100 extra Boxer armoured vehicles are to be purchased for the British Army, bringing the order to a total of 623 vehicles.

It was announced this afternoon that the British Army will receive 100 extra armoured Boxer vehicles, “ensuring more vehicles reach the frontline faster” and bolstering the programme to a total of 623.

Boxer production for the British Army is already underway as the first 117 vehicles are being built on German production lines. Soon, say the MoD, UK facilities in Telford and Stockport will ramp up for the remaining 506 and begin manufacture.

According to the Ministry of Defence:

“The modern digitalised armoured vehicles can be used to transport troops to the frontline and can be rapidly reconfigured to fulfil different roles on the battlefield. The UK and Germany have worked closely together on the Boxer programme for the British Army, with the Boxer build in the UK benefitting from German expertise, data and collaboration.

Now boasting more than 400 Boxer vehicles themselves, Germany has had older variants of the vehicle in service for more than 10 years, including service in Afghanistan. Their success in the German Army means they continue to develop new variants of the vehicle.”

Prime Minister Boris Johnson said:

“In these difficult times, our deep defence partnership offers reassurance to our people and the wider world, while also ensuring we are ready to respond to new threats. This joint programme will ensure our militaries have state-of-the-art equipment as the invasion of Ukraine shakes the very foundations of European peace and security.”

Defence Procurement Minister, Jeremy Quin said:

“This order will accelerate the delivery of the Boxer fleet to the British Army and increase its numbers. The land equipment upgrade is a vital element of the Integrated Review, on which we continue to deliver. Doing so, alongside our German allies, creates opportunities for both our Armed Forces.”

The first Boxer vehicles will arrive in units from 2023.

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

129 COMMENTS

    • And therein lies the key…….if as per usual we just buy the basic box on wheels to save money then forget it…….we need heavily armed variants for ground support and anti-aircraft….

      • Every infantry vehicle must have a stabilised cannon. Then it can properly ‘play at’ being an IFV that could replace Warrior, even if its mobility won’t be as good.

          • as good as a modern tracked vehicle or just as good as Warrior …not ure if theres a difference but there probabably is.

          • I hope they are right – mens lives are on the line. Those Boxers that are in support of tanks better be able to keep up with them in bad terrain, and CR3 will just fly over bad terrain.

          • The laws of physics aren’t changing anytime soon, so no, it won’t be as good as Warrior over bad terrain.

    • What we need imo is a vehicle like the A1 IM-SHORAD Stryker, but better.
      So Brimstone instead of Hellfire.
      Starstreak instead of Stinger.
      A CT40 cannon instead of a 30mm Bushmaster.

      And if CAMM or IRIS-T SL for example can be carried instead of MANPADS then all the better, especially if they could be fired while on the move.

      Another option would be the Oerlikon Revolver Gun firing AHEAD ammo.

      There are all sorts of Boxer variants that could be manufactured with a bit of out-of-the-box thinking.

  3. I was expecting more like 200. We have north of 750 warriors, all being replaced with Boxer with naff all punch. Lets hope they review the variants and start adding firepower.

    • I didn’t think we had that many Warrior left Rob, thought they’d dropped down many years ago to a few hundred. Agree with the wider sentiment though!

      • I don’t get it. If we stick to the variants publicised for the initial order, then even if all 100 are armed with 30mm or 40mm canons, that’s all the army will have as IFVs. They seem to be heavily relying on Ajax to fill the hole.

        I have stated before that the RN and RAF should take precedence but on the assumption the army is smaller but carries a real punch. Instead we have the worst of both worlds, a small and weak army.

        • As you probably know, I’m of the same position. RN and RAF first. But with a smaller army armed to the teeth! It’s still limp as things stand. Not in the quality of our people or infantry but in firepower, especially the RA and armour.

      • 4 of then on HET on the M4 today going over the seven bridge. It doesmake you wonder how many of that 750+ we have left. Mind you there is also the issue of transporting them as well

          • Yet, we seem to have 20 hardly used HET up for sale. I also understood there was a gauge issue (or railway wagon width issue) with transporting newer armed vehicles , but that could just relate to West Wales/Castle Martin. TBH, the whole of the army’s armed vehicle strategy (if there is one !!) seems to be a disjointed mess

          • And the icing on the cake, in the 2010 or 2015 cuts, forget which, most of the dedicated railway specialists in the army got the chop. Clever.
            I believe it is being reborn in one of the STRE’s now but it is miniscule.

          • I think that might of been 2010, as there was never going to be a European war again an no need to deploy forces in mainland Europe!!!

          • What is behind that HET sale?
            Do you really think west Wales has a different rail gauge to the rest of UK? I think I heard that Estonia has a different rail gauge to the rest of Europe but that is a different story.

      • According to the ONS 2021 UK Armed Forces Equipment and Formations we have 767 Warrior.
        Looks like the 2022 report is late again as it should have been published 1 April. Last year was September.

  4. This has been well covered over on UKAFC Twitter. The NAO talked of 250 and eventually more. Is this it? Will there be more and this is a first 100 to get them into service quicker?

    Army website has the usual spin about it being a force uplift. It is still one of the most expensive APC – battlefield taxis money can buy and is not in any way a replacement for an IFV like Warrior, which sadly is happening.

    As UKAFC mention and which you all know I keep tabs regards the ORBATS and how things change, and a timeline of events to bear in mind:

    Boxer is the once known MIV plan pre 2015 under SDSR2010 which by 2029 called for just 3 battalions of MIV to replace the 3 Mastiff HPM “Heavy Protected Mobility” battalions which we have, 1 in each Armoured Infantry Brigade. They were to augment 6 Warrior battalions.
    With the advent of Strike Brigades, which was nothing more than a defence cut despite what DS Fallon claimed, that went out the window, the Warrior Bns were to reduce 6 to 4 and there were to be 4 Boxer battalions. That was acceptable
    IF Warrior remained and IF Strike was actually resourced correctly, which it was not.

    Now Warrior is going, Boxer is touted as a “replacement” It is not. It is a sorry case of army chaos with no idea if they are coming or going or what they want to be, with Boxer the obvious fall back as WCSP fell apart as there was no money for both and Challenger 3 and new guns and all the rest.

    I welcome the order but I won’t accept the wonderful spin on the army news homepage that this is some sort of grand master plan coming together. Where is the firepower!!?

    • One has to wonder why the army are buying Boxer for every battlefield role, when it is by far the most expensive AFV out there. Surely following this line, we will have far fewer vehicles(thus mounted battalions), then if they bought some capable but cheaper alternatives for some of the CSS roles? Do we really need such an expensive ambulance version? The French and Italians push those requirements along with several others onto cheaper alternatives, allowing a greater number of ‘fighting vehicles’
      The RN discovered you couldn’t have expensive everything with FSC and we ended up with T26/31 frigates. I can see Boxer becoming the army’s FSC conundrum.

      • That is exactly one of the points UKAFC make. Is it necessary to have it as an ambulance? Of the 500 plus in the original order just 80 something are infantry carriers! And it’s the poor bloody infantry that will shortly have 4 mechanized battalions out of 30 something battalions, excluding Foxhound in the Light mech role.

        • Worth pointing out; what are the alternatives to having Boxer in the battlefield ambulance role in Mechanised RAPs and Medical Regiments (the real ones not the MMR’s)?

          BFA? It’s neither armoured not particularly good off road, certainly can’t be expected to keep up with 8×8’s or tracked vehicles. (Also very top heavy and a nightmare for any troops in the back).

          Bulldog? Very long in the tooth, and while it will probably be fine soldiering on in the rear echlon, keeping pace with Boxers will be a tall ask. Plus mixing tracks with wheels again.

          Mastiff Ambluance variant? Mastiff’s off road mobility is terrible, so as long as Boxer’s stay near the roads it should be fine, but the moment you’re following up an armoured battlegroup… not so much.

          Samaritan? Similar to Bulldog, better mobility (faster for sure, Bulldog with full theatre entry kit can be outpaced by a man on a bicycle given a small incline), but how many CVR(T) variants are remaining in service? So the ease of maintenance compared to Bulldog will fall off as spares become harder to source.

          Buy new? Okay, but how much cost would be offset by procuring a bespoke ambulance and having to get a full new log chain (especially since if you really wanted too you could just remove the ambi-module from Boxer and put an APC module on instead).

          • Hi Dern. Good to see you posting and checking in here. I actually recalled you when I mentioned the ambulance issue as you’ve posted that sort of repose before on that and yes it’s fair comment. 👍
            Samaritan was one which I had in mind to prioritise Boxer to combat roles where to my mind the army is most lacking. I’ve actually no idea how many we have remaining.
            What do the Armoured Medical Regiments use currently, I thought 432s?

          • The issue is there never where that many Samaritans in the first place, as they where mainly for following up CVR(T) regiments. I’d guess there are maybe 20 or so left in service? Optimistically?

            No idea what AMR’s have today, I’m afraid, but if things are like what they where last I looked it would be all of the above. 432’s in one troop for supporting CR2’s and Warriors, BFA’s in other troops for supporting rear echelons, light infantry and patient transfers, a handful of Samaritans for supporting the Recce screen. Plus a lot of SV’s and normal Landies.

            I assume it’s still similar but looking at future soldier the RAMC has done some reshuffling and very little of it is interesting enough to make it out of the RAMC and into the public.

        • Hi Daniele

          Plenty of detail can be found on the Boxer variants via this link including lasers, giraffe and weapons fit. Pretty impressive I’d say but we need some punch and more of them!

          Ambulance
          “Both Germany and the Netherlands have different ambulance variants. The higher roof provides 17.5 m³ of protected volume and a floor-to-roof height of 1.85m.

          Whilst the layouts and equipment fits differ, their flexibility allows combinations of 7 seated casualties, 3 stretcher casualties, 2 stretcher and 3 seated casualties or 1 stretcher casualty accessible from both sides and above.”

          https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/boxer-armoured-vehicle-details-and-variants/

      • Deep wrote:

        One has to wonder why the army are buying Boxer for every battlefield role, when it is by far the most expensive AFV out there.

        I think that accolade belongs to the Israeli Eitan 8×8 APC armoured vehicle personnel carrier which come fitted with (not for) the Iron fist APS sysytem.It’s protection level is higher than the Boxer with STANAG system, level 6 at the front and 5 at the sides Boxer comes in at level 5 at the front finally it comes with the Israeli Iron vision system . which allows crew members wearing a kind of HUD up display on their helmets to see around the vehicle from inside it.

      • The short answer is probably that Boxer is the only platform we know we’ll need more of anyway (and have confidence in buying) so in the short term it is listed to do everything. It also has the advantage that if we get the mix of roles wrong then we can change that mix by buying different modules.

        The main problem wrt your observation on using Boxer for everything is that we haven’t made any decisions on what the Multi Role Vehicle – Protected (MRV-P) program would deliver, which is the candidate for those lower level capabilities. Interesting thoughts on this from Think Defence https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/rethinking-the-multi-role-vehicle-protected-programme/

        • I honestly don’t see the point in an ambulance boxer. If you can’t do it in something like a Bushmaster, then it’s too hot to be running around playing ambulance. Assuming that a SPH 10km away is going to know the difference between an ambulance boxer or non ambulance boxer is not something I would want to rely on. You are just adding to the casualty list. The longer the strike range of weapons, the harder it is to identify what exactly you are shooting at (that’s assuming you are someone that cares).

          • You do need an armoured ambulance and soft-skinned ambulances too. They will be marked with the Red Cross. There is not much you can do about a SPH hitting one of our ambulances at distance.

          • Graham
            A Bushmaster is armoured, just not as armoured as a Boxer. Both are off road capable & have high top speed. Red Crosses are not always as visible at range as one would like (smoke, dust, mud, mist, rain, dappled sunlight causing a flickering effect when moving at speed etc) & not much help at all with IR sights. I question the idea of operating an ambulance so far forward that you think you need a Boxer to do it. It also means you likely have non ambulance Boxers & tanks in the vicinity, making you one more very similar target to all the rest. The range of anti-armour weapons is increasing as is the use of AI in identifying a target. A Boxer is a high value target worth expending an expensive missile on.

            BTW, do you know if you are allowed to fit APS to an ambulance? Or is it one of those grey areas where no-one actually knows because the rules haven’t caught up?

          • Hi DJ, I was a REME officer for 34 years and served in Germany for 4 tours, including serving in an Infantry Bn and Sapper regts (twice). Each Mech Inf Coy had a (Red Cross marked) 432 ambulance (and AI bns probably still do) – it would go forward as necessary to platoon positions and collect casualties then take them back to Company Aid Post (CAP) then if required to Regimental Aid Post (RAP). It absolutely did have to be armoured to go forward to platoon positions. How else do you think casualties start their casevac move rearwards from the point of wounding?

            I am not sure that I agree that all Boxers are such high value targets that they all warrant engagement by an expensive and possibly scarce missile. I would not consider a rifle section vehicle to be a high value target, but would consider a coy or bn command vehicle or FAC/JTAC vehicle etc to high value. Most Boxers would get engaged by IFV cannon or arty fire.

            As for fitting APS to an ambulance, well we are not even fitting APS to all 138 CR3s!

        • Hi mate, I’m under the impression that MRV-P is mainly for the Light Inf Battalions, to give them some form of protected mobility across a range of areas! Agree that some variants will find there way into Mech/Medium (whatever they might be called) battalions.
          To me, the main two points with Boxer is price and weight. For a different mix of vehicles across the range of variants required, for the price of just Boxer variants, we might be able to field 8 battalions as opposed to say 5.
          Not sure if true, but have read on a different thread that testing of Boxer with a turret has raised some mobility issues under certain conditions (too heavy!), which would need resolving.
          Don’t get me wrong, Boxer is obviously a good bit of kit, but it’s one of the heaviest 8x8s as is, and one of the most expensive in basic battle taxi variant. Any future must have variants -motor/AT/AD etc will need developing which will further increase the price. As I said above, the RN found that 13 T26 frigates in 2 versions was too steep a price, the same is likely to be true of the Boxer. An all Boxer force with numerous different variants will only result in a smaller amount that can be ordered given whatever the budget is!
          Only my thoughts, and I’m by no means an expert on all things Pongo.

      • The army used to have a tiered equipment philosophy with the most expensive kit at the top of the tree (high mobility and protection but few in number) then working downwards to less complex but cheaper kit.
        So the hierarchy was:
        – well armoured (few but heavy and tracked) – was CR2, WR, AS90,
        then mechanised (medium weight and tracked) – was CVR(T),432,
        then PM (multitude of wheeled vehs including SAXON and the Afghan UOR fleet))
        then soft-skinned vehicles.
        The army has not always pressed hard for the most complex and the most expensive. Perhaps they do now!

      • I thought there was going to be far more and hope you are right. Is your comment based on inside knowledge or hope?

        • There are 250 budgeted but the follow on order was to come later, but with Mastiff to go early they need them sooner so have to up the present production run.

          • Ok thanks, so not the disaster it seems. Fingers crossed the additional order happens and with more “bang”.

    • I thought that the first Boxer order was for 500? I echo your concern at Boxer now filling the role as a replacement for Warrior IFV – it might just fly if they all have a modern stabilised cannon with more punch than the old RARDEN and if it is proved that an 8-wheeler has as much mobility across complex terrain as a tracked vehicle, and if a cannon-equipped Boxer is cheaper than fitting a Warrior with the WCSP mods. Who has the stats?
      Who else operated wheeled infantry vehicles in support of tanks in an all-arms grouping and does it work?

      • Hi Graham, I believe that the French operate this way with their Leclerc/VBCI mix of tracked/wheeled vehicles. Seems to work for them.

        • Thanks Deep, but have the French actually got any experience in operating such combinations in operational situations?…or do they just do exercises in France! As I recall they missed Gulf Wars 1 and 2, Bosnia, Kosovo etc.

          • Hi Graham, believe that the French were in GW1, had a light div predominantly made up of wheeled recce and APCs with some AMX30 tanks.
            They got rid of all their tracked IFVs and went all wheeled with the VBCI and other vehicles to support them.
            They are now replacing their Wheeled Recce vehicles with the 6×6 Jaguar and supplementing their VBCI fleet with a new 6×6 wheeled APC -Griffon I believe it’s called.
            Think the deal is that both vehicles cost no more than 1 million euros apiece!!!

  5. The pudding is in the detail, let’s see some detail, Boxer needs some punch even if it’s a 20mm cannon. At least they are ramping up the delivery rate could this just be the beginning of an increase in capabilities across the board?

    • You’d hope so, with all that’s going on. Knowing the army though, may be the rumours were right and the brass really were working for Russia!!!

    • A 20mm cannon on Boxer is inferior to the 30mm that Warrior has. Not what I would call an increase in capabilities.

  6. Good news.

    And I’d hope even more than that, even faster. Speed is important. It would be no good if they were still looking at producing 50 a year, so I’d hope we are looking at at least 100 next year.

    That might actually be possible. We are now getting the first 117 from Germany. I think that’s far more than before, as someone originally said only 8% were being made in Germany, maybe 40-45. I hope this means we’ll be getting a lot more next year, even before the UK plants are up and running.

    As others have said, it needs weapons even on the basic APC/ICV, something like a RWS with a 30mm. As well as the base APC, we were also getting 62 recce/fire support vehicles, and 28 mortar carriers. I don’t know the spec of these, but someone mentioned an anti-tank RWS for the recce vehicles.

    We also need a turretted variant with something a little bit punchier, but I wouldn’t expect to see that until/unless they give up on getting Ajax in a reasonable timeframe.

    • 117 is quite symmetrical with BJ promising 120 vehicles to Ukraine – if I remember the reports from this afternoon correctly.

  7. After seeing the damage the Ukrainians have been able to do with a 30mm cannon this should be minimum requirement on these, but good news anyway I suppose

      • Good job we have a load of even better 40mm CTA guns knocking about just waiting for a vehicle to go on.

        320 IFV (with jaguar CTA turret)
        64 Amos 120mm double barrelled mortars
        64 RCH 155mm
        64 engineering
        64 air defence
        64 combat support

        Whilst we are at it 200 jaguar recon is a bargain at £800k each and adds a load of value to an all wheels strike brigade, and I am sure we can build it in the same factory as boxer or just get the French to do it for us..

        Is boxer too large and too expensive in the new “everything is a target” world of UAV’s

  8. Well, this is good news as far as it goes but its difficult to make sensible comment until we know what the proposed variants will be and the eventual number by variant. What it does suggest though is that neither the CV90 nor Lynx etc options are being considered as a solution to the WCSP cancellation problem. Regardless of the question the answer it seems is Boxer.
    If a Cockerill 105mm variant is being considered how would this be deployed? It still only carries 4 dismounts.

    • I think 4 dismounts is now optimal for infantry, as the vehicle should provide covering fire and realistically a platoon will have 4 vehicles so 16 dismounts.

      the key is what firepower do we put on these rather large vehicles, the 105mm unmanned John cockerill actually looks quite low profile, but obviously we have a load of CTA turrets knocking about.

      my personal preference is the 120mm XMS gun which is a lot Lighter and more powerful than anything else and if we can have a 120mm CTA round this may be the holy grail of weight, cost and lethality.

      even the CTA 40 with 4 ATW’s is a massive uptick especially if we add in APS.

      perhaps a company has 16 IFVs as above, 4 guns with the 120mm CTA or the double barrelled AMOS mortar system, 4 air defence vehicles, 4 CSG and 1 CnC is the optimal mix given lessons learned from Ukraine.

      • An infantry platoon of 16 dismounts is a half-size platoon and would have half the effect of today’s platoon. Not what a small army should be looking at.

  9. Probably because we have so few Apaches and tanks. All the noise was about making the army agile and more lethal. There doesn’t seem to be much of the latter.

    • As one analyst said our tanks would not have lasted much more than a week in Ukraine so some heavily armed Boxers seems the least we need. You just have to see how the Ukrainians are using concealed tanks to pick off columns to see how useful they could be defensively, they aren’t going to be moving around endlessly.

      • If we were in the Russian’s shoes (itself a horrible thought) we would have used our tanks correctly in an all-arms grouping and using the most suitable terrain for tanks not the worst. I am sure they would not have run out of fuel too.

        The Ukrainian tanks are being used well in an ambush role and are engaging wheeled APCs (that are much like Boxer!).
        When we were in BAOR many times on exercise we used our tanks defensively in hull-down positions on Key adn Vital Ground, at least initially and only switched to the offensive when the factors were right.

  10. Oh good. Now we have another 100 overpriced, under armed, tin cans to go with the well equipped and successful Ajax to be available whenever They can all accompany the billion pounds worth of 148 tanks. This is getting more like Laurel and Hardy by the day.

    • In fairness, if JF is right in his post above they are to replace the Mastiffs which are going to Ukraine – with vehicles that have better armour, are better off road, have better sensors and a RWS; expensive but sounds like a sensible move.

  11. If they want to pretend this is an IFV then part of an IFVs job is to drop of the lads on top of the enemy position if need be and provide coordinated and close in fire support! For that it needs good armour, good mobility and a good cannon!

    • Does Boxer have good mobility and armour? We know it doesn’t have the latter yet. What do you make of the 30mm Vs 40mm debate?

      • I was always light role so anything bigger than 50 cal to me is impressive 😂! But on a serious note 30mm we could get and fit quite rapid, lots out there at a reasonable cost, the 40mm, more ammunition options but more expensive. Personally I’d just like to get a cannon on the bloody thing to make it able to start fighting and a chance to survive!! As for armour, good enough for an APC but maybe not for an IFV, mobility always better with tracks but then you have the added issues which tracks bring. I think tracks with tracks and wheels with wheels! But then again my armoured experience is limited and I’m sure some of the Armoured Inf lads on here could elaborate better than I. Cheers Rob.

      • The Boxer we are getting is supposed to have the same armour protection as the Australian version. Which is proof against 30mm AP rounds over the frontal arc. Plus protection against 14.5mm along the sides and rear. This is the same as Warrior.

        Mobility wise it will be ok. It has the updated engine to counter the growth in weight. But it is still going to be the heaviest of the 8x8s as standard. The additional appliqué armour will increase weight and decrease mobility to some degree. Will the be any better than a Stryker off road in the mud? No!

        The biggest difference between the two calibers is the high explosive content and armour penetration. The CTAS 40mm standard HE shell contains twice as much explosive found in the standard 30mm Bushmaster HE shell. This means for fire support, the 40mm shell will have a significantly larger kill radius. Plus better effects on hardened targets.

        Similarly for armour penetration. The CTAS 40mm AP round contains more propellant and a longer sabot dart. Therefore the AP round leaves the barrel with a much greater muzzle velocity. Plus has a greater chance of overmatching sloped and spaced armour. Which means it will be able to punch through more steel.

        The more numerous and common Russian vehicles like BTR80/90s and BMP1/2s only have armour proof against small arms on the sides and rear plus protection against 14.5mm armour piercing on the front. The BMP3 is said to be protected against 20 and 25mm AP rounds on the front and small arms on the sides and rear. However, the 100mm smoothbore gun it carries will out range a 30mm autocannon and will provide substantially better fire support. A CTAS 40 AP round will have a similar effective range plus a higher rate of fire. Combined with a better fire control and optics, it “should” have the upper hand.

        • Interesting points. Happy that the Boxer armour sounds good.
          Of course mobility is about far more than engine horsepower – suspension, ground clearance and ground pressure also play a part. Does the 8-wheeler Boxer have similar Nominal Ground Pressure to a full tracked Warrior? What makes Stryker so good at mobility in mud?

          • An 8×8 will never have the same low ground pressure as a similarly sized tracked vehicle. The tracks much like an I beam spread the load much better.

            Stryker good in the mud, not a chance! As son as you start adding bar armour etc, they get worse in off road capabilities. If they have a central tyre deflator, this can help. But it still won’t be as good as tracks.

    • Exactly mate. You don’t want to ‘contract out’ close in fire support to anyone else. Regard the Apaches, armed drones etc as a ‘Billy Bonus’ but don’t rely on it.

  12. It’s a start and hopefully a follow in order to come! But let’s priorities Infantry versions closely followed by mortar carriers! Give it a decent off the shelf 30mm (if the 40mm CTC isn’t an option) and while it will never be an IFV, it needs to be capable of supporting ground callsigns with some kinetic effect! If the Army is going to pretend it’s an IFV then let’s give it, and the lads using it, a chance. Next priority for me would be an overwatch version with AT missiles (whichever are chosen)! The rest of the versions can be a bun fight between modules!

  13. We’ll soon be the only army in Europe without an IFV. Absolute joke the army is becoming. Over a decade ago we had three resourced armoured brigades. However, most of the vehicles were procured between 1960s – early 1990s. There’s been no armoured vehicle regeneration since.

    That’s where the root of the failures lie. No long term strategy. And don’t blame funding, as France, Italy etc have shown what can be done with long term planning and projects.

    Originally the Boxers were to equip some mechanised battalions to complement the armoured infantry.

    Surely if the Warriors aren’t being upgraded, they can still be kept in service past 2025 to see who the winner is for the US or Australian projects.

    As an infantrymen you’d rather be in an ancient Warrior vehicle than no protection whatsoever.
    Even if you stick the Warrior CSP turrets on to some Boxers, they still don’t replace what a true tracked IFV can provide.

    • But the generals are convinced they are perfectly happy to ride around the battlefield in Jackals with little more than a .50 cal (SMH)

    • My layman’s view….yes, it is (no) joke. I would ask BAE and Rheinmetal to put the CTA 40mm on the Lynx so you have brand new proper IFVs: and only as many types to maintain as you would have had with Warrior and you could build them in the UK. There’s a saying; standardise (with Boxer) as much as you can….but no further. Boxer is an excellent wheeled APC….don’t try to make it what it isn’t.

  14. Am I correct in that this vehicle is 2 parts? The main part that has all the stuff to make it go and a separate module that can be any number of things?
    So is the main part the exact same no matter what you want to make it?
    If it is then getting these asap is a good idea. I imagine the troop module is the cheapest, or stick the last 200 on order without a module on the back until the figure out what to make it.
    Can a 30/40mm cannon turret be carried without it affecting the number of troops inside?
    Still something tracked as a warrior replacement is needed to role with the tanks. Is 2 for each tank enough?

      • Very nice details. Looks good. Hopefully it serves well and fits in.
        A warrior replacement it isn’t but is needed all the same.
        If the army are taking up permanent heavy armor positions in Europe, perhaps some tracked ifv can be bought for there.

    • With respect to whether the 40mm turret affects the number of dismounts, I think that depends on the turret chosen, manned Lance or unmanned Nexter.

    • As Glass says below. Yes it is a two part vehicle that uses the same chassis for all the variants.

      Australia have added a two man turret armed with a 30mm auto-cannon. By fitting this it has cut down on the available internal volume. I think it’s reduced from 8 dismounts to 4. The Lithuanian Vilkas uses a unmanned turret used on the Puma IFV. It has a 30mm autocannon. Along with a crew of 3, it can still carry 8 dismounts.

  15. Uh? Australians once more wanting to get out of a contract?

    Military insiders claim Rheinmetall’s Boxer is experiencing “carbon monoxide toxicity” inside the vehicle, vibration problems for passengers, difficulties operating the vehicle at night-time, delays with passing blast tests and no anti-tank missiles able to be fitted for two years.

    “Army is pushing for the introduction of the Boxer vehicle too fast, just so they can meet a promised June Initial Operating Capability (IOC) date when there are still serious problems not fixed,” a project team member told the ABC, speaking only on the condition of anonymity.

    ABC News

    Same piece also says that Australia is now seeking to not spend money in Boxer ambulances and other non frontline combat variants.

    • There’s a federal election about to be called and all sorts of speculative nonsense will happen between now and the end of May. ABC seems very fond of quoting anonymous sources.

      Perhaps getting some Bushmaster ambulances isn’t a bad idea, but the whole “it’s too foreign” issue with Aussie Boxers may go away after the next couple of months.

  16. Great. Just need to sort out a canon/ ATGM missile turret and give these vehicles some fighting power. Fit starstreak onto a few of them too. Seems they are proving effective.

  17. Because infantry carrying vehicles can encounter enemy vehicles in the same role (which will be cannon armed) , they need to be able to defend themselves.

    They can encounter cannon armed scouts, again they need to be able to defend themselves.

    Heavy firepower can support the infantry against fortified positions handheld weapons can’t touch.

    The need to stop and fire is 1970s level of tech so not an argument.

    We don’t have enough apaches or drones even if we had more they can’t be everywhere anyway, even the mighty US army has to accept this.

    The old fashioned battlefield taxi concept is long dead. Hopefully it’s not revived by the British army.

  18. The Boxers replacing WR IFVs need to all have a modern stabilised cannon that has more punch than the old RARDEN cannon.
    With stabilised cannon – when they are moving they are firing. When the section dismounts they are firing.
    Folk hope that Boxer will have rapid mobility but I doubt it is as good as tracked WR in snow, ice and glutinous and deep mud.
    The other kit you mention can all deliver firepower but the infantry need their own as well.

  20. Does anyone know if that is 600+ bodies with modules being extra or 600+ complete Boxers. I for one would like to see a mix of modules everything from troop carrier to 30-40mm, 105mm, 120 mortar, anti air/anti tank missile and signals/Intel modules. We could start possibly by having a NATO Boxer module pool to test and evaluate then equip with what might be needed at the time.

    I am starting to wonder; if AJAX does not go operational to have the tracked Warrior IFV replacement on the same concept as Boxer. A tracked body with mission modules. They could be the same dimensions as the Boxer modules so that they become interchangable.

    • Rhinemetall’s Lynx works on the same principle as their Boxer, with a base unit and modules. I don’t know why they didn’t make the modules common between the two systems.

    • Ron,
      I am having trouble understanding your last para. If Ajax does not go operational we need another modern recce vehicle – the army might hold out for a tracked recce vehicle like CV90 Recce Variant or accept a wheeled vehicle like Boxer CRV (Combat Recce Vehicle).
      Warrior replacement I understand is to be Boxer, and we all hope it will have a modern, effective stablised cannon, in the 30-40mm range.

  21. Can someone with inside knowledge provide some input on the view that boxer is not protected enough to be an IFV as from what I can see it is at least as good as Ajax and can be uparmoured to stanag level 6+ which makes it suitable for this role.

    If it isn’t then it is a very expensive piece of kit for what it does and perhaps there are other solutions that are more suitable.

    If heavy armour and tracks are the answer then we should order the merkava 5 in quantity from Israel, with an auto loader and CTA 120mm gun if it is so much better than everything else and use it as an IFV with 4 dismounts. It’s fully featured, heavily armoured and proven and gives us the most bang for our buck.

    I do think we need to dramatically alter the modules we are purchasing and make them all offensive, do we really need a £5m ambulance when we have other cheaper (not worse) options for this type of vehicle.

    IFVs with 40mm CTA turret ( built by rheinmetal for the uk already) with added ATW on each side is a good start, followed by a full range of fires.

    320 IFV’
    64 RCH 155
    64 Air and electronic countermeasures
    64 engineering
    64 CSG
    64 precision fires

    Add in a further 64 jaguars for the recce role and 128 Foxhound (even land rovers) with loitering munitions and we have a capability that can create and maintain an operations bubble.

    Ajax at £10m each is a disgrace, even if it worked…. I suspect the French jaguar does the same or close enough for £800k. And certainly the CV90 can at £3m each.

    If we cancel Ajax and get the money back (unlikely I suspect) we could buy a further 2 brigades worth of the above, worst case is the engines and turrets can be repurposed and we probably write off £3bn and spend a further £4bn to buy the above.

    For the jaguar I would buy the first 100 off the French production line and then integrate into what should be a new uk site.

    • The integration of UK systems will slow up the purchase of most things, and increase the cost. Design and integration will cost a lot. You can’t look at the driveaway costs of a Jaguar or say a Norwegian CV-90. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that Ajax is expensive.

      I don’t know exact costs, but just dividing the cost of the programme by the number of units doesn’t give a fair idea of the incremental cost of extra units. If we assume that £3 bn on the Ajax has bought us virtually nothing, and the rest of the £5.5 bn programme (excl support) was for the 589 vehicles. That would give a rough cost of £4.2 million driveaway for each extra Ajax, not £10m. However, once you add in support and the fact that we actually had some hulls delivered (even though they were useless), I’d guess that actually approaches £6m per extra Ajax.

      The same reason is why a Boxer ambulance wouldn’t cost £5m. Design and integration of things like comms systems would be already done. With the announcement of 100 extra, we should get an idea of the cost per extra unit, and even that will differ by variant.

    • Boxer is currently the best protected 8×8 vehicle on the market. The version we are getting is the same as the Australians, with uprated engine and suspension. It is also supposed to have the same armour protection which is STANAG Level 6/6+. I am not sure if this is the base armour level or after the applique armour has been fitted. But STANAG 6/6+ is protection against 30mm armour piercing rounds across the frontal arc. This is the same as Warrior with the theatre entry armour fitted.

      To replace Warrior though it needs an autocannon! As the vehicle is supposed to support its dismounts in both overwatch and direct fire support. The option would be either a manned two person turret as per the Australian version, or a unmanned one like the Lithuanian Vilkas using the Puma turret. The two manned turret takes up a lot of internal volume and drops the number of carried dismounts from 8 to 4. With the unmanned turret, you can keep the same number of dismounts, but situational awareness is poorer.

      If the vehicle gets a turret using the CTAS 40mm. It will provide dismounts with significantly better fire support than a 30mm, due to the greater explosive content in a HE shell.

    • Andrew, what has prompted your comment? I do agree though. Just two armoured regiments (tank battalions in US-speak) is a very slender capability, and makes us bit-players in armoured warfare. Seems strange that we had a clear requirement for 386 CR2s in the post Cold War era (in service from 1998) and now think we only need 138 tanks – about a third the number. What else has shrunk by 2/3 in that time – the Police,the number of hospitals or schools, the overseas aid budget, the social services spend, MPs pay?

        • I hate it when politicians talk (even now) about the army needing to break free of Cold War mindsets etc – we did that in 1991. Options for Change introduced post Cold War structures but of course some Cold War era kit was still in the development/production cycle – did not mean it was useless though. Even at that time straight after the Berlin wall came down we were in the desert in a non-NATO operation (Op Granby) and then ops in former Yugoslavia were far from Cold war ops.
          It seems that if you think there is a role for heavy metal someone will brand you a Cold War dinosaur!…and then paradoxically sign up for CR3, Ajax and Boxers.

  24. Boxer Armoured Vehicle – Details and Variantshttps://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/boxer-armoured-vehicle-details-and-variants/

  25. I just do not see why this announcement is something to cheer about..we need offensive kit with firepower.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here