RBSL has unveiled the Boxer Overwatch, a Brimstone missile-equipped variant of the Boxer vehicle developed in collaboration with MBDA.

RBSL, in co-operation with MBDA, have completed the system design concepts and physical integration activities of Boxer Overwatch in response to British Army’s need for a Mounted Close Combat Overwatch (MCCO) capability, part of its future anti-armour needs known as Battle Group Organic Anti-Armour (BGOAA).

RBSL, by the way, is a UK-based, joint venture business between Rheinmetall and BAE Systems.  RBSL has a long-standing relationship with the British Army having designed and delivered many of the Army’s existing combat vehicles under different business names.

According to a statement from the firm:

“The challenges of the modern battlefield increasingly demand that tactical land forces have the organic capability to engage peer threats of today and tomorrow with precision at range with mass. Boxer Overwatch creates an unmatched anti-armour capability that when used within a combined arms capability, can deliver both Overwatch protection to manoeuvring and advancing forces, or operate as a screening capability to disrupt advancing forces. The rapid and effective engagement of Boxer Overwatch is a key capability of the Heavy Brigade Combat Team.

Brimstone, leveraging significant investments by UK MOD into this state of the art anti-armour weapon system, offers ‘one missile, multi-platform’ versatility and is designed to be integrated onto land vehicles as well as helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft (including fast jets), naval platforms and UAVs. Brimstone’s non-line of sight (NLOS) capability, removes the need for the missile to be mounted on a turret and launched directly at a target. The integration by RBSL and MBDA provides next generation anti-armour coverage to the battle group.”

It is claimed that the salvo launch enables it to achieve co-ordinated effects on multiple targets during a single mission, with an all-weather fire-and-forget capability. Meanwhile ‘true dual-mode’ seeker performance provides the ability to engage single targets with low collateral damage in restrictive engagement scenarios.

“Brimstone possesses best-in-class insensitive munitions-compliance, fulfilling all mandatory user safety requirements and ensuring greater survivability of platform and operator.”

Colin McClean, Managing Director of RBSL, said:

“Our collaboration with MBDA demonstrates UK land business working together to deliver as one team for the benefit both of the British Army and the UK Value proposition. As such it is one example of accelerating the realisation of Future Soldier and the recently published Land Industry Strategy. Furthermore it highlights once again the benefits of Boxer modularity and the platform’s excellent digital architecture to enable multiple mission systems to be integrated.  I am very much looking forward to delivering this capability at pace to British soldiers.”

Chris Allam, Managing Director of MBDA UK, added:

“This collaboration with RBSL is a great example of how we can partner to quickly provide the British Army with a UK sovereign capability that can be spirally developed further to meet the needs of Op MOBILISE and to advance Future Soldier.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

260 COMMENTS

  1. A no brainer for the army? Precision. Available. Wheeled. UK content. Commonality. Replaces the Swingfire Striker combination that was cut.

    I’ve no idea on the costs of these.

    So will the MoD just order asap or spend 10 years getting to another solution?

    Each RAC Armoured Regiment ( 3, or 2 ) Armoured Recc Regiment ( 4 ) and Warrior / Boxer Battalion ( 5 ) should have a platoon.

    • Probably decide to shorten it Daniele, add lift engines and wings to make it self deployable…. How about a direct energy weapon for close in defence too, now how about loyal wingmen terminators to with them!

      There you go mate that should take 10 years and cost three billion, all ready to cancel in 2032….

    • I’ve been hanging around this site too long. My first thought was I bet Daniele will be happy with this one. Scoll down. First comment, check.

    • Yes, and also from the manufacturer, so one would hope no delays in design and integration..?!
      Given the success of HIMARS and other lighter artillery platforms in Ukraine, I do wonder at the necessity of using the (relatively) heavily armoured Boxer as a base, but I suppose Brimstone is still relatively short ranged in ground-launch version, so makes sense.
      Would very much like to see an “IFV” version with a 40 m m CTAS turret (with a couple of Brimstone boxes on the side..?), I think that’s more urgent for us at the moment.

        • I think the RWS can also take a 40 mm GMG, but that’s still not the same as a 40 mm cannon.
          I can’t remember exactly where, but I read a report from Ukrainian soldiers who said they hated going up against Russian IFVs with 30 mm cannons because they chew up infantry. There have also been a lot of videos of Ukrainian IFVs with those same 30 mm cannon taking the fight to Russian MBTs and IFV/infantry teams in urban scenarios, and it seems pretty successful. A 50cal, or even grenade machine gun, isn’t going to have the same effect…

          • Yep, its why we have had a 30mm cannon on our IFVs (and some 432s had it – the Berlin Brigade) for decades. I really hope our infantry Boxers have 30 or 40mm stabilised cannons.

          • Likewise, I think it’s genuinely strange that there hasn’t been any formal interest in the idea- given how many allies and potential enemies kit their gear out like that. As you say, we’ve set the precedent ourselves, so we can’t even argue that it’s outside of our own concet of operations (or whatever the miltiary jargon of the month is…)

        • Fair point, there is a risk of overloading a vehicle with stuff that doesn’t help its primary mission and making it worse.
          That said, quite a number of other IFVs do carry an ATGM of some description so I don’t think it’s out of the vehicle’s remit. If not Brimstone, then Javelin. Especially as (in theory at least), we’re expecting IFVs attached to Strike brigades to be operating dispersed in enemy rear areas- that could be argued to be a change in the mission of the IFV necessitating a change in spec?

          • I was only talking about LR ATGW – Brimstone has a huge range, way beyond what the Infantry are usually looking out to.

            Some IFVs do carry a MR ATGW but I recall the Germans took theirs off Marder after a few years. Difficult to carry reloads on board?

          • Ah, fair enough I see your point- for sure the newer Brimstone 2 and 3 models have ranges that would likely be beyond the soldiers’ ability to find targets- even using UAVs. Brimstone 1 though?
            Good question about the Marder, will have to look into that at some point! Any IFV would likely have issues with reloads- I believe the Warrior Rarden had 3-round clips as a way of forcing conservation of ammunition because of limited magazine depth. Trying to find space inside for a bunch of Javelin reloads might be a challenge if you still wanted to carry all of your dismounts’ gear. Maybe less so on Boxer though, they strike me as a lot more roomy?

          • If an IFV carried Brimstone and its reloads, believe me, you still need to carry all the dismounts kit.
            Boxer is certainly roomy – so big that it gives you some strategic lift issues.

    • Image what 100 of these on a front line could do if you have radar data from either satellites drones or aircraft. You could launch a strike in seconds and take out an entire enemies front line of vehicles.

    • Fitted for, but not carrying missiles?😂 Sorry Danielle. I couldn’t help myself. A real plus if we get on with it.

    • Hi mate (gets round the spelling issue!), Supacat have also teamed up with MBDA to offer a lighter version based on their HMT 6×6 aimed at light forces which is transportable by Chinook I believe. Some of these wouldn’t go amiss either.

      • God yes, so the FS Coys of 2 Para, 3 Para, 1 RIR, and the Bn of the RGR each get a platoon of those versions.

        While we’re at it, I guess Mobility Troops of SF could use them too.

        Next?!

    • With any government project, it just comes down to the simple question of where is the money coming from. In this case, there is no budget for it, so they will have to wait 10 years until there is, in the meantime pretend to be testing options whilst they stall.

      • Maybe it’s always been like this with projects but I’ve noticed projects keep getting stretched or money delayed for a few years or so.
        Something just had it done a while ago. (Can’t remember what)
        That only makes the problems worse for future budgets.
        We all see how fast tech moves at the minute and prices recently.
        I was also looking at the American joint common missile for apaches and the price was in the 380k (wiki prices) for a missile.
        With brimstone around 100-175k I can’t get my head round the decision to not go with the missile the uk forces already use.
        It also doesn’t seem as good on paper stats.

        • Would guess on the Apache side that it was the upfront cost of the integration put them off. Maybe also some deals done in the background around the price of the Apache if we went US weapons.

          Public finance is less than transparent at best of times and miltiary purchases even less so. Both should be made public, along with rationales for decisions. I can’t see it having a fundamental impact national secruity but would heavily impact corruption and no doubt reduce stupid short term cost savings at expense of overall cost. Will never happen though.

    • Costs are; (per unit)
      Materials = $20,000
      Engine = $25,000
      Administration fees = $50,000
      Ongoing modifications from original manufacturing estimate = $160,000
      MOD swap tax = $100,000
      Addition of boiling vessel = $40,000

    • whilst I agree with you Daniele – I can’t help thinking that an armoured CAB HMT with drops and a containerised brimstone solution will probably come out 50-80% cheaper than the boxer variant.

      what this does do however is provide commonality of platform across the fleet and can be reconfigured as required.

      perhaps getting an HMT vehicle that can accept the Boxer modules is the answer here to save money but perhaps I am over thinking.

      A container on an HMT 400 / HX3 with 24 Brimstone is better than a boxer with 8 and probably cheaper surely.

      • should also state I think we should add this to the land ceptor system so that we can use that to defend airspace and our long range fires at the same time.

        also protects itself which will come in handy

    • Since we are discussing J R R Toolkit (author of a cartoon strip called “The Slobbit” published at school about a rather spherical history teacher), what do we think of “Rings of Power”?

      I always get a little concerned about elves coming across as refugees from the album cover of Abba Arrival – lilly-white blondes in white flight suits, and dwarves being so stereotyped I expect one to say “begorrah”.

      But it’s suitably mythical with good individual characters.

      • Not seen yet. But I read one review slating it for having black hobbits, and I’m inclined to agree.
        They dont exist in Tolkien’s world as it was written, and his masterpiece was not intended for such PC inclusions in my view, so I fear for what else non cannon may be in there.
        Let’s flip things on the head, if we took an African mythological masterpiece, and put white actors in it, what would be the predictable response?
        Peter Jackson’s brilliant films often went off piste, they had to, for you cannot create a film running exactly as the books, it would be several days long for starters, but didn’t include stuff like that.

      • Blonde Elves are fine depending which Elves.
        Wood Elves are darker haired, Grey elves Blonde or Silver I recall. We’re well off subject now though.
        I don’t mind a stereotypical Dwarf if that’s how Tolkien intended them.

        • Interesting.

          I’m becoming inclined to think of Tolkien as a mini-Shakespeare who’s concepts and plots can be quite freely adapted for different circumstances.

          I don’t think the reduction of dwarfs to a comic character as we perhaps saw in the films is quite right. The main characteristic word used in the books imo is perhaps “grim”.

        • Interesting.

          I’m becoming inclined to think of Tolkien as a mini-Shakespeare who’s concepts and plots can be quite freely adapted for different circumstances.

          I don’t think the reduction of dwarfs to a comic character as we perhaps saw in the films is quite right. The main characteristic word used in the books imo is perhaps “grim”.

          • Some were comic, yes. Balin, Dwalin, Fili and Kili, and Thorin certainly weren’t.

            I’ve not seen the Rings of Power so cannot compare.

  2. I’m guessing the image is just a stand-in? I’ve seen this image floating around for a while. Might be worth putting Brimstone on attack craft.

          • Yup but if Sea Ceptor or 30/40mm can do that job what is the point of yet another missile type.

            I’d have great confidence Sea Ceptor or 30/40mm would take out small craft.

            You have to be careful just adding guns and missiles everywhere otherwise you end up with Orc battleships….seriously the fewest types of really good systems is the way to go….programmable effect warheads are a thing…

          • Isn’t sea ceptor only anti-aircraft and anti-missile? I would say that taking out multiple targets at once before they can fire or ram would be beneficial. I do think that this has tactics more for Iran.

          • No, it has a secondary surface attack function as well, which is helpful and an excellent reason to go in on CAMM-ER!
            That said, buying out additional Land Ceptor launchers with CAMM-ER might be a handy medium range precision fires option, although not sure on how they overlap with our M270s- may not be worth it…

          • Yes, I think pretty much all of the publicly available stuff says that. However a number of guys on here who know their stuff have stated the ground attack capability and I’m willing to take their word for it. They may have some public sources too, may be worth seeing if they make comment too- Gunbuster would be one who springs ot mind.

          • Hi Joe, there has always been a clearly stated pathway as a ASuW missile, but never come a cross any mention of ground attack.

          • Yes, but is this capability present or future tense? Never received an unambiguous answer when question posed before.

          • Hi this is a direct quote from the RN web site.

            “As well as incoming missiles and aircraft – and unlike Sea Viper – Sea Ceptor is able to engage small surface targets, such as fast attack craft”

            note the “is able”, not will be able to.

          • RN have gamed it in anti-ship mode I understand. Hence T23 HMS Lancaster escorting Marshall Ustinov more a problem for the Russians than us…

          • Thanks, GB. As indicated here, many not aware of such capability, and no one how effective, actually. We’re frustratingly coy on many issues that Americans will champion, often seems. Evolved SP just one example.

          • Does it go for the target or is there any targeting mechanism, ie, take out the bridge?

            Don.t answer if sensitive.

          • It’s also got an ASuW function as well…which is pretty potent when you consider its a Mach 4 missile weighing in at 100kgs. It really won’t matter to much about the warhead size as the kinetic energy is huge and as the thing is a hollow tub filled with burny stuff it’s just going to fall apart as it enters the hull and will dump all its energy.

          • It does supposedly have a secondary role, but yes it would be last resort to use/waste it on sea targets. Brimstone/Seaspear would be a far better solution esp on the Rivers which won’t get SeaCeptor anyway. But still unlikely. Spike is being suggested for this sort of role too far and wide though it’s ability to hit fast moving targets would need to be much improved which then increases costs.

          • I’m well behind on this one, is this theoretical or is Sea Cepter capable in surface to surface? Watching the latest Bond film I thought it was interesting to see a Sea Ceptor cell lauching a land attack missile even if made up. Similarly an earlier Bond film had a Harpoon land attacking.

          • Sea Ceptor cells will be installed on the T45s but not yet. The film depicted a T45 firing a made up land attack capability from the Sea Viper silos.

            Most people watching that would have assumed it was an actual capability I bet.

          • Sea Ceptor would be a very expensive way of dealing with a fast attack boat swarm. Brimstone would be much cheaper and offer better range than the 30/40mm gun systems.

            To me, it would be a relatively cheap way of dealing with a swarm attack and keeps the bad guys much further out; 30/40mm guns can then deal with any leakers.

            Surely a no-brainer for Type 31/32 and especially when operating in the Persian Gulf!

            I’m hoping that if Liz Truss does up the defence budget as promised, that much of the Forces’ ‘Christmas Wish Lists’ can actually be procured. We have a tremendous Defence Secretary in Ben Wallace and I believe he would not have thrown his weight behind Liz if he didn’t believe she was serious on defence.

            Ok, I will get off my soap box now!

          • Do you know the difference in price? Increasing production volumes would help the reduce the price of both variants.

          • The only problem there is knowing you are going to be engaged; they’ll be very danger close b4 you can engage, and only then proclaimed that you will engage… CIWS, might be more appropriate at kick off.

          • Surprising what British SMEs are out there. KTG are coordinating with Thales on integrating networked sensors and weapons. ‘Fitted With’ (never heard the like!): auto cannon, miniguns, Martlet. The craft and powertrain, etc are planned to be built at a new advanced engineering & technology centre. In the UK, I sincerely hope.

    • We saw a vertical launch mock up a while back I seem to remember on a Boxer or was that HVM, my memory is going a bit these days. I just remember saying how HVM/Starstreak and Brimstone would be a brilliant fit in a vertical launch set up if remotely possible so can’t remember which missile the mock up was for. Probably best on separate vehicles I guess, together would be a toxic combination.

      What’s the range of Brimstone literally read this afternoon in an article of the Army’s prospects for a layered capability (Spike-Brimstone2-HIMARS/MLRS) suggested it was 25 to 30 km from ground level depending upon launcher.

  3. Would be interesting to see what the total cost of fielding these over a period of intensive conflict is compared to tanks.

    Tanks being more expensive to develop initially but then their running cost reduces with cheaper ammo compared to brimstone.

    Obviously tanks have far superior close in capability, also useful versus infantry (assuming deployed sensibly and with protection systems fitted…).

    With limited budget does the extra range of expensive missiles justify it or would we be better off just operating more heavy armour that flexibly covers the wider range of roles?

    • For me, need both, not one at expense of the other. Enough infantryman have explained here the effect of the Tank, in firepower, holding ground, ability to take punishment, and morale reasons.

      What we don’t need is BAOR levels. 200 Tanks, tops, properly equipped with APS in brigades with proper CS, CSS, and artillery, including these precision assets.

      • In an ideal world I would have both as well, just can’t see how we afford it with defence spending being so wasteful.

        Agree we don’t need BAOR numbers, war had changed, the enemy is smaller too. Though I do feel we overestimate techs ability to make up for numbers and no matter how good the tech is it won’t stop us from being overwhelmed.

      • As to morale, when we went to do APC training and 3 chieftains turned, riding on top of one scared the cr@p out of me. Salisbury Plain is a misnomer, it’s as bumpy as feck.

      • Well said Daniele.

        An infantry company working with, say, a troop of tanks, would relish having 4 x 120mm cannon on their side in intimate support on an advance to contact or in the assault – especially if they ride in Boxer with a mere MG and/or the enemy has or may have tanks in the area.

        We would only need BAOR levels of armour if we (UK) were once again facing 3rd Shock Army (or similar) in our sector!

    • Crikey right or wrong that is going a bit against more recent thinking by many. Cost issues are certainly a consideration I agree, but whatever role you see for tanks when you are outgunned you can’t beat a missile. Certainly aving just read four proposed scenarios where a mounted missile like Spike or Brimstone would be used there would not often be tanks in close support (not really ideal for these sort of scenarios anyway) and missile mounted Boxers would be used predominantly when light armoured often fast moving units and formations are confronted, be it in offensive or defensive manoeuvres by unexpected heavier, outflanking, surprise forces giving lighter vehicles a big punch when they need it and cover to take advantage of an opportunity or escape from any given action. The ability to hit and scoot in particular. They aren’t meant as heavy lift bludgeoning mass roles like tanks unless you have a very extensive budget available anyway. Each has its role.

      • I think we will see a need for something able to take out drones at least within visual range from most vehicles soon. Probably doesn’t need to be a big missile, maybe a starstreak dart with a little rocket attached size. Main thing is it needs to work and be cheap. Starstreak guidance would maybe work also.
        It could maybe be part of an active protection system for anti tank missiles.
        How to detect an incoming drone would also need thought put into it. Most of all it has to be affordable.
        As we have seen from Ukraine a small explosive through a hatch isn’t great for the crew inside.

        • Another option is to combat unmanned aerial systems (UASs), is to use a vehicle mounted 70mm rocket with a guidance kit fitted to it. The cheaper option would be a basic laser seeker version, such as that used by APKWS or CVR-7PG. These however would need a SACLOS type of guidance which could be manual or automatic, as this type of laser designation is not fire and forget. From the ground, this would give them a range of between 2 to 3km. But at 1/10 or less of the price of Starstreak.

          Other options are that both Spike and Brimstone have an anti-air capability. With both being capable of targeting helicopters. A smallish to medium sized drone would be within the capability parameters. But the price ramps up significantly over the guided rockets.

          The third option would be the CTA40 weapon system. CTA have developed a dedicated anti-air shell with a programmable proximity fuze. For any aircraft large or small within 1500m, the 40mm telescopic shell would be fatal. As it contains a greater fragmentary explosive than the Bofor’s 40mm equivalent. Plus at over 200 rpm it can put up quite a wall.

          There is perhaps a fourth option. This is the anti-drone drone. Being either a quadcopter or small loitering fixed wing aircraft. That either carries a fragmentary explosive or a kinetic delivery system. How it is controlled and hunts it’s prey is still be investigated. But it could be a another string to the bow for the future.

    • Very true about tanks (flexibly) doing more than killing enemy tanks.
      Seizing and holding ground, with Infantry; delivering shock action; delivering close support to accompanying infantry in the assault or advance to contact.

    • Precisely. This is how new capabilities can be created quickly and at relatively low cost. Brimstone is a very good weapon indeed.

      Cheers CR

  7. What will be the range of ground launch?

    If 30km range like 6th Generation Spike these missiles can replace a good part of tube artillery.
    I think Exactor an old Spike version was deployed by artillery arm in British Army.

    • Alex,
      The initial purchase by the Uk was for the Mk2, (500 missiles) we then paid to upgrade it to the Mk5 version with the UK gov stating they will continue to fund to keep it upto date;

      • A little more info:
        The Rafael Spike NLOS Mk5 is a non-line of sight missile with a dual-mode electro-optic/infrared (EO/IR) camera seeker. With an effective range of between 25 and 30 km, it weighs 71kg in its canister, much larger and heavier than the previous versions.
         
        The Mk5 missile has straight wings that pop out after launch, early missiles were guided to the target manually using a daylight TV seeker but this has been progressively improved so that current missiles can utilise a day/night semi-automatic seeker, GPS and a two way RF datalink to enable inflight target acquisition and guidance, the latter being especially important in operational situations with demanding and complex rules of engagement. It can also be used with offboard target designation. The use of a radio data link also enables initial targeting information to be passed by off-board systems such as other ground units, UAV’s, helicopters or other aircraft and then the operator basically picks up from that point and flies the missile onto the target. The missile flies to a waypoint and the operator guides it in for the final 3km. Separating the launch point from the initial gatherer of targeting information is a significant advantage. The Mk2 and Mk4 used a warhead optimised for armour penetration but the Mk5 (Exactor) has a more versatile warhead.

        • Thanks, i think the 30km for 5th generation is for helicopter launch(6th generation is 50km). So ground launch should around 20km for Exactor . But my point is that with tech evolving and tube artillery being quite expensive, missiles might end up cheaper and more precise.

    • Adding to farouks comprehensive post, Exactor is operated by 26 RA alongside MLRS. When MLRS was previously split amongst the 3 AS90 Regiments, following the 2010 cuts, each had 1 MLRS battery each, these included an NLOS Exactor troop.

      • Its worth remembering that the number of Exactor launchers that we have is fewer than 10…

        The number of missiles in stock is also likely to be less than 500.

        • Of course. So, what was the ratio? 2 or 3 per troop, with 1 used for training?

          Now MLRS is regrouped in a sole regiment I’m unaware of the current set up.

    • Read it ( Brimstone 2 ) to be 25 to 30 km, with the Exactor Spike 20 to 25km, still a few of the latter around it seems. Brimstone 3 supposedly 20% greater range if it makes it to ground launch version.

      • The problem is, the Army seem to no longer think in terms Bn or Regt but more in terms of Company or even Pl.

        First deployment of a battlegroup saw about 3 MP from what I saw, not even a section.

        Capability is the measurement today which while applaudable makes for a rather obscure and confusing ORBAT.

        Hmm.

        • Correct. The Army’s new direction is by using lots of small highly dispersed but integrated forces. That are highly mobile, but can be directed to deliver a coordinated punch. As an example look how Ukraine’s forces re-took the area around Izyum. The dispersion of their forces means they were less likely to be destroyed by concentrated fire, when faced by a peer force. Their tactics and strategic planning would be within most of our green books for CONOPS. But then we have been training them since 2014!

          Dispersed Mobility but also adaptive flexibility is the key.

  8. Never play chess with a Russian and never write them off militarily. The annexation of Eastern Ukraine by referendum could allow Putin the tactical high ground. He can now play a number of moves, which could compromise the West’s weapon supply? If the areas subjected to the referendum agree to being an integral part of Russia the trip wire of all-out war is one step closer. Putin can either hold these regions without further expansion or begin territory creep at a time of his chosing. We already know the outcome of the referendum and I suspect a long-term standoff will exist until such a time Russia can field comparable forces to Ukraine. This variant of Boxer together with other adaptable systems is the UK’s only medium-term answer to fielding trully moden military systems. With Ajax and CH3 years from service a rapid build up of Boxer fleets is urgently required. I believe Putin wants to trick the West into a trap where the current rules of engagement become blurred. Such a situation could cause a breakdown that keeps NATO from direct boots on the ground. Up to now, the MOD has not appeared to be in any hurry to take urgent action in terms of procuring new or used armour to address the current shortfall however, Putin’s latest actions could result in a change of gear?

      • The worrying factor with Putin’s new approach is moving Russia’s official border westward. Any Ukrainian aggression against these new lines would be seen as an attack on sovereign territory. If western supplied weapons are proved to be involved Russia could claim it’s a direct NATO operation against them. With the current rules of engagement, the direct interdiction of NATO forces is understood by both parties but Putin’s actions potentially blur these and possibly to his advantage. One area of concern for Ukraine could be the tightening of the use of supplied weapons thus compromising its operational options. This could have a direct impact on its otherwise series of recent successes.

        • No it’s a sign of desperation by Putin, and everybody sees it for what it is. I doubt these illegal staged referendums will happen, the Ukrainians will demolish every building used for them.

        • It would only be official in Russia surely (and any other country that supports his special operation).-it will not /does not move the Russian border.
          It would have absolutely no legal standing in any official body (UN etc.) – & has to all intents and purposes the same legality as his imnvasion – none!
          It is merely a vehicle for Putin to bring in more Russian Troops using the excuse he is protecting ‘Russia’ to …err the unfortunate Russians he sends there – nothing else.

          • His invasion of Ukraine is illegal but it’s not stopped him. If he says it is Russian land even after fixing the referendum then its sovereign territory and NATO will be keen to ensure it is not hit with their weapons. The legal case is for after the conflict ends.

          • You are talking complete nonsense. Nato will not consider any part of Luhansk or Donbas as Russian territory there has been no indication that Nato will reduce supplies to Ukraine and given their success I would say they are receiving significantly more than has been reported. Russia is losing significantly more soldiers than Ukraine due to their lack of precision weaponry and could well lose more ground into the winter. They will be lucky to hold onto what they took in 2014 as the gloves are off for Ukraine now as well.
            If Putin was desperate enough to use a tactical Nuke he will need to spend the rest of his life living in a bunker as the US has become very good at tacking out terrorists.

          • He will use whatever it takes if the situation is that desperate. The only hope if such a scenario transpires is that the incompetence seen so far in the Russian forces will be reflected in the missile crews.

          • The US stated months ago that any Ukrainian territory captured was fair game for attack by the US supplied weapons. I can’t see this policy changing by this latest desperate move by Putin.

        • Yes that’s certainly the thinking he wants to inflict on the West hoping along with energy shortages to break the coalition. I think the main parties will see it for what it is a final desperate move that sounds tough and provocative and to scare forcing pressure on Ukraine to the table while Russia has something to maintain as some form of victory at least through its increasingly monopoly of news, but in reality little has changed. Even now Ukraines attacks on Crimea has already crossed this red line of theirs in terms of attacks on sovereign Russian territory. He really has no cards to play other than trying to act harder and more intransigent in the hope that the third or fourth threats will be taken more seriously than the previous ones in the hope the pressure against him reduces. Buying time in that hope, what else can he do in reality a person threaten with death will do almost anything to extend their survival in the hope of a miracle. Next 3 to 4 months will reveal if it has any legs.

    • Maybe

      Or manages a spectacular and that fails too…..

      This is crazy, crazy desperate stuff now.

      He cannot possibly win a conventional was against BATO’s tech and arms production.

      The Ukrainians are on the up and can take our whatever tanks S400’s are thrown at them.

      The Orc soldiers and officers are scared of the NATO systems, as they should be.

      Where does a madman go?

      • Putin’s latest actions are very worring and clever to the point they could stem Ukraine’s recent gains. I believe NATO insists no supplied weapons can be used directly against Russia however, if Putin adopts a territory creep policy he could regain previously lost zones simply by Russianising land as he goes?

        • The UN won’t recognise the land as Russian….a sham referendum doesn’t help under international law……he would have been better of if he had done this years ago.

          Clever? No

          Making it up as he goes along? Yes

          Desperate? Yes

          • There is an element of making it up but Putin does not give a fig about official recognition. Be under no illusion, the West will now be very concerned on how to manage the supply and deployment of supplied weapons in the new Russianised areas. I fear the impression he’s making it up as he goes along is all part of his strategy.

            Clever? Yes.

            Making it up as he goes? Caution

            Desperate? No, he’s just rolling out his master plan and he wants you to think it’s shambolic. SB, let us hope you are right.

          • So if he does not give a fig about ‘official recognition’ then he cant complain about any’official recognition’ that Ukraines borders havent changed – ergo he cannot moan about any incursion either way.

          • Not accurate, this is no Master Plan taking Kiev in 3 days was the Master plan, since then it’s decisions taken on the hoof limited by what resources are available. Putin has never wanted to even partially mobilise, preferring 50 year old murderers from prisons and painfully slow progress on the battlefield even before the latest disasters instead certainly shows that. He is sensible enough at least to see the dangers of it, he simply had no choice however particularly as the hardliners were on the edge of destroying his reputation as the next stage of their hellish criticism of the wars conduct since the Ukrainian counter offensive, if he did not act in this way, it’s the last throw of the dice. He had no choice it’s either this final card or self destruction. He hopes it will have the effect you state but while there will be some niggles I fully expect the coalition to hold. As Germany, the EU and France have all come out instantly with tough lines I think Putin’s gamble will fail. In all honesty the important players all know we can’t afford to not make it fail, otherwise we are assuring if delaying our own self destruction later.

            I suspect there will be some pressure applied come the New Year for some compromise from Ukraine but only I feel in terms of nuance around the 2014 status quo with some ‘frills’ perhaps that allows Putin or whoever follows to, now that Big Brother dominates Russian media completely, to express as some form of security victory for Russia. He may not accept it mind and this conflict just goes on and on in blind faith that something will turn up. But how long will China tolerate that, he’s already on a warning from them and India and again I suspect years end into Jan is increasingly his deadline there too because China economy will suffer and the situation starts to become less beneficial to them as time passes.

          • NATO’s problem is the mere fact Putin is changing the red lines. The overall result of the referendum may have only limited effectiveness but it’s all an attempt to slow Ukraine’s progress east. The master plan was to walk in and take control but I believe there were other facets to that strategy. I fear Ukraine is only one side of the coin and the energy reprisals were expected even though in the short term harmful to NATO/EU would destabilise and reduce military spending. The latter we have yet to witness but as the energy cost begins to bite many NATO members will be under budget stress, resulting in a possible slowdown in modernisation? As Putin has stated he is in no rush and this campaign will possibly last years. That situation can only worsen the World’s economic balance, which as we know is currently in recovery from the pandemic. My previous points on this site to dispel the notion that Putin is an empty head could be a serious mistake. Such opinions overlook a mind that has rocked the World and will continue to do so as long as he holds on to power. The dismantling of the Soviet Union was a bitter pill for many traditional Russians and Putin intends to readdress that event, even if it ultimately destroys his country.

          • Me in the past tense? You don’t think I have gone do you?

            Why do you think that stating a few fairly obvious truths is being an ‘appologist’?

          • With you SB. If Russia looked beyond short termism (i.e. Putin), it’d realise any action it takes is ultimately, by any measure, heads & tails they lose.

        • Well as the US has already made clear that Crimea is already an acceptable target for US weapons I don’t think your argument will stand up for the most part, it would be a very dangerous precedent that Putin could exploit elsewhere ie the Baltics Finland, Gotland, Moldova, Georgia and no doubt others. If you can fake elections on land in a couple of days you walk into and then threaten/bluff to use weapons of mass destruction if you try to recover them and are further convinced of the merit of this policy by our reactions now, that it will work then inevitably it will become the norm and create an even tighter corner to back or be backed into.

          where does it all end up? Parachute a hundred men into the Shetlands declare a referendum 80% in support of Russian incorporation with loads of locals declaring their allegiance on tv with a gun to their families heads and there you go job done if you allow Putin law to take precedence over International Law.

    • He is a donkey running a nation of illiterate peasants with close to no manufacturing capability. He has no more moves except sending what few orcs he has left in to the field armed with spears and even then I doubt his capability to manufacture pointy wooden sticks.

      People need to stop giving Russians credit they have never earned. They have literally never won a war by western standards of winning. Their version of winning is typically survival.

      • Sadly, Jim he not a donkey. His actions have been planned and in many ways have succeeded. His military success in Ukraine has not gone to plan but it’s a much more complex operation than just warfighting. The net effect on the World’s economy has been cataclysmic and I fear was always one of the key goals. Putin is rewriting the basic rules of global economics and he wants to play a strategic role in remodeling the supply and disposition of energy. Today, it appears he’s cutting off his nose to spite his face but is he? His tie-up with China needs closer scrutiny and is probably more significant than is immediately apparent. There is a bigger picture here and the West knows it but the problem it has is how best to tackle the issue without making matters far worse. Making you think he’s a donkey is possibly a weapon in its own right?

        • P.S. Putin wants to stop NATO expansion and screwing its member’s economies is all part of his strategy. Maybe we have been looking in the wrong direction and also need to keep an eye on the rearview mirror?

          • He is destroying his own economy whatever the bravado, moving supplies of gas and oil to Asia is going to take years, ost fortunes and even internal experts say without vital Western technology and skills could be near impossible at scale in the short to medium term. Equally markets like China and India are buying it at much reduced prices they literally have him over a barrel. Internal representatives tell us that income will fall below outgoings in the next month or so inflation is running at 17% hopefully the Govt claims optimistically falling to 12% next year.

            Fact is if they don’t get western markets back they are in long term decline. Putin knew with the rise of China to stay relevant he needed a big gamble otherwise he will be little more than a pimple on Chinas ass within the decades ( they already have 15 times bigger economy remember). No his trumpeted ex use this is about NATO expansion is but a front. It was about cutting Europe off from America, creating rifts within Europe and the EU and come out of it not only with more land and control over some serious basic supply of foodstuffs but leaving Europe effectively as vassal states economically to Russia as many were under the Ottomans at one time. He thought he could use energy to dictate directly and indirectly Europe’s industry and technology to exploit to make Russia even a remotely effective ‘partner’ to China. Instead he has gained and enhanced their contempt, already historically strong for Rus in China and in making them now totally reliant upon that Country made themselves little more than a junior partner at best useful idiot down the line for Chinese intensions, perhaps even vassal state in the long run, it certainly is far weaker militarily after this. If that is clever then wow Liz Truss must be a World Class genius. It was simply a desperate attempt at relevance that has very quickly sunk like the Moskva whatever the unconvincing bravado.

        • I think you are hugely overestimating his intelligence. Take a look at what is happening in the south caucasus and central asia in the last few days. Russia is finished thanks to his willy waving disaster in Ukraine.

          • Tell Germany I’m overestimating his intelligence, they had to nationalise their biggest energy supplier. The EU/Nato members are in deep turmoil tonight. Putin is dangerous and unless he’s removed will continue to screw with our lives. I don’t think he’s even started on his path to disrupt the World. Maybe we need to treat him as a serious-minded individual. To treat him otherwise could be playing into his hands.

          • Putin is dangerous and unless he’s removed will continue to screw with our lives. 
            On that we can agree.

          • But, if that were to happen, why should we expect a replacement more favourable to the West? It must be as likely that a more nationalistic person would appear, potentially making things much worse.

          • A nod to that, MK. There are of course a number of principled politicians around, but less likely the country will suddenly see the raproachment light. More likely a disgruntled Siloviki would give the heave. Don’t think many anticipate someone more beneficial.

          • But anyone new would have a off ramp ie blame Putin. They’d be pretty foolish not to use it. I think you’d find the west accommodating if the right noises are being made.

          • Putin has given us a new solution to the Russian problem we have been dealing with for 200 years. No more Russia. The country won’t survive this it, will break up in to dozens of tiny little states. We only need to worry about the kola peninsular which will probably become Scandinavia very quickly.

          • So you agree that all the other options for Russian Nazi leader are fucking dross Nazis? Good, at least you admit that!

          • While Europe may find energy supplies difficult in the short term, the medium/ long term goals have been set and are progressing as quickly as possible. Get off Russian energy.
            In a couple of years most of Russian energy supplies will be replaced and in the longer term energy will be replaced by home grown renewables where they can.
            China does what’s good for China and cheap energy is welcome. Watch them tighten the screws on cheaper prices as Russia’s markets get smaller.
            Russia doing any kind of referendum, declaring land part of Russia is meaningless to all but himself.
            It’s time for nato to put up and roll into western Ukraine up to the natural river barrier and to Odessa in the south at the invitation of Ukraine (if they want nato there)
            Putin only understands strength and it’s the only thing he has respect for.

          • Nope all hes done is speed up the withdrawal from fossil fuel and alert the world including China how key energy security is. China is short term winner buying discounted fuel from Russia but Putin has just schooled them on how you shouldn’t rely on another country for your energy.

            The west has yet to enact secondary sanctions were buyers of Russian energy are sanctioned.The logic is simple the west will not consume anything produced with Russian energy. This could come soon especially if these referendums go ahead and knowing Putin needs money to fund his mobilisation.

          • Yes Germany took the hit but they did it now they will never buy Russian gas again. Nor will anyone else in quantity.

        • If he planned this he is a donkey. He has had zero benefit and massive cost. The only rules he is re writing is his ability to sell energy to the only people dumb enough to buy it from him. He has turned Russian from a major independent player to at best a Chinese vasel state for no reason. Russia could have been the biggest power in Europe now it’s the Chinese hinterland. The man has no strategy, show me one thing he has gotten out of this. Now even the leaders of countries like Azerbaijan mock him by showing up late to press conferences.

    • Putin’s looking increasingly brain dead. Tough guy manages to looked PTSD’d whilst never going near a front. Even when he ostensibly ‘Served’. Pathetic.

        • The invasion of Ukraine is a strategic blunder for the ages and there is nothing smart or clever about it. He has basically exposed the Russian military as a corrupt incompetent organization. I don’t know how anyone can see Russian going hat in hand to Iran and North Korea begging for aid as anything but a complete and utter disaster. All this before the long term effects of sanctions start to cripple the Russian economy.

    • The biggest issue if Putin declares the Donbass to be part of Russia following referendum, is that he would feel he has carte blanche to use TNW in response to the most devastating attacks from Ukraine Armed Forces.

  9. Lets hope this gets adopted.

    Lots of good Navy stuff to keep me happy too. Top-up Remus 100 UUVs for MCM and some new Navy PODS delivered from G3 (not sure what they do yet, but even so).

    • The latter you are referring to are the Anglo French drones I presume which will be taking over the role of the mine hunters with some very high tech sensors to detect and neutralise mines. Assuming they work eh.

  13. This is good news.
    What I don’t understand is why don’t we do more with our world class missile systems? CAMM, LMM and brimstone should literally be strapped to everything-if it fly’s, floats and drives it should have them on board in decent numbers to close the firepower deficit that we have.

      • It would be good to get something modular. Brimstone is great but it’s costly as we don’t produce in volumes. Getting export numbers up would be great and would drive down the unit cost.

        • To a certain extent brimestone is modular, it was initially a hellfire missile that now comes in multiple air launched configurations for fixed and rotary wing aircraft as well as drones. It is now being fielded in land based anti tank as well as anti ship configurations and it appears that the same missiles can perform all these roles with close to zero modification. It’s expensive compared to unguided weapons but cheap compared to many guided weapons. Again imagine what 100 launchers shooting 8 a piece could do to an armoured division in seconds with the right targeting data. Would be great to see us manufacture these missiles in the tens of thousands.

          • Then we’re not doing a great job marketing it. Look at the language used. UK solution for instance. Why not say a solution for wheeled or tracked fighting vehicles. I thought hellfire was a lot cheaper and now has a dual.mode seeker but perhaps at current exchange rates that’s changed.

    • Once had an old aviator tell me that if it flies, floats, or f***s, one should lease it rather than purchase. Think MoD would embrace that logic? 😁

      • The MOD leases everything it can, our AAR refueling tankers, strategic lift shipping and even our satellite communication are all leased. We always seem to get screwed on leasing arrangements.

    • The missile in the image at the top of the article looks way to long to be a brimstone. Brimstones are 1.8m long. A boxer is almost 8m long. The proportions do not look right. Either it’s a badly done render or maybe this is some sort of extended range brimstone. The tail fins are also different to a normal brimstone. They look more like a cam tail fin.

    • Looking around on the net, I think the top image is a concept Future Land Indirect Fires missile. It looks like a camm missile with a brimstone seeker, which can be used on multiple platforms. Read it has a range of 80km.

    • I tried to reply to you last night but my message never made it up. Looking at the size of the missile in the render at the top, its way to big to be a brimstone. I think it is a concept missile Land Indirect fires. Which i think is a camm missle with a Brimstone seeker

    • Talking about Ajax? We have spent £3.2bn out of the £5.5bn. We will be lucky to get much, if anything, back.
      I understand MoD got nothing back when it cancelled Nimrod MRA4, then had to shell out £500k to destroy the airframes.

  18. Tell you what is a puzzle. Our not getting Brimstone on Apache, just everything else. That left integration of USA Hellfire and JAGM then 🤔. I know ‘supposed’ to be cheaper and we have some input into JAGM if I recall. Still, some BS flying around somewhere (that’s not shorthand for Brimstone)

  20. No issues from me! Get enough for the RAC and Armoured Inf, (RA as well, Exactor replaced?) and a few platoons worth of light role versions for 16/3 Cdo BCTs and we are on the way to starting to regain some teeth for the, er, teeth arms! Then, 120mm mortar variant and a 40mm cannon variant, a Recce version and increase numbers as previously planned for, by sacking the Ajax cluster and spending on Boxer! Wheels and tracks mix, yes, but that’s happening anyway. Cheers.

  21. We need as many as possible.striker was incredibly good in desert storm.These are going to be more useful than just 148 ch3 s.

  22. It’s really good to see attempts to lever as much use out of our complex weapons as possible, the complex weapons programmes with MBDA have been remarkably successful.

    considering the accuracy of Brimstone is in the hight 90%s ( around 98% In operations believe ) having a boxer that can carry 8 of these duel mode missiles is essentially an unanswerable threat to armoured formations. A section with a laser designator backed up by one of these would be a deadly threat to any armoured formation.

    Im assuming range would be the same 25miles+ as per rotor launched range.

    it would be a big addition to the armies Precision fires.

    considering the pedigrees are the same there may even be a development route for spear three on a boxer, yes it’s a 100kg missile over a 50kg missile. But it would give the army a very interesting long range Precision fire ( 80+ miles) option on a very mobile platform that would be in common use.

    • Why Boxer? Stick it on a DROPS /EPLS Truck on a demountable load bed. You will get a lot more deployable units for your money without tying it to a Mega expensive Boxer drive module.

      • Yeah seems like a bit of a waste, Boxers not cheap and needed for lots of useful missions rather than a missile truck. Mobility not such an issue when you can fire a guided missile so far without line of sight.

      • True, but then you are pretty much bound to roads or firm ground. Where as Boxer would give you more mobility….but with a range of 25km how much mobility do you need. I’m sure the army would go with the most expensive, complex option and stick it on a tracked vehicle.

        • The FODDEN DROPS Trucks where improved medium mobility units replaced latterly by HX 77. They where designed to go where AS 90 or MLRS went so mobility is built in and they are made for container carriage or DROPS

          • Interesting point so effectively increased mobility along very rough terrain is not needed, just the ability to deploy where the artillery would be.

  23. Surprised we haven’t tried putting brimstone on a Rheinmetal mission master. I wonder if it would be possible and cost effective.

  26. K.I.S.S.

    Why stick it on Boxer?

    Stick it on an ISO container pallet and it can go an any truck fitted with EPLS or DROPS. You could then put it down where you need it or keep it mobile.

    It would save millions by not using a Boxer Module and could be in service BEFORE Boxer is available.

    • MSI Defence has come up with a concept for a EPLS /DROPS VSHORAD system using a DROPS type load bed. No need to integrate it with a vehicle. Stick it on a truck and use it or put it on the ground and use it. This is what a Brimstone system should be . You dont tie down valuable and costly AFVs/ Drive units when a simple truck will do the job.

        • it is if its still on the base unit – which could be an HX3 or an HMT

          the graphic shows it deployed perhaps providing coverage for an air or naval base or for something like we did at the olympics.

          hell it can even go on a ship if we needed it to.

          • Yep.

            You get 2 for one.
            A mobile system or a fixed system.

            The 30mm system would link in to a Sky Sabre Battle management system with ease.

          • lots of maintenance and upgrade savings to make as well – as just like phalanx we can have a rolling maintenance/upgrade schedule that keeps everything in tip top condition – thereby extending lifespan.

            What’s not to like

  29. Finally, looks like someone has be reading and taking notes of what’s been promoted on these very pages from the forum. About bloody time!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here