Rolls-Royce will deliver a total of 523 mtu Series 199 engines for the Boxer Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV) for the British Armed Forces.

Rolls-Royce business unit Power Systems recently signed contracts with its partners Krauss-Maffei Wegmann/WFEL and Rheinmetall Landsysteme/Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land covering the delivery of 523 engines between 2022 and 2030.

“Rolls-Royce will deliver engine components to its subsidiary Rolls-Royce Solutions UK where engine assembly, acceptance tests and painting will be done, sustaining new and existing jobs at the facility. Boxer MIV for the British Army will be the first version of the vehicle equipped with Rolls-Royce’s mtu 8V 199 TE21 engine, delivering 600 KW, 70 KW more than the mtu engines in previous versions of the vehicle. The mtu engines will power all Boxer vehicles on order for the British Army: The British government recently ordered 100 additional Boxer vehicles for the British Army.”

Andrew Munt, Boxer Programme Director for WFEL, said:

“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, said:

“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.”

Knut Müller, Vice President Global Governmental at Rolls-Royce business unit Power Systems said:

“The Boxer MIV project is a very important part of the modernization of the British Army. To support this project, we have made a big effort to enable manufacturing of our proven mtu Series 199 engines in the UK for the first time. We are proud to contribute to the British Army’s mobility and agility with our engines made in Britain.”

According to a statement from the firm:

“Boxer MIV is one of the world’s most advanced wheeled armoured vehicles, offering outstanding mobility and protection. Boxer will form an integral part of the British Army’s Brigade Combat Teams capabilities. It is in service and on order with various NATO nations and Australia. One of its key characteristics is its modular set-up, consisting of a joint drive platform and different mission modules. The British Army will receive four different variants of Boxer, encompassing infantry carrier, specialist carrier, command post and ambulance vehicles.

All Boxer vehicles for the British Army will be powered by mtu 8V 199 TE21 engines with a power output of 600 KW. Their increased power output allows for enhanced operational mobility and agility despite the vehicles’ higher weight due to improved protection. It also enables a higher electrical load. There are now two versions of the Boxer vehicle available to ideally fulfil the varying operational needs of customers, either powered by mtu Series 199 TE20 or TE 21 engines with a power output of 530 or 600 KW, respectively.”

Tom has spent the last 13 years working in the defence industry, specifically military and commercial shipbuilding. His work has taken him around Europe and the Far East, he is currently based in Scotland.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

63 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Martin
Martin
1 year ago

Imagine if we have just gone with boxer all those years ago and saved the entire FRES cluster f**k that is the British army land vehicle program. it’s great that British companies have been able to integrate in to the supply chain but it’s nothing compared to what could have been if the army had its act together.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin

Agreed. They pissed 1 billion up the wall on FRES alone.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 year ago

Hi Daniele,

I remember reading a summary (on here I think) back in 2019 that suggested that the Army / DE&S had pissed £5billion (if I remember correctly) up the wall and delivered precisely NO AFV to the frontline units in 20 years!

That’s £5b we could really do with right about now. Where was the sense of responsibility? It is bad enough when projects over run, but to deliver nothing that is just taking the piss…

Oh, well siad all before, better get on with the DIY before the sun gets too high.

Cheers CR

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Morning mate.

Yes, you’re correct. That is over a several programmes, including the FRES fiasco that has just continued.

The usual line from the pro army journalists and ex officers is that it is all the RN’s carriers fault.

There is no responsibility! There should be, but that is modern society we live in isn’t it? It is never ones fault, especially the higher ups from ministers to brass.

Joe16
Joe16
1 year ago

Hi Daniele, I’ve had this said to me before- even that the RN took money from the Army’s equipment budget in order to pay for their shortfall in the carriers. “That’s very interesting” I said, “I’ve not heard that before, could you send me a link so I can find out more?”. The reply was something along the lines of them not having any details but it’s widely spoken about.
I’ve not found any written record of this happening, so find it hard to believe.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Joe16

Agree, I’ve seen it said here too.
Inter service rivalry alive and well. At least the RAF and RN get something for their money.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 year ago
Reply to  Joe16

Because it’s BS. It comes from the people responsible for the Army’s 20 years of gross incompetence. Some of whom are and were at very high levels in the Army and even the armed forces. 😉😉

Jonathans
Jonathans
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin

Sadly very true.

Joe16
Joe16
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin

I’m not entirely clear on why we pulled out of it in the first place, does anyone in the public sphere actually know…?

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
1 year ago
Reply to  Joe16

Go have a look at the long read on FRES at Think Defence website. Its a Project Management lesson on how not to run a project.

Joe16
Joe16
1 year ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Thanks, I enjoy a bit of TD so will take a look!

Scott
Scott
1 year ago

Was that not the engine that was supposed to go into the warrior upgrade ?

maurice10
maurice10
1 year ago

The build rate is too slow and the UK needs more than 620 odd vehicles. In truth, I don’t believe the MOD intends to bolster the Army’s armour other than the current dilatory plans with Ajax and CH3. Intelligence is probably telling Whitehall that Russia is now a spent force in terms of conventional armour and the UK need not expand its assets. The reality may be different but so what?

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

Having very easily won this technology Turkey shoot, using only the less integrated weapons system, it is very easy to become complacent?

Jonno
Jonno
1 year ago

We dont do complacency do we? We invented it instead. No war in 10 years mirage ever since 2015 (and before see the Naval treaties of the 20’s and 30’s)

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 year ago

Now there you go with that common sense nonsense. Stop it now.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Sorry, you are right, I’ll stop and start building a fantasy fleet that I can 3D print in my garden…..

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 year ago

Only 1 fantasy fleet ? Typical. 😁

eclipse
eclipse
1 year ago

Make sure you dont use any water for that.

Joe16
Joe16
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

Honestly, I think that assessment of the current condition of the conventional Russian force is accurate. They are in no shape to start threatening any NATO countries in the Balkans or elsewhere, and won’t be for the next 5-10 years.
BUT, that should be seen by the MOD as some God-given breathing room to get a solid, integrated modernisation programme in place for all branches so that we overmatch them when they inevitably get bolshy again. Rather than an opportunity to strip capability back further.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Joe16

I agree.

maurice10
maurice10
1 year ago
Reply to  Joe16

The Ukrainian crisis is quickly being shifted away from the main focus of government, which when it reconvenes will be too busy attempting to stop a social meltdown over utilities. Any additional money earmarked for the MOD will be subject to endless scrutiny as will all other government departments as ways and means are determined by the treasury. The Russian invasion is failing and most observations indicate its fighting ability is now seriously compromised, so much so, it plays right into the hands of those who want the exchequer to place all efforts on ‘cost of living.’

Joe16
Joe16
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

To be fair to them, the government’s responsibility is to manage/run the country in such a way that world events and macro-economic factors (like global supply chain and energy impacts) don’t adversely impact the “common person’s” life too much. So this cost of living thing is a major consideration. I find myself halfway between two opinions, and I lean a bit depending on my mood. One the one hand, I think we have become overly used to / reliant on easy access to energy for our daily lives- to the extent that comforts are seen as necessites. I’m not talking… Read more »

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 year ago
Reply to  Joe16

Hi Joe, Nicely balanced and pretty much where I am has well. Although I would also suggest that the supper rich have got somewhat too rich. At this year’s Dazos conference a group of billionaires reportedly called for a wealth tax to help with Climate Change and Bill Gates recently announced he was going to take himself off the rich list by put $20billion into his foundation! If billionaires are calling for a wealth tax things must be really out of sink..! The other thing I would point out is that whilst this current crisis is being caused by the… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 year ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

I think the issue is that the electorate have allowed themselves to be believe that if you let liberal democracy, individualism and market forces operate to optimise profit and growth then things will work. But they don’t. Individuals do not make choices which are in the common good so eventually you reach a situation in which everyone is in trouble and the poorest are in real trouble. Examples. Privatised water companies have sold off reservoirs which could be easing the water shortage. Fixing leaks costs money and lowers profits. Polio is returning to London’s sewers. Privatised energy companies can’t make… Read more »

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Again I pretty much agree with what you are saying. Not sure our current politicians are capable of smelling the coffee even if they did wake up! If those who felt left behind before the current cost of living crisis has even really hit home don’t start throwing their teddy bears around this winter I’ll be amazed. We need change, political, economic and environmental and fast. We need to be inclusive and I’m not just talking about those groups identified in the equalities act. I’m talking about those who are staring down the barrel this winter who are excluded from… Read more »

Jonno
Jonno
1 year ago

The Army mustn’t follow the Navies lead and go FFBNW. I cant see an armed version. Seems to be the new normal doesnt it? Pathetic.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonno

Perhaps they are waiting to see what happens with Ajax in December before deciding what to do. A turret takes up space in the vehicle.
Personally I think they need tracked vehicles for heavy vehicle group centred around challenger, and then light vehicles like a CVRT style wheels or tracks that’s easily deployable. For that though they need the heavy transport vehicles and the airlift for the light stuff.
Ukraine has shown no vehicle can withstand a top hit from a man portable missile. So is it worth building vehicles so heavy?

Jonathans
Jonathans
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonno

I would suggest that FFBNW has actually been what got the navy a very reasonable recapitalisation programme, keeping it in the game with modern respected platforms…..and the army that wanted everything still being stuck with designs that were started when I was born ( and I’m officially more old than young). I’ve said it once today and I will say it again (as Voltaire was a clever bugger) “ Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien” or if you prefer a more modern interpretation trying to get 100% leads you to getting nothing very fast…as per the 80/20 Pareto principle…..

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonno

The infantry carried will have a remote 12.7 mg. I don’t know what the special carried is it now it will be armed

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 year ago

The .50 cal is a powerful weapon with a good range. Is it enough for every situation? I don’t know. With the 40mm CTA guns sitting around from warrior upgrade and maybe being on Ajax it could become a module for the future. I don’t know if any ammo has actually being bought for the guns yet. I think a heavy armoured unit should set up shop in the Baltics permanently for x years. Challenger, IFV, support elements, all the necessary bells and whistles. With that we take permanent Baltic air patrol role also. It shows nato we are serious… Read more »

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
1 year ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

AFAIK Boxer as ordered by the UK is mostly an APC, a lot of posters here are wishing for a more heavily armed vehicle that is more like an IFV, I don’t think that will happen.

Deep32
Deep32
1 year ago

Don’t think you are too far from the truth. Out of the 650 or so we have ordered some 200+ are APC, the rest (400ish)are a combination of Ambulance/Comd and specialist carrier variants.
With the RWS that has been selected, some have speculated that we might fit Javelin to some and possibly swop out the 50cal with a 40mm auto grenade launcher as it fits. Not sure how accurate that might be though.
We still have to wait to discover what other ‘fighty’ variants we are going to get!

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
1 year ago
Reply to  Deep32

I think the next I.F.V the army takes on will have tracks, I really don’t think we will see up armed Boxers.

Deep32
Deep32
1 year ago

I really hope that you are right with that view. I’m totally unsure what the army will do, though must admit that as things currently look, doesn’t look likely, who knows!!

Airborne
Airborne
1 year ago
Reply to  Deep32

50 cal is good, GMG is also good, but not good enough for an IFV mate as I’m sure you are aware! As you say we need more “fighty” versions and less C2 and ambulances! Although the overwatch variant, if correctly equipped, would be an excellent replacement for the long gone but not forgotten striker! The “fightys” need at least a 30mm and AT missiles, but also as a priority a 120mm mortar module should be ordered! My shopping list is long but my realism is sadly longer and don’t expect much! Cheers.

Deep32
Deep32
1 year ago
Reply to  Airborne

Wouldn’t disagree with you mate, but I do wonder, given that we will need to finance the development of any ‘fighty’ variants other than the recce (Australia) version, that we might go and buy something off the shelf. Looking specifically at the Polish Nemo mortar version. Ok it’s not on Boxer, but it’s developed and in service. How many would we need, 60ish perhaps. To my un army mindset, that’s a niche product, large costs to develop, so buy off the shelf. Same goes for a 120mm gun version, go buy the Centuro 2, or a Patria Cockrill 105 mm… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne
1 year ago
Reply to  Deep32

Agreed, do all the support varieties need to be Boxer based, nope, same as do the C2 and ambulances need to be! Certainly already thought about the Cockrill 105mm. As for numbers for the 120mm will depend on how many Battalions are eventually equipped but deffo minimum 40 units, 4 Bns x 8 per Bn and training! I’d also go for the rest of the Inf, to include light role Bns to go the way of the 120mm. Keep the 81s for Para Insertion and the “Ranger” units mate. But alas that is just the tip of the Army’s “essential… Read more »

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 year ago
Reply to  Airborne

I do wonder about so many ambulances, c2 etc. part of me thinks thinks it’s because the army don’t have a clue what they want with fighty things until they get Ajax and warrior sorted out. I still think they need a tracked IFV with 30/40mm gun and a few missiles to operate with the tanks. Maybe wheels can go anywhere a tank goes at the same speed but I’m still doubtful. Boxer will have its uses but needs more options. The Finns have a 120mm mortar carrier I think. a swing fire type vehicle would be useful as well… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Airborne

Gabs has covered this at length. So far our 623 Boxer can only equip 5 of our Infantry Battalions due to the minimum number of Infantry section variants ( 89 I recall? ) and the large number of C2 and ambulances going to other formations. When you add the 500 plus Ajax and the reality only 198 are the Scout recc variant that is a lot of C2 and other variants. When the army is now going down to just 5 mech Bns and you have 1,000 plus vehicles incoming. They could use cheaper vehicles for those other roles and… Read more »

Ian M
Ian M
1 year ago

Hi Daniele, there will be 254 AJAX.
Cheers

Ian M
Ian M
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian M

Doh! Typo. 245🤔

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Ian M

Oh, my numbers wrong mate. Thanks. Curious where I got that…

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago

OK, my 198 are the “Strike Recc” variant and the GBS and JFC types are also turreted, thus Ajax and bringing it to 254.

Ian M
Ian M
1 year ago

Close enough for government work!😁

Airborne
Airborne
1 year ago

Yes mate I still read Gabs blog quite often. All roles are important mate and in asymetric warfare it would be ideal to have everyone protected to the same level, but financialy, I dont think its feasible. More fighty versions needed as is 120mm mortar and 155mm Arty. Cheers.

Deep32
Deep32
1 year ago
Reply to  Airborne

Clearly weren’t wearing one of those parachute thingies when they fell off!!

Airborne
Airborne
1 year ago

So the Boxers can reverse out of trouble as they have no offensive weapon system!!!!! (Yet?) And even the spokesperson for these firms are taking the “agility and mobility” shit! Give it a break, buy the 120mm mortar and 155mm modules, give the rest a turret with at least a 30mm and some Jav, and then start giving it the spin!

OldSchool
OldSchool
1 year ago

In regards upgunning Boxer this article ( although its talking about Warrior) gives an alternative viewpoint. Whetger right or wrong I found it interesting.

https://wavellroom.com/2022/08/05/deleting-warrior-saves-lives-apc-vs-ifvs/

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 year ago
Reply to  OldSchool

I think what must have happened is that when the money ran out and WCSP was cancelled the MOD were inspired by an exceptionally agile and adaptable vision and decided that all we needed were Boxer APCs.

Marked
Marked
1 year ago

Any chance of delivering a turret and cannon as well? You know, so that combat vehicle has a remote chance of surviving meeting anything in combat? Shock horror surprise, the enemy also has an irritating habit of engaging in combat as well…

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 year ago
Reply to  Marked

The APC versions will get Kongsberg RS4. Machine gun or 40mm grenade launcher with an option to fit Javelin with either I think.
https://www.kongsberg.com/newsandmedia/news-archive/20202/kongsberg-wins-remote-weapon-stations-contract-of-1-030-mnok-with-the-the-british-miv-program/

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
1 year ago

See posted graphic: UK is ordering the 4 variants at the top of the diagram

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago

Which is not good enough. We should hopefully be increasing into some of those other variants. NLOS, AD, 120MM mortar especially.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 year ago

Wouldn’t we choose Brimstone over NLOS? I think we have delivered ground launched Brimstone to Ukraine. Rheinmetall are on the case with a Boxer mortar module ‘in anticipation of an order from the UK army’. Not seen anything on AD.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/dsei-2021-rbsl-and-rheinmetall-unveil-boxer-mortar-module
Whoops, just seen the GBAD thread….

Last edited 1 year ago by Paul.P
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Yes, hope so. I meant a generic stand off precision solution, not necessarily Spike.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 year ago

Ah, ok. My bad.

eclipse
eclipse
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul.P

NLOS just means Non-Line of Sight, not only the NLOS version of the spike. I’d agree with mounting Brimstone on Boxer.

LongTime
LongTime
1 year ago

See my “do it right the 1st time” thought process is lease/buy 1 of each variant and test the fleet properly by lads/lasses who will actually use them. Say 50 troops no more than 10 officers and no rank above Captain in my opinion and only 1-2 of them. Then abuse each variant until we have a buy list. Surely that’s these fast “strike” units with equipment that’s supposedly agile and versatile as f@&k according to MOD😂. Fantasy fleet has to be the complete list in decent numbers to serve everything but heavy armour units, including the engineering recovery and… Read more »

Phil Wyld
Phil Wyld
1 year ago

To be honest, Boxer was ready for production, most of the trials completed and the expenditure on jigs and trials tapering off Suddenly, (MOD speed, actually sloth speed) suits started saying things like, it’s too big for the ITDU Garages and we’ll need shipping containers for the spare modules…no one had noticed it was quite chunky think gravy train, trials make jobs..! The inevitable German intransigence also gave rise to a few problems They decided it was basically a large minibus. And wanted it to meet crash test rules. Yes, sending 30 tonnes of armour into a concrete pillar, see… Read more »

Steve Freeman
Steve Freeman
1 year ago

Not much of a new UK production line. If you read the full PR on the RR website, then right at the end it says this investment will sustain up to 10 jobs in the UK! So the British content is to screw the main parts together after they arrive crated from Germany, give it a quick wiggle and Fred freshens up the paint.

John Hampson
John Hampson
1 year ago

Rather than create the wrong impression that this is a major boost for UK PLC, maybe it was worth mentioning that the RR engines are Not actually being manufactured in the UK, just assembled here. The engines are actually German. Again one more oppotunity to support the UK manufacturing base ignored.
Given that there is a significant risk the output from heavy German industry may about to be severely restricted and delivery of these engines is kicked into sometime in the future, as Putin turns off the gas tap, it may be prudent to grease up the Warriors in store

Andrew
Andrew
1 year ago

Could we triple the order, increase manufacturing capacity using foreign aid money and donate a couple of thousand to the Ukrainian Army?