Britain to purchase Boxer-based RCH155 artillery systems

*were pledged, not we pledged (by the Germans)

I have no clue if PZ2000 is still made is modern, but far from new. Boxer is a good choice. Lets wait and see the numbers to be ordered that might be a surprise. And what do with do with just 14 Archers? two battries worth max

My understanding is more than 14 Achers are to be ordered and surely there is room for both of these systems. The shoot and scoot capabilities must be a big factor for this Boxer variant, which would allow the Archer to linger in theatre at a longer range. It’s about time the RA had a serious investment.

I do not know of any more orders for Archer, if you do please let me know from were you found out

Archer was always labelled as an interim measure to bring capability into play sooner than the long term replacement system, which we now know is Boxer. Unlikely but not impossible that there’ll be more Archers ordered.

very true it was clearly stated as stop gap, to fill the space left by gifting Ukraine 30 AS90’s, i feel no more will be ordered now The RCH 155 is the chosen one,

The 30 aS90 was always a bit misleading as it was 18 operational ones and 12 spares non operational vehicles.
So really 18 working guns were replaced with 14 archers.

18 Archers would have been a fair swap but 12 of them are better than 18, 30 year old guns

I read a piece where the programme director an RA Colonel ( don’t recall his name ) stated that 24 was the aim Would be good to see them retained as a Deep Fires Regt at Div level with the RCH155 operating further forward with the Boxer based Bdes. More likely however they will be gifted to Ukraine when RCH155 enters UK service which would be my bet.

Yeah the surprise (or not more likely) is the pathetic number they will get

some good kit but may just not enough of it but i do feel with Artillery, Air defence, long range strike the Army will make the right choices, Boxer RCH is a good move as is incressing the MLRS fleet and up dating it. Along with the development of new UK specific MLRS ammo.

Maybe the Mod/Army could/should procure an MLRS module for the Boxer??

that would be like Himars one rocket pod due to its width,

I’ve seen no info on how many RCH 155’s the British Army will get, and when they will enter service. But I presume that it may be well after 2030 before deliveries are complete. As such, operating a single weak regiment – aka 19 Regiment Royal Artillery (Scottish Gunners) – of modern Archers for perhaps a decade still makes sense as a stop-gap that gives the 1st Deep Reconnaissance Strike Brigade a decent bit of integral clout. Then either mothball or, more likely, sell them on.  

Gift them to Ukraine or let 29 Commando have them, after all they were made in land of much snow, and it will give them much needed heavy fire power and range and its wheeled not a big logistics nightmare. Less crew than a light gun as well, and better protection.

Hmmm, 3 Cdo going to light raiding remember. An Archer does not really fit that.
I’m all for 3 Cdo actually being back at Bde level for arctic, Norway role but even then given the ability of the LG to be underslung and ferried about by CHF heli I don’t know if Archer suits that, Looks huge!

yes its a bit on huge scale, i was merely wondering where Archer will end up once RCH 155 is fully in service

As you’ve said elsewhere, the truck is born in snow so it’s not the ground mobility locally as such it’s the wider movement, especially if heaven forbid we actually maintain a heavy landing capability from the sea, which we should do.
I’d give the lot to 4RA so 7 Bde has increased firepower.

i agree, as long as its not just parked up and left or given away its a great gun just not the one we finally picked mainly because its very, very expensive, i still feel Ukraine might get them as some point

Might be a bit of an under-strength RA regiment then, it’d basically be a troop short wouldn’t it?

Yes, though I’d read, unsure if still current, that in the 2010 cuts/review either the 3 batteries went to 4 guns each rather than 6 or that Sphinx? Battery lost its guns entirely. So a 12 gun regiment.
Seems to make sense as 42 won’t need a supporting Battery given it’s new role.

I don’t know, honestly I was trying to do something earlier today and trying to work out how a Artillery Regiment is organised these days is a pain in the arse.

They all seem to vary. At one point 3HA and 4RA seemed to have more TAC Group Batteries than gun Batteries when the AS90s where cut and replaced by LG.
The MLRS Regs seem to have 2 Fire Batteries, the AS90 Regs 3.
All should have a RHQ, HQ Battery, TAC Group Battery and LAD Det. I think 12 and 16 have 4 Fire Batteries, don’t recall if the 2 UAV Regs have 3 or 4 Batteries.
No idea how many Troops to a Battery or where the attached personnel fit in, HQ Batt?

My guess is that they will go to Ukraine, even if the war is over they will need a modern army and Archer has already been sent by Sweden. BAe are setting up manufacturing facilities in Ukraine for light gun, they could probably support Archer too in due course.

i agree with that, 14 Archers would be after a while just extra logistics and not enough to equip a Regt any way. They are simply a stop gap that was availible where as every thing else would have to have been built etc.

Sadly 3 Commando Brigade RM is now just an administrative rather than combat formation. As such there is no operational requirement for the Brigade to have integral or attached artillery – and certainly not medium or heavy. I don’t expect that 29 Commando RA will last much longer, particularly as its L118 105 mm light howitzers are over 40 years old and many served in the Falkland’s War! On the rare occasions that 40 or 45 Commando deploys as a complete light infantry battalion, ad-hoc artillery support from the Army is likely to be considered sufficient.

As for gifting to Ukraine, that seems unlikely. The British Army badly needs Archer until at least 2030, and its reasonable to expect that for good or bad the war will have ended by then.

Sad to hear 29 Regt might be no more , gutted, and yes Ukraine will have ended by time RCH155 is fully in service. Even sadder the state of 40/45 as worked with them a few times, big shame its come to what it is

The Future Commando Force strategy envisioned 40 and 45 Commando’s providing a rotating company-size battle group for LRG(S) and LRG(N) respectively. Unfortunately this has been nixed by the failure to recommission HMS Bulwark, take your pick as to whether this is due to a lack of sailors, a lack of money, or both.

29 RA should be moved to support 4 Light X, not disbanded, they have no dedicated artillery support.

PzH2000 came into service only 6 years after AS-90. Is it modern enough?

Good point it may not be modern enough with out a large and expensive up grade,

Problem seem to be the reliability.

That comes with age. The underlying design of the PzH 2000 SPG is early 90s.

RCH155 uses the PzH2000 52 cbr gun, so the best bit is already included in our programme.

lets not forget there is a tracked boxer drive module, perhaps not fully ready, but really can’t be too far away. lets hope its hybrid drive as well just to jump an iteration of drive module

In Ukraine, it seems to be clear. Caesar works, it is cheap and do the due. PZH2000 is frequently in repair, is complexe and fails to deliver shells. So this vehicle has been created. Remains to be seen if the concept of automation is valide. We see too many automation on German vehicles that fail in combat.

My understanding of the PZH2000 in Ukraine is that yes, it is mechanically complex but it has proved to be very rugged in taking Battle Damage.

I am a bit confused. Not enough data available for me. This machine seem to have some advantages like shooting on the move. But I find it difficult to be convinced by a large turret build on a truck chassis, to be easy to maintain and be mobile. Though, I am not an expert and the one who did make the decision have far more data available than I do and are experts and I am a foreigner. This is all that matters.

That will upset the K-9 Thunder fans!

I’m wondering why the US and Aus are sticking more with tracked SPGs then? 🤔 Is it different platforms for different deployment scenarios?

Tracked SPGs for an armoured division to keep up with the advance of the armoured brigades with their: tracked recce vehicles, tracked tanks, tracked Infantry in IFVs.

Truck-mounted or towed guns for everyone else.

But we are going out on a limb to just about everyone else with few exceptions.

Thanks Graham. I’ve been reading a bit of Nicholas Drummond’s commentary on UK Land Power too. Good stuff there as there is here too. Getting this new kit and extra capabilities must be a real boost for the RA and Army and morale!

Remember though that Nick works for Rheinmetall he has a vested intrest in making Boxer look as good as possible (it’s why his twitter is always saying “We MUST buy all these great Rheinmetall vehicles for the army.”

I also mildly disagree with Graham here, with Artillery you don’t need to follow up armour closely so tracks v wheels isn’t so much of an issue (if anything wheels tend to be faster in Operational and Strategic senses). But if I was moving in and out of a hide, or had to worry about counter battery fire I’d definietly prefer tracks.

He of fairytale ORBATs.

Similar to another Nick. 🙂
Also remember when you didn’t have to wait 6 days to post a image onto UKDJ, and you could actually embed an imagine in your post?
Pepperidge farm remembers.

test

http s://i. imgur. com/pBPrZrQ.png
Remove the spaces from this.

Yum! 120mm’s, UAV Troops, QDG with Ch2 and Archer. AND you’ve got the missing CS CSS in there in its own CSS Reg,
Sold.

And of course ATGW. Our FR needs a Striker/Swingfire replacement badly.
Was about to mention where’s the HAC? Until I remembered for some strange reason they now seem to be in 77. Why???

Because they are trained by THEM; think Artist Rifles and, indeed, Special Air Service as rather misleading names.

The 25pdrs are just for show.

Morning David.
Yes, was aware. At least, heard at least one DS is always 22.
On HERA, 21 and 23 had been moved out into the recc Bde, which was disbanded. But they are now back with the group.

What I never understood was why HAC went to 77 instead of ASOB. You’d have thought with their SF link their STA patrols would fit much better into that brigade than information ops in offices.
Still haven’t heard a convincing reason for it.

Wow, you too? I was expecting a valid explanation!

If 21/23 still have the HERA role I’d have thought one of them was more suited. I believe the I/O role does involve a “hearts and minds” deployable side along with the office stuff.
Though having said that I of course do not know the extent that they support the regulars, there must have been a reason they went back into DSF.

On the HAC with ASOB, yes seems a perfect fit. With the rise to prominence of artillery again with the Ukraine war( though for me it was always vital ) I’d wonder whether 21/23 might go back to their old stay behind/OP role and the HAC with the STA patrols side feeds into that as well.

Contrary to what some here will claim I neither know everything nor think I know everything.

“The 25pdrs are just for show.”

Thought the gun Troop had LG now. They do have some important ceremonial functions, thus the guns.
Their patrols/STA Sqn is the interesting side, especially for a reservist non SF unit to have the role. Akin to 4/73 I believe.

They have a LG Battery but I believe it’s earmarked to back-fill 7 Para in a war, rather than serve with the rest of the HAC Regiment.

Yes, I knew the 7 RHA link, but thought it just Troop sized, cheers,

Could be Troop sized, I’m working off memory.

You and me both! I’m not at home in front of the data I’ve collated most the time when I post. Doesn’t matter it’s only a minor detail.

My bad, I was thinking ceremonial.

Mate, behave! 😀 The KTRHA, now they defo have those older guns.
HAC are like the other saluting Batteries in some other AR Regs around the UK and those at Gib. Have wondered before if those LG are the same as those in front line roles? Could they be used?

“Artist Rifles”
One of their old boys invited us to lunch at their Lodge at Bisley. A very professional bunch.

The annoying thing is this isn’t a major uplift. 3 troops of 120mm mortars, 38 extra Challengers retained/uplifted, retain Archer as RCH155 comes in and some Switchblades. If the funding is there make an Ajax variant that can fire Brimstone from under armour, but as an interim solution Ares teams with Jav firing dismounted.

(Also that orbat almost looks professional if I do say so myself, if I slap a British Army logo and “Official” on the bottom I could convince miltwitter its a thing.

Indeed mate. Is the Bde split into gun and cavalry groups in reality or is that another of your setups?

Don’t know, but I imagine if it isn’t de jure set up like that it must at least defacto be?

Hmmm yes I see what you mean, operationally it must be.

Happy that we mildly disagree, Dern! There is no one right answer in this business.

👍

Both Zuzka and Dana the Slovak wheeled guns have achieved export sales and as I posted before, senior Slovak officers with combat experience in Afghanistan asked me in 1999 why we went with tracked SPGs.

(Think about that date and Afghanistan 😉 )

I think if you’re going to try and leg it from hides to firing positions and are doing it in European Forests instead of Afghani hills tracks are probably a benefit tbh.

Thanks. I will look up Drummond but will be mindful based on Dern’s comments that he is not impartial. My take on the new army vehicle platforms:

CR3 – should be good but a slow build and 148 is far too few. Some think it needs more power to barrel through claggy & deep mud (or maybe just better drivers!).

Ajax – good spec but really needed a telescopic mast to elevate sensors. Hopefully NVH problems have really been sorted out. At least 7 years late into service. Conducting recce by stealth may be a challenge as signature is larger than we are used to.

Archer – good but some decry its lack of reversionary mode. Too few at 14 replacing 32 AS-90s gifted to UKR. Admittedly it is just an interim purchase.

Boxer – great if they were for a medium-weight mech brigade (ie not an armoured brigade), but it’s a retrograde step as an IFV replacement. Very expensive. Glacial build programme.

Boxer RCH-155 – hopefully it will be as good as other truck-mounted arty. Very expensive. Quite slow to field given there has been much development by the Germans. Hopefully we will also buy some tracked SPGs, but sadly I am not holding my breath.

9A engine has bigger turbo’s and radiators for CR3 , still crappy carbon mudflaps that split on corners !

carbon rubber

Thanks. First time I have heard of those details – where did they come from? I wonder by how much how power, P/W ratio and torque is improved.

Would be nicer if Boxer SHORAD made use of the bigger platform to have a larger, longer-ranged missile, Pantsir-style.
I wouldn’t want to be sitting in a Stormer watching a russian jet or helicopter lob modern anti-tank missiles from outside your maximum range and not be able to do a thing about it.
Maybe stick Martlet on the front of the HVM booster?

When was it announced that we are buying Rapid Ranger and what vehicle will it be mounted on?

Hasn’t been officially.
Twitter sleuthing showed a photo of the CGS shown around the factory and an internal army chart, also on Twitter, showed timeline for retirement/introduction of various equipment. Rapid Ranger was on that chart.
Apparently RR can be procured quickly, the Boxer solution is further along. There are also plans to “triple” SHORAD so assume RR plays a big part in that.

I don’t know any other details, sorry. If you follow UKAFC on Twitterit was all on there a few months ago.

I dont get Boxer replacing Striker.
What will they replace the Swingfire missile part with.. Brimstone would be the sensible answer.
As Brimstone is far longer ranged and you can be given target data from other sources (You don’t need to track or wire guide) then mounting Brimstone on a DROPS type truck bed would be quicker and easier (Read cheaper) than a Boxer module.
I saw a piece on Brimstone fitted onto an Ajax in a dedicated bolt on top box which makes sense for its role. If a reccy troop needs to hit something at range that is the ideal system to use.

To be fair, that is a good point. I guess it depends which element of the army? If it is a FR Reg in the DRSB who are meant to be further forward than putting Brimstone on an armoured platform makes more sense.

A Recce Troop should be doing recce, by stealth preferably, not taking on tanks at ultra-long range with ATGMs.

Yes , but if they need to hit something to enable them to get out of dodge some overmatch in range is nice to have…and Brimstone gives you overmatch in spades!

Yes, it does. It would represent a ‘first’ if all our armoured recce had ATGW. Brimstone (missile alone) is a big, heavy, expensive beast (1.8m long 180 cm diameter, 50kg) – and would be larger and heavier in a launcher. I doubt a standard Ajax could carry more than two. Would its fitment compromise turret and cannon operation or placement of sensors etc?

Next someone will say that all Ajax should also have an anti-drone system… (wait, they already have).

I favour instead an Ajax variant (STRIKER replacement) with more ATGWs that would take on multiple tank targets and that would be its primary role.

Hi M8. Daft question but did the Army actually carry out any trials with this SPG before deciding to buy it ? I know they had a look at the K9 but what about this one.
I really do appreciate the desire for pace and the synergy of this buy. But I’d actually like to know if it turns over when going round a tight bend, can actually fire and hit the target when moving ? Is it Squaddy proof ?
I don’t buy a car without a proper test and certainly not at this price and with MODs recent History of procurement cock ups.
Ajax, Chinook HC3, Warrior CSP etc etc etc.
Any ideas ?

Isn’t there a video of a prototype around doing a shoot and scoot. If so it looked surprisingly fast and manoeuvrable so I will put the somewhat ungainly look aside. To be honest Archer and others don’t exactly look very visually competent at cross country antics if different in their own way to this, so that offers some perspective too.

Can’t speak for trials, but, Lithuania field this system and there has been a lot of joint exercises in Latvia between our Brits and the other other nations, so they will have seen it in action.

They have the Pzh2000 I can’t find any info on anyone having them in service yet. Even on the manufacturers website it in only list one order and that’s 18 units for the Ukraine and they haven’t been delivered yet.

The British Army has always had both wheeled and tracked platforms.
Wheels is not better in poor ground and met conditions.

there’s nothing stopping us getting boxer tracked when it becomes available at which point this choice starts unlocking loads of value

The only things stopping us from your plan are: Politics, Money and Logic.

Good luck asking HMT for funds for Tracked Boxer (IFV) for the Infantry in the two armoured brigades. They will ask why they spent several £bn buying wheeled Boxer for those units. Even if they agreed, what would you do with all those redundant wheeled Boxers? Sell them off at half price or give them to Ukraine?

Agreed, but the whole point of boxer is you buy the module separately from the far cheaper drive module. That’s what releases the value, if they aren’t thinking like this, then they have wasted a load of money and about 5t in weight.

of course you’re right, that’s what’s so disappointing.

we should/could pre-position drive units in Germany for instance and if the treat level rises send whatever modules we need to. On paper it’s a great system, but as you say bean counters will get in the way.

Guess we will have to wait and see. Interesting times!

I take your point but I have not yet heard that we are buying mission modules and drive (chassis) modules seperately, nor that we are buying more chassis modules than mission modules or vice versa.
I think it will only occasionally be the case that we re-role a chassis module with a different mission module.

If you have exactly the same number of modules as chassis , you defeat the whole point of Boxer and May as well have bought non-modular.
If you have more chassis than modules you have redundancy. If a chassis breaks down swap the module you need into a working chassis ( couple of hours ).
If you have more modules than chassis you have greater flexibility. Load whichever modules you need onto how ever manny chassis you have.

You can’t ever have enough chassis though. 20x wheeled and 20x tracked chassis and 10x ambulance, 10x mortar, 10x 155mm, 10x command , etc modules gives you any mix you want of wheeled and tracked boxers when you need them. Need cannon on tracks, no problem give me a couple of hours to swap modules around. Need cannon on wheels. Same short wait.

See my answer to Pacman 27, just posted. If an Inf Bn wanted more than 8 mortars, say 12 – then sure it could get 4 mortar modules from somewhere and stick them onto 4 chassis modules (if it had them lying around spare somewhere). But then where would they get the extra trained mortarmen from?

Would an infantry company suddenly want 2 more ambulances rather than just the one it normally has? Who knows? Maybe? If casualties are heavy.
Would that Coy have two spare chassis modules? Unlikely – perhaps they are in Battalion B Echelon with the Tech QM/MTO. Great, but where do they get 2 more Ambulance modules from? Would they also be within B Ech? If not, they would have to be fetched from a brigade dump or Distribution Point (not sure what they call them now). Where would the extra CMTs come from (Combat Med Techs) to man the extra two ambulances? Then what if the other two rifle companies wanted 2 more ambulances? The issue then got 3 times more difficult.

There are a few things to be ironed out before Boxer’s ‘party trick’ can be utilised.

^I said the exasct some thing on another thread. But with the added wrinkle of “You now have to persuade me, the budget holder, that I should invest in mission modules that will sit in a warehouse unusable for ages, and then swap them out to make a different mission module unusable. Why is this better than me simply buying a smaller number of complete units that I can use 24/7?”

A very sound point. Also, if a BG needs more Boxer mortar wagons (for example) for a particular mission, we can Task Org and attach them from another BG that can spare them for a while. That way they come with trained and experienced crews and are already fitted out, bombed up and ready to go.

Give them all to 7 and 4 Bdes and make both mechanized!! 😜

Yes to that!

Armoured Inf with IFVs in armoured brigades in an ‘armoured’ division, 3 Div.

Boxer MIVs with the Mech Inf in Mech brigades in 1 Div.

Ukraine shows that availability, easy maintenance is what is really needed. Complexity should be avoided, when it does not bring anything. soldiers are not all engineers. Spare parts are important. Ukraine shows that Germany is unable to supply spare parts in due time, because so far military chassis were ment to be produced in small numbers. Even USA is struggling with this issue. So commonality wherever possible with civilian spare part must be cherished. That’s of course not the choice here and I regret it.

Yes but, Ukranian mud is also some of the worst terrain in the world for mobility and it’s not like tracked vehicles haven’t been having problems with it either.

Bit of a silly question, but has there been any experimentation with wider wheels and tracks done on the Challenger, Warrior and even Ajax type vehicles?

I’m pretty sure they have grousers and duckbills (grousers are like cleats for tanks to improve grip but DESTROY roads, Duckbills are extensions that make the tracks wider) but would have to find a RAC chap to confirm if we use them. But even if we do, both are temporary attachments.

I don’t think we’ve really experimented with wider tracks though, that’s a non trivial alteration (you’d have to replace all the running wheels sprockets idlers return rollers) and there’s actually an ideal length/width ratio for a tank: Make it too long it’ll break appart if you try and turn it, make it too fat and it won’t go in a straight line.

Fantastic information Dern, thanks for this. We definitely cover everything here on UKDJ! 😁. Thanks also to Graham for earlier reply too.

It would be interesting to see a comparative assessment of Archer and Boxer RCH-155, and any other wheeled SPGs (eg. Caesar, Rheinmetall’s offering based on the HX truck etc).

Not sure we would buy just the Archer turret from Sweden and mount it on our own army’s MAN trucks – those are being used for another purpose and are not ‘spare’.

As you say, RBSL are doing rather well at present, as are GDUK with Ajax.

We have always needed tracked artillery, whether they shoot extremely long range or ‘just normal range’. They don’t operate in a tactical grouping with tanks (ie in close proximity, as you say), but tanks move fast over difficult terrain and so artillery support needs to keep up with the pace of the advance.

We have done shoot and scoot for a very long time which is easier and more credible with SP Guns. You don’t need a track or road to scoot along if you have a high mobility vehicle. Often armies avoid roads as they cannalise own troops and targeting by the enemy can be easier. Roads can also be mined and junctions can be covered by enemy fire.

Log resupply to off-road sites such as leaguer areas is very commonplace. AFVs do not have to gather by a road or firm track to receive a resupply (or REME attention for that matter).

However the powers that be has decided that our infantry in the armoured brigades will be on wheels, not tracks, so all bets are off as regards artillery! In fact with the announcement that we are buying wheeled Boxer RCH-155, I would be surprised or amazed if a tracked SPG will also be purchased. Politicians like our forces now to put ‘all eggs in one basket’.

Thanks, your points are correct. In a perfect world we would have everything but competing needs mean we have to be pragmatic.
The Ukraine shows that in a conflict where you don’t have air superiority or supremacy then artillery are still relevant and needed. The cost of a single modern fighter-bomber can outfit several army artillery guns. I am a aviation buff but even I see it makes no sense to rely only on airplanes and drones.

Thanks mate. I was always sure that Ukraine’s much vaunted Summer/Autumn 2023 offensive would deliver less than expected due in large part to them not having significant airpower let alone limited air superority on the axes of (intended) advance.
The F-16s when they arrive will help in that respect.
Massive artillery delivery has to be some substitute for lack of airpower in the advance but UKR does not have a massive capability there in terms of enough modern platforms or plentiful munitions supply.

The British Army too has been very short of modern artillery, particularly in the last 30 years.

I don’t know the comparative cost between K9 and this and exactly what the industrial offer from the Koreans was to make a comparison. I just don’t like the look of it!!!

I’asked Graham if he knows if it’s been tested, not much use if it isn’t Squaddy proof. 🤔
Letter to Rishi M8 the readers of UKDK think it’s rot ugly. We prefer Swedish 🤣

Mate, you sound as if you know that old engineering mantra “if it looks right, it probably is right’. The converse is clearly true!
The Sinclair C5 mini EV from 1985 is another good example of something that just looked wrong, especially on a crowded commuter road.

Showing my age to remember that thing!

I actually quoted that way back in this post. I was 9 years of age when my late uncle (RR and RR&A engineer) took me to an air show at Swinderby.
Seeing as how he started life building RR Merlin engines he blagged us to take a close look in a Mosquito. I was impressed sitting in the cockpit and walking round it.

That afternoon it did its display and I understood the Mantra.
IMHO the most beautiful aircraft ever built and an engineering triumph of KISS methodology.

And now I’ve done some digging I not only don’t like the design (CG), I don’t like how this smells.
According to the manufacturers website they have had this for 5 years and the only order before us is 18 for the Ukrainian Army that are due to start delivery later this year. So we are the effective launch customer ! Germany has been talking about an order but has bought a batch of new build PZh2000 to replace the ones they donated to Ukraine.

I can’t find any evidence that this has gone through trials or competitive tendering. I realise there is a need for speed and buying OTS but not untested 🤔

I too would be interested in the CG, and the turret weight, and whether it can really fire to left and right without jacks and wihout platform instability.

It is always risky being the launch customer – we should be buying a lot of army kit MOTS right now – proven hardware, good to go – and without further development and affordable, and quickly sourced. there is nothing not to like about MOTS procurement of a proven system, except perhaps that it might not generate British jobs in deprived areas – and that upsets the politicos.

It is said that it needs further German-UK development without the details being spelled out. If that development and testing takes 5-6 years, that is not really as fast a procuremnt as a MOTS procurement of a proven system.

Sometimes competitive tendering is dispensed with and Single Source Procurement is adopted – but this is quite unusual. Has to be done for very good reasons. Risk mitigation needs to be ‘on point’.

If you think we don’t like it what are the Soldiers going to say.

”It looks like a Randy Dalek having fun”. 🤣

Hi mate.
Yes, it was actually reduced to an infantry Bde from armoured in 2010 and since “uplifted” to light Mech with introduction of Foxhound. Zero else about it is uplifted to fit a Mech Bde. But all forces, even light ones, have their place.
My issue with 7 LMB is its artillery. I’d like to see a wheeled 155mm in it not the towed 105 LG!

In fairness, 7X hasn’t been armoured since about 2010, when it was redeisgnated an Infantry Brigade. Under Army 2020 it was 1 Regular Jackal Regiment and 3 Light Infantry Battalions with no Artillery, CS or CSS.

i agree with you, i think we keep them a bit, until first Boxer 155mm turn up then quitely send them to Ukraine, not sure but i do think they already have some? Artillery is reborn and to win you need lots of it i hope the numbers will be high but i hate to say you can never be sure, scrap all the light guns less 29 Commando and 7HA , replace all with Boxer, nice dream i guess.

That basically means 4 Regiment RA, as the other LG regiment, 3RHA, has already replaced its LGs with MLRS.

29RA,7RHA, and the reserve units continue with the LG.

If 1RHA,19RA and 4RA have 3×8 gun Batteries that is 72 with a small reserve, some with RATDU, and RSA/14RA for training.

I’d be ecstatic with 100 units, will probably be less.

Any thing over a 100 is great news, i have faith it might be but just have wait and see. For once some good news

An order for 100 RCH 155’s seems way too optimistic given that there are less than 70 AS90’s left in British Army service – enough for just two artillery regiments. Any order above this number would normally be a big surprise, but just possibly times are a changing – for good and bad.

From Googling, the likely In-Service Date for the RCH 155 is 2029, although the MOD is apparently seeking to expedite this.

We all hope the number is high as that is what is needed 3/4 Regts worth would be the ideal amount , i’ll risk it and stake a claim that the number might be surprise in the right way.

You also need a number for the Training Organisation, the Repair Pool and the Attrition Reserve in addition to those held by the Field units, hence my wild guess of up to 100. Optimists here think 120 to 150. We shall see.

Apparently one ex-Defence Minister was sceptical that such an increase will enable the purchase of a lot more platforms. Some will cover inflation and losses due to unfavourable £ to $ exchange rates, some will go to improve recruiting, ammo stocks and housing. A lot will go to cover the increasing number of consultants and PFI contractors. There is doubt that manpower numbers will materially be uplifted.

That increase has been ripped apart as was scrapps at Defence Cmtte when a presented increase was actually money for Ukraine.

The Cons are blowing smoke up the electorates hoops.

I can’t see an additional £10 billion per year (by 2030) being spent solely on Ukraine, though.

That’s how much difference we’re talking about between current levels and 2.5% of GDP.

The additional money this year is for Ukraine, but from next year onwards it’s supposed to increase incrementally up to 2.5% – so probably an increase of £2 billion a year every year.

Remember that Labour (seemingly almost inevitably in government by this Autumn) won’t commit to spending more than 2% of GDP on defence until it completes a defence review, and this determines that it’s “really needed”. Of course by the time this review is completed in mid-2025 (at the earliest), Ukraine may have effectively surrendered, uneasy peace resumed in Gaza, the shipping attacks in the Red Sea subsided, and ‘Global Britain’ and the ‘Indo-Pacific tilt’ history. At this point the government may claim that actually the MOD is already well funded, and instead quietly cut the defence budget over the next few years – reaching the headline 2% by creative accounting such as including: pensions, self insurance, some foreign aid, defence relevant funding given to other departments and agencies, moving the budgets of security related agencies to the defence heading, adding the theoretical value of services provided in kind to the MOD, etc. etc.

96 or 100 – its about the same. I was just pouring cold water on the idea that we will get 150.

Why would re working a vehicle we already have with a turret we like be too much hazzel? its merely re do the inside and add a few feet to it, cheaper and wiser than buying some thing else and then trying fit the Ajax turret on it. examples are stormer/scimitor 2 just a streched CVR T hull, MLRS a streched Bradley hull.

Because ASCOD is the same base vehicle as Ajax but set up as a IFV. So why reverse Ajax back into an IFV if you can just pick up ASCOD?

same gun etc as Ajax or just put Ajax turrets on it the turret must be very much the same width

No, both Ulan and Pizarro (the two IFV variants of ASCOD) have a 30mm Mauser, not the 40mm CTA gun that Ajax carries. Although ASCOD and Ajax are similar widths (I think there’s something like 20cm between them) ASCOD has a much smaller turret than Ajax, so if you want to put the Ajax turret on ASCOD you’ll loose interior space for the turret basket.
Personally that’s why I suspect the best bet would either be ASCOD with a new 40mm turret or Boxer with a new 40mm turret.

Hi Dern, to fit a CT40 equipped turret to an ASCOD wouldn’t necessarily involve a full fat AJAX turret with all of it’s ISTAR fit which requires the 1.7m turret ring. If it’s just the firepower needed I think the turret could be unmanned as the CT40 has minimal turret intrusion, tiny recoil distance and lends itself readily to an automated ammunition handling system. Try fitting the CT40 to a Cockerill turret?

Maybe I did a bad job of explaining myself Ian: I think there are two tempting solutions A) “Just fit the Ajax Turret onto ASCOD” and B) “Just shove a CT40 into the ASCOD turret.” I think we’re probably in agreement that neither of those really works?

So yeah I think we’re on the same page that the only two realistic solutions are either to find a turret that fits an unmanned CTA system or develop a new turret from scratch. I’d hope the former would be possible, but I don’t know.

Same page, same paragraph.👍
The Cockerill turret is endlessly adaptable, I think they’ve even squeezed a 105mm in! A bit of ingenuity and sensible engineering nouse could see it done.

M10 Booker is an ASCOD derived vehicle.

Sure is, shortened hull I believe with an Abrams derived turret for commonality. Not an organisational bod but maybe Daniele M could say whether such a platform could fit with UK doctrine, manning etc. Personally speaking I’d like to see a few squadrons of Fire Support platforms.
Cheers

The obvious point to make is why rework all our Ajax back to an IFV version for our infantry to use – what recce vehicles would the army then have?!! You would have to buy some!

GDUK has spent 14 years from Contract Award developing and adapting the ASCOD2 IFV and converting it into a recce vehicle – that vehicle will be so far away from being an IFV – I don’t have the details of course as to exactly what changes have been made but they will be very significant. To undo all the changes made to the original vehicle would be very complex, very time consuming and very expensive.

In fairness to Martin I don’t think he literally means the already produced vehicles, but rather the design.

Ah, OK. That would make more sense. However I think the chances of our Infantry getting a tracked IFV in the next 20 years is virtually nil, Boxer having been ordered for the Inf in the ABCTs.
The most we might expect is that the later order Boxers (Tranche 2 and onwards) might carry a cannon in a Kongsberg RS6 RWS.

Very French of us, they don’t have tracked IFV’s working with their MBT’s either.

True. I wonder what their experience of that has been?

or the really obvious point would be to buy the tracked version of the Boxer and just add modules to it??

We have signed up for the wheeled Boxer ‘APC’ for the infantry and seemingly Boxer RCH-155 for the artillery. I can’t see us buying tracked Boxer for any role.

If you have the module already and a wheeled chassis to go with it. You just need to buy a tracked chassis and you have that module as tracked or wheeled.

You are thinking of Boxer as a whole as a variant. The chassis are standard. The modules are the variant.

You don’t need to buy another tracked APC. If you buy a tracked chassis that APC can be either wheeled or tracked. As you need.

If we buy loads of wheeled chassis with loads of different modules. If we decide they should be tracked. You can swap the chassis.

It takes a couple of hours. There are videos on line.

Disconnect the module. Jack it up. Drive the chassis out. Drive another chassis in and Jack the chassis down and connect up power. Job done.

If we don’t utilise the modular aspect of Boxer and operate differently then we might as well have bought cheaper traditional APCs.

The USP of Boxer is it has common chassis and swappable modules.

Thinking of them as complete units and not swappable defeats the whole purpose of Boxer.

I think the swappable modules is a gimmick and has little applicability outside of very niche circumstances and initial assembly tbh.

You’re not going to want to buy more modules than chassis because then you’re just going to have them sitting in a warehouse somewhere. Right? I’m not going to buy 100 APC modules and only use them if I’m going to stop using my IFV or Ambulance, or ISTAR or Mortar modules.

The same works in reverse, if I have a wheeled APC and buy a tracked chassis and put my APC modules on the tracked chassis, what happens with the wheeled chassis then? It’s now just a very expensive two seater. So I’d have to buy new modules to put on that… at which point remind me why I didn’t just buy modules for the tracked chassis?

Wargaming with the Little Crappy Ship saw red forces hitting stores where the modules were located before the ships were killed.

Similar lesson, hit the RCZ and facilities and the lads and lasses fight with what they have.

I mean you don’t even have to wargame it, it’s just nonsensical from an administrative sense.

But surely that is what happens now with the current fleet of IFVs, APC, tanks , etc.

Most are sat around doing nothing for most of the time.

If you are never going to swap modules then Boxer is a complete waste of money.

If you have a number of chassis and a number of modules , you can have as many of any variant that you have modules for deployed on operations or exercise.

In the case of full scale war – you can have every war fighting module out onto every working chassis and have complete availability of war fighting machines.

If you have 20x ASCOD and 20x K9 and 20x Archer and half of each type are not available because of mechanical problems you can only field 10 of each.

If you have 20x 155mm modules and 20x IFV modules and 20x spare chassis.

You can field as many of whatever modules you need on as many working chassis as you have.

A broken down Archer is a broken Archer.

A broken down 155m equipped Boxer module can be put on any chassis you have and be operational in as long as it takes to swap the chassis.

Not talking battlefield swap.

Even if every Boxer chassis has a module , you can still swap warfighting modules for other modules if you need more of the warfighting modules to be available.

You can’t turn a Land Rover ambulance into an ASCOD IFV.

You can turn a Boxer ambulance into a Boxer IFV in about an hour or so ( if you have a broken down Boxer IFV and a working Boxer ambulance ).

Edit – also the Ambulance module can still be used as a “static ambulance” at base by hooking it up to a generator or power. As can any module if you can think of a static use for it. A CT40 Armed module might make a gate guarding pillbox while its chassis is under something else – or waiting for a chassis to become available. “Times of war ingenuity” and all that.

Okay so lets unpack this because there’s a lot that’s, frankly, wrong in your post.

For starters: Most vehicles are categorically not “sat around doing nothing most of the time.” They are assigned to an orbat and will have a crew that will be engaged in exercise or training with them on a regular basis, and if that training isn’t happening then there will be maintenance (again speaking as someone who was in an Armoured Support unit, hardly a day went by where the 432’s weren’t either being worked on, out on driver training, or on exercise). That requires a complete chassis and module set, you are not going to exercise just on your module unfortunately.

As you said, in the event of a full scale war you’ll have every module mounted on a chassis, in which case there is litterally no point buying extra modules because you’d have to leave them behind, you are, once again, better off buying fewer modules but having a 1-1 ratio with chassis.

Now, notice how I said “very niche circumstances.” A this is an example of that. A circumstance where somehow you have a Boxer with a artillery module on it that has broken down or been damaged, can be recovered, returned to an LAD and a not-needed module swapped in less time than it takes to fix the break down? That is a very niche application. 99% of the time if a vehicle is recoverable and the module is undamaged it’ll make more sense just to repair the vehicle, because if the chassis is a write off, or needs to go back beyond the 1st echlon, then your module probably is US aswell.

BTW A boxer isn’t a landrover, nor a land rover replacement so that’s a bit of a false comparison (and seriously this idea that you can denude your rear echlon to provide more “fighting” power is really dangerous, because that’s how you end up with a force that looks scary but can’t fight).

Now we’re getting into the Ambulance bit and this is my wheel house so sorry if this gets a bit long winded:

A Boxer Ambulance Module that has been removed from its chassis is useless. This is coming from someone who started their career working on Armoured Ambulances. A Boxer with a Ambulance module will sit in exactly two places in the Battlespace:
1) It will exist as a mobile Company Aid Post, for reference a CAP consists of 1x CMT with a 584 and a 536 module (to elaborate a 584 is literally what a CMT would be expected to carry on foot, a 536 is mostly stretchers and imobilisation gear). It’s main purpose is to move the CMT and 584 forwards to deal with casualties and then back to a casualty exchange point, or RAP. It is not a treatment facility. In terms of treatment options it gives virtually nothing more than a CMT with a backpack on, it’s utility is in it’s mobility. Dismount that module and you’ve removed it’s need to exist.
2) The other place it exists is in Armoued Squadrons of Medical Regiments. Here a Boxer’s role is to move forwards, collect patients from a Casualty Exchange Point or RAP and then move them back to an MRS or R2 facility. A boxer in this role would carry, you guessed it: A CMT with a 584 and a 536, again it’s utility is in it’s mobility.
I hate to break it to you but the difference between the interior of a Boxer Ambulance and a Boxer APC isn’t fancy medical equipment, it’s that instead of seats it has racks for putting stretchers on them so you can transport patients efficiently.

Just to emphasize this: A Boxer ambulance is not a treatment facility. It is not a PHTT or a PHEC facility, it is a designed for a single medic to keep a handful of casualties alive while they are being transported to a an actual treatment facility. And because it’s designed to be a vehicle, if you dropped it outside a PHEC we almost certainly would not use it, because you couldn’t fit a PHEC team inside of it. (Plus as I said, PHTT’s and PHECs and even MRS’s are suppsosed to be relatively mobile in order to minimize evac timelines, suddenly you have this hulking Boxer module that’s sitting in place and ties you down.)

The point is:This isn’t a very useful capability, it’s a “tech bro” gimmick that sounds great to people on the outside but once you start looking at them with the sort of knowledge that actually working in the field brings, you quickly see that it’s actually not a very useful concept beyond the manufacturing stage (Where economies of scale on the chassis are a good thing). I’ve had friends in the Bundeswehr who operate on Boxer, and not once have they even exercised changing modules, despite having had the system for years.

EDIT: I’m also not sure where you got the idea that Boxer is ludicrously expensive, the British Army is paying about 4.4million£ per Boxer. Spain is paying 5millionEuro per Dragon, Romania’s recent Pirhana V purchase works out to 4.5million$ per unit, Stryker was listed as 4.9m$, it seems pretty in line with the cost of a 8×8 or 6×6 AFV these days.

Fascinating post.
So, 1 MR and 2 MR. Are their Sqns still in 432s and are they defo getting Boxer ambulance?

Last I checked I think 5 Med was going to be rerolled onto Boxer to support Strike while 1 and 4 stayed on 432’s to support 12 and 20. But that was pre Future Soldier (I assume 3 would have gone Strike as well eventually).

Don’t know if that’s still the plan but the above pretty much covers where Boxer would be used in any event.

I very much understand the modular concept of Boxer and that the wheeled drive/chassis module is common to all wheeled Boxer vehicles irrespective of role.

But they are being purchased by UK as complete vehicles:
DE&S Press Release – ‘Published 5 November 2019.£2.8bn contract to provide more than 500 state-of-the-art armoured vehicles for the British Army’

DE&S press Release – ‘Published 06 July 2021The programme will deliver 500 vehicles for front-line troops to operate…The Boxer programme will deliver more than 500 vehicles to the Army. They will be made up of four variants: an infantry carrier, a specialist carrier, a command vehicle and an ambulance.

We are not procuring x number of drive/chassis models and y number of mission modules, where x and y are different numbers.
Reconfiguration is of course possible when purchased this way. But Dern and myself don’t think it will happen that often (if at all). To reconfigure in an operational environment, whether on exercise or on operations would pose some serious issues. Reconfiguration could happen more easily at peacetime locs (in barracks) before deployment. The videos you have seen are probably taken in barracks – its very different in the field.

It will be interesting to see if we do go on to buy stand-alone drive/chassis modules and/or mission modules, whether any of the former are of the tracked sort and whether any of the latter include turreted cannon – such that a tracked, cannon-equipped IFV could be created in the future.

See my last response mate. I’m not sure how the REME would react if I told you you had to spend an hour+ swapping your Boxer module out for an IFV one so that you could then work on repairing the broken axle on what is now your vehicle…instead of just… fixing the broken axle.

“Fan belts gone.”
“Welp, guess we’ve got to give up our recovery vehicle, lets get to swapping chassis.”

Thanks Dern. I call this modular concept of Boxer a ‘party trick’, which must upset Mr Drummond etc. Where else is this re-roling concept happening – in the other services? In civvy street? In the ‘blue light’ services. No.

I think there is a debate to be had about who would switch modules? Assumption is that it is REME because they have a number of cranes on vehicles. But this module swapping is not a repair task. You would need 2 crane-equipped wagons – they and tradesmen would be tied down doing a non-repair/non-recovery activity. Not good, as you say.

The fact that we have not bought more Boxer modules than drive/chassis modules (or vice versa?) suggests that we are not very serious about module swapping.

I think I’ve been a bit harsh, I should say it’s a “gimmick” from a operational point of view: I can see how it would give production and design advantages needing only to design a new module for each role.

But otherwise yeah (also how do you decide who looses a vehicle and how to prioritise?)

no i meant build new Ajax as an IFV, not re work, why would you back track and turn it from Recce to IFV?

Ah, OK. So just buy ASCOD2 Ulan/Pizarro from Austria or Sweden and ‘Britishify’ it by fitting 40mm stabilised cannon etc.
Yep, that’s one option. But the main point is that HMG/MoD decided 2 years ago we won’t have tracked IFVs – our Inf in the armoured brigades will have Boxers which have already been ordered and are being built.

We won’t get tracked IFVs again until Boxer is pensioned off.

Or you just send someone over to see what they have done with the ASCOD IFV. Their M10 Booker is a beefed up version with a 105mm gun turret, but a great start point for an IFV (250 hp more for starters).

Start point for a future British IFV built by GDUK in Wales, if it ever happened (!), would not be an assault gun (they are trying not to say ‘light tank’), which probably only takes a 4-man crew. Start point woud be Ulan/Pizarro, which is already an IFV.But I know what you mean. Ulan/Pizarro with uprated engine etc etc. would be worth considering.

Realpolitik kicks in though. I doubt the Treasury will fund an IFV until Boxer is withdrawn from service in 20-40 years time!

Ah, you are wise like budda, well lets hope some one who knows tells some one who has rank that.

Great, looking at some tweets seems manufacture of the gun barrel at least is being brought back to blighty.

Key thing is to provide REME at First Line, ie organic to the Arty Regt. Should be a Regt Wksp REME, rather than a LAD, such that they can do Level 3 repair on the specialised equipment ie on the guns (in addition to the Level 2 jobs), and a RLC Stores Section (under command of the Regt Wksp) would carry associated spares for those L3 repairs.

REME at Second Line ie the Brigade’s supporting REME Bn would not have to be reconfigured.

I thought all Boxers have the read load space detachable ans swappable. 🤔

We don’t really want to have to use 2 A400s to lift one vehicle though

Kind of irrelevant if they’re supporting the Armoured Brigades which will have Ajax and Challenger perhaps? If the plan is to buy some for 7 then I agree.

It really is not sensible to task an A400M to move one army vehicle. To move a brigade of a thousand (tbc!) vehicles by air just could not be done.

Looks like a two crane job or workshops. Certainly not L1.

👍

I confirm that we used to use two vehicle-mounted REME battalion cranes to lift an MBT turret, quite a rare event in the field. Many units never had to do it.

It would be interesting to find out about the weights of all these Boxer modules including the RCH-155 one.
As Ian M says its probably a two crane job. Tricky in the field but not impossible. REME did MBT turret lifts in the field very occasionally.
REME Second Line job ie REME Bn. Except that this task is not for repair purposes so there may be a discussion to be had about another agency (RLC?) doing it, rather than ‘wasting’ REME manpower and Field cranes on non-repair work.

Longer as in from the front bumper to the back.
Shorter as in from the ground to the top of the vehicle.

They were bloody gorgeous things!

I agree. I myself prioritise the RA and ISTAR assets generally over other areas but we still need boots on the ground and armour, at minimum Divisional level.

No excuse! I’m a nothing person and I know. Don’t these people learn even the basics about other services at JSCSC?

Yes. They get given a flow chart.
Does it float? Yes. -> Boat
No -> Does it fly? Yes. -> Aircraft
No. -> Does it have tracks? Yes-> Tank
No -> Car.

In all honesty though the esoterica of what the various Regiments and Corps of the Army choose to call themselves is fairly low on the list of priorities I’d want a Navy CGS to learn about the army.

😀 True…

So am I and I mentioned the need for long road marches😀

Exactly. The EU is a political club. The Swiss and Norway are not in it and they are as European as we are, and always will be.

Daniele, the tripe that from people like Farage etc al means you’ll find few Europeans who think of us as Europeans.

This was Rish! going for a soundbite.

Precisely. We are worse off as a nation if we ignore our closest neighbours and pretend we don’t need a good relationship with them- even if that good relationship doesn’t extend to said political club.

Still waiting for the economic benefits of global Britain and all these trade deals the EU was holding us back from. Maybe that happens next decade😂😂

The farce that is the UKCA mark is now subject to an “indefinite” delay So does that count as the next decade?

I’m sure they will; we just have to bring China and Russia to heel and convince Modi that Hindu nationalism isn’t the same as liberal democracy. In the meantime EU membership has morphed into deals to rebuild our defence industry with German, US, Australian, Italian and Japanese alliances. Not forgetting Saudi money, which we will probably need for Tempest. Have to rush out now to buy a few more Chinese solar panels to charge up my Chinese EV after cooking my breakfast in my Neff oven and drinking coffee made with water from my French water company. Fun, fun, fun 🙂

Well, this is very true- I’m not sure anyone has yet been able to work the statistics to show an economic benefit to departure!
In my opinion, many of the economic benefits touted by Jacob Rees-Mogg and others relied on us cutting deals that would have greatly hurt domestic producers to increase cheap imports (Australian and US foodstuffs, lower quality products that no longer had to bear EU stamps etc.), while the “freedom” to better support our own industries were largely already existent or would have reduced the value of our exports (in a bad way).
Brexit could have been good (or at least not bad)for the economy, and still may be. But I don’t have any confidence in the current crop of politicians in or likely soon to be in power to successfully deliver a beneficial Brexit.

Thanks DaveyB