Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) has demonstrated the ability of a BOXER Mission Module to successfully integrate and fire a mortar from the BOXER vehicle.
This firing demonstration took place on Salisbury Plain and was the first time in which a mortar has been fired from a BOXER.
The integrated system demonstrated the BOXER vehicle, the Mortar Mission Module, a fully-automated aiming capability and the Mortar Weapon System (MWS) which has been developed by Rheinmetall Norway.
“On this occasion multiple 120mm mortar rounds were fired, demonstrating the ability of the BOXER to accommodate an updated capability for those users with smaller calibre in-service systems such as the 81mm mortar currently used by the British Army and many of her allies around the world. Whilst no 81mm mortar rounds were fired on this occasion the system is multi-capable, allowing either of the calibre weapons to be used as dictated by the operational requirement.
Overall system design and integration was conducted by RBSL engineers based in the company headquarters in Telford and the rapid production of this capability was made possible by close collaborative working with a number of industry partners. Manufacture of the mission module was also conducted at Telford by welders preparing for the serial production of those BOXER variants already on contract to the British Army under the ongoing Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV) contract.”
The need for mechanised infantry to have organic fire power is critical to mission success, say the firm.
“This BOXER system delivers automated target acquisition and a high rate of fire (16-18 rounds/min) with rapid into and out of action – shoot and scoot. A semi-automatic mortar system can be fitted with a variety of mortar calibres and designs, enabling customers to use their current mortar systems or select their preferred future capability. The crew of four are able to operate in both day and night in all weather conditions, with a 270 degree rear firing arc. The Mortar System itself has also been demonstrated on light and medium vehicles enabling fleet wide commonality and reducing training and support burden.”
The system can fire High Explosive, Smoke and Illumination ammunition, while the system design provides increased storage space for ammunition in the vehicle. The MWS also allows the mortar system to be dismounted and fire from the vehicle should the operational situation dictate it of should there be a requirement to revert to back-up functionality in the event of any system failure: in this way assured fire support can be delivered for soldiers.
“Significantly developed at Telford, the BOXER mortar module can also serve as an example of the creation of sovereign intellectual property as part of Rheinmetall’s strategic vision in support of the UK MoD and wider economic prosperity agenda. The mortar capability, combined with BOXER’s battle-proven design, also provides a valuable opportunity for UK exports – driving prosperity for the UK.”
RBSL Managing Director Colin McClean said in a press release:
“This Boxer Mortar Mission Module, which was unveiled at DSEi last year, has been a UK lead design and development programme. We are really excited about the international interest in this new BOXER capability and look forward to working with customers to meet their individual needs.”
Good to see, close support heavy weapons will be critical. However, is the Army building a credible log chain for replen?
The army has always had a log chain to supply 81mm mortar ammo. Not sure if British Army is getting 120mm mortar to augment 81mm – it is very much needed. Not sure it would be any harder to replen 120mm mortar bombs than 81mm – just fit fewer onto a pallet. Or am I missing something?
Has the British army actually ordered this or is it just a British design module? Mortar fire support is great and we need more of it however compared to some of the turreted automatic monitors we have seen on boxer designs this looks like a hole in the roof.
Unclear. The plan was to have them as part of the fleet but I don’t think any specific order has been placed for them. By the sounds of the article the supplier is hedging their bets on the round size, which would indicate they haven’t got a firm order by the army yet.
28 mortar variants were part of the original 523 vehicle order but presumably that is 81mm.
Not sure, based on the above post it might mean you can switch the launchers, so we ordered the platform but not the launchers. Just speculating, no idea.
Different ,too see a configuration such as an installed mortar I take it that its munition stowages are fully protected being in such close contact to the mortar
It is exactly the same concept as we have for the 432 mortar carrier today (in service since 1962, I believe). Very unsophisticated and it has been possible to fire mortars under armour for years.The 120mm AMS (Armoured Mortar System) was developed as a private venture by Royal Ordnance plc and Delco Systems. Development began in 1985. AMS was intended to provide organic heavy mortar support for infantry units. [AMOS and NEMO came along later]
Some more info. – see minute 1.58 in this Forces News report.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9zvE2AJCRY
This is a step in the right direction👍 If as is reported the system can also be mounted on light and heavier/tracked vehicles , then surely this will be a no brainier for the UK? Clearly there will be a bit of push back from ‘MMM’ especially in the light role regiments, Para/Cdo forces, but if it can be dismounted as well then hopefully that can compensate for some of the possible arguments about shanksys pony being able to go anywhere. Fast moving, hard hitting and quick to deploy/extract is the key as we have seen, and the 120mm would… Read more »
Heres a crazy idea (wont be liked by some of my Inf comrades) keep the 81mm for 16 BCT and 3 Cdo BCT in the PARA/Cdo Battalions and give 7RHA and 29 Reg a Bty x 8 of 120mm Motars on light vehicles. The 81mm is “light” and can be man packed, jumped and lugged about. The 120mm ammunition would be the issue and will always require a wagon of some sorts. Quad trailer version even? Supacat? Ideas?
Not crazy at all , as an ex mortar man and proud exactly my thoughts. Always thought we should have the 120mm in Arms Inf and Mech Bns while retaining the excellent 81mm in light role Inf, Para, RM and RAF Regt. Got to be the way to go.
Agreed but make sure we keep a few 60mm as well, for those special moments, as I cannot see the Carl Gustav coming in any time soon, as they have said would replace the 60mm! Cheers pongoglo!
And imagine the brew volume inside a 120mm greenie….👍
The excellent 81mm was always handy and can be lugged by the Troop, so it’s not a issue. The heavier 120mm is handy for when you have the luxury of some vehicle to lug it.
My question; is the Boxer the best use for that? Always thought some sort of quad bike & trailer would be more portable, faster, easier to conceal and lob a score or two 120mm’s where needed. The cost difference could provide far more of them to make it extra spicy.
Are you talking about dismounting the mortar from the trailer to fire it? That would make it slow to shoot and scoot. If you fired a 120mm mortar from a light trailer, you will wreck the trailer with the recoil.
Got to agree with you mate. Can’t understand why we would buy such an expensive armoured box, and then cut a hole in the roof!!! Fantastic idea!!
Surely much better to go with your notion in some form, or alternatively buy some ‘Nemo’ variants off the shelf. At least that way those lads would stay dry!!😂
Those NEMO wagons are top notch, all singing and dancing but come with the price tag I fear would make the head sheds look away humming a song and saying what a nice day it is! Plus, what’s wrong with the good old bivvy and bungees…..😂
Yes, agree they are likely to be costly, but why waste a ‘Boxer’ when something cheaper will do the job? If you want NEMO, just buy from the manufacturer, it will be a niche product only required in smallish numbers (50-60?), don’t waste £ on development costs when it’s already made by someone. I would say the same if those army chaps who decide these things wanted a MGS, two good ones are already in production. Just go and buy the things.
Not sure why you ‘trench dwellers’ have this fixation with bivvys and bungees…? Can’t understand it myself.🤣🤣
Oh your being sensible and then mentioning Army head sheds, which, do not go together in a conversation at all……rather a mucky trench, than a very weird, dangerous and confined sub thingy….🤣
Can’t be dismounted either, but have a direct fire capability – choices!
Didn’t the American’s have the Nemo on test? Did they go for the platform in the end? At 50-60 round capacity, the Boxer would be a waste of money.
Is NEMO like AMOS in the sense that specialist ammo is required for these systems? Personally, I’m kind of disappointed and was hoping for something like Mjolner which I understand uses standard mortar ammo.
NEMO is a single barrel version of AMOS, AMOS light if you like. To my knowledge, both fire a range of 120mm mortar ammo including ‘standard’ smooth bore mortar ammo.
I knew what both systems were, thanks – it was something about the ammo that stuck in my head with both being breach loaders (unlike the cheaper Mjolner which is a muzzle loader). As it turns out, AMOS is indeed capable of firing standard muzzle-loaded mortar rounds, but these require a short stub case at the base of the fins, like a sabot, which is ejected after firing. I therefore imagine NEMO is the same.
Not only that but something like Nemo or Mjolner might be helpful when one of these domestic drones adapted to carry a 40mm grenade comes along.
Worked pretty well on the 432.
oooooo tracks 😉
Hi fella, yes it absolutely does work fine on the 432, I’m sure it would work equally well on a ‘Boxer convertible’ too! Thats not my point though. 432/Bulldog variants support the Amd Inf in Warrior etc, we didnt put the mortar in Warrior as it was a waste of a Warrior hull when something cheaper (432) was just as effective. Making a ‘Boxer convertible’ to lob mortar rounds out of is surely a waste of a very expensive Boxer unit? As Warrior has 432/Bulldogs to support it, do we not think that Boxer should have something a little cheaper… Read more »
I think the counter to that is that the 432 mortar variant wasn’t bought to support Warrior, it was bought to support the 432 equipped Mech Inf formations, and was then inherited by Warrior. There is currently no such vehicle (save for the 432 itself) that can simply be inherited by the Boxer units, so you’d need to order a new bespoke vehicle for the, what, 20-30 odd Mortar Carriers that the Boxer Battalions will need? And lets face it even if you could get the new vehicles in for 0 cost, 30 boxers won’t be enough to equip a… Read more »
Fair one mate, the point being, Warrior had support vehicles based on other platforms, as putting everything on to Warrior was too expensive. Do we not think that Boxer is possibly the same?
Yes, I know the ordered infantry carriers are just that, expensive taxis,by ‘fighty’ vehicles, I mean actual IVFs and the like, my bad English.
Warrior had support vehicles based on other platforms because of procurment failures, which meant there was an weird dynamic in the armoured brigades where some support vehicles where on Warrior (eg REME, and even some ambulances in Herrick) and others where on 432. We shouldn’t be aiming to repeat past procurement failures. But even if we where, 432 only was used as a mortar carrier alongside Warrior because it was already there. There is no armoured wheel based mortar carrier in service that can replicate that dynamic. The only way to achieve this would be to use the 60 year… Read more »
Yes agree, totally weird set up with the support vehicles, but not entirely convinced economics didnt play a part in it all! Don’t for one minute advocate keeping 432’s, they are what 60 odd yo and in need of urgent replacement. My point is that we have some 15-16 battalions of infantry that we should be putting in armoured vehicles of some form or another. Warrior is on its way out, we have gone with Boxer, for or Mech Inf, but now also to probably replace the Inf that were in Warriors. Boxer is very expensive, the army want it,… Read more »
This is exactly my position too.
Of course economics played a part in it, it was penny pinching that lead to the failure to purchase a modern mortar carrier, like it lead to the failure to purchase a modern ambulance. It’s not a good thing. If the army is going Boxer then the Boxer Battalions need to be on Boxer. If you want the IFV version then you need at least a Battalions worth of them, which is roughly another hundred (and all the supporting vehicels). This is not a comparable outlay to two dozen mortar carriers. Does everything need to be on boxer? If you… Read more »
Are you sure that Inf carrying Boxers will only be APCs ie no cannon?
At present the UK only intends to buy 4 variants of Boxer; APC, Support, C4I and Ambulance. If that’s changed I’d love to know about it.
That seems so for the 500+ Boxers in the Tranche 1 buy – in the MIV role (was FRES UV) for the 2 Strike Bdes.
There will be a second Tranche to replace Warrior which was a later decision – it would be hopeless if we did not by a cannon-equipped ‘IFV’ version for the AI Bns.
Strike has gone away, and under Future Soldier the “MIV” vehicles are going to equip 1 Royal Welsh and 1 Mercians in 12 Armoured Brigade and 1 Fusiliers, 5 Rifles, and 1 PWRR in 20th Armoured Brigade. 1 Armoured Brigade will be 1 DSR, with no infantry, 7th will be on Foxhound, 4th Light Role (with no CSS), 11th will be SFAB (so no armour).
Unfortunately Boxer APC is the version that’ll be equipping the AI btns, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
Thanks Dern. I knew that the 2 x Stike bdes had gone away (that didn’t last long) but surely Strike is still somewhere in 1st Deep Recce Strike Bde.
I had not heard definitively that the APC version of Boxer is to replace WR in the AI Bns – such rifle platoons lose 4 x 30mm cannons and do not get 4 x 40mm CTAS stab cannons, but a few MGs instead. Lives will be lost.
Who is protesting this?
There’s no Infantry in 1 DSR, it’s AJAX, Jackal, and Artillery, so no, not really anything left of Strike in DSR.
As for who is protesting it? Dunno. I think it’s just budget realities.
Thanks Dern, but with Ajax touted as a recce/strike vehicle and the word Strike appearing in the formation title – surely they do Strike? Strike has surely just gone from being a RAC/Inf thing to a RAC/RA thing.
Image with slightly better oversight and shows what vehicles will be used by what.
Interesting graphic, which raises questions for me. This has 1 MWD Reg ( N Luffenham ) correctly in 8 FE Bde, but as reserve, though it is a regular Regiment at present with 2 reserve MWD Squadrons. Has that changed? Also, the identity and role of the those 2 CS RE Regs in 25CSG. 22 RE and 26 RE ( Perham ) are shown with 12 and 20 BCTs, fine, with the armour. The CS RE Reg with 7 LMBCT should be 32 RE ( Catterick ) fine. So the 2 shown with 25 CSG, one will be 21 RE… Read more »
Not my graphic, going by the style it’s probably Nicholas Drummonds, and he’s not the greatest so I suspect he double counted. Should be 21, 22, 26 and RMRE in 25 Group.
Same thought re MWD.
Of course, you’re right, I thought I’d seen that style.
Possibly, though there’s 32 RE too.
Agreed re 1 MWD.
If the lads in Army want to have a better fire rate, they can also get AMOS, 26 rounds per minute sustained, 5-10 of them at once would be formidable. Of course, Army as typical will pick the suboptimal option.
Army used to be accusing of always picking the gold plated option!
Yeh, I think that would be a good idea. But it wasn’t my part of ship, so I feel a tad anxious about commenting on too much😬 The 81mm is very good at what it does and a swept up mortar team can/does cause havoc. I do think the bullet will have to be bitten’ somewhere in the near future though and there will undoubtedly be pushback with the range of 105 compared to the current 120mm and also the fact the US have just built a light tank with one mounted on it, so the ammo may have an… Read more »
Their are a number of scenarios where a mortar is better than a 105 and the opposite! The big thing about the 105 is that it has a better range and more importantly fuze options than a mortar! I’ve had this “discussion” with bro on many occasions and as we both grew up and matured (and got promoted) we understood the value of each other’s arm and Regiment. The 105 has more fixed options, Prox normal, low, high, and PD point detonate, all exploding between .1 sec delay (in the ground) through to 1m, 12m and 24m above ground, target… Read more »
And I also neglected to mention the 81mm has similar fuze options but less reliable and effective in the air burst!
👍
Hi Airborne, Are you suggesting a SP 105 gun or something else, a dismountable gun carried on a light vehicle perhaps? If the former then we used to have one – the FV433 Abbot, which I am sure you are aware of. Apparently the Indian Ary still use a few of them. It was relatively light weight being based on the FV432 I believe. Always thought it was a mistake to do away with the lighter SPG capability as it is not always necessary or possible to have the heavier 155 SPG available. Interesting to read the thread above, thanks… Read more »
Also worth noting that the Ukranians are apparently putting the towed 105’s to very good use.
Hi Dern, Yeh, the L118 and L119 guns are very good. It no accident that the USMC use licenced built versions (I think we have bought the L119 from the US?). I just think a SP version would give the Army more options. Perhaps a Boxer mounted L119 to keep pace with mech inf. Given the modular approach to the Boxer and the fact that Rheinmetall are allowing third parties to develop modules for the Boxer chasis the UK MoD could do worse than tap into British improvisation for new capabilities as demonstrated by the Brimstone module proposed by MBDA.… Read more »
Hey CR,
Honestly you’ve pretty much mirrored my thoughts (when I saw your 70-80% capability comment I genuienly thought you where replying to a comment of mine further down, rather than repeat I’ll link here).
I do think something like a L119 on a Jackal would be a good idea, but at the same time, evidence suggests that towed isn’t dead yet either.
All these boxer variants are very interesting. I presume the front is the standard boxer and it’s just the back that changes.
Are we going to see more modules than vehicles? Selecting what backend modules depending on the mission.
Or is that a bit wasteful and be as well having one vehicle for each module.
If this module thing is the way forward, perhaps a tracked vehicle should be made that also mounts the module.
7 RHA? Don’t you mean 7 Para?
Er yes and deffo no lol
I’ll see you in court then 😀
81mm is close support for light line infantry. (Light Infantry) Back many decades ago. Company of line infantry would comprise 3 Rifle Platoons. Support Company which was 81 Mortars or Anti tank & HQ Company. Mode of Transport on exercise was by Puma Helicopter. I Think we need Brimstone equipped Boxer also the 120mm Mortar equipped Boxer for the Heavy Mechanised Infantry such as the Guards Division. I was wandering?. Isn’t Boxer built to take different Task configuration Modula’s. With the cold war now morphed into hot war by Russian Dictator Tyrant Putin. UK needs to build the frontline modern… Read more »
Thanks for the contribution Gemma, buy fully aware of the 81mm etc, and our thoughts are the same in regards to RN and Army, but no more Inf Battalions as we have enough, most of which are truck mounted, we need to concentrate on CS and CSS, cheers.
Recoil of a 81mm mortar is substantial – even more so a 120mm. A light vehicle would not take it.
Indeed it is. So the option for the ‘lighter’ forces would be maybe to have the mortar mounted more along the lines of the NTGS ALAKRAN with the baseplate lowered onto the ground for firing or there is also the Spear 2 which is described as a Light Mortar Carrier (LMC)? Or we just crack on as we have been in the past. Cost and the intervention of another new weapon system will clearly be massive factors in decision making, But if we don’t go down that route, then surely it would most definitely be the 81mm staying on for… Read more »
I think we should retain 81mm (Infantry crewed) and introduce 120mm mortar and would take soundings as to whether that were infantry or RA crewed (I favour the former). Perhaps an Inf Bn moraar platoon could operate 4 of each with suitable carrier vehicles.
Changing TTPs is not hard.
If it was practicable to do so then that would be very desirable, although I know the US are mounting a revised 81mm onto a light weight vehicle that carries an entire mortar team and nearly 70 rounds. This newer 81mm is apparently very comparable to a 120mm and can also be air dropped. This kind of thing may be another route? And if so then maybe 120mm wouldn’t be needed? The UK make very good lightweight, all terrain vehicles, so it wouldn’t be beyond the realms of possibility for us to come up with a viable solution I would’ve… Read more »
Thanks for the info. I am surprised to hear 81 and 120mm mortars being described as comparable – the latter must have longer range and greater lethality.
The thought of mortarmen on foot humping a 120mm system with all the bombs boggles me – I was not thinking that for an instant – it must be vehicle mounted and fired – with the crew preferably being under armour at all times.
The info I found on the newer 81mm & the light weight vehicle trial in the US was on a YouTube channel (battle stations, I think?) so maybe not 100% reliable, but I know there has been a fair bit of investment into the 81mm and it’s leathality/employment for rapid deployment stateside and If that is the case then maybe it is something for the UK to think about.. but I agree, if the 120mm is a choice we decide to go with then having it on Boxer sounds like a sound idea. The lighter forces could then look at… Read more »
Hopefully this and yesterday’s news start to calm the haters down a bit, the boxer is a fantastic asset and will help the British army get out of its current hibernation through numbers and shear variations it has to offer. It also ticks other boxes so to speak in the fact it’s going to be UK built and with modules it should keep prices down though ease of use and ability to scale the numbers as needed.
More please
Not sure the Boxer has any haters beyond the numpties in the top brass who pulled out in the first place 😀
Agree, not seen any? It is not Ajax.
Ha Ha! You said the ‘A’ word Daniele🤣
About 6 months ago I was surprised how many on here were expressing how they were unimpressed by it, technically, concept or simply cost related. In reality the fleet will be a superb flexible asset, just a shame that the concept wasn’t designed here originally. Certainly seeing how imaginative and innovative Supacat have been on various projects in this Century, if sadly many like so much else cancelled over the years, I expect they would have loved to have designed/created something modular of this nature back in the day. That said I suspect you need a giant like Rheinmetall to… Read more »
I understand that the reason we pulled out of the Boxer project in July 2003 (having joined in 1996) was the realisation that airtransportability was going to be a big issue although the official line was that we intended to focus on FRES. (Ironically Boxer was later selected to meet the FRES UV remit.)
Agreed, I was pleasantly surprised when I started reading that this and the Brimstone one was developed by the UK-based team rather than elsewhere.
The best thing is that there seems to have been concern that design and development of new modules would be a complex, exensive, drawn out process that no-one would bother doing without buy in from other operators. But the fact that they’ve actually built this one out to the point of a firing test and designed that Brimstone one pretty rapidly is encouraging. 40 mm CTA turret with Brimstone box launcher next, please!
The best thing about boxer modules is competition. They can be built and designed by multiple groups outside of RBSL which means they can’t completely hose the mod in price. That’s why defense companies have been taking the initiative to design their own modules and sell at a competitive price rather than expect the mod to fund a 5 year R&D program, 5 years of testing and then 5 years on manufacture BS we have seen with warrior and Ajax.
Yeah, private enterprise definitely seems to move quicker on the R&D pre-enormous government contract..! It’d be intersting to see the full list of Boxer modules that have had at least some kind of feasibility/integration study done on them, so that in theory they’d plug in with minimal integration issues. They could then be matched up with Army’s concept of operations and the gaps in capability and some contracts issued. But that would pre-suppose that the money in the budget can be easily assigned; that any extra money can be allocated; and that Army’s plans for how they’re going to deliver… Read more »
It’s not so much boxer people hate, the biggest criticism I’ve seen is where its replacing warrior it’s totally under gunned.
That’s not an issue with the vehicle itself, more the decisions made that see it not equipped with the appropriate firepower.
Isn’t that part of the USP of Boxer ? Doesn’t matter what we order now as the modular nature means that doesn’t mean that’s what we end up with. If we get 500 APC versions with 50 cal we can buy 100 Ambulance modules , 50 Brimstone modules, 30 mortar modules, etc at a later date or even at the same date. You can field a mix of any version up to the max number of chassis you bought. Can you buy just the chassis ? Suppose you can. With Ajax if you buy 300, you have 300 Ajax. 500… Read more »
I think that the issue will be price. Sure you can switch modules around, depending on what you have ordered, but price for the base version is £5million a pop. Any other version will be £5 million + (development and build). Not likely to be a cheaper option even if ordering different varieties.
But far more flexible. Imagine you are a small army with 5 Boxers. You have 5 Boxers Running Gear ( chassis ) and you have one turreted version armed to the teeth with missiles , sensors etc which cost you £ 8m just for the module and 4 APC modules. If your super duper turreted module chassis breaks down. You swap that module to one of the other 4 working chassis and lose an APC not your turreted version. If you buy a “cheaper” non-modular APC or IFV , whichever version breaks down is broken down. With Boxer you decide… Read more »
Very true, understand the rationale behind it,, but that’s assuming that the MOD purchase a load of extra modules? Unfortunately I can’t really see that happening, nor a logistics system to lug said modules around in case they are needed, can you?
More than likely, it will be “we need that module active now, what can we afford to loose?”. If you are under attack, a 155mm module, 105mm module or a mortar module is likely more useful that an APC module. Land mines & ied’s are more likely to take out the chassis than the module. Add in inevitable mechanical breakdowns or even normal servicing. Even at a 1 to 1 ratio, it’s likely there are more available modules than chassis most of the time.
If you have a mix in the field you only need a crane or jacks to move a module. If you’ve got 10 APC and 10 Brimstone ones in the field and a Brimstone breaks down, and it’s more important to you than the APC ones, an hour to take an APC module off and replace with a Brimstone module gets you the Brimstone one operational again. Spend time repairing your now broken APC one. I’m not talking about in battle , obviously, just on deployment. Not expecting them to take a load of modules along on low loaders for… Read more »
I can see us having some ‘spare’ modules of differing variants – not sure if we will have all that many, but who knows, perhaps we may yet be surprised.
I can also see these ‘spare’ modules sitting within the Boxer battalions locations, so things can get changed around prior to any deployment. I just cant see a deployed BCT carting lots of ‘spare’ modules around on a ‘just in case’ basis. They would surely have enough to transport around as it is!
REME of course repair equipment in the combat zone.
Got it in one.
I am a “hater” :o) i think it is too expensive but the biggest problem is model choice that BA have done. In 500 initial order there are less than 100 that go to infantry.
Umm. 4 x Bns ( too few by far) 14 per Coy plus Anti Tank, Mortar and BHQ CP’s. More like 50 per Bn, equals 400 ish by my maths. Actually their is a fifth Mech Bn in 20 Bde. Don’t ask me why so 450 then.
Agreed, a crazy plan with to many C2 and Amb variants. This is being looked at however I believe.
Correct. 80 some thing infantry section vehicles and over around C2.
Warrior had 432 alongside it for other roles so Boxer needs a cheaper partner vehicle too. Then maybe we could mechanize more than 5 battalions of infantry. Foxhound LM Inf in 7 LMBCT excepted.
The only reason Warrior had 432 alongside it though was because Warrior replaced 432 as the prime armoured trooptransport, and 432 support vehicles where already in service.
More a case of choosing to penny pinch by not upgrading them to Warrior chassis than a deliberate two tier fleet procurement.
Ok, yes fair enough. Would it not make sense to replicate that by design now if the supporting vehicle, ABSV, MRVP, whatever, is cheaper and allows the main Boxer asset concentrated in more fighty roles?
Or would another type meaning another logistic tail negate the saving?
I suspect it would negate the savings? I mean it’s not exactly a large number of vehicles right? 28 or so? Is it really worth buying a bespoke armoured mortar carrier to follow up a boxer purchase? (I could also point out that the 432 operated… operates as the armoured ambulance for the Warrior formations and we are getting a Boxer Ambulance etc, so this conundrum doesn’t just apply to Mortars.)
*Edit*
ALSO remember that the Boxer we are buying is not and IFV, it’s an APC. Even the infantry carrying version isn’t exactly “fighty”.
”Fighty” modules exist though. That’s the whole mantra of the Boxer system. It’s quicker to build a boxer module than an equivalent complete armoured vehicle. I would also mention that a number of companies offer compatible RWS systems that go as far as 30mm cannon (Konsberg, EOS, Thales etc). Making an APC module “fighty” is not hard. Not necessarily cheap, but not hard.
They exist but we are not buying them, and as I said elsewhere, getting rid of 20 odd boxers mortar variants, and then going through the procurement of an alternate vehicle that will need to do the same job, would not release enough funds to buy “fighty” IFV Boxer variants. In fact, knowing UK procurement I suspect buying 20 bespoke mortar carriers would end up being more expensive than buying 20 Boxer Mortar modules.
Over around, ffs phone. Around 200 from memory.
WR only had 432 for mortar and ambulance roles, because the beancounters wouldn’t fund a full set of WR.
Genuine question and certainly not hating on it; what is it that makes Boxer special beyond modularity with the mission modules? It seems expensive, heavy, difficult for air-mobility due to aforementioned weight, and non-amphibious. On the positives, and I know the modularity is huge, is it especially well armoured or equipped? Like what makes it stand out over the likes of Patria etc?
That’s it’s UK developed and now UK made is a positive position as shows defence is a job creater. You touched on it mainly if you compare it to warrior or Ajax which cannot be airlifted the boxer can with adjustments fit inside atlus which is a game changer for deployability. The cost point of view it is expensive but again compared to warrior and Ajax the only other armoured vehicles available it comes in relatively cheap with modules. And it’s those modules which set it apart, with limited budgets why sit on whole fleets of dedicated vehicles when you… Read more »
If you want a light tank/ tank destroyer version, already available (MGS version with 105mm gun turret). 155mm howitzer module already exists. RWS systems with 30mm cannon & onboard ATGM for most modules readily available. These are all well known well respected companies. Ajax, even if they eventually make it work gives you what exactly? FFS, Redback & Lynx make Ajax look 3rd class at best (& that’s provided they eventually can make it work).
I wonder how much £?
Genuine question (not joking): why one of these is better than say 20x Toyota Land Cruisers each with a motor wedged in the back?
Better protection, especially from mines. They can carry more mortars. The mortar itself could we’ll end up in a UAV of some sort and travel short distances before returning for a reload but keep troops away counter battery fire.
“mortar” sorry.
A 120mm mortar wouldn’t fit with crew and ammunition in the back of a Toyota Land Cruiser. It would also be less commonality across the vehicle fleet(although in the case of a Toyota Land Cruiser it would be negligible. Crew protection from small arms and artillery would be vastly inferior in the Toyota. Cross country mobility would also be less. You would also have to implement proper storage racks for the mortar rounds, and I doubt it would carry the weight of the mortar, crew, and ammunition above a 60mm mortar.
Ive been banging on about this varient for some time. Forgter the 81mm, leave that “light” role (not light jumping out of a Herc with the bloody baseplate on your bergan) and concentrate on the 120mm. The Boxer could be the saving grace for the Army, in regard to possible future numbers, varients and in service dates. Heres hoping.
Forgter WTF? Forget…..
Am I right in saying the British Army has never used that calibre?
Can you really see them changing?
Don’t recall the Navy using 57mm guns either, and 40mm is a bit of a faded memory. Type 31 has both. The times they are a changing.
(Past calibers do not guarantee future purchases. Terms and Conditions apply.)
Fair point.
I’m quite excited about the T31s gun combo myself.
Perhaps I am the odd one out. Quite like the 40mm L70.
The difference is role however, 120mm mortar would require a new type of sub-unit and a new type of role, requiring a new doctrine.
Switching the main gun of a ship from 4.5in to 57mm doesn’t change it’s role, nor does it really need a new doctrine.
Right…. Too big for Mortar Platoon in a Mechanized Battalion? Or are they more suited at RA Regimental level?
I imagine so? I suspect you’d find they’d be in RA Batteries rather than within infantry battalions, but you never know, might be a conops for using them in mechanised/armoured formations?
Also; apropos of nothing:
https://youtu.be/8Adnt_oqsUM?t=300
While changing from the Mk 8 to more NATO standard 5″ is a natural progression, the 57mm does suggest a change in role, and hasn’t Army doctrine already changed twice in the last three years? To an outsider it seems everything army vehicle other than Boxer and Challenger 3 is up for grabs right now.
It does change its role. 57mm is not capable of NGFS. 57mm is not good at anti surface either unless you are an overarmed speed boat. A ship armed with a 4.5” that suddenly finds it replaced with a 57mm will definitely need a new doctrine.
Because a Type 23 is going to be engaging surface targets with it’s 4.5inch right? This isn’t Tomorrow Never Dies.
And source please for 57mm not being capable of NGFS please.
At the end of the day it’s just replacing a ship with a different ship. Adding 120mm would probably mean a complete reconfiguration of a RA regiment.
Dern General consensus is that 76mm is marginal for NGFS. 57mm is not even in the picture. It does have a secondary indirect fire mode. Against troops in the open, it has some utility. So does the 40mm/L70. The problem is weight of shell is too low against any sort of bunker or reinforced structure. It doesn’t penetrate. Even normal commercial reinforced concrete buildings is too much for it. The 57mm equates to the old 6 pounder. 76mm equates to around 14 pound shell weight. 76mm volcano is slightly lighter, but goes out to 40km. Like firing 5.56mm at any… Read more »
So, kind of like I suspected, nothing that actually backs it up. Cool.
Oh and now we’ve moved to goalposts to OPV’s engaging each other within range with guns. Okay. Can you show me a single example of two OPV’s shooting at each other please?
Correct mate to my knowledge but as things shape up in future, knowing what we now know due to Ukraine, and the understanding that NATO needs to re-invigorate itself, a 120mm would be NATO standard, and quite cheap for the capability it brings. 👍
Unless it’s this NEMO, which I’ve just discovered. Crikey…
We did in WW2 right up to Korea, each Bde had a heavy weapons Bn. OK it was a 4 2 inch mortar but that roughly equates.
Last time the UK had a heavy mortar was 4.2″ in WW2 to the late 1950s. For some reason 120mm has never been taken up by the British Army
Amazing how the brain self corrects. I read your post & never noticed.
I’d hate to agree to disagree, but…. This offering by Rheinmetall is a halfway house. We could do better as there’s better on the market, that can be fitted to a Boxer module, such as the NEMO system. The turret is fully 360 traversable. The 120mm breech loading mortar is fully stabilized along with a -10 to +80 elevation. It is classed as a gun mortar, so it can be used for the direct as well as indirect fire requirement. The Rheinmetall one can’t. Granted it won’t be able to knock out a MBT in the direct fire mode. But… Read more »
Agreed mate, seen it and like it, but maybe we have to be realistic and realise a halfway house is better than a tent 👍! I’m more concerned about getting a 120mm into service, and if it has the features the Boxer variant has I’m not going to argue. Cheers 👍
I am hoping (probably in vain) that with the promised increased to 3% defence budget. The NAMO will be near the top of the Army’s wish list. Mind you, getting the 120 mortar in to service with the Rheinmetall offering will likely be cheaper and quicker. Where the 120 would make an immediate impact (lol) in increased capability.
If you don’t stop banging those 12 by 12 poles together, you and me are going to have a reckoning! 😉
The direct fire capability really would make a difference, especially if you’re going to spend all that £££ on putting the mortar on an a Boxer rather than a cheaper or lighter armoured vehicle.
Sorry, this topic is considerably outside my wheelhouse of expertise; wish to pose several questions: 1.) Presumably mortars are utilized to provide. a cost effective method of providing relatively short distance, indirect fire support to infantry formations (mechanized or not). Are mortars accurate enough in trained hands to use in urban warfare, or is risk of collateral damage too great due to imprecise targeting? In other words, is the only viable scenario for employment that of open terrain against a similarly equipped, maneuvering, opposing force? Are mortars effective against well prepared defensive positions? 2.). Missing the rationale of dedicating a… Read more »
Principally it can get large amounts of fire power closer to where it’s needed. In many instances with smaller mortars they have been replaced by ATGW like Javelin which can be used to attack entrenched positions. However this practice is crazy expensive. Vehicle mounted heavy mortars are attracting more interest as artillery becomes more expensive and reduced in number. Something like a boxer can be an expensive way to deploy it but it’s also a very good way to keep in mobile and deployed with the troops. Mortar rounds themselves also open up the door to more types of mission… Read more »
Hadn’t considered their utility in targeting reverse slope positions. 🤔 Thanks.
Also most turreted mortar systems like NAMO for example, can be used in a direct fire mode. Though a MBT may shrug it off, not much else will & your house definitely won’t.
Hi mate, one of the biggest draw and advantage of a mortar in UK service is that it’s the Battalion’s organic support weapon, which is operated by the Bns Sp Coy. Normal strength of 8 barrels, can be divided into sections of two, and distributed to support Rifle Coys or operate as an independent unit providing OS to its own people. Accurate as can be expected as controlled by an MFC as part (nowadays) of the FST. High angle capability and short range as required. Good against prepared defensive positions but options are limited on the Fuzes. Suitable for both… Read more »
Airborne,
Thanks for the mortar ops. primer! Would have been willing to hazard some significant coin on a bet that mortars would not be precise enough to employ in urban environments. 😉 Did realize logistics would be more complicated for 120mm as opposed to 81mm.
Mate, mortars in association with a 7.62mm gimpy are the backbone of a UK infantry company. In the UK, the 81mm tube has been the go-to weapon for the last 60 years. Principally because a section can carry the tube, bipod, baseplate and ammo shared amongst the troops. The 120mm is a beast. Yes, it can be broken down into parts. But the weight penalty of the shells/bombs weigh considerably more than the 81’s. A section will struggle to carry anything meaningful for fire support, Due to the larger volume of the 120 shell/bomb. It contains more explosive, so will… Read more »
DaveyB,
Thanks for the extremely comprehensive answer! Did not realize rounds could be fitted w/ guidance kit; tech moves on apace. Really thought AF had a near monopoly on precision munitions (just kidding, 😁).
If you visit the ‘UK Land Power’ website, there is an article on Modern mortar systems submitted by a Finnish army officer I believe – it’s a good read.
Thanks Deep, will check it out.
There have been a few armoured mortar carriers in UK and US service (in the US M113s and Strykers, in the UK 432’s). Mortars, unlike other artillery are usually integral parts of infantry battalions, and operate, at least conceptually, further forward than the regular artillery (especially smaller mortars like the 81mm on 432/113/Stryker). The logic always seems to have been to put the mortars on the same vehicles as the infantry in order to simplify logistics and allow the mortars to go where the infantry goes (before someone says “Infantry aren’t in 432’s”, they once upon a time where, when… Read more »
Thanks, didn’t grasp the benefit of an embedded weapon w/ infantry, as opposed to reliance on massed artillery formations. 🤔
I’m going to ask a really basic question I don’t know.
How does the mortar shoot out the tube?
Is it like a big bullet? When you drop it in it hits a firing pin that goes bang and it’s fires it out?
I can’t think how else it works.
Next thing is when I see a mortar round how much of it is used up for firing and how much of it is the explosive bang part.
Okay, so starting with a caveat, I don’t work in mortars, I have once been attached to a mortar line and fired one a couple times, and have co-workers who are qualified mortar peeps but it definitely isn’t, and wasn’t my job. Also apologies if this comes across a bit condescending, I’m keeping it in simple terms in part to make it more understandable and in part, because as I said, not a mortar person, because I don’t know the technical jargon. That out of the way, Mortars are pretty simple, there is a fixed firing pin at the bottom… Read more »
Thank you. Simple explanation is always best. I’d seen a picture of a round before and as a guess I thought those extra charges were instead added on weights to shorten the range.
Mortars seem simple but very effective.
Again thanks for explaining so well
Only if it gets a decent gun . Love the .50 cal for COIN out of area Ops etc it’s great but when fronting up to BMP2 – BTR90 we will be massively out gunned . Even without stabilisation Warrior with 30mm properly handled can more than hold its own. Did Gulf War 1 and 2 in a Warrior Bn so think I should know.
Nice! A lot of people have talked about the importance of a mortar firing version for the success of Strike and other similar distributed ops. Simpler than the turreted Patria NEMO, and I guess a bit less swish, but likely cheaper and easier to implement. The blurb talks about being able to find targets and engage them with multiple rounds quickly etc. I’m not sure what within all of that the module is providing other than a base to fire from and storage for the ammo. Are there sensors and firing solution computers, and all of that gubbins in there… Read more »
I assume brimstone is more for NLOS. Something like Javelin would be better for most vehicles. Interestingly though there is a video on forces news from a few years back where RTR personnel were asked for how they wanted a challenger 3. It came out with a shovel on the front for urban combat and a brimstone launcher on top. The Mortar carrier variant is still one of the variants of the specialist carrier variant, which includes, recce, fire support, repair and engineer section vehicle. The specialist carrier variant in turn is one of the four variants we ordered. The… Read more »
Fair point, Javelin would ikely be a better fit- but I guess we should definitely find out why the RTR want them!😋
I somehow didn’t realise that this was a variant that we’ve actually ordered, I’m glad to hear it! You’re probably right about the 81mm thing though, bit of a shame there…
In my opinion, if you are going for SP 120mm it needs to be capable of direct fire. This unit does not appear to offer that. Most turreted versions can do both indirect & direct fire. 81mm – ok. There is a limit to what you can achieve versus say a Carl Gustav fired out of the same vehicle by a crew member. 120mm though makes one hell of a bang. I don’t actually mind towed 120mm. Great via helicopter, but miles ahead of a towed 105 when it comes to scoot & shoot. You can even relocate by manpower… Read more »
Is there any operational reason you would choose an 81mm over 120mm?
I would have thought as the footprint of the vehicle is identical in either case and the size difference for ammo isn’t going to be massively different, that you would always prefer bigger, if you are lopping explosives at an enemy position.
Is it just down to cost or is there a miltiary reason.
You can carry more rounds and less collateral damage in urban environments. In some cases 120mm might be overkill.
I would say the majority of cases especially when mounted in a boxer the heavier round would be the preference.
We operate 81mm now and have large stocks of it. It would also mean we would have to operate two types as 120mm would probably be too heavy for Para and RM.
I assume I’m general it is about cost given even the US army choose 81mm, probably for commonality.
81mm is good for dismounted troops as the launchers are smaller, but that doesn’t apply to a vehicle version. Not sure if the US use 81 for vehicles though.
My mistake, I believe the US use 120mm for armoured and Stryker units. My point about two ammunition types still stands though. If boxer operates with 155mm artillery, CH2/3 and 81mm mortar anyway then would a 120mm mortar really be worth it? If we did go back on strike it would however be extremely useful.
It would be interesting to know how the range and kill zones compare between the two versions.
81mm between 100m – 5.6K and 120mm out to around 9K variant dependant. Supposed kill radius planning is 35M and 60m respectively but will depend on the ground and terrain.
Rocket propelled goes out to 15-17km. Price goes up of course.
Pretty significant difference. I guess if you want to min colateral damage then the smaller version might have a place, but couldn’t you then just pack them with less explosives, allowing option for bigger impact when needed.
Visit ‘UK Land Power’, scroll down and there is a good article on Modern mortar systems.
Yeah if your fighting in mountains or jungle or coming in by helo from the sea.
I assume your taking man portable/weight reasons, as can’t see why mountain or jungle warfare would impact using a smaller ammo for a vehicle lauched system, unless I’m missing something.
As I mentioned to Airborne further down, there is significantly better on the market. The Rheinmetall offering is a relatively poor substitute for what we could have fitted to Boxer, which is the NEMO gun-mortar system. It is fitted to the PATRIA 8×8, which is dimensionally similar to the Boxer. However, the NEMO offers significantly more capability as it can be fired for both the direct and indirect requirements. For the Boxer light/strike/mobility whatever they’re called this week brigades. Having a high mobility vehicle that can keep up with the forward line of engagement along with high speed dashes to… Read more »
If the MOD expressed interest I’m sure a turreted 120mm mortar boxer variant could be made relatively quickly.
Hi DaveyB
Some advice please… does the Boxer chassis leave UK 🇬🇧 with the Module attached or do we have chassis’s stored around the world and fly/ship the needed Module as required
Will we order more Modules than Chassis’s
Sorry if I haven’t made myself clear
Many thanks Ian
Hi Ian, at this point it will be difficult to tell. In the ideal world you would have different mission modules fitted around the world. Do that a Boxer chassis can be easily airlifted to a stores area, get kitted up and self ferry to where it’s needed.
However, being a tad cynical, I expect the UK will only purchase enough modules to match the chassis. Though with the Government’s proposed increase to 3% defence budget, who knows?
or the other way around? Preposition drive modules with a number of the more generic backs on them. Fly out specialist backs as needed based on the circumstances at the time?
Could be, as I’m sure some staffer is creaming themselves over deliberating of the many scenarios Boxer and it’s modules gives us.
Why are the crew still exposed?
The Boxer variants being procured for the UK are meant to replace Mastiff and Husky MRAP Vehicles and are regarded as APCs. What we will be initially getting are the 4 variants shown at the top of this diagram.
Initially yes but very sadly and foolishly not now the case, Boxer will now have to replace our Warrior IFV in our two remaining Arnd Bde’s. Within the Inf we will lose the awesome firepower of the 30mm cannon to be replaced by Boxer’s .50 MG. . In any peer on.peer conflict or even against a second rate army with Soviet era BMP/BTR we will be completely outmatched. A good vehicle yes in terms of mobility and possibly protection, but firepower – no.
Boxer is not a replacement for Warrior and neither is Ajax, they are not purposed as IFVs. Seems the MOD has no plans to procure any new IFVs.
Which means if Ajax can’t make it, it Boxer is it. Unless more money is found for alternatives.
Boxer APC does not serve the same role as Ajax and given the MOD / army has not ordered any scout/recon version we dont know what will be chosen yet.
I watched this video last night of the 155mm SPG varient of the boxer shooting on the move
What an absolute Frankenstein of a vehicle! I really like boxer literally has a role for everything, how long until there’s a coastal antiship variant
Reasonably simple job. If Konsberg can design a module to fit on an Australian Bushmaster utility vehicle for NSM, doing the same for Boxer should be more than doable. Question is though, why?
The Brimstone variant could fill that role in part… Obviously not going to sink a major warship but could do serious damage to landing / raiding craft or corvette / FAC…
Also the Brimstone can be aimed at a specific part of the ship so it could do serious damage to even large warships, e.g. knock the radar of the top of the mast. The ship would then be a sitting duck to any passing fighter with a LGB.
Cheers CR
81mm unless with guided rounds i think it is a waste for this vehicle and even then…
81mm Morter is a 5km range weapon which means the Boxer will be just at frontline but with no APS.
Showing the limits of short range weapons…
Havrylov pointed to the Javelin surface-to-air(My note, should be anti tank missile), shoulder-fired missile as an example. Early in the conflict scores of Javelin shipments sent to the war helped Ukrainians destroy even modernized Russian tanks.
However, the missile has its limits, chiefly range.
And Russians took note.
“It’s all about anti-tank systems with a range of up to 5 kilometers,” he said. “Javelin is okay but is only has a range of 2.5 kilometers. Russia stopped closing to us in less than 5 kilometers.”
Defencenews article
Putin has just signed another decree allowing the option in the future to mobilise over a million Ruskie rapist, looting murders to join the ranks of the great unwashed ork horde. I think they (the Ruskies) will go over to the defensive over the winter and hide behind massed ranks of artillery to keep the Ukrainians at bay and then prepare these hordes for a renewed spring offensive. The question is can the Ukrainians continue their offensive operations and recapture larger tracts of their country from the Ork hordes before these massed murdering hordes come online? Could Ukraine through offensive… Read more »
And there be the question – fingers crossed.
Yes, it’s feasible. Firstly, they need to take a big chunk out of the Russian air defence network, which then allows Ukraine more freedom to hunt artillery. By using the TB2s and other drones as sacrificial bait, HARM equipped Mig29s can then take out the SAM radars, when they illuminate the drones. If the Russians don’t light up the drones, the drones can carry on hunting for the artillery. Which when found gets taken out by MLRS, HIMRS, FH70 etc. Without the artillery shield, the Russians seem to be very ponderous with effective defensive, though they have proven rather adapt… Read more »
What;s the offer from North Korea?
DaveyB,
Thanks for projecting possible scenarios. Had not realized the scum sucking, slimeball NKs could join the party. 😳
I think it’s interesting that a lot of people will bemoan the search for a “gold plated” solution, and say we should go for the 80% solution, but then when we are presented with an 80% soultion there are howls about us being able to get better. Is NEMO better than this? Almost certainly. Would it cost more to aquire and put into service (not to mention intigrate onto Boxer) than simply plopping a 81mm mortar that we already have into the damn thing? Yes it would. The army has much bigger fish to fry than finding a 100% bespoke… Read more »
The problem here is that Boxer is such an expensive base vehicle that putting a economy module on it seems like paying 80% for 20%.
If you were restating the Stormer production line to run off vehicles fitted out with this to give to Ukraine then OK. They will need lots of gear.
For our needs we seem committed to an expensive base vehicle, and our lifetime expenses will mainly be pay, so go for the best and fit AMOS.
If you think a 81mm mortar is 20% of the solution and that boxer as opposed to a bespoke vehicle is 80% of the price (at 30 odd vehicles) I have news for you.
I don’t really see the point of this platform when there is already a twin barreled AMOS available.
120mm
Go large or go home
It’s about time we used automatic systems in 120mm for armoured regiments leave the 81mm for the dismounted light infantry