In a recent series of parliamentary inquiries, Ben Obese-Jecty, Conservative MP for Huntingdon, posed two key questions to the Ministry of Defence, probing the future of the British Army’s infantry vehicles—specifically, the Boxer Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV) and the Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV).
These questions were answered by Luke Pollard, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence.
The first question focused on the potential benefits of arming the Boxer vehicle with a turreted cannon. Pollard acknowledged that while the ongoing Strategic Defence Review would guide future capability development, he confirmed that the Army has conducted extensive analysis on the matter.
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of procuring a turreted cannon for the Mechanised Infantry Vehicle, Boxer.”
Pollard responded:
“The Strategic Defence Review will guide future capability development priorities to ensure the United Kingdom is both secure at home and strong abroad now and for years to come. As the review is still ongoing, the implications for capability programmes, including BOXER, will not be fully known until it has concluded in the first half of 2025.”
He further added:
“However, I can confirm that the Army has conducted operational analysis, lethality and survivability studies, which includes analysing potential turreted options.
The Army will continually review the capabilities, priorities and affordability choices that will be provided by BOXER and other platforms to ensure that its Armoured Fighting Vehicle fleet best meets Defence and NATO’s needs.”
While no immediate decisions have been made, the Army is carefully considering all options to enhance the combat effectiveness of Boxer.
In a related query, Ben Obese-Jecty inquired about the future of the Warrior IFV and what steps were being taken to procure a new tracked Infantry Fighting Vehicle.
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what steps he is taking to procure a tracked Infantry Fighting Vehicle capability for the British Army.”
Pollard confirmed that Warrior is scheduled to be retired by the end of the decade, but reassured that the Army’s overall vehicle fleet strategy remains robust.
Pollard stated:
“The Army’s tracked Infantry Fighting vehicle, Warrior, is due to be withdrawn from service by the end of the decade. Whilst BOXER is not a direct replacement, it will become the Army’s primary mechanised infantry platform working with Ajax and Challenger 3 in the Brigade Combat Teams. Warrior will remain effective until new capabilities are introduced throughout the decade.”
In other words lots of lip flapping with no substance.
We haven’t ordered anywhere near enough Boxers of different variants and nor is there enough lethality.
I hope that 2025 is the year for the updated and closing various capability gaps.
Correct. So far the Boxer Tranche 1 and 2 order totalling 623 vehicles is about half of what the army require.
The lethality of this wheeled APC is nowhere near enough. This is almost as if we are going back to the days of Saracen, which once accompanied our tanks!
There is substance, the answer makes it clear there will not be a tracked IFV and all coins are in Boxer.
…and back to an issue that caused so much fuss four or five years ago. Wheels and tracks. The whole army programme is a dogs dinner.
Does it ? – I think theres enough ambiguilty in there to provide some wiggle room…or maybe that just me putting hope before reality.
I think to replace Warrior with Boxer shows what a ridiculous decision Boxer is…and tbh always has been- making an ill informed decision based on a now defunct doctrine and then doubling down on it to save a generals ‘face’ and fk everything else- only my opinion of course.
Do you see any will?
Not even talking about resources like manpower and budget.
Given that the General who wanted Boxer is long out of service I don’t think saving his face is particularly high on the priority list tbh.
Do go on and name him. Carter.
Just a reminder to all, as I understand it.
In the A2020 days, Boxer was the MIV program which was to come into service AFTER Challenger 3, Ajax and WCSP had been funded and delivered.
To replace 3 Battalions of infantry on Mastiff, HPM Bns.
So sensible and in stages, as finances dictate, with funding beyond 2027.
Instead, Boxer was brought forward as No 1 priority, leaving WCSP to be canned as we did not have the money to simultaneously spend on all programs.
Did he alone make that choice? Did the Army Board? Was there pressure from HMG?
All are of course now happily off into the sunset.
For me never made sense the small order of Boxer troop transporters compared to other specialities. BA risks having only capability of only 2-3 battalions in a proper armored vehicle.
5 Battalions will be equipped with Boxer.
Yes, far too few infantry section variants.
True. Half or less than half what is actually needed.
Only tranche 1 and 2 have been ordered so far. There must be more orders to follow.
That was said by MoD in March 2021.
No brainier they are looking at a turret to make it an IFV! To admit it is not a direct replacement for Warrior and only mention “ mechanised” infantry is again a fudge!
” it will become the Army’s primary mechanised infantry platform”.
Is it meaningful to conceive of the army having both wheeled and tracked?
Mechanised meant in the back of a truck or Saxon back in the day!Are they saying now armoured infantry battalions don’t exist?
You might say that, I couldn’t possibly comment.
Well yes, at preset there is no plan for a replacement IFV, which means all the armoured infantry will convert to mechanised infantry and we end up with a armoured division of 2 armoured brigades made up of one MBT regiment, a heavy cav regiment and a couple of mechanised infantry battalions as well a strike brigade made up of cavalry regiments and artillery. The British armies armoured division will end up very low on direct fire lethality, better hope it wins the deep battle and the cavalry regiments find plenty of things for the artillery to target..because there’s very little heavy armour and no armoured infantry in the future British army armoured division…
There’s very little artillery either at the moment. What a shambles it all is.
And the new artillery is going to be on Boxer too.
So they’re all in on the vehicle type.
I think that is a good reading of the situation that British Army is in.
Surprisingly goes for one of my theories, that direct fire is loosing importance due to technological advancements in indirect fire, but seems to done by pure luck and there are not enough indirect fire capabilities and not even enough recon assets in all domains.
I think for example that Ajax buy is excessive, unless most of them have NLOS missile/drone capabilities.
I don’t see direct fire losing its importance. Direct fire is what it is all about in 2 out of 3 brigades in the armoured division ie the armoured brigades.
We have so little indirect fire currently that it has become marginalised.
Does look like they’re interested in more Boxer mortar carriers, based upon DVD.
Interestingly should they eventually purchase this; it’s a 120mm system.
This would bring some serious firepower, if they actually get round to buying them.
I think we have only ordered 28 Boxer mortar carriers so far. That is not enough. Need about 50 ie 8 per mech bn plus some for Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve.
I have not seen any official statement as to whether they will carry existing 81mm or instead have 120mm.
I don’t believe there has been anything official.
They’ve just shown the 120mn version at the DVD etc.
For me it is clear that current NLOS combat investment including loitering drones marks a lack of importance in direct fires.
The fact there is no gun Boxer where in the past there was a 30mm Rarden is another sign of that.
Compare that the Israeli Army. Effective and Heavily Armoured Infantry that dare where others fear to tread.
Motorised is on the back of a truck, or other soft skinned vehicle (now it’s virtually synonymous with light role as almost no infantry foot marches to the FLOT.
Mechanised is using a vehicle with tracks or wheels that is armoured, but is not designed to stay in the fight.
Armoured is Infantry mounted on a armoured vehicle, on trafcks or wheels where the vehicle is meant to stay along side them and support them, usually with a medium caliber gun, eg a 40 or 30 mm autocanon.
Since with the retirement of warrior there won’t be vehicles designed to stay in the fight and support the infantry then yes, there aren’t any armoured infantry battalions in the future British Army.
👍 it’s been a long time😂
The only light is that there is Boxer cannon modules already,surely the penny has got to drop🤞hasn’t it??
It’s not a penny drop thing. It’s a “How do we fund it?” thing.
An AI battalion is equipped with IFVs. No IFVs, no AI battalions.
We will soon have a Mechanisied Infantry Vehicle (MIV), ie Boxer. It will haul the Mech Inf about.
I think the point is a perhaps, you should re read it. If you add a weapon station to a vehicle you have to put it in harms way, and it will reduce the number of troops and/or equipment it can carry. Where as an armoured vehicle that’s primarily transport doesn’t need a weapons station. If its fire power you require then protest for more support vehicles, not arming battle taxis.
A battle taxi would be 432 or 113! Or turretless boxer,The infantry still need an IFV which is precisely what warriors are, drop the troops and hang around for fire support.
Sorry but every reference army puts its armoured brigades infantry in infantry fighting vehicles for a reason, an infantry fighting vehicle brings a cannon to that infantry sections fire power. That is a massive increase in direct fire lethality. An APC simply dumps and runs, an infantry fighting vehicle stays and supports its infantry section..either via direct fire or screening it from other infantry fighting vehicles. Jacko was very much expressing the fundamental difference between mech infantry and armoured infantry…at present the British army seem to be dumping the concept of armoured infantry ( mounted on an IFV,that supports the infantry section in the fight) and moving backwards to having armoured brigades supported by mechanised infantry..having more carrying capability is not really an issue the vehicle just needs to be able to carry a full infantry section, nothing more nothing less, that’s what warrior carriers..
Ok I have to say I’ve just gone off and done a lot of reading. I’m more informed now. So the ajax has a crew of 3 plus 7 discounts and the 40mm gun. So the issue is there aren’t enough of them. So what’s the Ares about if it isn’t the basic carrier. So we need more ajax and less Ares. The Boxer is for transport and keepnit away from danger
You’ve been reading some very questionable material:
Ajax has a crew of 3 and no dismounts, and a 40mm gun. It’s a recce vehicle that isn’t directly supporting Infantry, it’s working ahead of the FLOT, identifying targets, relaying that information to Brigade and Divisional HQ’s, directing fires from the divisional artillery, and screening our own forces from enemy recce.
Ares isn’t the basic carrier, Ares is designed to carry 2-3 Crew and 4 dismounts (with a RWS equipped with a GMPG, HMG or GMG) and provides specialist support to Ajax squadrons (eg dismounted Javelin Anti-Tank teams). Again Ares is not working with the Infantry, it’s working with the Armoured Cavalry Regiments out in front of the FLOT.
Boxer is the main carrier for the Infantry (Also equipped with a RWS with GMG HMG or GPMG), carrying a crew of three and the rest of the section as dismounts, operating as formed battalions, and moving infantry up to and back from the FLOT.
You only have to see how the US Bradley A2’s are performing in Ukraine to see how a decent armoured vehicle can beat fully fledged heavy T90. That gives your troops a better sense of being protected enough should you come up against a tank. The chain gun and TOW give you options. Sending people into battle with anything less is irresponsible.
Counter argument: A recent video of a Ukranian tank stumbling onto a Russian BTR-80 shows how that can all too easily end for IFV crews. The crew of the Ukrainian Bradley that was filmed taking on a T90 got very lucky and panicked a Russian crew, which then crashed their tank.
Sorry Andrew, you have got confused between variants, Ajax ( the 40mm armed turret version) has no dismounts..the PMRS variants ( without a turret or the full sensor set) can carry up to 7 crew and dismounts total.
What are you reading? Just about everything you say is wrong. Dern has the right info.
The British Army has been forced to dump Warrior and its upgraded replacement. You don’t think they want to drop the IFV?
That’s a bean counter decision.
No way the army would choose that.
Exactly. The army wrote Requirements for and was expecting to get Upgraded Warrior for the armoured infantry and Boxer for the mechanised infantry.
Hope the army gets some fighting versions of Boxer or this is a very shortsighted, detrimental decision.
Makes you wonder if the MoD and British Army are even looking at at what their AUKUS partners are doing with their tracked IFVs and tracked SPGs? There should be a place for both in a mixed fleet if that works.
The army had a Requirement for upgraded Warrior for the AI in the armoured brigades and Boxer for the Mech Inf elsewhere.
Beancounters and politicians killed off the IFV programme.
Then Sunak forced Boxer RCH155 on the army to replace AS-90, when they were in the middle of a competitive evaluation process of 4 different equipments.
What would they learn from looking at the US and Australian armies? I don’t follow.
The armoured brigades will have a mixed fleet, whether the army wanted it or not. Tracked tanks and recce vehicles; wheeled APCs and wheeled SPGs.
Disagree heavily. Support Vehicles are not going to be organic to infantry units, they’re nice to have extras. IFV’s work hand in hand organically with their dismounts, and have been effective in their role ever since the BMP was introduced about 60 years ago.
Good to get confirmation that the army have done the studies on turreted Boxer options. Wait to see now what the defence review says about number and type of additional Boxer. There is speculation that the budget won’t be all about taxation and will contain some selected spending increases; the NHS for example. Probably wise not to get too excited but something for defence has also been mentioned.
Boxer with RT60 and40mm CTAS and still a good number of dismounts- I think its been mocked up hasn’t it?
The RT60 was shown at the recent DVD exhibition, so yes.
Hi Sam, so is the RT60 ‘just’ the turret? For commonality with Ajax, could the CTAS40 be added to this, do you know? I’ve heard and can kind of accept the argument the wheeled IFV can do 90% of what a tracked IFV can but for less money and more speed but, it seems odd, we replaced an IFV with a turret and cannon (Warrior) for one without! Cost was the decider I dare say!!!
Yes it is just the unmanned turret, it is one of many IFV turrets (some already in service) for the boxer. It was designed around the Bushmaster XM813 so not sure if CTAS40 will fit without modifications.
I don’t think the boxer was to replace the warrior, they seem to like cancelling capabilities with the random hope it will be replaced in the future. Sometime…maybe. If anything as an APC probably old 432’s? Mastiffs?
Ajax being to replace the ickle CVRs with a waste of money recon platform that will be spotted by drone a mile away. Itself being an old IFV design, well an updated one.
Oops went a little ranty, my point being both the ASCOD and Boxer s are available every modification you could want, all proven, all in current active service with other NATO countries. But the UK, being shite, decided to do something different, even though budgets were limited and came out with just as limited capabilities.
Thanks LMN
The plan wasn’t to replace Warrior with Boxer. Boxer was meant to replace Mastiff in the Heavy Protected Mobility Role after Afghan. But Boxer, Ajax and Warrior upgrade became too expensive, and the Army had to cut one of the programs, they chose to cut Warrior, the Warrior Upgrade wasn’t going to give us a new vehicle and would only be a temprorary solution.
Ok, thanks Dern, I didn’t appreciate that.
Yep. Warrior Upgrade (WCSP) was to have an OSD of 2040, assuming an ISD of 2018, so a service life of 22 more years for Warrior.
The Army will argue for the cheapest option and dream up some clever reasoning as to why it is the best option. It is what our service chiefs do now. It is one thing accepting a lack of funds, it is another to make it sound like a virtue.
It is blatantly obvious that with increased lethality of ATGM and drones that there is need to reach out further with greater effect. The UK short of numbers needs firepower. Never mind our likeliest opponents are still fitting infantry carriers with cannon. And lastly on future fields the lack of British MBTS we need more direct fire options. Perhaps some cavalry regiments could be mounted in tracked Boxer with 120mm gun? Tracked Boxer would be a good companion for Chally 3 with a turret even using 40CT (of which I am not a fan).
The Army never argues for the cheapest option. Politicians and Treasury officials do.
Wonder if something like the LW30 would be looked at. 30mm cannon, 7.62mm machine gun, Javelin ATGM, no manned turret taking up space. Easy way to massively boost firepower
Isn’t the RS6 being delivered to the US Marines?
I think that’s the debate: is RS6 good enough or should we go for RT6 with another cannon….use the CTA40mm we bought?
We’re moving to a 40mm with CTSA40 gun on Ajax. Wouldn’t mix up supply with that and 30mm. Don’t need Javelin when we have our own
Isn’t Ajax the direct replacement for Warrior?
No it doesn’t have any dismounts – it is not an IFV.
As Pongolo said, Ajax and it’s derivatives is a Cavalry vehicle replacing the CVRT family in the recce role, it’s not designed to do Warriors job.
No. It is a recce vehicle. Ajax family replaces the CVR(T) family.
No, it’s a recce vehicle and actually the replacement for CVRT.
Boxer was announced (to everyone’s surprise) as the successor to Warrior by the MoD in March 2021.
The British Army’s head of strategy, Brigadier John Clark, shared more detailed information in early May 2021 how the Boxer will fill the capability gap left by the decision to cancel the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme (WCSP).
The army staff has been looking at ways to enhance the lethality of Boxer for 3.5 years – and we have finally had this bland announcement, which suggests that study is still not complete.
Words fail me.
This is one of the things that seriously concerns me and I feel no body is aware of. We are replacing all of the ~1,500ish Warrior and CVRTs with Ajax and Boxer, that is fine, the issue is of all the replacement vehicles only ~350 of the Ajax will be armed with the new auto canon. We are completely loosing our mass of auto-canons, Ukraine has just shown that these weapons are one of the best for suppression, still relevant against modern MBTs and high versatile I’m basically any situation. The old 30mm wasn’t the best but, it had mass.
We are going from 10 years ago having 1,500-2,000 gun armed armoured vehicles (Inc Challenger) to about 500 at the end of this decade. It’s a complete hollowing out and a disaster waiting to happen, the French and Germans are planning future 40mm & 30mm AFV fleets of over 1,000 each respectively with multiple vehicle classes each. People need to start raising concern about this because it’s dire and going completely unreported.
Except you’ve missed a key detail:
Not all CVRT’s are autocannon armed. In fact, only about 350 CVRT’s in the British Army where equipped with 30mm RARDENs (not a coincidence if that number looks familiar). Realistically the shortfall is going to be about 200ish 40mm’s for the Warriors that are being replaced by Boxer, and 58 120mms.
Spartan. Samson. Samaritan. Sultan. Imagine them with a turret.😆
Striker and Stormer somewhat different.
Yep, only Scimitar applies, unless one goes way back to include Scorpion.
Yep. There is nothing new here for us to get heated over.
Like most folks on here I thought we should have either continued with the WCSP, cancelling that after spending £430 million was just plain nuts. Failing that they should have gone for the well proven CV90, but they didn’t so no tracked IFV.
That was then and Boxer is getting there, but it’s wheeled, under armed and we haven’t ordered sufficient numbers.
If we do order more I actually think we should bite the bullet and order the Tracked Boxer, simple reason is the economics of operating 2 platforms with a lot of mechanical and logistical commonality. That way the Army gets the numbers required, covers both bases and reduces the support costs of a completely different platform. It also has the advantage that due to the way Boxer is designed you can swap the modules over as required, so you can even fit an RCH 155 on the tracked version if required.
And yep I’d order some turreted modules for them, one with CT40 and a couple of AT missiles and Skyranger with a 30mm gun and
I can’t understand why we haven’t been testing out the tracked bases (at least not openly). There may be pitfalls with this route, but it has such an obvious upside we’d be idiots to ignore it. And if we build them in the UK, we’ll be in a position to export if they catch on.
There is an option over the pond! The Bradley’s gifted to Ukraine are now being replaced with ones taken from stowage and upgraded to a much higher standard,not going to happen I know but tag an order for us on to that and we get a replacement for warrior cheaper and quicker than CV90 or Boxer tracks!
I think for every Bradley being sent to ukraine . The US army is receiving funds to buy brand new Bradley’s with the latest modifications , built by BAE in USA.
I’m sure I have read a couple of articles where 100s of millions of dollars have been contracted to BAE . In theory your right , the uk could probably order Bradley’s as a short medium term stop gap, which would probably be not a bad idea except perhaps maintenence logistic issues . But we are currently in twined with boxer and ajax variants that could also do the job with some tweaking, Boxer as we know is the official replacement for warrior ifv
Seems there are two contracts 200 new ones and a budget for refurbs👍
👍 Bradley’s would be a good fit for uk forces ,we are closely aligned with USA and Bradley owned by BAE , a good stop gap
If we did get those Bradleys for the two armoured brigades, what do you do with all those Boxers ordered and now being built?
As has been said we have only ordered half of what we need,if boxer was to replace the 432 in Engr regts etc surely they could be put to use and then instead of increasing the order for boxer use that for an IFV buy! Sorted😇(standing by for incoming😂)
I’ve always assumed that the Engineer variants of Boxer already ordered would?
There are only 2 Armoured Engineer Regiments left I think, as the third Reg assigned to 3 Division I’m unsure if it is also Titan Trojan Terrier 432 equipped.
There are 4 Regts 21,22,26,32 that have at one armoured troop in each SQN I believe! As always ISTBC. It’s not the Engr version I was talking about but the basic troop transport role for a section. I am sure they would love a nice big boxer to hang just about the whole G10 store on when they deploy😀
Ahh ok the section carrier.
Bloody hell, in that case no. There aren’t even enough of those as things stand to furnish the infantry Battalions, let alone you lot!
I’ll look at what I have re those 4 Regs.
😂😂 behave first in and last out you know!
A fine Corps, sir. 😁🤛✌
On a serious note though what will replace the afore mentioned when 432 do actually get chopped🤔
Will Ares find it’s way to the RE?
With only 6 dismounts it’s not big enough and the same as you said for boxer,numbers?
Ah, OK. I thought a RE Section was smaller.
Argus should since it’s specifically made for Engineering.
Indeed. I’m tempted to do a FOIA on planned Boxer/ Argus fielding by unit.
Been wanting to ask such a question for ages.
22 and 26 defo as they are the Regs that support the AI Bdes.
21 is the Divisional Engineer Regiment so I was unsure if it had Armoured Engineers in its General Support role. It’s Sqns are termed “Field Eng Sqns” where’s 22 and 26s I have as “Armoured Eng Sqns”
Hence my uncertainty.
32 is 7 LMBCTs Regiment, so again I was not sure on any heavier tracked vehicle allocation.
I’d love to know for sure.
👍
Yes found that myself so we need to have a serving sapper about to tell us what’s what👍32 won’t be chuffed if they have lost their armour being the original Armd Engr Regt!
I agree. Don’t they trace their lineage back to Herbert’s Funnies?
Yep hence the Regt badge of 79 Armd Div bulls head,we also didn’t wear No2 dress hats on parade just berets like the RTR.again could have changed but tradition dies hard in the army.also a old WW2 style brassard with either 32 or 26 on it was worn on the right arm.
Furnish 7 and 4 Bdes with them. 😜
There’s also the GD Ascod 2 based IFV option for some commonality with the Ajax family. The outcome of the US IFV competition of this and RM Lynx and the Hanwha Redback bought by Australia. Got to imagine both these AUKUS partners will give feedback to the UK if asked? Though the UK Germany Defence partnership seems to be growing these days especially for Army equipment and being in the Euro-neighbourhood.
Slightly off topic, what about lighter vehicle replacements?
As well as CH3, Boxer and Ajax, there are six other programmes being talked about this year, grouped into Land Mobilty Programme (LMP) and Light Tactical Mobility Platform (LTMP):
LMP Heavy 500 vehicles 20t-40tLMP Medium 2,000 vehicles up to 20tLMP Light 2,500 vehicles up to 10tLMP Utility 3,000 vehicles up to 7t.LTMP Light 156 to 311 platforms, utility terrain or all-terrain vehiclesLTMP Medium 48 (initial) to 863 UTVs.As I understand it, LMP will cover Protected Mobility and LTMP will cover utility vehicles from Land Rover replacements to quad bikes. Am I right in assuming that none of these will be fighting vehicles (beyond maybe sticking a .50 cal on the top)?
Following so many failed previous programmes in this area (I’ve lost count) there’s one lesson the Army has clearly failed to learn. Their naming sucks lemons! We have two different programmes in the same area and their acronyms are unmemorable, confusable and in the case of LMTP(M) downright self-contradictory.
The army has always had heavy, medium and light equipments…for very obvious reasons. A light equipment cannot replace a heavier predecessor – it will not have the protection required.
To be fair some armies have gone for a less protected IFV, France for instance. Far lighter ( 25ton range IFV, cav and APC) vs boxer and Ajax in the almost 40 ton range. France has focused on lethality and mobility..the British army has focused on protection and seems to have forgotten lethality ( at least with boxer).
To add to the fairness LMP and LTMP are to provide mobility to 4 Bigade, replace Foxhound in 7 and provide rounabout for Rear Echlon troops that don’t need armour. Neither program is about replacing armour.
Although the medium protected vehicle seems like it will be around the 20ton range…which will be is close to the level of protected of the French front line vehicles.
it’s frustrating really that the army will get a great set of armoured and protected vehicles under LPM and boxer ..up to very well protected mec infantry in boxer (STANAG level6) medium protected ( 20 ton, and STANAG level 3/4 from what I’ve read) and light protected mobility ( 10 ton and maybe STANAG level 2/3 ? As well as a 3.5 ton run around..not sure what protection levels they are aiming on that one…but will loss out on its armoured infantry…which is sort of important.
The British Army set requirements for a MIV (APC with a MG) and will get a MIV, Boxer.
They also set requirements for a Warrior IFV sucessor (an upgraded Warrior) and got nothing – the programme was cancelled.
The army did not forget about lethality – the politicans cancelled the programme with the greater lethality.
The problem Graham is the same one we have in the NHS. Those who are promoted to the top tend to be promoted because they are willing to agree and be “Pragmatic” to ensure their own career stays on track. The army chiefs essentially laid down for this. Did one ever turn around and say this is unacceptable and the army must have IFVs for its armoured brigades and then fall on their sword and walk out the building ..or did they wax lyrical about what a wonderful capability boxer was and what a lucky bunch the infantry were. I’m afraid I have no time for senior leaders who will come out and say something fine when it is wrong. A very senior person “Must” in the ultimate case say what is wrong on the record and then show how wrong it is by ending their own career in protest, it’s not easy it’s not nice but if senior leaders loss that, then what you get is the army “agreeing” that boxer replacing warrior is OK.
The issue is the government rarely tells the Army what it has to cut and what it can keep, it just says how much money it has. An officer can metaphorically fall on his sword all he likes, but if CGS and CDS look at the requirements and the funding and say “We can’t afford an IFV replacement” what good exactly would quitting do?
Boxer is replacing Warrior because there isn’t the money for three AFV programs, and Warrior was the logical cut. Some people don’t like it, but it’s what it is, and unless a lot of money suddenly comes out of the treasury standing up and saying “this is wrong” well:
The Army doesn’t have enough Tanks, it doesn’t have enough Artillery, it doesn’t have enough RLC regiments, it doesn’t have enough Signals, it’s short on AAD, it would like more rotary assets, it needs to invest in drones, it needs rapid reaction forces to deploy across the globe at short notice, and those forces need light vehicles that haven’t been through a decade+ of Afghanistan, it needs to improve the quality of it’s accomodation and service offer to retain talent, it needs to invest in it’s SF and SOF forces. And each and every one of those will have someone going to bat for the capability and arguing for it.
Someone definitely, probably from the AI, stood up and said they thought that swapping Warrior for Boxer was a firepower downgrade, and expressed their concerns. But he’d be arguing against everyone else doing the same thing, and at the end of the day somebody has to make the decision as to what gets invested in, and what gets scrapped.
The reality is Dern as a senior leader you can and should, do it…I when pushed over something that I considered an immoral and dangerous level of service cut that I was instructed to undertake, simply refused to sign of the action and risk register, then insisted my refusal was made part of the public record and resigned my job. As I was the responsible safety and quality officer for that service it actually stymied the action and required a whole review and rethink….if I had just logged a protest and done as instructed..nothing would have changed. Sometimes senior people have to fall on their swords if they think something is worth protecting…yes it may not change anything but if very senior leaders know that their senior leaders ( who will be the enactors of policy) will resign over key moral decisions it makes the very senior leaders far more thoughtful about their actions.
The point is that this happens every defence review, when there isn’t enough money for every capability there is always a bum fight with ever department making the argument. Sure brigade commander could resign over loosing IFV’s, but it means nothing because at the end of the day we are having to cut *something.*
And if it’s public record, then all CGS will say is “The money isn’t there, and it was the least bad cut to make.” which is true.
Hi Dern, in the case of something like losing the IFV you would be hoping someone more senior than a brigade commander would be resigning. It’s needs to be the person that signs off and implements on the change the very senior leaders want, If they “the people people who have the power to implement the change’ simply say sorry cannot morally and professionally support that action and resign people start to pay attention. The thing about resignation over a moral issue is that it only really makes a difference if it’s something within your influence to implement and your core to that implementation.
In the end if you do not protest and you do “pragmatically” implement something so you can mitigate the risk of a bad decision you’ve essentially agreed to that decision and are therefore professionally and morally responsible for the outcome. I’ve implemented a lot of things that quite frankly made me a bit sick to my stomach, but I knew it was best to try and mitigate the bad decision, but I always in my head had a moral and professional line that if decision makers crossed I would not follow and implement.
I do feel that more and more the those that serve the government at a senior level are less and less willing to tell power openly it’s wrong and do the only thing it can do when faced with power that is making the wrong or immoral decision which is resign.
Why would someone more senior than a Brigade Commander resign? That’s realistically as high as it’d go, as there is no “Commander Armoured Infantry.” Battalion Commanders might resign, but Battalions swap roles all the time, so unlikely. The Divisional Commander wouldn’t resign as he has enough problems (see above) that he can’t be resigning over a logical decision that keeps him supplied with infantry while he doesn’t have artillery or air defences. Even a Brigade Commander resigning I think is a bit unlikely, but that’s where it would sit. Who specifically do you think should resign in protest? Which rank and appointment?
Again, they can resign if they like, but the choice is a rational one based on reasources and on filling gaps within the army, you, and others commenting on it here might not like it, but at the end of the day it’s not a moral issue. It’s a financial issue.
I just meant to ask what’s happening with them? I wasn’t suggesting that Warrior should be replaced by them. Although, as there 500 new vehicles between 20 tons and 40 tons, it might not be impossible.
OK. I misunderstood your point.
What do you mean by ‘whats happening to them’? As Dern said ‘LMP and LTMP are to provide mobility to 4 Lt Brigade, replace Foxhound in 7 Lt Mech Bde and provide runabouts for Rear Echlon troops that don’t need armour’.
Which answered the question in part. (Thank you, Dern.) I was also wondering, are they funded? Have timescales been agreed? Have we learned anything at all from the failure of PMP, MRV-P, FCLV, FLAV, OUSV, GSUP, etc, etc.
Do I need to remember LMP and LTMP or will they be replaced by another initiative before they can be implemented, adding to the alphabet string?
Possibly the latter, going by form!
Sorry Jon, I have not been following these projects.
Think Defence is a good starting source for historic cul-de-sacs, should you ever feel the need.
KNDS have shown off a tracked version of the Boxer, could this be the ideal solution to give the army a tracked IFV? it would allow modules to be shared more widely as well as having limited parts commonality.
We have ordered 623 wheeled Boxers, about half of the army’s requirement. It could be that future tranches could comprise tracked versions.
The key bit is the cannon, the AI could probably live with a wheeled IFV, not sure a tracked APC would make much difference to a wheeled APC ?
The key bit very much is the cannon.
Apparently there is a study somewhere which claimed that very high mobility wheeled vehicles could cross 95% of the terrain that a tracked vehicle could.
Thanks for that stat.
Depends if terrain is muddy or not.
What about a half track version? Much cheaper and easier to build.
In other news Lithuania has just ordered 27 new turreted boxer variants (IFV with remote turret) so it’s feasible:
The Boxer “Vilkas” vehicles are equipped with Samson Mk II turrets produced by the Israeli company Rafael, armed with a 30mm MK-44S cannon and Spike LR anti-tank missiles.
A remote weapons station with a cannon would probably be better and more affordable for Boxer. Of course, RWS is more vulnerable in battle but probably quicker to procure/replace if damaged in combat.
Wouldnt it make sense to store the retired warriors . They may be needed at some point and its easier to bring them out of retirement than build new vehicles
Storing vehicles in any state, but particularly a state where they can be reactivated unfortunately costs money. And the Army will almost certainly cut that kind of capability in favour of retaining more useful capabilities.
Park them in a shed russian style.
You still have to buy the land and build a shed, and then they rust and fall apart and re-activating them becomes a long and expensive task.
If we had a proper reserve army they would look after them. Why not store them overseas?
And again, we come back to the issue of cost.
You think making an agreement with a partner nation to store our excess vehicles, shipping them overseas, basing people to maintain them, and having assets to transport them back is cheaper than storing in the UK? Nope.
Some are already, in Germany. But it is limited, as Dern says.
If you park them, they go into proper CHE buildings, and they cost.
One issue we have had was the shit state of some of the “sheds” at Ashchurch where precious vehicles have literally been left to rust.
Sheds are cheap, so I disagree.
Well they aren’t actually, not when you’re talking about storing hundreds of vehicles in a condition where they can easily be reactivated, so you can disagree, but if you can’t point to capabilities in the standing army you’d cut for a reserve that has very dubious utility, it means little.
£259 million is being spent at MoD Ashchurch. The right shed, not just any old shed, is not cheap. CHE buildings I don’t think are cheap.
This location once stored over 7,000 pieces of kit, from armour to B vehicles to bridges and plant. Many of its buildings are falling apart, and precious kit damaged.
I hope this goes somewhere. Those Warriors should all be kept they constitute a valuable resource believe me. You need a small team to look after those sorts of things at each location. You need a special battalion as part of the Reserve army to look after stuff. Whoever was responsible for looking after 200 CH2 and didn’t, should be ‘shot’. Whoever inspects it should enjoy their job. In the UK we need to take this more seriously.
I helped in a small part saving HMS Belfast and visited her in Portsmouth when she was a dead ship. However RN and IWM were in fact looking after her as best they could while she was ‘asleep’. They even considered reactivating her for the Falklands; when only 42 years old!
I agree with you on the Warriors, actually.
But I also agree with Dern and Graham that it’s not currently feasible without extra money and a new org of some kind to run it.
If when they are taken out of service they are greased and put in preservation they could be looked after by the TA if they still exist. You need to run them; great training for young people.They could save lives if WW3 kicks off and the investment is surely worth it. Don’t we have over 1000 of them? It would cost billions and years replace them.
Nowhere near that number, more like half that, if not less.
I’ve discussed with Graham the feasibility of just leaving them in service, regards logistics and reliability, seeming as their “replacement” seems such a retrograde step.
Dern is right. There is no money to do this and not enough storage space. Besides the Treasury expect to recoup money from sales of old equipment.
Excuses work until you realise its a mistake.
This is such a non-answer.
You can see them going to Ukraine at some point, along with remaining F432s.
It is curious that the UK and the USA have only ever developed one tracked IFV design each- Warrior and Bradley. The US has tried several times to define the specifications of a Bradley replacement and produced nothing. The right balance between mobility, firepower and damage resistance proved elusive. Neither Bradley nor Warrior was used in the way envisaged when the Soviets introduced the BMP- with infantry fighting from inside the vehicle. Bradley had firing ports but these were welded shut. So both ifvs operated largely as APCs with infantry dismounting to fight with the benefit of added fire support. Fitting a cannon larger than 25/30 mm tends to compromise troop carrying. Increasing mobile protected firepower has led to the Booker, based on ASCOD and carrying a 105 mm gun.
Maybe that is a better option for the UK to consider.
The army are going to get spanked if they get into a conflict with a near peer enemy that has actual IFVs.
You can’t go into contact without a turreted armoured vehicle. That would be suicide.
They deploy the troops and get away. That is the only realistic and sensible behavior.
That is assuming drones/long range artillery do not get them before deploying.
And then your own infantry get chewed up by the opposition IFVs!
It is why I have been most opposed to our giving up an IFV capability.
It depends, it worked for Israelis. M113 or worse vs BMP’s
But they had enough tanks to support infantry.
If they don’t order more fighty versions of Boxer, that’s likely.
lethality, survivability and quick Brew facilities… blah blah blah. To be frank, with the number of people desperately trying to get OUT of the Army, (which will in due course end up below 70,000 personnel), why even bother with any more of these vehicles?
What use is a very small army with outdated vehicles?
By the same token GM, what is the point of super trendy modern (ish) vehicles, when you have no one to use them?
The answer is CV90 🙄
Still no air defence investment. This will put these new vehicles and dismounts at greater risk
Lots of warm words but nothing in writing, no orders nothing. The UK MOD way, make some noise but do nothing then buy the cheapest option and pay more for it than others and then have to spend a vast amount fixing it years later.
And then never up date it so it falls apart or short of spares and out dated.
For all the excellent writing about Armoured Infantry – Dern surpassing himself… again, NATO is looking at specialisation.
The UK is becoming specialised and brings some heavy hitters to the table – the Poles are becoming the Armoured Infantry kings along with their tank fleet and indirect fires.
All eggs in one basket? To a point and you have to rely on the rest of NATO rocking up but, is this where we are going?
Parrot Project Seedcorn and send troops to train on Bradleys in America, to keep skills up-to-date, is there any reason to retain Armoured?