The British Mechanised Infantry Vehicle was designed with capacity for future upgrades including to its remote weapon station, though no decision has been taken to replace the current system, according to an answer given in Parliament.
Ben Obese-Jecty, the Conservative member for Huntingdon, asked the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he had made of the potential merits of upgrading from the Kongsberg RS4 to the Kongsberg RS6 remote weapon station on Boxer.
Luke Pollard, the Minister of State for Defence, said: “The United Kingdom Mechanised Infantry Vehicle was designed with capacity for future upgrades, including to its Remote Weapon Station. The Army continues to assess capability, priority and affordability options across the Mechanised Infantry Vehicle Programme and wider Armoured Fighting Vehicle fleet. No decision has currently been taken to upgrade the current Remote Weapon System.”
Boxer entered British service with the Kongsberg Protector RS4, a stabilised mount carrying a 7.62mm or 12.7mm machine gun with a day and thermal sight, operated from inside the vehicle. The RS6 is a heavier station in the same family, rated to carry a 30mm cannon or a 40mm grenade launcher along with anti-tank missiles, and Kongsberg has marketed it to armies wanting a protected weapon fit without the cost and weight of a full turret.
Australia selected the RS6 for its own Boxer order under Land 400 Phase 2, mounting a 30mm turret on its reconnaissance variants, and Germany has fitted heavier stations and turrets to Boxers for several customers.
Well it seems good to have the option. That is sensible.
I expect there are situations where one option is better than the other.
Flexibility is king you would think.
Maybe, maybe not, that depends if interior arrangements, armor do not get in the way.
But what is more important is that the existing RS4 is modified to be able to fight drones.
Seems a no brainer for some of the fleet at least.
Probably no money.
I’d like to know where the 2 billion cut from the Boxer budget has gone. It’s being said it’s not being reprioritised on GBAD, Patria, which 2 billion could by thousands, more artillery, much needed firepower on Boxer or other pressing kit, but just removed.
I didn’t expect it to go to GBAD but I was expecting it to go to Patria. That kind of money could have bought a couple of thousand Patria 6X6 and really changed the make up of the force like the Germans have done.
My guess would be that it’s gone as part of departmental ‘savings’ that had to be found. It probably went in to the bottomless pit that is the national pension due to higher than expected inflation.
I think the optimum word Daniele is GONE.
DM. My guess is AJAX. The debacle that keeps on giving or should I say ‘ taking’.
Don’t believe this article is correct , sure the Australians have put a very good 30mm gun and turret on top of their Boxers but it is a fully manned turret and looks identical to the gun and turret the Germans and Dutch have put on top of their Boxer IFV. It most definitely isn’t the RS6. IMHO the biggest deficiency in the future army programme or whatever we’re calling it now is the total absence of an IFV. As I have posted before my unit is one of the first to achieve IOC at Coy group level with Boxer and having talked to the troops after initial disappointment at losing Warrior they rate it really highly indeed . It is fast , to quote ‘ very fast ‘ and gives a really smooth ride to the dismounts in the back . What it lacks horribly however compared to Warrior is fire power . Pretty much every army in Europe iadide from the Irish s now equipped with a modern IFV with many having chosen wheels over tracks fand or a while bunch of reasons we have discussed before . Whilst several like the Germans with both Puma and Sharkel now field a mixed fleet solution wheels and tracks some like the French with VBCI now only have wheeled IFV . A no brainer to.me , once Warrior is gone the British infantry will be in very bad need of a proper IFV and the only practical and affordable solution – Boxer with a decent gun on the top.
Sorry , that should read Schakal but you get my drift – the Dutch have got them too and I believe the Danes will follow suit.
I disagree, the biggest deficiency of all these programes is self protection, all of them besides a dozen of C3 will be destroyed by drones and NLOS ATGMs without being able to defend itself.
Well given Ireland have never operated IFVs it’s not a huge surprise, the uplift to the French vehicles will be a massive jump in and of itself.
I thought the RS4 could mount a grenade launcher and Javelin – which I think has been tested by the army, in addition to GPMG
Correct it can . Both AGL and Javelin have been successfully fired in trials in the UK from Boxer mounted RS4.
Do we just fit whats the cheapest? seems that way, want some thing better but get the cheapest and have to up grade it at vast cost when it fails when called on to do its job. State normal, A boxer with a 7.62 machine gun is an APC at best, and can not supress any thing,
Agree but the 1st Fusiliers Boxers you are currently sereing on YouTube etc fitted only with a GPMG are doing that for a reason , for exercise purpose only they can all be fitted with a BFA. For those not in the business that is the yellow thing on the end of the barrel.
Thank you highlighting the blank firing attachment thing, so if not in exercise what would they be fitted with? As u doubt its much use against other armour or dug in troops, Boxer is a very big expensive APC, it is a poor replacement for what had as an IFV if indeed it is the replacement,
If a more capable but necessarily heavier turret is to be considered, for heavens sake take a couple of vehicles fitted with the bigger turret out to Suffield. Give them a good work out in the boggier and steeper bits, preferably remotely operated. Anyone who ever served in the turreted wheeled Ferret will know someone killed by that vehicle turning over, particularly in wet and slippery conditions.
Terrain in Suffield is not dissimilar to that of parts of Ukraine.
Even tracked vehicles will get bogged in Canada do I don’t expect Boxer would excel there.
It is beyond obvious that the British Army requires tracked IFVs, preferably CV90 (build it in the old tank factory in Newcastle) with various turrets including 120mm smoothbore (now to be built in Britain). That’s a good way of enhancing lethality.
If I recall correctly there was a company that was developing/had developed a tracked module for The Boxer.Not sure, however,how far that got off the drawing board.
KNDS have shown the tracked version at exhibitions.
Good commonality with Boxer wheeled and much better suited to turrets including 120mm smoothbore.
Beyond time to get a tracked IFV requirement scoped and trials organised.
Warrior OSD has been pushed back to 2030 I think. I don’t think there’s the money to order another IFV for quite a while. When they do, I would think the labour govt will want to see UK jobs. That would make Boxer or an IFV version of Ajax favourite. Maybe an ARTEC UK built Puma is an option.
I would imagine any Defence Minister would run a mile from a new Ajax contract.
Turreted Boxer seems likewise fraught, probably only budget not danger to crews.
So that just leaves file 13. Two hopes that nothing kicks off in the Baltic Ststes meanwhile…but Slim is saddling his horse and Bob died a while ago now…
Where has that come from Paul?
As far as I’m aware Warrior is gone next year, with no replacement.
Very sadly – true. Point is we don’t have to trial a turret on Boxer to make it an IFV it has been done many times elsewhere , Germany, Holland , Australia etc and works very well. The French only have wheeled IFV as in VBCI and all works fine. Yes, keep tracks obviously for MBT but multi axcel wheeled options the only way to go for everything else and in selecting RCH155 the RAC have shown the way.
Should read RA not RAC.
Lol, yes mate I knew what you meant, you’re not one to confuse the two.
Correct – Warrior gone .
Confession….my browser AI which I presume found it somewhere 🫣
😆 👍
Beware of AI, I’d started to use it, just to compare with my own knowledge for fun.
I entered the names of two little known locations I know exist. For one location the AI was coming out with juicy details I wasn’t aware of, until I swiftly realised it was bollocks, as the AI wouldn’t know either.
The second place the AI flatly denied the place existed, and on another occasion said it did, contradicting itself.
I stopped using it after that, stick to Google and multiple sources rather than students in Africa.
That last bit I learned from an AI talk I went to, apparently it’s only as good as those who originally inputted into it and many of them are found cheaply in Africa.
Might give you ideas for a CV, job interview, or a novel though.
Yeh, lesson learned there re attributing sources.
Why on earth do we want tracked Boxer ? Great vehicle , leave it as is !
Terrain in Suffield is very similar to large parts of Northern Europe, particularly Ukraine. As we have seen, CR2 bogs in Ukraine just as CR1 did in Suffield and in sabkha areas of Saudi/Iraq deserts. Wheeled IFVs will simply not handle the terrain in and around Ukraine. They fall over with heavy turrets, active defence systems, extra armour etc etc.
The British Army requires a new tracked IFV that can go where CR3 goes. Wheeled Boxer is not that vehicle. Will the British Army get a new tracked IFV?
No; the mission willed but not the means…
As currently serving Inf. you are wrong. The British Army doesn’t want another tracked IFV, reliance on RLC low loaders , massive logistics tail etc . What we want is a proper wheeled IFV. . We haven’t used Sufield for years and years for trials and never with Boxer. My Regt currently has it and it has never rolled over. Many many nations have selected turreted Boxer and it works fine.
Fitted for but not with …. now where have we heard that before?