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 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. He also works for the NHS. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
130 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
TS
TS
1 month ago

Can we hope for some variants with a bit more punch???

Peter tattersll
Peter tattersll
1 month ago
Reply to  TS

155 mm. gun possibly being fitted .

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago

Infantry Boxers must have a stabilised modern cannon otherwise we will be inferior to the Warrior era. Good move if we also get 155mm SP arty.

grizzler
grizzler
1 month ago
Reply to  TS

Totally underwhelmed by this product if Im completey honest

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  grizzler

I see what you mean. The last time we had a wheeled APC (with just a MG) and at least 6 wheels was in the 1950s (Alvis Saracen).

Also its not too encouraging to see those 2 ‘crew members’ in the photo with no protection for the upper body – not even a curved shielding plate. You don’t want to be battened down all the time or you lose SA.

Last edited 1 month ago by Graham Moore
AlexS
AlexS
1 month ago
Reply to  TS

Very expensive armored taxi.

Would not be wiser to get a cheaper model and spend the money in APS’s ?
I mean an ATGW from a drone can kill this or an half price one almost same way.

Marked
Marked
1 month ago

It needs firepower. The infantry need more than just an armored taxi.

Paul42
Paul42
1 month ago
Reply to  Marked

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….

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul42

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.

Andy ardron
Andy ardron
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

The MOD testers say the boxer modern tech makes it as good as warrior in bad terrain

grizzler
grizzler
1 month ago
Reply to  Andy ardron

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

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Andy ardron

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.

Luke Jones
Luke Jones
1 month ago
Reply to  Andy ardron

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

Jim Carner
Jim Carner
24 days ago
Reply to  Marked

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.

Last edited 24 days ago by Jim Carner
RobW
RobW
1 month ago

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.

Last edited 1 month ago by RobW
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  RobW

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!

RobW
RobW
1 month ago

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.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  RobW

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.

Matt
Matt
1 month ago

I’m interested – do any Western countries have an army you would describe as “armed to the teeth”?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Matt

…the USA?

Simon
Simon
1 month ago

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

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Simon

By train like Russia do. Yes, we do have a shortage of HET.

Simon
Simon
1 month ago

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

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Simon

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago

Interesting. Of course railway specialists always used to be RLC.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Yes indeed. It’s a reservist STRE I believe with Network Rail SMEs.

Simon
Simon
1 month ago

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!!!

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Simon

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.

Matt
Matt
1 month ago

What’s a HET when it’s at home, please?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Matt

Heavy Equipment Transport.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Simon

Transport armour long distance by rail, HET, sea – as we have always done.

The Big Man
The Big Man
1 month ago

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.

The Big Man
The Big Man
1 month ago
Reply to  The Big Man

I meant NAO, oops.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  RobW

Is this really the WR replacement order? Why doesn’t Ben Wallace give any details?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago

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… Read more »

Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago

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… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Deep32

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.

Dern
Dern
1 month ago

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… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

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?

Dern
Dern
1 month ago

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… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago

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/

Last edited 1 month ago by Nigel Collins
farouk
farouk
1 month ago
Reply to  Deep32

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… Read more »

1920px-Eytan_--_Our-IDF-2018-IZE-200_(43053775600)_(cropped).jpg
Last edited 1 month ago by farouk
Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

Ok. 2nd most expensive then! 😆

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

Fascinating farouk, Id not seen that.

Jonno
Jonno
1 month ago

Cant we have specialised versions with a commonality of parts?
I think there is a need for an amphibious version. We never replaced the Stalwart or imagine we may come ashore anymore from offshore do we?

Glass Half Full
Glass Half Full
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

Australian Boxer spec is supposedly STANAG Level 6/6+?

Glass Half Full
Glass Half Full
1 month ago
Reply to  Deep32

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… Read more »

DJ
DJ
1 month ago

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).

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  DJ

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.

DJ
DJ
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  DJ

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… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Graham Moore
Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Deep32

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!

Last edited 1 month ago by Graham Moore
Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I see what you are saying, perhaps that is the new way, rightly or wrongly.

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago

It’s to cover for sending Mastiff to Ukraine. There will be more.

RobW
RobW
1 month ago
Reply to  James Fennell

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

James Fennell
James Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  RobW

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.

RobW
RobW
1 month ago
Reply to  James Fennell

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

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago

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… Read more »

Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Deep32

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.

Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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!!!

Mark Franks
Mark Franks
1 month ago

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?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Mark Franks

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!!!

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Mark Franks

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

Jon
Jon
1 month ago

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,… Read more »

Matt
Matt
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

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

JamesD
JamesD
1 month ago

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

AlbertStarburst
AlbertStarburst
1 month ago
Reply to  JamesD

…yes a 30mm is the way to go as a minimum.

Pacman27
Pacman27
1 month ago

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… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago

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.

Pacman27
Pacman27
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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.… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Pacman27

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.

Jay R
Jay R
1 month ago

Why is everyone stating these vehicles need more heavy weaponary? The way I see it when they are firing they are sitting, not moving, isn’t rapid mobility they key to this vehicle, the firepower can come from AH64s, drones and tanks.

RobW
RobW
1 month ago
Reply to  Jay R

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.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  RobW

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  Jay R

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!

RobW
RobW
1 month ago
Reply to  Airborne

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?

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  RobW

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… Read more »

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Airborne

Have you seen the hummer with wheels that turn into mini tracks tracks while driving?
comment image

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Looks more like it’s been clamped!

Jack
Jack
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

That is how my Range Rover looks when my mother in-law climbs aboard 😂

Last edited 1 month ago by Jack
DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  RobW

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?… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

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?

Daveyb
Daveyb
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Airborne

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.

Marked
Marked
1 month ago
Reply to  Jay R

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Jay R

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.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
1 month ago

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

But not until 2030 when all the CR3s will be in service. Up to then we will have to muddle through.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

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.

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago

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… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Airborne

Just 80 odd so far mate.

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago

Yes mate to many versions (modules) which aren’t “fighty”!

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  Airborne

I think I’m right in saying all the UK Boxers will be fitted with this RWS which is wired for Javelin.
https://www.kongsberg.com/globalassets/kongsberg-defence–aerospace/2.1.-products/defence-and-security/remote-weapon-systems/protector-mct/protector-rs4.pdf
The cannon problem is still unresolved.

Last edited 1 month ago by Paul.P
JH
JH
1 month ago

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… Read more »

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  JH

👍

Jack
Jack
1 month ago
Reply to  JH

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

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  JH

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.

Matt
Matt
1 month ago
Reply to  JH

Was being too cruel.

Last edited 1 month ago by Matt
Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago

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… Read more »

Glass Half Full
Glass Half Full
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Correct – base chassis and module variants. Excellent digestible source of information on Boxer – https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/boxer-armoured-vehicle-details-and-variants/

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago

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.

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

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.

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

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.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

I think you have hit the nail on the head with the reference to remote turrets. Seems to me that because you can still carry 8 dismounts these do create valid Boxer IFV options of we are limiting ourselves to this vehicle. The APC versions of UK Boxer will carry the Kongsberg RS4 but the same manufacturer also make a RWS with the Bushmaster 30mm. Shame not to have the edge that the CTA 40mm would give but still not bad…
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/boxer-ifv-variant-rt60-turret-emerges/

AlexS
AlexS
1 month ago

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… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by AlexS
dave12
dave12
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

You are from Portugal so you claim?

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

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.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 month ago

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.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

More than possible! This is a very flexible bit of kit that we should be making the most of.

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

EOBsborWoAEMGgb.jpg
Last edited 1 month ago by Nigel Collins
Simon
Simon
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Good news, that a boiling vessel can be fitted

Matt
Matt
1 month ago

I love that it comes in 2 pieces.

The chassis is like the Banana Splits buggies, then all the other things to go on top.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMl6HnhFFIA

Boxer-Modules.jpg
Ron
Ron
1 month ago

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… Read more »

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron

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.

Pacman27
Pacman27
1 month ago

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… Read more »

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  Pacman27

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… Read more »

Daveyb
Daveyb
1 month ago
Reply to  Pacman27

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… Read more »

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago

Great now can we have more challenger 3s please

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew D

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?

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Have been told still stuck in the cold war days Graham 🤔

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew D

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… Read more »

bill masen
bill masen
1 month ago

A bit better than the old FV432s and the aluminium nasties like the Scorpion/ Scimitar etc

bill masen
bill masen
1 month ago
Reply to  bill masen

Or a Saracen/ Saladin 🙂

Gemma
Gemma
1 month ago

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

Andrew Blackburn
Andrew Blackburn
1 month ago

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

Dan
Dan
1 day ago

Yall are dumb the Ajax ifv is replacing warrior no?