Patria and Rheinmetall have revealed the first UK prototype of the Boxer Armoured Mortar Variant at the Defence Vehicle Dynamics (DVD2024) exhibition in Millbrook, Bedfordshire.
This new collaboration showcases cutting-edge technology designed to enhance the British Army’s battlefield capabilities, with a focus on mobility, firepower, and crew protection.
The prototype features the advanced Patria NEMO 120mm turreted mortar system, integrated onto Rheinmetall’s highly mobile and protected Boxer platform.
Among its key features, the Armoured Mortar Variant boasts a high rate of fire, achieving up to 10 rounds per minute. It also offers fire-on-the-move capability, allowing the vehicle to engage targets while in transit, reducing vulnerability to counter-battery fire. Additionally, the system can perform both direct and indirect fire, adding flexibility to various combat scenarios.
The Multiple Rounds Simultaneous Impact (MRSI) capability allows the system to deliver up to five rounds to hit a target simultaneously, increasing its impact on the battlefield.
“We are excited to present this innovative Armoured Mortar Variant at the DVD2024 exhibition,” said Rebecca Richards, Deputy CEO at Rheinmetall Vehicle Systems International.
“This collaboration with Patria underscores our shared commitment to advancing military technology and providing the UK’s armed forces with the best possible equipment.”
Hugo Vanbockryck, Senior Vice President Market Area Europe at Patria, added: “The Armoured Mortar Variant represents a significant leap forward in superior battlefield capabilities. We are proud to partner with Rheinmetall in delivering this state-of-the-art solution to our customers.”
The new system provides an extended range of up to 10 kilometres, enabling it to support frontline troops from safer distances. Its design prioritises operator safety, allowing crews to remain protected within the vehicle while delivering firepower, enhancing both survivability and deterrence.
Attendees of the DVD2024 exhibition are invited to explore the Armoured Mortar Variant and other innovations at Patria and Rheinmetall’s booths.
There is still no official confirmation that this is being bought by the Army AFAIK?
Indeed, but there must be a requirement driving all these developments
Not really, often manufacturers will make prototypes just to see if something sticks, or to have it in the back pocket in case a future government asks for ideas.
Boxer seems to encourage this by only requiring the manufacturer to make a module and letting the customer source the rest.
I’m curious if we’ll ever see other vehicles that can accept boxer modules.
Supacat have proposed putting the lighter ones on their 6-axle platforms. The challenge is that boxer is tall and quite cylindrical, so it doesn’t really fit into the normal low and boxy tracked AFV format. I know there’s tracked boxer, but that’s always seemed a bit weird to me…
Why weird? It’s the logical next step once the decision is made to buy into Boxer modularity. Especially for a miniscule army like ours that still has a need for tracked AFVs to accompany the pitifully few Challenger 3 MBT’s. It gives the versatility of deploying in either wheeled or tracked platforms. Troops only need to be trained on one set of modules. Driver mechs being trained for both high mobility wheeled and tracked hulls. It even permits the use of relatively low running cost wheeled platforms for familiarity training. Rather than wearing out the more expensive tracked hulls. I… Read more »
believe me, I’m a big fan of modularity wherever possible! My issue with tracked Boxer is the legacy of the V-shaped hull design on the wheeled version for mine protection- it’s very high. That carries over into the tracked unit, as far as I can see from the photos at least. Having a high centre of gravity compromises the off-road mobility justification for tracks, in my opinion. As you say, we’re probably close or in the category of beggars and so our luxury for choosing is limited. But that’s my tuppence anyway, I’d rather explore the modularity/shared parts opportunities from… Read more »
Modularity and multipurpose are good ideas, so long as no compromises are made. If done correctly and not for financial reasons. Your point about V shaped Boxer hull shape is valid. I do not recall reading anything about dimensions for the tracked hull. It’s now my homework for the weekend. In the perfect world, I’d like to have seen a completely new British designed and built. MBT. The tank hull being the base unit for a whole family of vehicles including: Heavy IFVs, Air Defence and self propelled artillery of various kinds. Along with the plethora of combat engineer, REME… Read more »
Agreed, modularity for its own sake is no good either. To be honest, I don’t know for sure what tracked boxer’s roofline is- the photos just make it look very tall. I’d be interested to know what you find out! New heavy AFV hulls as part of CH3 would have been a nice touch, no argument there. It’s a shame our budget just won’t reach that far. What is most baffling to me is keeping the same powerpack output though- interviews with Ukrainian tankers have stated that they find it lacks something in the power department compared to Leo2s and… Read more »
Best I could do is this from the manufacture, as posted to the TD Think Defence site. Boxer Armoured Vehicle — Details and Variants dated November 2022.
I’ll post the actual link in separate reply.
From the data I have seen in Ukraine, wheeled vehicles have a limited utility. They cannot be used for six months of the year, either side of winter because they are useless in their mud. Then you see so many wheeled units with several tyres shredded on one side rendering the unit inoperable. One has to question their utility in a heavy European winter. Of the 90 Stryker’s Ukraine had from the US, in 2023, they only have 24 operational. The Russians have trophied 9 of them, I know it’s old tech, but it’s still tech the Russians never had… Read more »
While I don’t disagree with a lot of what you say, I would observe that Ukraine holds legendary status when it comes to mud conditions in autumn and spring- I’m not sure we should judge wheeled vehicles purely on their ability to operate there. I’ve seen plenty of videos of them hauling T-72s out of mud up to their turrets too. That said, I don’t know how Boxer compares in the armour department to Striker or even Warrior and Ajax- I believe it’s closer to the Warrior but I could be wrong. The increased vulnerability of the wheels remains though.… Read more »
Sold it to me, can see how a less ideal design can in this case especially make up for it in other ways.
Are you aware of the tracked hull that is capable of accepting all Boxer modules. Search tracked Boxer.
The De-Havilland Mosquito comes to mind. Don’t know about more recently but used to be very common for manufacturers to build on spec and the MoD (or equivalent) build or modify an official requirement around it. I guess complexity and cost restricts it to combining existing (or in design) elements together rather than complete platforms produced on spec.
We are buying a Boxer mortar carrier, but MoD has not stated the make and calibre of the mortar.
It would make sense to put a heavy mortar on a boxer..sticking a 81mm on it seems a bit wasteful and pointless..when you can in reality just sling a man portable 81mm in the back of the APC version..the whole benefit vs compromise with 120mm is it’s just about the most destructive tube artillery you can easily deploy..but it’s not really that man portable and needs to be self propelled or at least have a portage and deployment system. Interestingly the US army striker mortar squads have both the vehicle mounted 120mm mortar and also a man portable 60mm in… Read more »
Jonathan, the Ukrainians have done just that. They have attached a foldable heavy mortar on the MAN Tatra. The Smereka automated mobile mortar system looks like a 7.5tn van’s tail lift on the back of a recovery vehicle. From pulling up to shooting their first mortor it’s as little as 30 seconds. It costs far, far less than the £4m the taxpayer will have to shell out for a mortar version of the Boxer.
I’m sure it’s mentioned somewhere in the literature. If I find it again I’ll post it.
120mm turreted and not the open top version shown back in 2021. Obviously someone has been watching the Ukraine footage and responded positively for a change.
We are certainly buying Boxer mortar carriers in Tr1, but I don’t think it has been stated what type of mortar or its calibre.
That thing looks very sci-fi
Have you seen the BAE CV90 Mjolner mortar system. Also their more expensive self loading twin 120mm example called AMOS. The AMOS mortar turret is available for light patrol boats too.
This is a really nice system, fully stabilised etc.
It also has a naval variant.
Could that be an option as a Fire Support variant of whatever becomes the Commando Insertion Craft?
10km range. Is this enough? would a 105mm gun mount be better?
Presumably its a decent size bomb but with all this talk of long range fires, 10k seems a bit close?
Can imagine this on a Commando Insertion craft, massive clout just where you need it.
Would a turreted 105mm be able to do the howitzer role? All of the typical fire support turrets seem to be direct fire. This is essentially weight of fire for the Boxer formations, etc. I agree with the other posters that a lighter mount or even retaining infantry mortars is needed, a Boxer is too cumbersome for a lot of situations. If the Marines are going to be serious about raiding and lots of damage with small forces, some sort of more flexible (ie not warship based) fire support will be needed at the ranges they want to stay away… Read more »
Sure a 105 in a turret could do the Howitzer role, look at Abbot, or Boxer RCH 155. The issue isn’t “can you do it” it’s that optimising a design for fire support by Howitzers, vs optimising a design for DF has inherrent contradictions.
Sorry, my reply was a bit vague.
I meant that most current turrets offered for fire support are direct fire, and I haven’t heard of one that does both, not that an automatic 105mm artillery turret isn’t possible.
Most light 105mm platforms seem to be on smaller vehicles like the HMT, rather than enclosed turrets on large vehicles like Boxer. Do you know of any that are?
CV90 Mjoher and AMOS are prime examples. AMOS being the class leader. Incidentally the plunging trajectory of mortars is most desirable for reverse slop targets and well dug-in infantry. 105mm fire support cannot match the barrel elevation.
Technically all turrets do both. I point that out because some commentators on this platform have this weird idea that things are exculively one or the other.
I don’t think there are any 105mm artillery spg’s with enclosed turrets in service at the moment, not off the top of my head, but that’s more because 105 has kind of fallen out of favour as dedicated artillery in NATO in favour of 155 in the past 20 years, but historically both the American M108 and British Abbot SPG’s where enclosed 105 indirect fire SPGs.
A Boxer infantry battalion needs Boxer mortar carriers and they have been ordered. Lighter infantry units need lighter mortar solutions, such as the manportable 81mm mortar we have today.
But, I believe they are no different to the 432 in that it is an open hatch so still extra vulnerability for the team?
Same issue, stuck on one of the most expensive APCs money can buy.
I haven’t seen info on the Boxer mortar carrier. Best answer would be twin 120mm mortar with full crew protection.
Aren’t the Army looking at 10km ATGW range as the next step? Could a few boxer 120 mortars dotted amongst the MIV , Ajax and C3 with smart munitions cover that zone. Bonus type rounds or even a mortar shell with an active seeker as proposed in the 1980s.
Drones could be packaged into a round that size to extend the range.
Shooting whilst on the move makes it more survivable.
Boxer 155 in support to 40km and M270 to 150km should make 105 unnecessary.
Yes, I saw TD’s article about the guided AT mortar rounds- combine that with modern drone tech and you’ve got quite the anti-armour capability out of a 120 mm tube that can fire 10 rounds a minute!
I’m hoping we pull out of the cluster munitions treaty like Lithuania did, then we can get 120 mm DPICM rounds too. I know they don’t exist yet, just saying…
Why not 15inch guns 😀
It’s a mortar system not artillery.
Surely 2 15/42 guns are enough ? They just need a bit of work 🥴
120mm mortar have much more capability than a 105mm gun, the round trajectory make it ideal. Usually a 120mm mortar round is considered equivalent to a 155mm artillery round.
Excellent question, is 10km the practical range limit for unboosted 120mm munitions? More familiar w/ types released from a/c. 🤔😉
Mortars released from aircraft?
Underwing mortar gun pods?
😍😍😍😍
Behave!
Imagine though.
If they were attached to the bay doors of the F35 or Tempest and flipped out 🤩🥳
I’m trying to!
I guess you were “very excited” by the USAF Spectre C130s with a 105mm gun inside?
All of the mounts should be 105s
The Broadside Plane
Look, I’m not asking for much. Just a C-130 with a rotary 105mm cannon in the nose.
😎 Like the A10?
I’d settle for our C130s back with nothing in the nose!
You know how they made a refuelling module for A400?
How about that, but instead it’s a 155mm gun pointing backwards out of the rear ramp and 105 howitzers out of the side loading doors.
A big fat target mate!
😆
Mortars are indirect fire support for an infantry battalion. Their role is close combat with the enemy in visual range. They are not into long range fires. 10km is more than the current 81mm mortar.
Mortar are to be used also outside visual range, their trajectory makes them idea for behind the hill fire and mountainous terrain.
Mortars can be used for that, but their main role is to support infantry that are in close combat. Those troops don’t want to carry big radios and when they call in a fire mission they don’t want to wait 2 minutes for it to arrive. So for those reasons the mortar has to be close by. I think 81mm is enough.
I was mortars and 81mm is now just not cutting it most nato military’s are using 120mm and having watched quite a few Ukraine videos and don’t seem that bothered by the 82mm but the 120mm blow fortified positions to bits
120mm mortars are essential unless some cheap guided round appears for 81mm.
German Army in WW2 developed the 120mm mortar after seeing the results of Soviet one (based on standard French) on their own troops.
By the end of the war the 120 and 81 mortar being much more easy to build much more lighter and with a bigger rate of fire replaced the infantry guns 150 and 75 mm in German army.
I don’t believe anyone would use 120mm mortars close. Lethal radius is 30-50meters with 10% fatality risk out to 100meter radius. your 120mm is lobbing 2000g to almost 5000g of HE your 81mm 300-400g. So your 120mm is more in the same range bang wise as a 155mm.
Indeed. My comment was about what the Toms primary role was. As I said the Inf is not into long range fires. You do of course need to spot the fall of shot and correct fire as required, so someone wil be lookig the other side of that hill. Spotting could be done with drone assistance of course.
Almost double in fact ..
The thing is a 120mm mortar is profoundly more destructive than 105, infact it’s more closer destructiveness wise to a 155mm. Remember it’s not replacing the longer range fires, there will still be 155mm self propelled and 105mm.
Direct fire 120mm motor, well that sorts out the direct fire requirements.
A mix of these, the 155mm SP variant and upgraded MLRS will make for a potent artillery/direct fire capability after years of famine, hopefully with a AD variant of boxer and more Sky Sabre sowing up that side of things.
As ever just need mass and speed of delivery!
Agreed a good mix, but no RCH155 ordered yet, no SP Mortars ordered yet, no AD Boxer ordered all seems good kit but no rush by the MOD to get it. Only item moving forward is MLRS A2. So will be a good few years for the kit enter service.
A lack of speed as normal and delay after delay and lack of action on getting things in to service.
I agree Martin, it is starting to get tiresome. There are so many solutions out there. I saw a Boxer AD variant with a gun turret on the roof, forget its name. It seems ideal for SHORAD.
A lot talked about but nothing ordered as per everything else is pie in the sky. Our artillery is a joke equipment wise. Lots of light guns and not a lot else and how can you replace AS90 with no orders? 14 FH77 s does not cut it.
👍
28 Boxer Mortar carriers have been ordered in Tr1. They are SP.
You got a link to that news? not saying you are wrong but i have not seen such a head line my self.
Look up the Wikipedia entry for Boxer. Scroll down to section on the British order. A contributing author would have got that info from somewhere whether it be a media report or MoD Press Release and there is usually a link to a footnote which is the source.
thank you
Is there any information on them being the 120mm turreted example? Good if there is.
Why not just buy the Swedish Mjölner ? No design or development costs and a proven system.
NEMO is already developed and has been around since 2013, the only new thing here is putting it on a Boxer.
Mjolner would probably be more complicated to put on Boxer, being a larger turret.
Surely we need this to replace the 81mm on FV432s?
We both know they’ll still pootling along on the moon in 2080.
that could get exciting in 1/6th of earth gravity. The ranges and trajectories could get rather epic (assuming they don’t achieve escape velocity).
Correct. Not sure anyone is doubting that. Boxer mortar carriers have been ordered in Tranche 1. What has not been stated is the make and calibre of its mortar.
28 Mortars included, I believe?
Correct. 28. Not enough of course. Need 40 for the 5 battalions plus some for Trg Org, RP and Attrition Reserve.
Carrier is different from this.It means it can be dismounted and fired from ground too.
Why would you want to do that? I doubt the 432 Mortar crews dismount their tubes. May be wrong but not sure what the advantages are, whilst there are plenty of disadvantages.
Impassable terrain and detectability would be my first reasons.
The U.S. striker mortar squads all have 60mm man portable mortars stashed in the back of the the 120mm armed strikers..so they can use those dismounted if needed…I suppose there are times when you want to use a 200g of HE and not 4000g.
Boxer mortar carrier is a role kit for the specialist carrier build configuration mission module. Another role kit is engineer – different racks, different equipment. The mortar carrier has equipment racks for mortar and bombs. The mortar is not stated, not new, it is just the 81 mm currently used.
ARTEC has developed and tested two Mortar mission modules, both for 120mm. RBSL has developed a mortar mission module, no details. Has MoD stated it is to mount the in-service 81mm? I missed that Press Release.
The MoD have not ordered a mortar mission module. They have ordered 200 specialist carrier mission modules of which 28 are to be fitted for mortars. I didn’t see a press release about using the 81 mm but that’s all they have.
OK. Thanks Paul. Useful info.
That’s exactly what it’s intended for ….
Why wouldn’t they fit more than one mortar to each since they aren’t 100% accurate you could have 3 or 4 fitted which target the area at slightly different points may.actually hit the targets then
Mortars don’t need to be 100% accurate.
True I didn’t take into.account frag rounds, but again at mortar range this boxer will be defeated by fpvs
FPV’s don’t have the mass of fire, or immediacy of Mortar fire, so no.
Everything on the battlefield from tanks to a single individual dismounted soldier is potentially vulnerable to defeat or damage by a FPV drone – irrespective of the range of the weapon carried on or by ‘the target’.
A 120mm mortar has a lethal radius of 30-50meters and 10% lethality rate out to 100meters .accuracy is optional with that level of destruction and your never using a 120mm mortar if your trying to limit the radius of destruction..they are nasty weapons ( the worst case study I read was around 70 dead and 140 wounded from one round).