KMW and WFEL have announced that a further sub-contract has been awarded for the UK Boxer Mechanised Infantry Vehicle Programme.

Horstman UK will supply over 250 angular gear boxes and control units for the British Army’s Boxer Mechanised Infantry Vehicle programme.

“Following rigorous supply chain evaluation, Horstman was selected to ensure best value and lowest risk to the Boxer programme. This £12 million contract award means that another significant transfer of technology to the UK will be undertaken from Horstman’s parent company, RENK, which has made all production Angle Drive Gearboxes for the Boxer vehicles to date.

In close collaboration with KMW and WFEL, RENK will ensure all required technical support and investment into Horstman, to ensure that identical Boxer gearbox products are built in the UK at Horstman’s premises in Bath, following identical processes and procedures.”

The firm adds that the gearboxes will then be supplied to WFEL’s new manufacturing facility for assembly into the new Boxer vehicles being produced in Stockport.

Having successfully supplied suspension systems for German Puma Infantry Fighting Vehicles, Horstman already has established relationships with KMW’s Engineering and Delivery teams and this sub-contract for the UK Boxer gearbox programme will create or sustain up to 20 skilled roles across Horstman and its wider UK supply chain.

WFEL say that the Boxer MIV programme aims to source 60% by value of the contract from within the UK, “protecting sovereign engineering and manufacturing skills and ensuring that the vehicles remain supported through their 30-year operational life”.

4.5 2 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
46 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Ian M.
Ian M. (@guest_555814)
15 days ago

new Boxer vehicles being produced in Stockport”, I thought they were being AIT’d in Telford?

Paul
Paul (@guest_555819)
15 days ago
Reply to  Ian M.

Boxer will have production lines in Telford (RBSL) and Stockport (WFEL/KMW), due to the ARTEC consortium.

Ian M.
Ian M. (@guest_555825)
15 days ago
Reply to  Paul

Cheers Paul

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_555822)
15 days ago

UK Warrior upgrade cancellation makes sale of CT40 cannons likely

There had been speculation that the cannons could be reused and installed in Boxer mechanised infantry vehicles to create an IFV variant for the British Army, but on 19 April the service told Jane s it had no intention to develop such a vehicle.

“There are no current plans to commission Boxer into an armoured infantry role,” said a British Army spokesperson. “We are assessing potential lethality options for the Boxer.”

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-warrior-upgrade-cancellation-makes-sale-of-ct40-cannons-likely

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_555823)
15 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Boxer awaits firing trials with John Cockerill Defense C3105 turret

“This combination has also completed some company mobility trials in Germany, and manned firing trials are planned to take place in Germany or the UK when Covid-19 restrictions are lifted, according to the two contractors.”

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/boxer-awaits-firing-trials-with-john-cockerill-defense-c3105-turret

Last edited 15 days ago by Nigel Collins
AlexS
AlexS (@guest_555844)
15 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Big mistake.
Why not the Centauro 120mm gun/turret to have same ammunition as the Challenger?

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_555853)
15 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

There’s an interesting discussion on the subject in this link.

https://uklandpower.com/2020/06/11/the-assault-gun-rides-again/

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_555888)
15 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Thanks, nice article. Yes using the big hull box of Boxer APC will be a problem for stability.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_555890)
15 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Your welcome!

Farouk
Farouk (@guest_555829)
15 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

And there lies the sheer shortsightedness of the British MOD, spend millions developing a new weapon system and then as always cut it and sell it off, meanwhile the prat’s who did the culling will no doubt receive bonuses , be placed on the honours list and no doubt win a contract to supply the government with out of date PPE?

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_555831)
15 days ago
Reply to  Farouk

After all, It’s what we do best!

Let’s hope Ares/Brimstone goes ahead as you mentioned in another thread.

https://www.army-technology.com/features/ajax-overwatch-brimstone/

Last edited 15 days ago by Nigel Collins
Ian M.
Ian M. (@guest_555843)
15 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

That Ares /Brimstone combination looks like a CVRT Striker on steroids! Seems to have 1 less missile than Striker too.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_555846)
15 days ago
Reply to  Ian M.

It certainly looks like a good fit for our strike brigades.

This would be a very useful piece of kit too.

BAE Systems proposal for British Army MFP
https://www.edrmagazine.eu/bae-systems-proposal-for-british-army-mfp

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_555848)
15 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins
Ron5
Ron5 (@guest_555905)
15 days ago
Reply to  Ian M.

Don’t you mean the Striker had 3 fewer ready to fire missiles than the new proposal?

Ian M.
Ian M. (@guest_555943)
15 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

Nope, Striker carried 5 in the bins, ready to fire and 5 reloads inside. The Ares looks to have 4 ready to fire.

BB85
BB85 (@guest_556034)
14 days ago
Reply to  Ian M.

Striker only carried 1 bin though didn’t it. This version carries 2 and I’m pretty sure they can be stacked to carry 4 like a polish tender a couple of years ago. Although I can’t see the mod funding that sort of capacity.

Pete
Pete (@guest_555854)
15 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Would be interesting to have 3 or 4 of those 4 cell brimstone modules bolted onto type 32 / 31 to support littoral ops or to deal with swarming FAC at range. Must be a very low cost option relative to capability it brings.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_555855)
15 days ago
Reply to  Pete

You would think so!

Barry Larking
Barry Larking (@guest_555916)
15 days ago
Reply to  Farouk

Experience is just something that happens to other people.

BB85
BB85 (@guest_555869)
15 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

This is where I am confused. Hasn’t the mod already signed the contract to produce the warrior turrets regardless if the vehicles are scrapped or not? So are we going to have 250 CTA turrets with no vehicle to mount them on?

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_555881)
15 days ago
Reply to  BB85

That sounds about right and sell them on at half the price we paid for them.

If this is in fact the case, you couldn’t make this💩 up if you tried. 😂

Last edited 15 days ago by Nigel Collins
Ron5
Ron5 (@guest_555908)
15 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

That’s because it isn’t true.

Ron5
Ron5 (@guest_555906)
15 days ago
Reply to  BB85

No. The contract for producing new Warrior turrets was never signed.

BB85
BB85 (@guest_556033)
14 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

You’re right I tried looking up the previous link I saw but it was back in 2015 so must have been for Ajax. At least that’s some money save then. If they do stick with cta they might opt for an unmanned version to reduce weight.

BB85
BB85 (@guest_557983)
5 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

https://www.army-technology.com/features/british-army-outlines-how-boxer-will-fill-warrior-capability-gap/
According to this article the CTA cannon at least has already been purchased. So one way or another it is bound to find its way onto boxer.

Ron5
Ron5 (@guest_555902)
15 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

The army spokesman said they had no plans not they had no intention. The words means different things.

It is perfectly feasible that the current assessment will lead to a plan equipping Boxers with CTA40 guns.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_555950)
15 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

I don’t see the money for that.

What will be the Ajax gun btw?

Peter S
Peter S (@guest_555990)
15 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Ajax will have the CTA turret supplied by LMUK under a $1b contract for 245 units ( $4m per turret!). The turret for Warrior, whilst housing the same gun, was a different design and so presumably now has no future.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_556059)
14 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

So the gun can’t move Ajax because already a contract have been placed. Well i guess they can be replacements..

BB85
BB85 (@guest_556036)
14 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

Yeah, the mod has a lot invested in CTA so I can’t see them wanting to abandon it in favour of a foreign turret and need to retool for 30mm ammo.

Glass Half Full
Glass Half Full (@guest_556076)
14 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

Equipping Boxer being the most likely option. However, its even possible that CTA40 could be used on the MRV-P program in the Light Brigade Combat Teams, if MRV-P ended up looking more like the French Jaguar and Griffon platforms with similar aggressive price points, well below Boxer costs. Or using CTA40 on a dedicated SHORAD platform with the anti-aerial airburst round.

In any event the Janes’ article regarding a sale was just speculation.

Rogbob
Rogbob (@guest_556283)
13 days ago

I would love to know if a Boxer could take 8x HVM/LMM, CTA40 and a GPMG plus ADAD/LIDAR as a combined passive sensor + gun + missile for anti air and surface capability.

That would be an awesome Stormer HVM replacement and help cover the loss of turreted cannons with WR going.

Glass Half Full
Glass Half Full (@guest_556298)
13 days ago
Reply to  Rogbob

I don’t see why not. The US have just fielded a Stryker SHORAD platform that’s broadly similar per link below. Whatever platform we choose, we need something that can affordably handle drone swarms.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/us-army-fields-first-im-shorad-to-germany

Rogbob
Rogbob (@guest_556324)
13 days ago

AIUI, the CTA40 turret for Ajax, the new, working turret (vs the WR one), is very large as it was designed for growth to a 120mm sized gun. This may preclude fitment to Boxer in a simialr way that AIUI it precludes an IFV variant of Ajax/Ares due to space and width demands. Designing another turret is likely to be cost and time consuming. Yet I dont support adopting another similar calibre either, although the RN seems to be happy having half a dozen guns within 20mm of each other! So not sure where we could go. But a cannon+mg+passive… Read more »

Glass Half Full
Glass Half Full (@guest_556330)
13 days ago
Reply to  Rogbob

I too would be cautious about a new unproven turret design, although you’d hope Lockheed has learnt something over the years.

There seem to have been a number of turret prototypes, including some quite compact unmanned versions, but the devil is always in getting to a proven reliable solution. We’d also need one that can support high elevation angles for SHORAD.

Ian M.
Ian M. (@guest_556352)
13 days ago
Reply to  Rogbob

Rogbob, the Ajax turret shell has a bearing diameter of 1.7m to allow for ergonomics and “fightability”, rather than expansion to a larger calibre weapon. There is an awful lot of kit in that turret plus potentially 2 large (95 percentile plus cold weather gear) cavalry geezers.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_556102)
14 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

The British Army spokeman must be unaware that whilst many Boxers are being procured to meet the MIV requirement (as I recall replacing FV432 and (the already gone) SAXON), many more are now to be procured to replace Warrior (which will not now be upgraded by WCSP) and such Boxers must therefore fill the shoes of an AIFV – and need to have a modern stabilised cannon.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_556162)
14 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I’ve not read that more Boxer are being procured? Rumours for the idea and against from various un named sources what I have read.

I hope they are mind!

Boxer as in the original MIV plan was replacing HPM Mastiff in 3 battalions, increased to 4 with the 2015 Strike Bde plans.
Some would end up replacing varied CVRT and 432 vehicles in support arms like RE.

Totally agree that Boxer needs a cannon for the IFV role and that more must be procured.

Rogbob
Rogbob (@guest_556281)
13 days ago

Have they actually said Boxer is replacing WR, or just that WR upgrade is cancelled? I’m not convinced on Boxer IFV with CTA. Noting we have Ajax cutting about now, and knowing how WR was used in Iraw and Afghan as either an APC or medium tank but rarely both simultaneously, I wonder at the need for it vs having Ajax for fire support (given its top end sensor system and the gun plus protection – all things CVRT lacked) and Boxer as the APC where RWS with GPMG/HMG/GMG is enough to support an Inf Sect. I agree it may… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_556307)
13 days ago
Reply to  Rogbob

I believe they did say it will, yes.
Boxer appeared in the graphic for the army structure post ISDR. The 2 “Heavy BCT” are described as using Boxer, 2 battalions each, along with regiments of Challenger and Ajax.

I defer to others with experience as to its suitability but assume that if an army has tanks an IFV should go with them?

I’m more intrigued by the Deep Strike recc brigade, as half the Ajax force ( 2 regiments) will go there.

I also assume the recc platoons of Boxer Battalions and Challenger regiments will also be equipped with Ajax.

Rogbob
Rogbob (@guest_556316)
13 days ago

Hmmm, I suspect what we see is all a bit interim given sudden cancellation of WR. I suspect the Recce Plts/Trps will go if there are 3 Recce Ajax Sqns in the Bde to be honest. In fact, havent they already? The Deep Carter Is Still In Power So Strike Cant Be Entirely Killed Off Yet Recce Bde will I assume evolve further – it’s already lost it’s Infantry iirc but this seems like a solution desperately in search of a problem. A Corps level asset akin to a US ACR perhaps, but given we will barely scrape a Division… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_556355)
13 days ago
Reply to  Rogbob

In fact, havent they already?”

No idea TBH.

“Deep Carter” 😀 The Dark Lord himself.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_556164)
14 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Fingers crossed.

Tom Keane
Tom Keane (@guest_555892)
15 days ago

Same old same old … still the best Trained army in the world, still the most poorly equipped.

As, if and when these vehicles are ‘issued’ to infantry regiments, I may be a little more enthusiastic about the whole mod procurement thing.