A new supply chain contract has been signed for the provision of periscope and window systems for the Boxer armoured vehicle.

According to a news release from WFEL:

“Cwmbran-based GuS Periscopes will supply WFEL with Periscope and Window Systems for the Boxer vehicles, to be incorporated into both the Boxer Drive Module chassis and also the Mission Modules which WFEL will ultimately supply to the UK MoD. The systems from GuS were chosen for this programme because of their mission-proven safety, durability and quality and ensuring minimal technical and commercial risk to the Boxer Programme.”

Ian Anderton, WFEL Managing Director, commented:

“We are delighted to join forces with GuS Periscopes in Wales as part of our UK-wide supply chain roll-out for the MoD’s Boxer Programme and look forward to a successful partnership supporting our joint UK MOD customer.”

The firm that the multi-million Pound contract with WFEL will run for 10 years and will help to sustain a number of jobs at the GuS Periscopes site in Cwmbran, as well as supporting two new Engineering Apprentice roles starting in 2022.

Managing Director of GuS Periscopes, Anthony Caruana, said:

“Our proven Periscopes and Windows for the UK Boxer vehicles will be manufactured to unrivalled levels of quality and durability to fulfil the needs of the British Army MIV program, to ensure service personnel survive the rigours and hazards of combat and fulfil their critical missions. We are excited and proud to be supporting WFEL and to be fulfilling our purpose of ‘protecting those who protect us’.”

Recently, WFEL signed a contract with AeroGlow International for the supply of the latest HaLO Vehicle Egress Lighting Systems. You can read more about that by clicking here.

Additional Boxer armoured vehicle sub-contract awarded

Back in 2019, the Defence Secretary announced that a £2.8bn deal had been signed to provide the British Army with around 500 new armoured vehicles.

You can read more about that deal here.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
37 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bulkhead
Bulkhead
23 days ago

Could this be something for the Army that really works?

David Steeper
David Steeper
23 days ago
Reply to  Bulkhead

Well they joined then decided to pull out then rejoined again. So that probably counts as a success yes ! A cynic might say the programme benefitted from the absence of the Army during it’s development though. LOL.

Johan
Johan
22 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

It does seem that by removing the Army Top brass from the design process has allowed a balanced platform, RAF and Navy never get their requirements until the platform is delivered. Army wants a pen knife to fly Just because they want it to, never use it but it can Fly.

Steve
Steve
23 days ago
Reply to  Bulkhead

I was thinking last night, i wonder how many of the cyber projects actually end up with anything useful. Unlike traditional warfare purchases, you don’t have a tangible product that the public/media can hold the government/mod accountable for. Instead we just have vague statements about money being invested in it, without any idea if the money is being spent well or realistically spent at all. Based on covid PCR contracts and trying to hide details on deliveries under the guise of a national emergency, I can’t help wondering if this is the next big scam to say we are meeting… Read more »

Last edited 23 days ago by Steve
eclipse
eclipse
23 days ago
Reply to  Steve

Our defence budget for 2021/22 is 68 billion USD, and our GDP for last year was around 2.7. That means we should be spending at at least 54 billion this year. If we go by this years GDP, which is 3.1, we are still well above 62 billion. Even if it was an attempt to make our spending look bigger, the MoD doesn’t even claim to spend anywhere near 14 billion on cyber, so we can be confident we are exceeding the 2% target. In fact, we are at 2.5% this year.

https://www.janes.com/amp/uk-defence-budget-still-a-balancing-act/ZnlJK3dHVU9mZ28xajRJVkc5dVI5VFp1cVMwPQ2

Steve
Steve
22 days ago
Reply to  eclipse

For now yeah but the strategy is to spend more and more on cyber.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
23 days ago
Reply to  Bulkhead

The Boxer project started in 1993, Contract Award in 1999 and the first prototypes built in 2003. So rest assured that the vehicle is well sorted by now – some might say its base design is 20 years old and rather old hat!

None of the Boxer vehicle is cutting edge, as Ajax is, so a lot less to go wrong.

Last edited 23 days ago by Graham Moore
Pmichael
Pmichael
21 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

There is nothing cutting edge about the Ajax. Especially not the ASCOD heritage.

Terence Patrick Hewett
Terence Patrick Hewett
23 days ago

Good engineers up in Cwmbran.

Mark
Mark
23 days ago

Do we have any info yet on the Beyond line of sight Boxer yet supposed to be getting 24 of them?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
23 days ago
Reply to  Mark

?

eclipse
eclipse
23 days ago
Reply to  Mark

What about them. Aren’t they coming along with the rest of the lot?

Last edited 23 days ago by eclipse
Mark
Mark
23 days ago
Reply to  eclipse

Well you’d think so but no information about what missle/gun laser it’s going to be fitted with. People have teased brimsone, spike a 105mm gun, but can’t find out any information why I’ve asked the question. Of its 523 Boxer MIVs, the UK will receive 85 infantry carrying vehicles, 60 engineer section vehicles, 62 recce and fire support vehicles, 28 mortar carriers, and 50 equipment support and repair platforms. The British Army will also acquire a mix of 123 command and control vehicles and C2-utility vehicles, 19 observation post vehicles, 24 beyond-line-of-sight platforms, 11 electronic warfare & SIGINT (signals intelligence)… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
23 days ago
Reply to  Mark

These variant numbers need to change, and may have already.

Only 85 infantry carriers. Yet 123 C&C. And 61 ambulances.

When added to the C&C variants of the Ajax order that is a lot of command vehicles.

The engineer variants may also change as where’s before we would have had 2 Engineer Regiments with Ajax variants and 2 with Boxer variants, supporting their 2 armoured and 2 Strike Brigades, we now have 2 armoured brigades.

James H
James H
23 days ago

Would it be possible to change the contract without significant cost?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
23 days ago
Reply to  James H

No idea James.
.

Steve
Steve
23 days ago

Yeah baldy need to change. We need direct and indirect fire versions.

James Fennell
James Fennell
23 days ago

They were mostly ordered to replace FV432 which is an urgent priority, so primarily used in support roles apart from 2 Bns with APCs in one Strike Bde (at the time the order was placed). There will need to be quite a few more in the absence of Warrior – so we should expect an order of Warrior replacement types. I suspect some of the C3i ones are for platoon and company commanders. My understanding of the Beyond Line of Sight variant was ISTAR not weapons platforms, i.e. for mini UAS like Puma. More will be needed, but so will… Read more »

Last edited 23 days ago by James Fennell
Graham Moore
Graham Moore
23 days ago
Reply to  James Fennell

I understood that Boxer (when UK joined the programme in 1996) was to meet the MRAV requirement and was intended to replace SAXON and FV430s.
I agree that we need to see a huge second order to replace Warriors – and those must all have modern stabilised cannons.
I also agree that some of the C3I variants must be for Pl, Coy and Bn command.
We cannot be further saddled with FV430 – it has been in service for 60 years already, come 2022.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
22 days ago
Reply to  James Fennell

Ah, ISTAR, yes that is more familiar to me. I thought Mark’s Beyond Line of Sight comment was referring to a weaponized variant, of which I’d not heard.

James Fennell
James Fennell
22 days ago

Yes, I hope we get some with BVR weapons like Brimstone or loitering munitions and 120mm mortar on Boxer, Even a Boxer with cannon is not really capable of accompanying MBTs in the close battle and would be a sitting duck (an easy way to lose a lot of men), so BVR seems a better option. UGVs with cannon could work in the IFV role however, and Boxer could provide a mothership module to bring them to battle and support them in the fight.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
22 days ago
Reply to  James Fennell

I keep reading that the army sees Boxer like other APCs. Disembark way before target and go on foot. As we’ve observed many times it is not an IFV. So Ajax is vital as that seems to be where the army is looking for the firepower. And with that programmes issues that is madness. I was hoping for something official in the review regards variants and firepower James. As we ourselves have remarked, it’s mostly hot air so far on the kit front. Where is the infantey firepower support coming from if an Ajax regiment in the close support role… Read more »

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
23 days ago

Never mind Daniele. I’ sure that we can rely on the army and the MOD to get the mix right! A belated H HO HO I think. Happy holiday.

Airborne
Airborne
22 days ago

Mate I believe the numbers have changed with the OP vehicle gone, along with quite a large number of the C2 and Ambulance variants being changed to an increase of the Infantry carriers, although with no overall uplift in actual contracted numbers (yet). This isn’t deffo but something I’ve heard both online but also in the QT chatting with a few lads. We will see though mate and let’s hope overall numbers increase and the vehicles “fightability” improves in the near future.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
22 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

Good info there mate, thank you.

It has to! Dogs dinner at the moment.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
23 days ago
Reply to  Mark

Daniele has previously remarked on the very low number of infantry carriers at 85 (two battalions-worth?). I am sure that there is a second big order around the corner to replace all the Warrior section vehicles.

Heidfirst
Heidfirst
23 days ago

a wholly-owned subsidiary of a German company which already supplies oem parts for Boxer elsewhere. Incorporated on 29th June 2018 (3 weeks before the Boxer order announcement) – so most likely set up in anticipation of this order.

Last edited 23 days ago by Heidfirst
David Steeper
David Steeper
23 days ago
Reply to  Heidfirst

That’s good work thanks.

James Fennell
James Fennell
23 days ago
Reply to  Heidfirst

Yes, unfortunately a consequence of leaving the Boxer programme way back when is that there is no UK supply chain built in. Lets hope over time that can be reversed, but for now we have to go with the German-Dutch component suppliers if we are to get them quickly.

Last edited 23 days ago by James Fennell
David
David
23 days ago

Any ideas what we are arming our Boxers with? I read somewhere before, that at the moment, they’ll only have a .50 cal machine gun. Seems a bit paltry to me; hopefully we can add something with a bit more punch!

Hamish
Hamish
23 days ago
Reply to  David

It is trash. We won’t have a proper IFV anymore. They should have just upgraded Warrior. The US and French wheeled vehicles had trouble in the Gulf with the soft sand. Boxer is no support for Challenger.

David
David
23 days ago
Reply to  Hamish

I agree Hamish – how many Warriors could be upgraded for 3.5Bn?? Probably would mean a new turret with a gyro-stablised gun that fires more than 3 rounds at a time like the current Rarden 30mm! It would make sense to have used the same 40mm gun as Ajax but no point in talking about it any more as the die has been cast with Boxer.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
23 days ago
Reply to  Hamish

I doubt Boxer will be as good as Warrior in deep glutinous mud as well as snow and ice. Boxer replacing Warrior must all have a modern, stabilised cannon

RobW
RobW
23 days ago
Reply to  David

There are mortar variants in the initial order but yes most of the batch will be lightly armed. The intention seems to be to order a second batch with more lethal armament and presumably far more troop carriers.

The Defence Sec talked about this a few months back and suggested they were looking at the possibility of increasing the manufacturing rate by expanding the RBSL facility. Not heard anything on this recently mind.

Rob
Rob
23 days ago
Reply to  RobW

Remember they are modular so the initial configuration isn’t a limiting factor if the will exists to change roles.

David
David
23 days ago
Reply to  Rob

This means FFBNW something more than a pea-shooter…. I just don’t trust the MoD to spend the cash needed to make Boxer anything more than what is shown in the picture above…… Sorry but I wouldn’t want to be one of the poor sods inside that thing with only a .50 cal shouting back……

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
23 days ago
Reply to  David

If its only a 0.50 cal, that’s only marginally better than the Saracen’s armament of 0.30 cal or 7.62mm GPMG – and a worse situation than the loss of 30mm RARDENs, and very much worse than not getting 40mm cannons. Thats pretty sad.