The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has confirmed ongoing delays in the delivery of Boxer Mechanised Infantry Vehicles (MIVs) due to global supply chain disruptions following the war in Ukraine.
However, the MOD remains committed to the programme, with up to 100 vehicles per year expected to be delivered.
Responding to Ben Obese-Jecty, Conservative MP for Huntingdon, Defence Minister Maria Eagle acknowledged the challenges but reiterated that Boxer vehicles are now entering production and being delivered:
“Whilst the Army’s modernisation will continue over the next decade with a programme of investment worth billions of pounds, future capability development priorities will be guided by the Strategic Defence Review (SDR).”
She confirmed that despite delays caused by supply chain issues, Boxer production is progressing, stating:
“Production vehicles are now arriving, and Defence expects industry to deliver up to 100 vehicles per year.”
However, specific details on monthly delivery schedules and brigade allocations were not disclosed, with Eagle stating:
“It would be inappropriate to comment on specific fielding plans and future force development until the SDR completes.”
The Boxer programme represents a £5 billion investment to provide the British Army with 623 state-of-the-art armoured vehicles, enhancing the mobility and protection of the UK’s new Strike Brigades. The platform, built by Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) in Telford, is expected to significantly improve the Army’s mechanised capability.
Speaking at the unveiling of the first fully British-made Boxer at the International Armoured Vehicle Conference in Farnborough, Eagle emphasised the strategic significance of the programme:
“The home-grown production of this world-class vehicle exemplifies our Government’s Plan for Change, deepening our partnership with industry to deliver thousands of highly skilled jobs and drive growth across the UK.”
Despite current delays, the British Army remains on track to integrate Boxer into its forces, supporting the UK’s broader push towards modernised, highly mobile, and well-protected land forces. However, the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) will ultimately shape further fielding plans and capability development priorities for the programme.
I think you’ll find more of the Boxer project is conducted at KNDS in Stockport, all the hulls are fabricated there, and roughly half the vehicles are being assembled in Stockport. Less than half of the Boxer programme is taking place in Telford.
We also iirc dont build a lot of the internals, engine/powertrain/electronics/internals from germany.
I don’t think it’s that simple. The Rolls Royce engines are assembled in East Grinstead, and integrated into the power trains by David Brown Santasalo, I think in Huddersfield. These are then shipped to Stockport and Telford. There are some Boxers being made completely in Germany, and the MTU engines for those will be made in Friedrichshaffen. The East Grinstead assembly line is new for Boxer, and you may well be right that some of the engine parts will have to come from Germany, at least initially.
However, I don’t believe all the UK power trains will be handled by DBS and Telford will be able to do some. The UK workshare seems to being divied up 50/50 by value between Stockport and Telford.
Interesting! I didnt realise MTU had a line in the uk, very good to hear.
We should be looking and committing to which country is more capable in the short term. I don’t care if it’s the UK or Germany, just get the bloody things built and fast. There will be plenty of time to balance the work share once enough vehicles are available for service. I suspect there will be follow-on options allowing for pay back on sharing over the next decade.
[ 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐃𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐦 𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐫 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐔𝐬 ]
Start your career with us today and work from the comfort of your home! No skills or experience required—just your dedication and a desire to succeed. Receive your payments weekly or monthly, depending on your preference. It’s a great opportunity to kickstart your career, earn a steady income, and enjoy the flexibility of working on your own terms! So Hurry and
Get Started Now.”….. 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝟏.𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞/
“The home grown production of this World class vehicle exemplifies our government’s plan for change, deepening our partnership with industry to deliver thousands of highly skilled jobs and drive growth across the UK”
It was the Tories who signed off on this and It seems a bit odd that this home grown product has been delayed by “Global Supply Chain Issues” ( I know, you don’t have to tell me).
Any sign of “Growth” today ?
Words !
Absolute cobblers.
Not your comment, the stuff these press releases come out with.
Well that’s a breath of fresh air. I thought I was alone in thinking all these Eagles comments were nothing more than press release Bolecks. Does she actually do any work ?
Eagle Speke mate.
They are long in words, short on detail, vague on facts.
The AD article on here is another example, this time Pollard.
Correction, the counter Drone article.
Aah the Ministry of Truth at work. Could be worse mind, at least as yet we don’t have DOGE Department heads thrown in for services rendered no doubt, doing influencer clothing videos on TikTok from their office on the side. No we know why Trump hesitated the ban. You can see how the Eastern Dictators think the West has become soft, corrupt and decadent and in its final death throes., the White House will become a car lot next… oh wait.
To be fair, that’s a symptom of government, whatever side they sit on. Not saying it isn’t frustrating, just saying it’s not a singular failing of Angela Eagle…
I guess the trend of saying a lot and yet saying nothing has been growing for some time now. I remember Prime Minister’s questions when there were actually discernible answers.
More success for Stockport, Stockport County are storming up to 5th in League 1 🙂
“World Class Strike Brigades”
This is an old statement, Strike Bdes have not existed for years.
World Class?
Ahhhh, the world class where:
We buy just about THE most expensive APC going, under arm it, and use it to supplement then replace true IFVs, lost by the army being unable to stick to a plan and prioritise.
Strike that mixed firepower on Ajax that could not easily self deploy with wheels on Boxer that could.
Strike, striking the enemy with a Regiment of Light Guns, all the artillery support those Brigades were to have.
Operating dispersed, with little in the way of CS CSS and susceptible to Drones of every type.
While cutting the number of HETS, dismantling the army railway capability, and putting half the two Brigades assets in Catterick with the tracks part around SPTA, and expecting all to rush to Tallin.
I could go on, just a taster, I’ve ranted too often about these abominations that damaged the one good Division we had under the A2020 plan and cut more CS CSS.
Carter was on TV recently bemoaning the lack of Tanks, Tanks HE HIMSELF was Instrumental in planning to remove.
The successor to Strike is a botched job of deleting Warrior, and putting Boxer in its place, and leaving 3 Dividion with 2 rather than 3 manoeuvre Brigades, with only 14 155mm pieces, plus MLRS.
The spin will probably describe this as World class as well.
On a more positive note, 100 Boxer a year? I thought it was 60?
I think you are mixing up too statements there.
George referred to the AI Brigades as “Strike Brigades” but Maria Eagle said “The home-grown production of this world-class vehicle” and made no reference to Strike Brigades.
Yep, fair one, having re read I missed the lack of quotes in that paragraph..
100 Boxers p.a. is the silver lining, but that is one heck of a cloud it is being found in.
Might 100 include the all-German Boxers?
Does anyone know if that is 623 drive units with the basic modules and if there are any extra specialised modules being built. Do we have access to modules from other nations etc.
Possibly an idea for European nations that have Boxer is to have a European pool of modules to use when and where needed.
Having modules without drives is a terrible idea. It very much limits your ability to use your force, and creates a “false efficiency.” AFAIK the British Army hasn’t fallen into this trap and is ordering complete vehicles.
Agree completely, this would work if you ordered the necessary drive units with a base set of modules, plus additional modules above what was needed to adapt brigades based on operational needs such as peacekeeping/coin vs peer war, but we all know that wouldn’t be the case.
Modularity sounds great but the reality is no military has the luxury of funding at levels where you could buy more than one drive unit to one module.
If the idea of more mission modules vs drive units was pushed, it would run the risk of accountants at the Treasury seeing it as a way to reduce drive units rather than add additional modules, there would then be the risk of not enough drive units for operational needs.
Although back to Ron’s original point on additional modules, I don’t think it would be unrealistic to believe that in combat they could end up with more mission modules than drive units due to damage and maintenance issues, under those circumstances the modular system could be quite valuable for putting the most necessary modules on working drive units rather than having what you need most stuck on a damaged or non functional drive unit.
I hope so, as it was reported on X last year, I recall several defence commentators picked up on it, that they planned more modules than drives in the 2nd Boxer batch.
I saw it as a simple money saving exercise, which will hamstring the army as you describe.
I saw that also, I agree it could only ever been spun as cost saving without considering capacity and effectiveness, hoping that’s one thing the SDR fixes, especially as the money was supposed to be set aside.
The risk currently is screwing up Boxer further for more programs that won’t deliver for much longer if at all and will spiral in cost, it is what it is now, it still has benefits and delivers some of the necessary capabilities and should be completed. An IFV is needed but should not be at the cost of Boxer Batch 2 which will be delivering different capabilities the army needs. The games of ‘either or’ for such a small force are pretty ridiculous.
About as much use as a 432 maybe worse.
Considering the global issues of the last 3 years in particular, I’m surprised the production rate for Boxer hasn’t been increased, especially if they do commit to the previously planned follow on orders that have already had the funding set aside plus RCH155.
At this rate they’re still looking at a decade or more to replace kit that is already due for replacement and could be needed within the next 5 years. Three years should have been sufficient time to increase capacity even with slow decision making, the irony is, by not increasing U.K. manufacturing capacity for Boxer in the last 3 years, if the SDR supports more Boxer orders, the choice will be between a decade wait for new platforms, with some of the newer platform types ordered not being available at all until the early 2030s or use existing German capacity rather than taking advantage of securing more industrial capacity and jobs in the U.K and offsetting some of the financial impact.
Perhaps they’re still scratching their heads at how to re-strategise following Carters destructive plan.
There is currently a huge backlog with the current orders. The Australian production line is generating Boxers for the German Army as well as their own. If anything the UK production line needs to be expanded pronto.
Yes, assuming the budget is there the constraint is manufacturing capacity. I have read reports that Babcock and Patria have proposed a UK production line for their 6×6 APC. Generally I am a fan of standardization, but given the urgency perhaps it would make sense to allocate new build Boxer chassis to the RCH155mm and use the Patria for other roles like APC and AMV ?
I think part of the issue is that more of the types that would be easier for Patria 6×6 to fill are already ordered and paid for with some already under construction, a lot of the potential new variants in batch 2 (could include RCH155, m-Shorad, 120mm mortar, bridging, repair and recovery) are more suited to larger platforms like Boxer.
The Patria 6×6 is a better candidate to replace the 432 which seems to be what they’re targeting.
432 is being replaced by Boxer variants, Patria will probably go units in the light mechanised formations.
I love “Eaglespeke!. Reminds me of “white man speak with forked tongue”.
Never be as good as the Saracen fleet we once had.
Experience in the Ukraine appears to show that adequate firepower is a essential element in both successfully delivering infantry onto enemy held positions and when encountering opposition IFVs. – as one might expect to occur in action. I also understand that a version of BOXER equipped with a 40mm CTA turret has already been demonstrated. So my question is would we appear to have rejected this option because such a turreted vehicle would reduce the number of infantry dismounts carried, or are we not selecting this option because of the usual funding constrains?
Other nations aquiring BOXER do in the main seem to require heavier armament than the 7.62mm or .50 machine gun we plan.