Warrior and Bradley can carry 6/7 dismounts in what are larger vehicles. Most IFV cannon require more internal space than the outdated Rarden. So if you want to uparm the IFV you lose more dismounts or build… Read more »
We are already getting rid of Bulldogs and building something bigger, considerably bigger: Boxer APC. They can carry 11. Adding an automated turret will lose you one, so a Boxer IFV will carry the same number as Bulldog APC. Cancelling Boxer and going back to a smaller, cheaper APC at this stage is unthinkable. The choice is Boxer APC or a Boxer IFV that can add to the infantry support mix organically. The question is, can you, for the lifetime difference in price between the two, really provide extra/better firepower? It’s hard to find anyone outside of the Treasury who… Read more »
Boxer in APC version has a crew of 3 plus 8 dismounts. If it were to be configured to carry a CTA turret, significant space would be lost both to the gun and its ammunition. Anything bigger than a 40 mm would need even more space.
France has split the roles of APC and fire support between Griffon and Jaguar, both based on the same platform. A bit like Saracen and Saladin back in the day.
As their Boxer equivalent, the French use the eight wheeled VBCI IFV, with a turretted 25mm cannon. (VBCI v2 has a two man 40mm turret).
The French have gone for high numbers of APC/CRVs (Griffons and Jaguars) for their VBMR requirement, replacing the old VAB. Each costing less than €1m, they are not in the same role. Far cheaper, lighter weight, and less armoured than the VBCI, Griffons are battle taxis not fighting vehicles.
I know it’s a little late, but an article in Shephard today caught my eye about the new “Dragoon module” for the Boxer offered by KMW with a Kongsberg turret modified from last year’s shown on the “Puma module”. Dragoon is based on the UK’s ICV module with a strengthened roof and a lightweight fully non-penetrating RT60 turret so you don’t lose any carrying capacity. It stays at 3+8. It’s still is fitted with the 30mm chain gun as standard, although you can swap in a 40mm cannon. KMW’s turret was always going to be the cheapest turret option if… Read more »
Having just read the piece. I did have a chuckle, as I thought to myself, this person has never been in contact. To win a fight you need overmatching firepower with a bit of tactical nuance and shed loads of aggression. An APC with a 7.62 in a RWS does not give you that, it can give you suppressing fire, but only as long as the belt of ammo lasts. As some poor muppet has to get out and then reload it. You don’t want to be doing that in contact. Being that poor muppet who had to do it… Read more »
You can put the extra money you did not spent in IFV in more APC’s, more mortars, more artillery, equip better your soldiers etc. maybe even in a dedicated infantry support vehicle.
Israelis for example never developed IFV
One of factors might probably be because long distance direct fire in ME makes them not so useful, the light gun is not useful to battle at ATGM range.
This while several Arab countries had more than +1000 BMP’s.
It used an argument that tanks will provide the heavy firepower that’s needed rather than an IFV. Yeah, well, just look at the state of the army’s tank fleet, good luck finding a tank to support you…
Interesting read although a bit dismissive of IFVs IMHO.
I wonder if the uk will get tracked boxer vehicles for infantry , not sure how many soldiers in a tracked boxer with a cannon turret , 30mm cannon would be spoiling ourselves .
There is a uk company developing a light weight low recoil 30×113 cannon. Believe it is the venom lr or something like that. Based off the aden gun. Up to 1300rpm but obviously would be more for single or 200 rpm. But can be mounted on .5 M2 capable RWS. Also in development is a lightweight low recoil 25x137mm.
I read in an earlier thread they were bought up by an American company, but their web site says a majority stake has been taken by a Turkish conglomerate. At least they are still manufacturing in the UK.
The skill sets are still abundant in the uk but uk has allowed most companies to be bought out buy foreign buyers . Everything is now fragmented . A country like Turkey is making a big effort to be home grown , where as uk seems to be making a big effort to go other direction
Original plan for Boxer APC version was for it to have a GPMG only but someone did point out how retrograde that was so it changed to .50 !, Where are these spare modules going to be kept whilst the battle rages, good target for deep strike maybe!
Must admit my presumption about modularity was that while the same chassis can support a whole range of modules that the buyer would de ide at source what modules would go on these chassis even though it had the potential to upgrade and repurpose them at a future date if required. I had not assumed that they would be like some version of Thunderbird 2 with mix and match as you go along. Don’t feel that is going to be very practical in a conflict scenario though I guess nice to have the flexibility if combat changes minds.
I worry about the logistics of modules with guns arriving at the fight …. only to dock the ship and you have command modules…..
Would like to know how the process is going to work
Trials are scheduled to begin this year unless something has changed since this was posted. March 26 2021 “The first production vehicles are forecast to enter trials and training in 2023 for an initial operating capability by 2025 which we are working to accelerate. We are now aiming for full operating capability by 2030 bringing this forward from 2032 by accelerating the programme.” “We will no longer upgrade Warrior but it will remain in service until replaced by Boxer, which we expect to happen by the middle of this decade.” In 2020, the House of Commons Defence Select Committee described… Read more »
Trials are to begin this year, FOC by 2030 and not 2032. (Post waiting for Approval) In the meantime! 24.01.2023 “It is Ajax, Boxer and Challenger 3 that will form the backbone of Future Soldier. The first UK Boxer will come off the production line early this year. The modern digitalised armoured vehicle will be made up of four variants: an Infantry Carrier; a Specialist Carrier; a Command Vehicle; and an Ambulance.” LINK “Boxer armoured vehicle programme boosted to 623 vehicles as joint UK-Germany production begins in Telford, Stockport and Munich. The British Army will receive 100 extra armoured Boxer… Read more »
Meanwhile in a ‘coals to Newcastle’ deal the Australian Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy and his German counterpart, Parliamentary State Secretary to the Federal Minister of Defence Thomas Hitschler have today signed an agreement to manufacture 100 Boxers at Rheinmettal’s Queensland production facility (which has now commenced local production of the Australian Boxer variants) for export to Germany.
Uncertain at this stage if it will be the Australian spec CRV turreted variant with 30mm canon or some other variant specific to the Bundeswehr.
Defence News reports:
So it sounds like something close to the Aussie spec CRVs.
Running out of options with the spring offensive looming! “Russia appears to have pulled 1950s-era tanks out of storage in the latest sign of a serious armour shortage in its army. Pictures and video have emerged of what experts say are T-54 and T-55 tanks being transported by rail from a military depot for mothballed equipment in Russia’s far east. If sent into Ukraine the vehicles would likely become the oldest main battle tanks used in the conflict. The images were obtained by the Conflict Intelligence Team (CIT), an independent Russian intelligence group. It did not reveal how it had obtained… Read more »
Why don’t we just stick to warrior. (whatever version it is now) Seems to me, that the war in Ukraine demonstrates, that if you have ten’s of 1000’s of drones, tanks and tracked vehicles would become obsolete.
Then all you would need, is a very fast agile vehicle, to put boots on the ground, to capture and hold that ground, as you advance rapidly.
Just an idea…
Isn’t that exactly what the plan is? The army will be expeditionary, able to deploy relatively quickly with Boxer at its core.
It will take time given budget constraints, but the focus seems to be getting Boxer in service and then adding to the fleet. We can expect IFV, mortar, SHORAD, and perhaps artillery variants in time. If they had the money I’d imagine they would order it all now, but that will have to wait for the promised uplift to 2.5% of GDP.
I’m feeling optimistic, albeit that it will take 10 years to sort out.
Boxers are multi-purpose what do you’se think it is best at?😐🙄🙄🤔
How about a N.A.F.F.I wagon? 👽