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 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. He also works for the NHS. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
181 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
AJH
AJH
7 days ago

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

David Steeper
David Steeper
7 days ago
Reply to  AJH

Hopefully they will. It would certainly make sense. Famous last words.

Stu
Stu
7 days ago
Reply to  AJH

It needs someone with the stones to cancel Ajax first…

Last edited 7 days ago by Stu
Marius
Marius
7 days ago
Reply to  Stu

That “someone” could be Liz Truss via Ben Wallace?! 😎

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
7 days ago
Reply to  Marius

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.

Stu
Stu
6 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

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… Read more »

Steve
Steve
6 days ago
Reply to  Stu

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.

Jon
Jon
6 days ago
Reply to  Steve

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.

Steve
Steve
6 days ago
Reply to  Jon

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

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
6 days ago
Reply to  Jon

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.

Last edited 6 days ago by Spyinthesky
Jon
Jon
6 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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.

Stu
Stu
6 days ago
Reply to  Steve

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!’

Steve
Steve
6 days ago
Reply to  Stu

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.

Stu
Stu
6 days ago
Reply to  Steve

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… Read more »

Expat
Expat
6 days ago
Reply to  Steve

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.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
6 days ago
Reply to  Stu

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago
Reply to  Stu

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

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
6 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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… Read more »

peter wait
peter wait
1 day ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

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

Paul.P
Paul.P
6 days ago
Reply to  Stu

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.

Jon
Jon
6 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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.

Paul.P
Paul.P
6 days ago
Reply to  Jon

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… Read more »

Jon
Jon
4 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P
4 days ago
Reply to  Jon

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… Read more »

Last edited 4 days ago by Paul.P
Jon
Jon
3 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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.

Last edited 3 days ago by Jon
AlexS
AlexS
5 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Since when the gravity centre and stability is the same in Ajax and Boxer?

Jon
Jon
4 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

That doesn’t mean it can’t be made to work. Boxers have turrets in other countries.

AlexS
AlexS
4 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Yes, but it would imply limitations.

Ian M
Ian M
6 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

At last Paul, a sensible post.

Paul.P
Paul.P
5 days ago
Reply to  Ian M

Thanks. In the immortal words of Terry Wogan, ‘ Is it me?’

Ian M
Ian M
5 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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

Darren hall
Darren hall
5 days ago
Reply to  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?

Ian M
Ian M
3 days ago
Reply to  Darren hall

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.

Graham
Graham
3 days ago
Reply to  Ian M

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

Ian M
Ian M
3 days ago
Reply to  Graham

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
3 days ago
Reply to  Ian M

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?

Ian M
Ian M
3 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Cos that’s when the Defence Select Committee have chosen.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 days ago
Reply to  Ian M

All these delays don’t help the Army!

Ian M
Ian M
1 day ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Tell me!

Stu
Stu
6 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P
6 days ago
Reply to  Stu

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.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 days ago
Reply to  AJH

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.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
6 days ago

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..

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
6 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

I agree.
I believe they are coming, most have yet to surface yet. The recent equipment reports listed multi billion pound funding streams for things like CAAM ER, SHORAD, and so on.

Jon
Jon
6 days ago

CAMM-ER. Yes! Excellent.

AlexS
AlexS
5 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Very much doubt about CAMM-ER

Nathan
Nathan
7 days ago
Reply to  AJH

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

OOA
OOA
6 days ago
Reply to  Nathan

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… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
6 days ago
Reply to  OOA

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.

Cripes
Cripes
6 days ago
Reply to  OOA

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… Read more »

FOSTERSMAN
FOSTERSMAN
6 days ago
Reply to  AJH

Hopefully, great piece of kit this is. Maybe stick some of those javelins up top that we also just bought.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago
Reply to  AJH

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.

Quill
Quill
6 days ago
Reply to  AJH

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.

Fedex
Fedex
6 days ago
Reply to  Quill

Could we not standardise on Boxer but utilise a mix of the new tracked with the existing wheeled versions.

Tomartyr
Tomartyr
6 days ago
Reply to  AJH

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.

jason
jason
7 days ago

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?

Last edited 7 days ago by jason
Stu
Stu
7 days ago
Reply to  jason

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… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P
7 days ago
Reply to  Stu

According to the Kongsberg brochure the RS4 can carry ATGM.
The RT60 can mount the same 30mm as the Apache. There are lots of options. The current order with Kongsberg is for about 500 RS4.

Stu
Stu
7 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Really? I checked their brochure & seemed that was the difference between RS4 and RS6. https://www.kongsberg.com/kda/what-we-do/defence-and-security/remote-weapon-systems/protector-rs4/#technicalInformation

Which bit am I missing?

Stu
Stu
7 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Sorry, you are correct. They hid that nugget about ATGMs in the datasheet PDF!
Done a bit more reading & RS4 is Crows on Stryker (didn’t know). The US are planning to fit Javelin to those.

Last edited 7 days ago by Stu
Paul.P
Paul.P
7 days ago
Reply to  Stu

There are reports that the US has tested Javelin on Crows-J.
So if I understand things it looks like Javelin is an alternative on RS4 to , say, a 40mm grenade launcher; i.e you can have a MG and either Javelin or the 40mm

Stu
Stu
7 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Yep. After you corrected me, I kept reading & posted link below to WatcherZero & if you chcek out Ratheon Website, https://www.raytheonmissilesanddefense.com/what-we-do/land-warfare/precision-weapons/javelin-missile
There’s a few articles about Javelin – even for the Javelin CLU being used to launch Stingers.

Not sure it’s Jav or 40mm +.50 cal, think it’s Jav + 40mm or .50 cal. Though I’ve been wrong before! 😀

Paul.P
Paul.P
7 days ago
Reply to  Stu

So this is from an article about Stryker by Matthew Cox in Military.com.
“Some will have the CROWS-Javelin, others will have the 30mm cannon,” Hills said. “All of the formations will eventually have both. … We will eventually kit out all nine [Stryker] brigades.”
The CROWS-J is an M153 CROWS II system, made by Kongsberg, that has been modified to launch an FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missile. In addition to the Javelin, the CROWS II mounts either an M2 .50 caliber machine gun, M240 7.62 mm machine gun, or an MK19 40 mm grenade launcher.
Its machine gun or grenade launcher ( on the RS4)

Stu
Stu
6 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

👍

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
7 days ago
Reply to  Stu

Supposedly the recent Javelin control units order also includes the option to purchase the vehicle mounted version for use in remote weapon stations so there is a belief UK will be the first country to get Javelins mounted in remote turrets.

Stu
Stu
7 days ago
Reply to  Watcherzero
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 days ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

Yes, just read of this, looks like RWS on Boxer with ATGM.

I hope they get some with Brimstone to replace Striker/Swingfire.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
7 days ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

It is an interesting and useful defensive / offensive capability to have.

Nathan
Nathan
7 days ago
Reply to  jason

That extra 70kW would be just about right for a directed energy weapon.

Chipper
Chipper
7 days ago
Reply to  Nathan

Thinking the same myself, we’ve already tested a 50kW and a 100kW is on the board

Quill
Quill
6 days ago
Reply to  Nathan

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.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 days ago
Reply to  jason

Probably some of those Javelin CLU’s on the RWS.

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
7 days ago
Reply to  jason

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

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago

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)).

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
6 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Last edited 6 days ago by Bringer of Facts
Ian M
Ian M
6 days ago

AJAX isn’t an IFV.

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
6 days ago
Reply to  Ian M

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.

Ian M
Ian M
5 days ago

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

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago

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!

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago

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).

Jon
Jon
5 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  Jon

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… Read more »

Jon
Jon
4 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
3 days ago
Reply to  Jon

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… Read more »

Last edited 3 days ago by Graham Moore
Finney
Finney
7 days ago

Glad there is going to be a decent amount of UK content in our Boxers

Paul.P
Paul.P
7 days ago
Reply to  Finney

Agree, I thought all MTU diesels were made in Germany.

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
7 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

MTU is owned by Rolls Royce anyway so its all circular.

Paul.P
Paul.P
7 days ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

Its UK jobs and workers who will spend their earnings and pay their taxes here…

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
7 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

I think that is naval MTU?

I thought RR had sold that division in their firesale?

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
7 days ago

Nope it is one of their Crown Jewels, MTU, Allison, Nuclear, RR are not a 1 trick pony. And yep I do have a vested interest in this (shares and I live in Derby).

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
6 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

They have their small jet engine division in Germany too that’s doing great work.

JohninMK
JohninMK
6 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

New engines for B-52s

Paul.P
Paul.P
6 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Derby! Good man, home of Brian Clough and the Padley Martyrs!

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
6 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Yes that surprised me, I assume they will be assembled here.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  Finney

Hope that does not jack the price up even further. Boxers are very expensive at £5.6m each.

IKnowNothing
IKnowNothing
7 days ago

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… Read more »

RobW
RobW
7 days ago
Reply to  IKnowNothing

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.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
7 days ago
Reply to  RobW

Platform full tested and accepted in the correct mod state and the costs are fully nailed down and understood?

RobW
RobW
7 days ago

I’d rather hope so for the variants already ordered.

David Steeper
David Steeper
7 days ago
Reply to  IKnowNothing

👍👍

Paul.P
Paul.P
7 days ago
Reply to  IKnowNothing

The Ajax failure is Nature’s way of standardising on Boxer 😉

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
4 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Boxer CRV, I guess?

Paul.P
Paul.P
4 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
3 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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… Read more »

Last edited 3 days ago by Graham Moore
Paul.P
Paul.P
3 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I wonder is the US Stryker with its remote turret the model we are trying to follow? Our Boxers will be fitted with the same RS4.
https://www.kongsberg.com/kda/what-we-do/defence-and-security/remote-weapon-systems/protector-rs4/

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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.

Paul.P
Paul.P
2 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Jon
Jon
7 days ago
Reply to  IKnowNothing

Absolutely. We have to go all in on quality as well. We can’t afford even the chance of another you know what.

Aaron L
Aaron L
6 days ago
Reply to  IKnowNothing

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… Read more »

Angus
Angus
7 days ago

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.

Jon
Jon
7 days ago

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.

Last edited 7 days ago by Jon
Tom Keane
Tom Keane
7 days ago

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

Seems simple enough?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago
Reply to  Tom Keane

You mean Boxer CRV?

Martin
Martin
7 days ago

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… Read more »

Sean
Sean
6 days ago
Reply to  Martin

Just do a ten of that, 100 vehicles in one go and you’re going to throw any army into disarray.

Martin
Martin
6 days ago
Reply to  Sean

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.

ChrisLondon
ChrisLondon
7 days ago

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… Read more »

Martin
Martin
6 days ago
Reply to  ChrisLondon

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago
Reply to  Martin

Boxer purchase price is insane.

Martin
Martin
6 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Insane compared to what though? Is there anything similar that’s cheaper?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago
Reply to  Martin

The Boxers we have ordered come out at £5.6m each. Stryker is £4.04m. Piranha V is £3.7m. VBCI is £2.88m.

AlexS
AlexS
4 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Agreed. You can buy a Trophy for others with price difference.

ChrisLondon
ChrisLondon
6 days ago
Reply to  Martin

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.

Jon
Jon
6 days ago
Reply to  ChrisLondon

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.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
6 days ago
Reply to  ChrisLondon

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.… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
6 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

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.🤨

Matt
Matt
6 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Losing track of types of missile. 😣

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

D J
D J
6 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

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… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P
6 days ago
Reply to  ChrisLondon

Welcome to rip off UK!

Last edited 6 days ago by Paul.P
Sean
Sean
6 days ago
Reply to  ChrisLondon

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.

Last edited 6 days ago by Sean
ChrisLondon
ChrisLondon
6 days ago
Reply to  Sean

Of course the Lynx works and is a major advance in sensors and weaponry over Scimitar.

Would you prefer the Boxer CRV? The Aussies are finding it overweight with reduced mobility and some vibration issues. See https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-11/army-boxer-light-armoured-vehicle-delays-turret/100343228

Sean
Sean
6 days ago
Reply to  ChrisLondon

With all the issues being with a turret of a version the U.K. is NOT buying 🤷🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
4 days ago
Reply to  Sean

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

Stu
Stu
5 days ago
Reply to  ChrisLondon

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?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  Sean

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.

Sean
Sean
5 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  Sean

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… Read more »

Sean
Sean
5 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
4 days ago
Reply to  Sean

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… Read more »

Sean
Sean
4 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Cripes
Cripes
6 days ago
Reply to  ChrisLondon

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… Read more »

ChrisLondon
ChrisLondon
6 days ago
Reply to  Cripes

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.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
6 days ago
Reply to  ChrisLondon

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… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
6 days ago
Reply to  Cripes

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… Read more »

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
6 days ago
Reply to  ChrisLondon

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

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago

So it can’t replace Warrior then.

Jon
Jon
5 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  Jon

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… Read more »

IKnowNothing
IKnowNothing
6 days ago

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… Read more »

Martin
Martin
6 days ago
Reply to  IKnowNothing

Almost like a combined arms force 🙂

IKnowNothing
IKnowNothing
6 days ago
Reply to  Martin

yeah exactly, within the platoon

bill masen
bill masen
6 days ago

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

Last edited 6 days ago by bill masen
Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago
Reply to  bill masen

They may be big, but they cannot replace a tank.

bill masen
bill masen
6 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I agree, tanks have been replaced by N – Laws 🙂

grizzler
grizzler
5 days ago
Reply to  bill masen

yeah must present quite a target dontcha think….

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
6 days ago

Is this not the only engine option for boxer just now?

D J
D J
6 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

I thought so as well.

Paul Bestwick
Paul Bestwick
6 days ago

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.

Paul.P
Paul.P
5 days ago
Reply to  Paul Bestwick

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/

D J
D J
5 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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.

Paul.P
Paul.P
5 days ago
Reply to  D J

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.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
6 days ago

Any sign of an active protection system for the entirety of the armoured vehicle fleet?

RobW
RobW
6 days ago

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?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
6 days ago
Reply to  RobW

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… Read more »

grizzler
grizzler
5 days ago

“Got stuck in the sands “…ironically was that on tracked vehicles ?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
4 days ago
Reply to  RobW

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… Read more »

Mark Forsyth
Mark Forsyth
6 days ago

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… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
5 days ago

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

Paul.P
Paul.P
4 days ago

Food for thought.
Warrior IFV is dead, long live Boxer (or is it Ares?) APC.
https://wavellroom.com/2022/08/05/deleting-warrior-saves-lives-apc-vs-ifvs/

Graham
Graham
3 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P
3 days ago
Reply to  Graham

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?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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.