WFEL and Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) have selected Rolls Royce to supply their MTU engine for the British Army’s new Boxer Armoured vehicles. 

According to the firms, the MTU 8v 199 TS21 engines are “proven in military applications”.

“With a power output of 600kw, the engines allow for enhanced operational mobility and agility, and a higher electrical load.  The Boxers for the British Army will be the first versions of the vehicle equipped with this engine variant, delivering 70 KW more power than the MTU engines in previous versions of the Boxer.”

523 units will be produced in Rolls Royce’s facility in East Grinstead, West Sussex, for the UK MoD’s Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV) programme.  

“For the fulfilment of the contract with WFEL, the Rolls Royce engines will be delivered directly to Huddersfield-based David Brown Santasalo, another key UK partner in WFEL’s Boxer programme, who will integrate the engines into the complete Boxer Powerpack Assemblies, prior to delivery to WFEL.  First delivery of the engines will take place later this year.

For RBSL, assembly and testing of the Boxer Powerpack (transmission, engine and cooling systems) will take place at its world-class manufacturing site in Telford. The engines will then be integrated into Boxer vehicles as part of RBSL and WFEL’s vehicle production plans at their respective UK facilities in Telford and Stockport.” 

Andrew Munt, Boxer Programme Director for WFEL, was quoted as saying:

“Boxer vehicle hull production is now well under way here at WFEL in Stockport. As we move into the vehicle assembly phase, we are delighted to contract with Rolls Royce for the supply of MTU engines.”

Colin McClean, Managing Director for RBSL, was quoted as saying:

“RBSL is delighted to have secured further UK content for the Boxer programme together with long-term support for such a critical part.  The powerful MTU engine will be the heart of the British Army’s new Boxer vehicle. Rolls Royce are a welcome addition to the team.”

David Eaton, Director – Governmental at Rolls-Royce Solutions UK, was quoted as saying:

“We have been working energetically with our industry partners for a number of years to reach this point and are very much looking forward to delivering our engines to power these state-of-the-art, British-built infantry vehicles.”

In April 2022, the British Army announced it had ordered an additional 100 Boxer armoured vehicles, bringing the total number on order to 623.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

182 COMMENTS

  1. Could Boxer and it’s various iterations not just be ordered in higher numbers to replace the abject failure that is Ajax?

        • Mmm If they cancel then they are fools, you do not just cancel a contract after spending billions on it with no results. GD just walk away happy.
          What you do is give GD a reasonable opportunity to fix the problem and then turn your lawyers on them for breach of contract.
          And given the extensions they have had that is now overdue, issue a writ but do it in the US not UK.

          • I hope I’m wrong but I don’t think anyone saying “bin it” or “cancel” it means to just walk away & let GD keep the cash.

            I know when I say ‘cancel it’ I mean consult with lawyers, explore the options for getting out of the contract, I’d be hinting to GD that they can forget about future procurement opportunities if they try and drag this out, get as much as we can/all our money back, if that means court – ok the lawyers will know best, utilise the tech that works & then look for a viable alternative, ideally using as much ‘off the shelf’ as we can from a proven platform to expedite the IOC then write a cast-iron, fixed price contract with significant penalties for any significant delays. But that’s a lot to write compared to “Bin it!!” 😄

          • Cancel it means pretend to consult with lawyers and negotiate and then publically state you tried and blame GD of playing difficult, leaving them to walk away with the money without upsetting the relationship wIth GD or the US government.

            Better to try and get it to work and not just throw away all the money, even if that means the UK tax payer has to pay extra, better to pay a little extra for the project, rather than full cost of a new one and lose all money already paid.

          • Better to chalk the money up to experience than get a substandard heap of offal you have to support for the next 30 years because you can’t admit you’ve wasted the cash. In general purchase cost is a fraction, maybe only 10%, of the lifetime cost.

            GD are not acting like willing partners. When we say it rattles too much and they reply get better ear protectors and you won’t hear it, you know you have the wrong partners. Sticking your fingers in your ears and hoping the problem goes away is rarely a good solution.

          • All depends if it can be fixed, if they cant’ bring it up to an acceptable standard than yeah ditch the money and run.

          • The basic vehicle has worked in service for years (no oh yeah buts please I know the details), the US has just ordered a development of that base product to suit their needs too so something surely must be deliverable from all this but some bright sparks have to get a grip and need to work out what precise form this workable product can be and for me that’s the greater worry as nothing has demonstrated that ability exists as yet.

          • I believe it absolutely can be fixed, but GD aren’t up for it and it would be too much like hard work to wrangle them into doing a good job, if the MOD were even capable of such a feat.

            For us it’s a money pit. For the Americans, the Griffin design may have started as an Ajax chassis, but the Griffin II they ordered will not be based on the dodgy Spanish hulls they have palmed off on the UK.

          • Well, I see we have a cynic on the site. Shocking! (JK bud)

            You’re probably right of course, but we can all dream that one day, we can have the stones to tell them to p*** off. US won’t mind that much. They’ll fuss a little but ultimately it’s a drop in the ocean.

            Until then, I stand by what I said in my definition of ‘bin it!’

          • I would put money on there being a whole load of bad clauses /side payments etc that the government does not want to come to light, which would happen if it went to court. Better publically blame the contractor whilst privately telling them that they can keep the cash if they don’t protest too much.

            The conservatives can’t blame the last goverment as the deal was signed on their watch.

          • I would not take that bet. There almost certainly some bad clauses.

            I’m going into this as you’ve raised ‘politics’ & one thing always seems to be overlooked:

            My problem with such things is that we keep seeing contracts that don’t deliver what we need or value & leave Johnny Taxpayer on the hook for additonal costs. It has happened with BAE, GD, Marconi, Lockheed Martin etc. etc.. It has also happend under Lab, Cons, & Coalition Govs. Sometimes the DefSec takes the wrap, more often, it’s those ‘mean, nasty multi-national Def companies!’ But it seems to me that the only common denominator here is the MoD.

            For sure the DefSec has a responsibility but they get told by “experts” from the MoD that this is the deal & it’s solid. MP’s don’t always have Law degrees & in the real world, aren’t involved in the minutiae of tender exercises nor the negotiations. They have to listen to the “experts” from the MoD.

            You ever tendered or negotiated contracts with the Civil Service? If you have, you’ll likely agree with me & I’m speaking from experience when I say; some (not all) are not the most commercially savvy people… based on what I see from the MoD, I suspect it’s the same there.

            Here’s something to ponder: Do you think If you led a programme for your private sector employer that wasted millions (let alone billions) you’d still have a job? But have you ever heard of a Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Defence taking responsibility & resigning due to failed programmes? You ever hear of someone, anyone from the MoD being fired over such things? Do you (like I do) think thats a little odd?

          • But its unlikely MPs actually see the contracts, even CEO of large companies don’t review the entire contract they will ask for a 1 pager summary. Whitehall has been pretty useless irrespective of whose in power and attempts to clean it out are met with massive resistance. Personally i’d hire contract specialists from airlines, oil and construction companies who are experienced with larger asset purchases.

          • The problem with GD is you need to understand that like most multi-nationals we are dealing with one division of it. And you really do not want to be hinting about future projects being withheld in the case of GD.
            They own GD Electric Boat and are busily building the Common Missile compartment for the Dreadnought class, so step carefully and hope someone managed to negotiate timescales and penalty clauses into this contract.

          • You won’t get any money back if MoD has signed off a piece of work leading up to a delivery milestone.

          • That depends.

            There is in civil liability at thing know as ‘doctrine of concealment.’

            If it could be proved that GD knew there was a problem and held off on telling MOD about it, then the sign off is void and there is no statue bar to a claim being filed.

            MOD police have the right to seize any materials files or records from a contractor and go through them at will.

            I’d love to know what the real issue is. Is it just that the hull alignments are made after a few glasses of Rioja? Or something else. If the hulls are not made square then nothing on earth can fix that as it will be impossible to line the drive train up properly. HMS Invincible gearbox anyone?

          • If they are looking at isolation mounts for seats and driver controls what does this say ?

      • Ajax may be cancelled. The decision point is the end of the year I think. But let’s be clear, if Ajax can be made acceptable the army would have a superb tracked asset, a Star Ship Enterprise reconnaissance capability and the strike capability of a light tank. The 40mm CTA cannon is a match for all but the latest MBT. It’s got to be worth another few months effort in my opinion, before we commit to wheels ( which we didn’t really want) and an ‘average’ 30mm cannon.

        • There’s no reason the CTA turret won’t fit on Boxer. It’s the same engine and almost the same nominal weight carrying load (38.5 tons for Boxer vs 38 tons for Ajax).

          GD are heavily involved in the Bowman comms replacement, Morpheus. But that will have to end up in Boxer anyway.

          • Yes, I’m sure you could put a CTA cannon turret on Boxer. The French have done it with their EBRC Jaguar ( which looks like it has been designed by a committee). The question is what would be the capability and role of the resulting vehicle(s)? They would not have the tracks of Warrior as an IFV. Would they carry as many dismounts as competitive IFVs? And they would not have ISTAR capabilities of Ajax unless you design a completely new Boxer module, which might take a while. Not saying we shouldn’t do it, just to be careful not to jump out of the frying pan into the fire. Ajax would give the British Army a unique capability and a more options how to fight. Its interesting that one of the bidders for the next phase of the Australian Land program is an ISTAR development of the Merkava tank.

          • I’m talking about it as a test. I think the cost of the R&D would be worth it even if we don’t decide to adopt it. The role could be AFV or IFV, and it could easily become tracked if the tracked Boxer base is suitable.

            Putting a turret onto the Boxer would be itself a new module. Of course we have to have the full networking capability of Ajax put in the Boxers. We need and have already ordered a C2 variant of the Boxer, so it’s going to have to be fitted to some modules anyway. Any IFV/AFV variant will need a level of comms and sensor fusion or be forever stuck in the last century.

            As to whether any recce module will have the same sensors as Ajax’s is debatable, as we haven’t cancelled Ajax yet. Until we do anyone suggesting recce versions of Boxer will get nowhere. If we bite the bullet and decide Boxer is replacing Ajax, several new modules will need to be developed, and I agree, that will take years.

            The Aussies are going with either German Lynx or Korean Redback. The Namer (deriving from the Merkava 4 chassis) is a 60 ton class, and a uniquely Israeli solution to the APC/IFV mix.

          • Some thoughts in no particular order.
            I am unclear why WCSP was cancelled. Was the development prototype a failure; was there no money for the production run; or was there an army rethink about whether future fighting tactics would include a role for a tracked IFV or any IFV? Is there a shift of thinking away from IFV towards APC / AFV ( with remote turrets); the likes of Stryker and Ares? As you say, other countries like Australia retain a commitment to tracked IFV; Lynx, Redback etc.
            I see clear determination to rescue Ajax. This tells me the army really want this vehicle; combining tracks and strike with leading edge C4ISTAR reconnaissance capabilities. Such is their attachment to this concept that they are trialling a back up plan to use Warrior in this role, which would I presume require putting the C4 stuff in the Warrior.
            I see the talk of developing a tracked Boxer as further evidence that a wheeled reconnaissance solution is not acceptable.
            Recycling Warrior in the reconnaissance role and developing a C4 Boxer module AND a tracked Boxer chassis seems like desperate strategies to avoid the embarrassment of having to buy OTS e.g. CV90 reconnaissance variant. That said I think recycling Warrior with the Ajax C4 stuff and DCE stabilised cannon could be a get out of jail card if Ajax is cancelled.

          • I don’t know why Warrior upgrades were cancelled. I image there’s no single reason to point to, but many. I mentioned to Graham elsewhere on this thread an article in the Wavell Room on the matter.

            I’ve not heard any official talk of tracked Boxer yet; that’s just my hope (and of many others in the chatterati), as the majority costs of these things are lifetime, not purchase. Commonality of wheeled and tracked medium weight armour would bring costs down, as well as the ability to swap drive units to fit terrain, keeping all the capability.

          • I suspect that rationality is a rare commodity sometimes Paul. I have worked in the defence industry since leaving the REME and have contacts intimately involved in the AJAX programme. Some of the more “knee jerk” reactions on here make me wince. Whilst I recognise and acknowledge difficulties in delivery of the platform, it’s good to see other posters say give it a chance. I know from personal experience the green machine want this capability. Cheers
            Ian M

          • Sounds like you have a clearer point of view than the majority due to your work…
            I do agree that pulling the plug is not always the best option, particularly when this much money is already invested.

            My question with Ajax has always been, how far from the proven working base models have we strayed to end up with these ”unsolvable” issues it currently has?

          • The question is, who said ‘unsolvable’? Was it a bloke down the pub? Was it ‘they said’? I’ve heard nothing, zilch, nada about ‘unsolvable’. Engineers make their living by solving problems to make stuff work. I dare say GDUK have a few on the books.

          • Ian, How confident are you that Ajax problems can be fixed, and fixed quickly and without further expenditure by MoD?

          • Hi Graham, my understanding is that engineering solutions have been proposed and trialled and that Industry and the MOD both need to sign off on the enhancements. I’m told that this is funded by Industry.

          • I can’t help but be pessimistic if the hulls have been badly built by GD Spain. Why are we having to wait until the end of the year for a further announcement?

        • I reluctantly agree. IF (and it’s a huge “IF”) they can make it all work, it’ll be world class. And IF everyone involved can provide iron clad assurances to make it happen in the near future with a platform that won’t suck up endless cash for the next 30 years trying to support a lemon, great.

          My previous assertion of “bin it” is bacause they’ve already had 12 years… It’s 5 years late & still not right. Nor do they even have a plan of how to make it right. I suppose, whats another few months. But we have to draw the line somewhere & if they can’t, bin it & heads should roll. (that last thing will not happen, but it should!)

          As for 40mm CTA; Ammo is expensive BUT from what I’ve seen of it’s capabilities, excellent gun! Could they not fit it on a Boxer?

          • If the French can fit it on Jaguar I’m sure it can be fitted on Boxer and, if the result accommodates a decent number of dismounts you would have a good alternative to say CV90 as the Warrior replacement.

      • I think the Ajax in UK have the same problem like the Puma in Germany. To many politicans and couch generals were involved. After the Puma constructing the company Rheinmetall(which was involved in the puma project) created their own armored personnel carrier lynx which work, have an active protection system and is incredibly much cheaper. The Puma have still many problems.

    • Indications are the British Army will get over 1,000 vehicles. part of the uplift the army got previously.

      Hopefully they will be armed correctly using some of that money.

      This number is in addition to Ajax.

      • I just hope we show some version for it and get the specialist versions that could be a true force multiplier on the ground. The Brimstone/HVM/ Martlet missile (potential) derivatives and self propelled gun version too too look very effective variants and would radically strengthen our ground forces, much needed too..

    • I don’t know – i’d appreciate those who know more about this explaining what can and can’t be done and the pitfalls.

      • It’s unfortunately quite likely that the contract is beyond the point of no return in terms of cancellation. I doubt the government could prove ‘cause’ – the contractor will always argue that the issues were at least partially the client’s fault and they are in any case working diligently on finding solutions etc etc – probably with considerable justification. Been there myself.

        I’m the consummate armchair general/admiral (delete as required) but I can’t help but feel that the whole thing was ill-conceived at the requirements stage – it’s a ‘tank’ with a pop gun or an unwieldy recon vehicle.

        Need to make the best of it now.

        • First impressions can’t help but support your impression it’s on the. Contract and the vehicle itself, right or wrong. It does look ungainly.

        • I tend to agree OOA. The army’s need was for a light, stealthy tracked recon vehicle to replace the 7-tonne FV100 Scimitars and Spartans. Ajax was always going to be much heavier than Scimitar, due to better armour protection and the heavier CT40 cannon, so a 24 tonne vehicle was probably about right.

          That was before the FRES/Strike brigade gang added 10 tonnes of ISTAR kit to turn the thing into an all singing, all dancing, interconnected wunder machine (on paper), with a mega increase in weight and cost and a corresponding decrease in mobility.

          I suspect that it was always asking too much of the original chassis and suspension to support a 40-tonne loading. Your words ‘ill conceived look to be pretty spot on.

          GD Spain may have made a horlicks of the construction, but the donkey to which the tail needs to be affixed is DESO, which seems neither to have challenged the army’s over-ambitious spec nor GD’s it’ll all be alright on the night assurances. No point having a central procurement agency which sits supinely in the middle of the muddle and xontributes not a lot.

    • I presume you refer to the Boxer recce variant ie Boxer Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle. Shame it only has a 30mm cannon, but hope it has the sensors and comms package that would be at least as good as Ajax’s.

    • Unfortunately, for certain terrain, tracks are just more fitting, the bogs of Eastern Europe is difficult for wheeled vehicles that are in the same weight range as boxer, that’s not to say the AJax is any better at max 42 tons for a bloody recce vehicle.

    • If we want to restart the program (again) we could go with Boxer and then dump everything on that which we already dumped on ASCOD..

      Really we need to start drafting a bill which will require US companies tendering for MOD contracts to jump through many more hoops then normal to ‘prove’ they are capable of delivering.
      At which point the US industrial military complex, and government, will have a meltdown and tell GD to stop rocking the boat for everyone else.

  2. What weapons systems are on the Boxer and will they be powerful and with decent range? im trying to find updated information to see if our requirements have changed after Ukraine?

    • Kongsberg are to supply RS4 for them. RS4 may be it OR it may be fitted atop a turret (i.e. Kongsberg have pitched the RT60) which may have ATGMs & large (20-40mm) gun. Not sure anything beyond RS4 has been decided yet.

      If I had to guess, I’d say we’ll be getting a remote turret version. I’ve heard they want 20mm (won’t fit on RS4) plus, common sense says spend 5% more & get the RS6 which can mount 20mm and Javelin. So why did they choose RS4? Because it fits nicely atop a turret & lets the commander look around independent of the gunner. Just a guess though.

      • Yep, seems feasible for providing APS to the vehicles, though I suspect that not all vehicles would have such protection considering we can’t even provide enough kits for all the challnger 3s we’re ordering, hopefully they change the decision for challenger 3 numbers and significantly more aps systems brouight on, only so much reactive armour can do without adding significant weight.

        • Yes Brimstone, HVM and Martlet would be great assets mixed or individually. Same launcher handles latter two be nice if one could be developed to handle Brimstone too the flexibility would be fantastic and considering it can be fired from UTEs surely that could be designed, but hey what do I know about the complexities of so doing.

    • ‘Brimstone vehicle usage’ – https://youtu.be/htznqmp3tgw

      They basically created a box launcher to go on the back of a transit van. If you hunt around for videos, you’ll find some of their… er… shall we say “terminal effects”. BDRs don’t like them… Obviously for UK usage, they’re expected to be box mounted to Ajax (ha!) and as Coll put it, Boxer variants.

      https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-brimstone-missiles-filmed-destroying-russian-tanks/

    • AFAIK the majority of Boxers currently ordered will have a 7.62mm Machine gun mounted on a remote station.

      • Then they would not adequately replace Warrior IFV, but would be acceptable as MIVs (replacement for 430’s and Saxons (which went years ago, I know)).

        • I might have been wrong, I think it’s actually a 12.7mm MG. But my understanding is this default configuration makes the Boxer an APC and not an IFV, so not really a replacement for Warrior or Ajax.

          • IFV/AFV So what ? … The point is Boxer with default config (APC with a machine gun) is not meant to go toe to toe with the likes of a BMP3, whereas Warrior or Ajax would stand more of a chance.

          • It’s all in the small print, your moniker is “Bringer of facts”, and there is a big difference between an IFV, AFV/APC and Recce platform. It may seem picky but I like facts too. You are quite correct in saying that the standard weapons fit is entirely inadequate, 7.62mm or .50cal won’t cut it.
            Cheers

          • If Boxer APC with a MG cannot take on BMP3 (which I agree), what will we have in our future inventory that can?
            We are scrapping Warrior and might scrap Ajax!

          • If the Boxers we order/have ordered have a mere 12.7mm MG (or any MG) then they are not an IFV or a recce/strike vehicle to replace respectively Warrior or Ajax.

            The infantry carrier Boxer would be an APC (a spiritual successor to 1950s Saracen).

          • Boxer is a platform, currently seen as an APC in the UK because of Ajax, and as long as Ajax breathes, Boxer can’t grow to its full potential.

            Given the OOS dates for Warrior we can’t afford to keep Ajax on life support. Let Boxer grow up.

          • Boxer in its standard guise is an APC and that has nothing to do with Ajax. I am sure you are aware that an APC carries infantry and Ajax has a totally different role being a recce (and strike) vehicle.
            Boxer has been procured to replace FV430 and (belatedly to replace Saxon) and more recently (and seperately) to replace Warrior.
            Boxer is not being procured as a replacement for Ajax (assuming it fails and is canned). An option might exist in future for Boxer CRV (the recce variant) to replace Ajax but we won’t know that for another 5 or 6 months.

          • The APC is a base variant, but that doesn’t stop us ordering and using a different module with a different role. Or developing our own. You talk about “the” recce variant as though CRV is the only recce option. I don’t think it’ll be selected.

            There was an interesting article in the Wavell Room about why IFVs are useless, particularly Warrior. His prescription is using tanks and mortars to support APCs — if you replace tank by Ajax, I think it explains a bit about some of the current ideas in the British army.

            I don’t agree with him, but I’d be interested in your take.

          • Hi Jon, I talk about the CRV as being ‘the’ Boxer recce variant as I don’t know of any other. I don’t know if it would meet our requirements, but there is no time to develop anything bespoke from scratch now – Scimitar is 50 years old – its like the RAF still having Phantoms or the RN still having Leander frigates.

            We must buy MOTS, and only tweak in a simple, quick and cheap way.

            I read the bizarre article which rubbished IFVs and praised APCs (battlefield taxis without cannons) – seems odd to revert to an old concept – our last wheeled APCs were the 1950s Saracen and the much unloved Saxon (fully accept that Boxer is better than those, obvs – I am talking about the concept here).
            The armoured/mechanised infantry have always worked with and been supported by tanks, mortars etc., just that it becomes even more vital if they lose cannons at the individual vehicle, platoon and company level. How many infantrymen would relish losing their cannons? Intimate fire support under their control.
            He rubbishes unstabilised cannons in the assault yet they still deliver suppressive fire even if it is not 100% accurate – good enough if the target array is large and dispersed. Plan was to stabilise the cannon and give it more punch (WCSP) – so his criticism of lack of stab disappears. He rubbishes cannon in defence by saying that it cannot take out MBTs – it was not designed to do that but it can still take out light & medium armour and soft-skinned vehicles that pose a threat – or provide covering fire to aid a tactical withdrawal if needed.
            I would like to see the reasons that WCSP was canned – it was a bit over budget and delayed but I think it was worth persevering with. We are now spending a fortune on buying additional Boxers to replace modernised Warriors – and I am not convinced they will be better….or even…as good.

    • For ‘vehicle usage’ I posted some links to You Tube for you but it got blocked. Suggest searching ‘Ukraine brimstone’ & you’ll see. They basically strapped a box of Brimstone to the back of a transit van.
      There are some other vids showing them taking down some AFV (BDR I think).

      I assume the British Army will want something a little slicker like the images Coll posted.

  4. To me, if Boxer is going to be the core of our future armoured forces, then I’d go all in with them. Anything that can be Boxer based should be. Air defence, artillery and guided munitions, future drones, loitering munitions, air defence, recon, infantry carriers, command, comms, the lot. If it can go on a Boxer then that should be the default assumption unless there is a very good reason why a different base vehicle and supply/ maintenance chain is a better idea.

    I’d do it for several reasons. One is economies of scale. Another is simplifying field maintenance. But also – it would make deployment easier as with base vehicles positioned where we might need them, they could relatively easily be supplemented with suitable specialist vehicles as needed at the time.

    • Fingers crossed that is where we are heading. Rather depends on budget but the “noise” is that more will be ordered at some point, presumably once construction is really going and needs are properly identified. We certainly need to order more and with teeth.

        • Maybe. I came across this article which suggests that the IFV is obsolete and that APC is the way to go. If this is the army’s thinking it would certainly explain the cancellation of WCSP, the effort being put into making Ajax work and choice of remote turret for Boxer.
          https://wavellroom.com/2022/08/05/deleting-warrior-saves-lives-apc-vs-ifvs/
          It would also explain why, if Warrior does make a comeback it would be as a replacement for failed Ajax as a strike/reconnaissance.

          • It’s all so bizarre. I joined the army in ’75 and we had 432 for the Mech Inf in Germany, armed with a pintle-mounted GPMG that the commander (when not busy with other stuff, would use to provide suppressive fire but he would expose all of his body above his waist belt to enemy fire. Then they created a mini turret for the GPMG so the commander could fire from inside, whilst the Berlin Inf Bde benefitted from a 30mm RARDEN in a turret (possibly from the Fox).

            Then it was decided that the way to go was to take all this a step further and have an IFV – hence Warrior.

            Bizarre that a wheeled APC is seen as an improvement on a tracked IFV, which is now deemed out of date. Seems a backwards step for me (but just acceptable if all Boxers in Inf platoons came with a stabilised 40mm CTA cannon) – almost as if we are going back to a modernised Saracen. Which other countries are doing this? Only France, I think – and they have very little armoured warfare experience.

            If Ajax fails then there has got to be a better solution than converting some ageing, unmodernised Warriors into recce/strike variants. I don’t see that they would be much better than 50-year-old Scimitars, except for being more roomy for any bulky ISTAR kit. It woud of course only be an interim arrangement pending the delivery of a modern recce/strike vehicle. I doubt it’s worth spending money doing this interim plan.

          • I don’t see that we need to copy the Americans in style of procurment decision, although we seem to have copied their military terminology, unfortunately.
            Anyway they have Stryker and M2 Bradley IFV for their infantry and haven’t given up on a tracked IFV as we have.

          • Just saying. I notice that, after several aborted attempts at Bradley replacement projects over the years the current thinking is the OMV – optionally manned vehicle.

    • I’d also be in favour of a mixed direct fire support fleet. There has already been a 105mm version of Boxer made by John Cockerill, could be useful as a quickly deployable and for landing them at recently captured airfields via C-17 or A400 to support the lighter airborne infantry on the ground.

      The Americans are going down a similar route, albeit with a tracked vehicle now they’ve decided to retire Stryker MGS and the Japanese operate the Type 16 for much the same reason. Might not be going toe to toe with other MBT’s with the 105mm but it’s more than enough for dealing with lightly armoured vehicles and supporting infantry.

      Could run these side by side with the Challenger 3’s, having a high-low mix depending on mission requirement. Considering the firepower gap that’s going to exist between Chally 3 and Ajax, having something in-between makes sense… to me at least.

  5. As has been said many times here, the Army needs something that works and this does. Ajax should be killed off and those funds spent on kit that will make the Army better all round and affordable. Having a common base then you save all round, common sense but then that’s not a thing we see much of these days.

  6. Why am I experiencing a sense of deja vu? Isn’t this exactly what had already been promised for the A3 standard, as can be seen in Wikipedia and the excellent Think Defence article?

    Here’s the MD of Artec discussing it in January 2020.

  7. Why oh why, don’t they just simply order more boxers, and scrap the garbage Ajax project once and for all???

    Seems simple enough?

  8. I have been looking at some of the concepts of brimstone on boxer. However I can imagine having SPEAR on a land based launcher like boxer may be even more prolific. Imagine having over 1000 SPEAR missiles on 100 launch vehicles taking targeting data from either SAR satellites or airborne ground surveillance radars. It would be possible to launch a mass strike in a couple of minutes taking out 1,000 vehicles almost instantly. This would decimate any army. That kind of capability would cost us next to nothing as we already have all the components in place. It’s the kind of tech that mad Vlad could never dream of.

      • For sure, loosing 100 vehicles instantly in the face of an enemy attack would cripple any force. Loosing 1000 would devastate an army for years. Mini cruise missile have revolutionised the Air Force and I think the army is next.

  9. I am going to go against the crowd here and suggest that Boxer is very overpriced for what it does. I am sure it does it well but is it that good?

    I think it works out at just over £5mil a piece. There is no point in paying that for an APC unless you are going to get other kit to match. With Warrior needing replacing, the CRVT(?) fleet needing replacing, the SP guns needing replacing, these are all likely to cost more. Can we afford it or should we be looking at better value products.

    The Polish are introducing a good tracked IFV (Bosek) at £5mil each, same chassis as their very good and good value SP gun and possible Brimstone carrier. The French are introducing a good wheeled rec. vehicle (Lynx) at about £5mil each and an OK wheeled APC at about £1.5mil each, again the same chassis.

    This means that with all other vehicles needed been put on one of these two chassis according to weight and needed cross country performance, you could re equip the entire army for less than a Boxer and matching force and still have only two chassis to maintain.

    Of course the Boxer contract may already have gone to far to cancel with no fault on their side but it all seems very German, ie very good when it works but over engineered and over priced.

    • As soon as the UK try’s to buy a cheap solution it instantly becomes an expensive solution. The British army knows so much about military vehicles that it can’t possibly just accept a 90% solution from another army. It has to spend billions upgrading so much s**t on its vehicles that the vehicles begin to vibrate and damage the crew. Boxer is the best we are going to get at a price that’s not totally insane. Best to just keep buying them and end up with an all boxer force.

      • That may be the case, particularly given the contact situation, and it is a long standing problem.

        If you look at British equipment purchases during WW2 we were always mucking around with US equipment to ‘bring it up to our standards’ for the first four years. Then we grew up for the last two.

        I think the Military’s insistence of their equipment being designed perfectly for our particular needs also reduces sales potential. The French tend to design for sale and tell their military to make do which may be a better long term approach.

    • We’ve failed to sort army vehicle requirements time and again, and we just blew £3.5bn on under-engineered and useless. Over-engineered seems well worth it right now.

      Better to concentrate on the other requirements: MRV-P, mobile fires, and tracked replacement for Ajax, than revisit Boxer.

    • It may look overpriced but we have signed a contract, it has passed its trials and is now being produced. So try adding the cancelation fees to the cost of buying something else and just figure out how long it will take to go through the process again.
      As for the Polish IFV it, the Krab SPG, the new MBT and their Tank Destroyer (24 Brimstone missiles) are all based on the South Korean K9 chassis. And if it were up to me that is where I would go as well and join the Poles in building them in partnership. That means lots more lovely RR MTU engines and massive commonality of parts with the future largest Army in Europe.
      As for Boxer we were in at the start and rejoined and we need it ASAP.

      • Certainly tie ins with the Poles looks a very promising avenue to explore the Germans and French are not their closest friends these days and as you say they are going to be a military powerhouse with numbers we can only dream of. I think the urgency of being a front line state tends to focus their attention of late more than our own de ision makers armchair approach in gentleman’s club image too that I can’t get out of my mind.🤨

      • Losing track of types of missile. 😣

        Are the Brimstones the ones that fly in shoals and self-coordinate to one per target?

      • When Hanwha decided to enter the Australian heavy tracked IFV competition, they looked at the numbers & decided they needed to look at a 40+t chassis, while already producing an ASCOD type design in the K21. So they also decided on the K9 chassis & drivetrain as a starting point. Rheinmetall did their numbers also (first for US & then Australia when US went into meltdown). BAE fell over, not because of design, but cost. Ajax went the other way & tried to turn a vehicle that was never intended to go to such weights into the equivalent of Redback or Lynx or CV90. Ajax was always destined to be a failure, almost by design. Engineering 101 – first decide what you want to build & then what is required to achieve that. Don’t build it & then decide what you want to turn it into. BAE CV90 that works would still have been cheaper than GD’s Ajax than doesn’t.

        Every day they delay is more money down the drain. Even if they fix it, it will never match the competition because the competition has moved on already,

    • You think Boxer is overpriced at £5m each, then suggest we buy the French Lynx, at £5m each 🤦🏻‍♂️

      Boxer wins because of it modularity. Issues with engine or gearing? Swap out the power module with a replacement that can be fully tested before installation.
      Too many ambulances and not enough command vehicles? Simply swap the mission pod. Plug and play repurposing.

          • Is the UK buying a Boxer with a turret mounting a 40mm stab cannon? I had only heard of Kongsberg RWS mini-turrets.

        • Seen that story before. Where are you reading “vibration issues” and “reduced mobility”? They only mention the turret is overweight if they want both Spike & Iron Fist.

          And all from people “speaking on the condition of anonymity” or that “declined to be identified publicly”… Not the most credible sources are they?

      • I agree the modularity feature is a neat trick but Boxer is so expensive at £5.6m each and I don’t think you get a cannon for that. Stryker, VBCI and Piranha V are much cheaper.

        • I suspect restarting a production line that shut down 8 years ago will bump up the price of the Stryker somewhat. And you’re also going to want to update its decade’s old technology. (I assume the price you quote is also 8 years old.)

          It might cost less to restart VBCI as it’s only 4 years since it ceased production. If it’s so good, why didn’t any other country other than the French – who built it – buy it? Both Spain and the U.K. looked at it, and bought something else instead.

          What cannon would sir like with his Boxer? Options available and under development range from 30mm and 35mm through to 105mm and even 152mm. Though with those larger calibres it’s not an APC anymore.

          The CAPEX of buying another vehicle, such as those you suggested MIGHT be lower than more Boxers. But the through life OPEX will be higher due to additional training, engineering and logistics cost of supporting another vehicle in addition to Boxer. And Boxer with its modularity is fulfilling many roles that the vehicles you suggest cannot fulfil, so you can’t replace Boxer with your suggestions, you’d always have two vehicles to support.

          • Sean, we can only use the info we can find easily on open source and dates are not always stated. I accept that the prices I quoted might be old. However I am not the only one to think that Boxer is expensive.
            How modern is Boxer anyway in design terms? The programme started in 1993 and most of the design work was done by ’98. Prototypes were built in early 2001.
            I am certainly aware that many variants exist for Boxer and that many weapon fits are available – hopefully those Boxers replacing Warrior will all have a stabilised 40mm cannon – but I am not holding my breath.
            I was not suggesting a mixed fleet in my very brief comment – ie Boxer and ANOther. I was commenting on the high cost of Boxer and cast some doubt as to whether the Boxers that we have ordered have cannons – I think they may well all have Kongsberg RWS.
            I wonder what vehicles other than Boxer were considered by MoD, and why they rejected them.

          • All the information was just a Google away, got it all within 5mins.

            Prototypes were built in 2001, but design only finalised and production begun in 2009. That’s 13 years ago, but newer than the alternatives and design of mission module variants have been ongoing since.

            The MOD considered the French you suggested, and rejected it as did the French. The Swiss one could be an issue given how they’ve obstructed the reexport of their weapons to Ukraine – we might need to donate Boxers in future in any repeat of Ukraine or if even if the Ukraine War rumbles on indefinitely…

            As for what Boxer variants the MoD have ordered;
            • 235 APC
            • 50 repair & recovery
            • 123 command and control
            • 19 observation post vehicles,
            • 24 beyond-line-of-sight observation platforms
            • 11 EW & SIGINT
            • 61 ambulances
            Obviously some variants won’t have cannons, don’t know about the APCs.
            There’s been another 100 ordered since the above, but with no breakdown.

            IF Boxers are to replace Ajax/Warrior as an IFV as has been mooted, I’d expect they’d get a turret with a cannon; ideally the stabilised 40mm CRT.

            As for cost in general, the only things the military has that’s cheap is COTS. Everything else is expensive because they don’t have the economies of scale compared to consumer products and they require a lot of expensive bespoke development costs.

          • Thanks Sean, I do recall seeing that list some time ago. Not all of the APC versions are necessarily to carry Infantry rifle sections (some might carry 81mm mortars and other specialist teams), but I don’t recall how they were to be allocated. I am sure Daniele can help us out. Maybe they were for the once-mooted 2 x Strike Brigades.

            Within the Boxer family only the CRV (as supplied to Australia) could replace the Ajax but it would have to be adapted for UK recce; the Aussie one has a stab 30mm Mauser/Rheinmetall cannon in a Lance turret. We might press for a 40mm CTAS.

            Boxers with a 40mm stab cannon could replace Warrior.

            The cost of military equipment rises by far greater a %age than the rate of inflation, and is one factor why we don’t get the whole of a fleet replaced, usually. Had we replaced all 430s with Warrior from the mid-80s we would not have any 60 year-old-tracked vehicles knocking about in 2022!

          • Yes some of the APCs will carry mortar crews etc.

            285 APCs broken down;-
            • 85 infantry carriers,
            • 28 mortar carriers,
            • 60 engineer section vehicles,
            • 62 recce/fire support vehicles,
            • 50 repair vehicles

            You’re right, people look at the CPI, which gives the inflation rate for consumer goods and assume it applies across the board. The inflation rate for both healthcare and defence are recognised as being far higher, which is why they both struggle financially.

    • Agree with you Chris. My main concern is this mixing tracks and wheels in an armoured infantry brigade.

      I’m always impressed with the clarity.of US army doctrine and the follow-throigh on equipment development. Their staffs are resolutely opposed to having wheeled vehicles in a tracked AI formation, on the basis that wheels can’t keep up with tracks off road an vice versa on road, so you end up with two formations in different places rather than a cohesive manoeuvre unit.

      They are very strict on this, opposed a proposed wheeled Stryker ambulance for the AI bdes.which had support from some in Congress, totally rejected it

      We are doing the opposite, introducing a wheeled APC with a MMG to work with tracked Challenger, Son of Ajax, Trojan, Titan etc. It means that the infantry will be hanging on waiting for the armour to arrive or vice versa.

      Boxer is basically a medium AFV, which the British army has lacked since the days of the Saladin and Saracen. It is ideal for COIN ops, peace enforcement and if properly armed, combat against most armies, so ideal for the sandbox, Bosnia etc.

      For me the Boxers should be grouped together in a Mechanised Infantry Bde, supported by Boxer direct fire, LLAD and ATGW versions. It would be a good strategic reserve to have and one that could also play a ‘Strike’ role in support of 3 Arm Inf Div. But don’t go mixing them up with armoured infantry combat units, they dont easily fit there.

      The AI brigades need CV-90 or a similar tracked MICV to replace Warrior and Bulldog. The only reason they are getting Boxer is that it was ordered to equip two medium Strike bdes, which were then cancelled in 2020 leaving us with 600 Boxers to fit in somewhere.

      It may seem academic now, but it won’t on the field of battle when the mismatch of tracks and wheels comes home to roost.

      • I think one all wheeled brigade and two tracked makes sense. Just use the Boxers and Chally3s we are already committed too and buy without altering Polish (tracked) or French/German (wheeled) as needed. Then everything will be part of a big production run with lots in service with Nato forces and therefore a good supply of parts and upgrade options.

        • Well they’re not far off that, there are 2 mixed Brigades in the form om 12 and 20 ABCT and 7 LMBCT wheeled with Foxhound, Mastiff, Jackal.

          Ironically it is that vehicle makeup that I supported back in 2015 which they could have used to equip the 2 Infantry brigades in 1 (UK)Division that had the CS/CSS to deploy as interim wheeled Strike Brigades while waiting for Boxer, which then was the MIV programme meant to arrive in the late 2020s AFTER Challenger, Warrior, and Ajax had been dealt with.

          While keeping the 3 AI Bdes as is untouched in 3 (UK) Div.
          So 3 AI Brigades, 2 wheeled Brigades.
          But no, Carter and the army went all Boxer obsessed and wheels became No1 priority while the rest was unfinished.

          Instead, they went down the cuts exercise route and 3 AI become 2 to allow 2 compromised Strike Brigades to form, therefore removing the army ability to keep to the rule of 5 with 5 brigades and sets of CS/CSS allowing ongoing brigade level deployments.

          Nice work!

      • As was indeed the plan in 2010SDSR with 3 AI Bdes tracked, with Warrior CSP, Ajax, and CH3 planned.

        Then the army wanted wheels so 2015 SDSR with 2 Strike and 2 AI was born, conveniently allowing cuts in CS/CSS and in the brigade ORBATs while they called things an improvement to the ignorant or unaware.

        They lacked the money to get the Boxer variants required so screwed the previous 3 AI Bde plan by mixing the Ajax into the Boxer Strike Bdes as they lacked firepower, not great when your Boxer is far ahead and your firepower trying to keep up.

        With 3 programmes ongoing, and smoke and mirrors funding, the inevitable train crash occurred, this impending doom was highlighted many times on defence blogs. Such was the shortage of money, despite billions spent ( including the FRES debacles before )

        On mixing, I understand the Soviets have always/often? mixed wheeled with tracked. It was more a firepower issue for me regards the Strike Bdes and the lack of HET to move and the dispersal of already limited CS/CSS assets.

        Now, yes I agree this is the “best” they can make of a botched job.
        AI should have a tracked IFV, with Boxers in all wheeled bdes with HIMARS, Brimstone, and the rest.

    • I agree and everyone should be aware the standard configured Boxer we are buying is an APC, not an IFV.

        • Not the current configuration. It’s just an APC.

          They’ve reportedly ordered 500 RS4s from Thales and it’s open to question if it can handle anything over a 12.7mm. Think Defence did a good article on this and suggest a Venom 30mm LR should work, but otherwise we need to move to the larger and more expensive RS6 to get towards Warrior-level fire power. (If AEI aren’t lobbying like stink to get the low recoil Venom trialled, I’d be very surprised.)

          Getting Lockheed Martin to fit the Ajax turret to a Boxer is the obvious next step. I hope someone has the balls to ask for that, even while Ajax is still in the balance.

          • Thanks Jon. I recall the first order for Boxer was for 500 units, so that must be for the MIV role (ie replacement of the retained FV430s and (belatedly) Saxon). The RS4 (with 12.7mm HMG?) is suitable for that role. At some time in the future an additional order for Boxer will have to be made by MoD, that to replace Warrior and its variants. All WR IFVs will have to be replaced by Boxers with 40mm stab cannons or else we are going backwards.

            From http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk: ” A number of crewed and uncrewed turrets have been shown on Boxer including one from Lockheed Martin with the 40mm CTAS and Javelin”.
            Link:https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/boxer-armoured-vehicle-details-and-variants/

  10. I’ve been trying to get my head around what all the future options might mean for a mechanised/ armoured/ whatever infantry platoon using Boxer. What I mean is that it no longer seems necessary for all four of the platoon vehicles to have the same turret or armament. A mix and match approach would allow a platoon to face a wider range of threats than having them all the same

    For instance, one might have a turret with a 30/40mm cannon (maybe CTAS as there look like being a load of them going spare soon…) alongside Javelin. One might have a grenade machine gun or light mortar option. One might carry drones and loitering munitions. One might have a heavier calibre gun. or they all could have something I havent even thought of

    But this really isnt my world. What are other’s thoughts on what sort of mix might work, or is there a reason why they all should be the same that I havent though of?

  11. They are bloody huge vehicles, I like the look of them though, I think they will be highly effective and may be a suitable answer / replacement for tanks. And they are a vast improvement on the old FV432 of my military days

  13. Lots of comments, but no mention of the tracked drive unit that can take Boxer modules. This was announced at a defence show last month (or might have been late June). The tracked drive unit is lower and wider than the wheeled one. Once Boxer is in service it would be wise to look at this unit as a replacement for Warrior and FV432.

    • The DCE upgrade to the Rarden might keep Warrior relevant for long enough to sort out its longterm tracked replacement.
      “The most notable aspect of this proposal is that it would effectively stabilise the Warrior’s 30mm Rarden cannon, allowing the vehicle to fire on the move and thus enhancing its lethality and survivability. The DCE upgrade would additionally provide a digital turret interface facilitating the addition of a vehicle battle management system and ‘slew to cue’ capability to reduce the cognitive burden on the gunner.”
      https://www.army-technology.com/analysis/can-ajax-be-turned-around-warrior-return/

      • If you wanted to do that on the cheap, fit a stabilised RWS with 30mm cannon & ATGM. These already exist. Or look to replace the turret with something where all this is already done & then some (& you can still add the RWS). A 30×170 or 30×173 main gun with 30×113 RWS is not to be taken lightly. Throw in a couple of Spike or Javelin, Iron Fist etc. These also already exist.

        • I think DCE were using a Warrior as a demonstrator platform for an unmanned vehicle; the stabilised cannon being part of the package. There have been photos taken in the Boxer plant in Stockport of a Boxer with Kongsberg RWS like the ones you mention. As you say it would be an option.
          In this article it mentions the possibility of using Warrior in the reconnaissance role. Lot of possibilities under investigation. Not sure any will be triggered until the fate of Ajax is known.

  15. So we are going to have tracked Ch3 and (as far as we know) Ajax. Then wheeled Boxer plus assorted other wheeled vehicles. How does this all work? Are we leaving ch3 to be unsupported or just recognising that they will be limited by where the Boxers can go?

    To me it seems we need Boxer for mass, for fire support and all the roles a tank is unnecessary, but we also need tracked IFVs to support the tanks. What is the likelihood of a tracked IFV order on top of Boxer?

    • The army are going round in circles Rob. They are making the best of a bad job with the kit they themselves ordered in the ruins of Strike and the 3 perfectly good AI brigades we had before before they fiddled with it all in the 2015 SDR.

      Sticking square pegs in round holes.

      Your tracked IFV was Warrior CSP.
      Challenger 3 and Ajax would join it, with Trojan, Terrier, Titan in support.
      Your mass was Boxer with the 2 Strike Brigades.
      The fire support side was already compromised and they were using Ajax for that rather than on the Boxer itself.

      Again it needs noting Boxer was the MIV programme meant to arrive late 2020s after the tracked armoured side had been dealt with, and it was to be for only 3 infantry battalions, then on Mastiff as HPM.

      Bringing forward Boxer, along with the Ajax issues, has screwed the lot.

      And all these programmes delays can be put at the door of the governments in the late 90s onwards who did not get replacement programmes underway and got stuck in the sands of the Middle East.

    • It was announced in March 2021 that Warrior would not be upgraded and would be replaced by Boxer around the middle of this decade, so there will be no orders for a tracked IFV! Boxer will have to support and be supported by CR2 then CR3.
      How will this work? We’d better ask the French as they have a tracked/wheeled mix, but they do not have combat experience of using the same. I hope that I shall be pleasantly surprised at the ability of Boxer not to bog in in deep, glutinous mud or snow, and to keep up with a very fast tank over harsh terrain.

  16. Just for a bit of clarity about “Boxer”, the UK were a major stakeholder (through GKN) on this in the late 90’s early 2000’s, during the last couple of years I was in the Army. The French had already pulled out a few years earlier and went on to produce the VBCR. This left the Germans (KMW & Rheinmetall) and Brits (GKN). The Dutch joined (Stork), which then was purchased by Rheinmetall. UK canned the Programme about 2003/4 and haven’t produced anything home built since. The saying grace for the “whole” Boxer programme is that GKN, who were originally doing the drive train, were very insistent on Reliability, Maintainability and Commonality. That is why it is such a good vehicle.

  17. Always felt somewhat reassured when aircraft equipped w/ RR engines. 🤔😁. BUFF crews will be pleased after re-engining is completed. 😊

    • I disagree with some of the article. Warrior can provide suppressive fire in the assault even with an unstabilised cannon, just that it won’t be as accurate; if the target array is large enough, some inaccuracy won’t matter. He mentions that if a platoons Warriors are in box formation, then the 2 rear Warriors can’t fire; you either have 2 Warriors shooting in which is better than nothing or you change the assault formation. He derides use of the Warrior cannon in defence as it can’t take on tanks, but not all targets are tanks.
      I read the article with disbelief. He says IFVs are death traps but clearly does not consider Boxers to be. How many Infantryman prefer to be not supported by 30mm stab or unstab cannon?

      • I’m not qualified to voice an opinion. But I do wonder about the motivation for the article. Was it sponsored to try and justify cancelling WCSP without a proper alternative?

        • I wonder who cancelled the WCSP programme and whether it was because it was somewhat over-budget and late or because not all technical issues had been resolved – or for some other reason. Who did the options analysis on a replacement and why was Boxer chosen rather than buy an established new tracked IFV as a MOTS purchase?
          Others have said that the article represents British Army thinking but the author is not a senior serving officer.
          Your question is a good one – I have no answer, unfortunately.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here