The Ministry of Defence has declined to say how many of each Boxer variant have been delivered to the Army, calling the information commercially and operationally sensitive, according to an answer given in Parliament.
Ben Obese-Jecty, the Conservative member for Huntingdon, asked for a breakdown by variant of the contractually delivered Boxer fleet to date, following an answer of 8 September.
Luke Pollard, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, said: “I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 18 December 2025 to Question 100025, which sets out the total number of Boxer vehicles contracted for by variant. It is not possible to provide a breakdown by variant of the Boxer vehicles delivered to date, as this information is commercially and operationally sensitive.”
The department has therefore published what it has ordered by variant while withholding what it has received by variant, which leaves the balance between infantry carriers, command vehicles, ambulances and specialist versions in the delivered fleet unknown.
In a separate answer the same day, Mr Pollard was asked when the review of programme performance for the Armour Main Battle Tank Programme would be complete. He said: “The review of programme performance for the Armour Main Battle Tank Programme forms part of the programme’s ongoing reapproval process. Under current plans, the outcome of this process is expected during Financial Year 2026-27.”
A reapproval outcome inside the current financial year gives a window closing at the end of March, and no narrower date was offered.
Britain rejoined the Boxer programme in 2018 after leaving it in 2003, and the vehicle is built under licence by Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land at Telford and WFEL at Stockport. Orders now run to more than six hundred vehicles across infantry carrier, specialist carrier, command and ambulance variants, the four base types from which the Army’s mechanised infantry brigades are being equipped.
The Armour Main Battle Tank Programme covers Challenger 3, the rebuild of 148 Challenger 2 hulls around a new turret and a 120mm smoothbore gun, also being carried out by Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land at Telford.
Given the agile and apparent ease of interchangeability of modules for Boxer, surely the MOD can at least state how many actual base vehicles have been delivered. It is over 25 years since I had anything to do with this Programme (back then known as MRAV), but one assumes that the MOD has or is looking to purchase additional base vehicles, as well as some specialist modules to take into account attrition and possible needs depending on the task.
Total order is aroind 623 in the four variants. After that will be the amount to carry the RCH 155mm artillery. Beyond that the programe is stopping.
I asked AI if the 623 boxers on order will be reduced and the answer was no. So the base vehicle fleet should be around 700 once the RCH order is completed.
Yes, thats correct. Theres no reduction in the first order. Theres just not going to be the big second tranche which was going to be around 400, taking the fleet beyond 1000
Correct.
Which I support, too expensive.
Yes its just not affordable. Better of with 1000 Patria
We are still waiting for that. 🙄
Indeed. We live in hope.
My free browser Duck AI tells me the mix in the original order for 623 was as follows.
146 Infantry Carrier Vehicles
60 Engineer Section Vehicles
62 Recce/Fire Support Vehicles
28 Mortar Carrier Vehicles
50 Equipment Support/Repair vehicles
158 Command-and-Control vehicles (including C2 Utility)
19 Observation Post Vehicles
24 Beyond-Line-Of-Sight observation platforms
11 Electronic Warfare/SIGINT platforms
65 ambulances
My understanding is that Pollard has said we won’t be buying a second batch of Boxer for additional roles: mortar (120mm?) and overwatch. Not sure if his comment implies any changes in the mix of the original 623.
Paul, do you think the Patria 6×6 is going to replace Boxer Tranch 2?
Good question Maurice. Some perspective. An overview…CR3 is up for ‘re-authorisation’. RCH155 is decided. Himars and PRsM are committed. Ajax looks like it will work but Boxer ruled out for the cavalry. Boxer tranche 2 is cancelled; forget the turret. What replaces Warrior? We are developing sovereign deep fire single use drones and SRBMs, have planned the future of the Points, are receiving 500 brand new MAN trucks and we seem to be getting on top of drones and C-UAS systems acquisition. Lots of building blocks are in place to rapidly deploy force to the European mainland. As many contributors have posted, the biggest argument in favour of Patria is its price – supposedly only 1/5 of Boxer, which at first sight is an eye-wateringly expensive replacement for Mastiff or FV432. But you get what you pay for – Bulldog had a lot of upgrades and additional armour. What would be the cost of a UK spec Patria, and after paying for building the factory to assemble them? We are already building Boxers from scratch in the UK. Could their price be reduced if volumes were scaled up and if we took a look at designing a basic ‘taxi’ APC version? Is the Infantry Carrier version the same cost as the other versions? I don’t know, I’m just asking the question. Remember – most of the time in this world, you get what you pay for. When the balloon goes up I think I’d rather be in a Boxer. How much functionality could be done by Jackal variants? How much protection do you get in a Nurol Makina? I don’t think it’s a simple drop Boxer for Patria equation.
Paul.P, is there any mileage in looking at a lower-cost Boxer one that could see some specifications trimmed to allow for more vehicles out of Telford and retention of the skilled workforce? Cost trimming in the car industry is never-ending, from the deletion of ashtrays to lower-spec engine parts. Conversely, should the MOD buy (tranche 2) just the basic vehicle minus modules to allow for meaningful war reserves and future-proofing load-space options?
Perhaps, I can’t say Maurice. But I note Pongolos post. Boxer is being very well received, notwithstanding comments about the loss of the Rarden. There are alternatives to the RS4. For example the RS6 has a cannon. Could the retained Warriors be replaced by Boxers with RS6? All I’m saying is Boxer is good and the UK production line is up and running. No criticism of Patria APC, but buy as many Boxers as we can afford. Don’t short ourselves.
Ever had a look at how many current Warrior are in each Battalion?
Been trying to work it out, I think I did this years back with Dern as well who did a far better job, obviously.
1 per section, so
3 to a Platoon.
3 Platoons to a Company.
So 9 per Company plus Coy HQ vehicle? 10?
3x Companies, 30.
Plus Bn HQ vehicles, plus?
I say this as wondering if 146 Infantry Carrier are enough to furnish a measily 4 Battalions plus keep a reserve for attrition, training, trials, maintenance, even if C2 variant form some of the mix.
Mortar variant has been shelved, and plenty on that list are destined for units of the CS arms, not the Infantry.
My old Battalion is set to be the first Armd Inf Bn to transition to Boxer whilst still retaining some of their Warrior for now. OPSEC prevents discussion ref timelines but it seems at least one Coy group has now achieved IOC . At present the ORBAT for the lead Coy group replicates that we had for Warrior , 3 x Rifle Sect vehicles plus 1 x Comd varient in Platoon HQ giving a total of 4 x Boxer per platoon. There are 3 x Platoons per Coy thereby giving you 12 plus 2 x Comd variant in Coy HQ for a total Rifle Coy strength of 14. There is a great drones eye pic of a formed up Coy group all lined up on Salisbury Plain and which was pushed out on Facebook by BHQ, it is elsewhere on X, Nicholas Drummond’s post etc. Feedback I got from the troops is that Boxer has gone down very well , to quote one ‘ it is fast , very fast ‘ other comments were that it is a very smooth ride for the blokes in the back and is well armoured too – it also has a great BV 😁. A lot of people also heaped praise on the RWS which they noted holds a good lock on target even when at speed and over rough ground and that the night vision is good, better than Warrior in fact . I have to add however that they already bemoan.the loss of the 30mm RARDEN and several commented that Boxer would pretty much be the perfect solution if like the Germans and Dutch we had a decent gun up top.
.
Good post, thank you.
So 42 in the Companies, plus any at Battalion?
Do those purchace totals cover that? Don’t seem to, even if some are C2.
Thanks. Encouraging post 👍. I guess the obvious question is why are the few Warriors are retained ‘for now’ unless the plan is that they are to be replaced by something other than the Infantry Carrier Boxer. We await the next episode in the box set.
Daniele, your count of Warriors. Its 4 per Platoon as you missed out Pl HQ. Pl Comd I am sure gets a standard Warrior ie not a command variant as his radio fit is unsophisticated. Coy HQ has 2 x Warrior, one each for OC and 2IC and they will be Comd variants. Bn HQ has 2 x Warrior command variants.
Thanks Graham.
Whoops, forgot the REME wagons! Each Rifle Coy fitter section has a Warrior Repair and a Warrior Recovery.
DE&S reported on 25th June that 100 Boxers had been delivered. No breakdown by variant was given.
DE&S reported on 25th June that 100 Boxers had been delivered. No breakdown by variant was given.
A touch of du-char-vue there, Graham?
I was hoping it was 200 😂
The MOD won’t know until they have a series of meetings. 🙃
Did anyone hear that the Boxer mortar carrier, REME variant and possibly Ambulance variant had been dropped?
Mortar and REME.
Ambulance AFAIK still in.
Look for the other article on UKDJ on Boxer, we covered this there.