Boxer, the British Army’s new generation of all-terrain armoured vehicles, is set to undergo a series of trials commencing this month.
The Boxer is a highly mobile, protected, and modular 8×8 wheeled vehicle set to play a range of roles for the Army’s mechanised infantry.
The UK prototypes of the vehicle will initially undergo industry trials, which will be followed by customer trials to be conducted by Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) in the autumn.
The Boxer vehicles are designed to be part of the Army’s Armoured Brigade Combat Teams. These teams are structured to deploy rapidly over long distances and operate across varied terrains. The vehicles will be used to transport troops to the frontline for missions ranging from low intensity peacekeeping to full-scale warfare.
“It’s going to be an excellent addition to the Armed Forces. It’s low logistic need, reach and mobility ensure it’s relevant for any global scenario that requires rapidly deployable infantry mass,” commented Warrant Officer Class One Gareth McQueen, who is part of the military personnel working on the Boxer project.
The Army will receive four Boxer variants, each serving a different purpose – an Infantry Carrier, a Specialist Carrier, a Command Post Carrier, and an Ambulance.
The armoured vehicle can achieve speeds of up to 60mph on roads and is hardened to withstand the heat, shockwaves, and electromagnetic effects of a nuclear explosion. The Specialist Carrier variant will be able to support all current in-service weapon systems, including the heavy machine gun, the general-purpose machine gun (GPMG), the grenade machine gun (GMG), and the JAVELIN anti-tank guided weapon station.
Several NATO countries, including Germany, the Netherlands, and Lithuania, already have Boxer variants in service. In the UK, the Boxer is expected to be delivered to battalions within the Armoured Brigade Combat Teams.
As the capability of this vehicle is very well known will we spend years on extensive trails or just hopefully get them into service asap.(not holding my breath)
Well if British Army achieves messing Boxer an armored truck with a machine gun it might better to close shop and UK contract a mercenary army.
One of the potential ‘fail safes’ for me ref British Army & Boxer, is that there will always be another module either available or in the pipeline. So, regardless of tracks* vs wheels, Boxer represents as good a selection as UK has made for a while, albeit after not joining earlier due to us knowing better!
* already an option😎
Rgs
Would you be happy Gavin if the Infantry Carrier lacks a cannon (unlike Warrior) and if it bogs down in thick mud – when its predecessor Warrior didn’t?
No, Graham. Somewhat sadly, my aspect could perhaps best be summed up from a ‘minimum f.u., taxpayer perspective’ – despite the General Staff’s apparent ‘intense efforts’ over the past 20 years. I.E. where Boxer actually represents something tangible that has so much potential, but certainly cannot answer for all scenarios.
On the happy soldier front, was never land forces, but do not think I’d mind how I was evacuated from the field providing the ambulance was heading rapidly away from the action. So may prefer investment in a more fight-orientated option on the grounds that the more of the latter, the less the need for the former…..
On Warrior, we’d be wise to store? especially if Wallace’s timeline for war is anything approaching the mark, and the rapidity with which ‘old stuff’, or indeed anything, becomes essential in actual conflict. Cheers
Thanks Gavin. Boxer is appropriate for a medium-weight, Infantry-orientated expeditionary force, although arguably it is very heavy for lift by A400M Atlas, so would have to go by C-17 or sea. We have come a long way from Saxon APC, but might Mastiff have soldiered on (albeit it was PM rather than ‘fully armoured’)?
Many think we should store certain equipment once it is declared obsolete and withdrawn from field force units and the training organisation, as ‘a just in case’. I am pretty sure we have never done that. I was Equipment Support Manager for Tank derivatives plus the withdrawn-from-service CR1s in 2002/03.
It is SOP to centralise ‘old’ vehicles at MoD Ashchurch with all the ancillaries (less radios, MGs etc!) and for the Defence sales organisation (keeps changing its name) to sell off ASAP. Before that point gifting to Ukraine etc would be considered.
Only if something cannot be sold to another user, is it scrapped. It costs a fortune to keep back hundreds of vehicles (or other kit) that is out of service – storage costs is only one part of it – there are many other costs too. Also we have little storage space – we only have one vehicle depot in the UK now and thats not so big – we had loads of vehicle depots in UK at one time:
https://british-army-units1945on.co.uk/royal-army-ordnance-corps/vehicle-depots-1-to-20.html
OK, thanks for that background and insight.
Two preoccupations from my more generalist perspective, nowadays:-
a) Politically: UK Governments of any shade have exhausted the peace dividend card. Their other great fallback, the public aren’t interested in defence, seems to be wearing thin according to recent YouGov poll, as I recall.
b) Militarily: whatever funding our forces get from here in, the incentive to maximize procurement efficiency must be front & centre.
The irony is, no matter what Putin represents threatwise, and it is considerable purely due to his own ego, alongside China we’ve likely seen nothing yet – under Xi, at least (pretty sure he must ‘identify as blonde’).
Rgs
I fully agree.
Many think we failed in Iraq and Afghanistan – many reasons including poor political and military strategy, lack of numbers and the wrong kit. No-one seems to be bothered though.
I spent some time at Abbey Wood – procurement efficiency must be improved as you say, particularly for the high-value programmes.
I still struggle to see UK’s confrontation with China. Not really in our back yard.
Ah, my erstwhile service, though decades back, and main interest still – naval gazing. See the tradtional GIUK as major access into Atlantic even for China, a large globe in my study helps. Xi also has Russia as his left flank, though likely not too happy with Putin’s noble efforts to awake NATO and formalize it’s northern maritime boundary.
I’ve always seen the World as small on the maritime front and China’s influence is everywhere, including major choke points. In short, there’s nowhere that is not in our backyard, if it’s Earth…..
& that entity itself is going to put us in our place soon enough, I reckon (really does not pay to piss off your planet).
But sure, Putin is the most imminent issue. Long awaited Defence update due very soon, so lets see.
Thanks. Didn’t we used to say ‘GRIUK’ gap?
Not sure our navy is big enough to face off against China – I heard the Americans don’t see that we need to ‘help them out’ in future on this point.
Essential skills base, as I see it Graham. And for UK, that remains Maritime on balance. Anti-sub warfare in all its guises, incl protection of the pipe/energy lines, are quite enough for this maritime bastion to contend with on this side of the Altantic – alongside littoral experts like Norway, of course. Note that the north-western European seaboard states are in lockstep under the UKJEF, but I still see ourselves as the major blue water A/S contributor therein – lacking adequate resources and slow to re-equip, naturally.
But it’s on that last point i.e. where do you prioritize in the UK that makes me say maritime, which includes air assets of course. I see Dannatt was on Times Radio earlier, and summarized by saying the UK Land Forces are in danger of hiding behind countries like Poland, rather than being a major Army on the continent as we used to. Disingenuous? we were cold-fighting many of the countries under the Warsaw Pact that are now with NATO (or screaming to join), including what was East Germany; who need no encouragement to see Putin’s Russia for what it is and take the fight to Him.
As you know, I’m rooting for all the services and their related areas of expertise within NATO, but I cannot help feeling that those mentioned Euro-countries would be more content to see us guard the sea lines as best we can – on balance.
I get the impression that the US is not quite as sanguine as you quote over its state of readiness against China, by way of a number of US military orientated YouTube sites, like Sub Brief, CSIS, RUSI, etc.
We’ll see soon enough what transpires!
Teatime. Rgs
I am happy that we are a maritime nation with a Navy to match, without forgetting that it is the army that gets deployed regularly to do warfighting – real wars where people die – Blair deployed the army to combat missions 5 times in his tenure. The army was starved of manpower for Iraq and Afghanistan – many lives were lost and arguably the missions failed.
Dannatt – he is talking about the contemporary situation regarding the army yet you talk about Cold War times? We are in NATO – we contribute to the security of Europe and that means having credible land forces that can deploy eastwards to where there is conflict and tension. It is not just down to Poland and Germany and other eastern European NATO countries. So Dannatt has a point.
You think Euro NATO nations prefer us to be keeping the seas safe rather than help them defend their country against invasion? I served in BAOR 4 times – I did not get the sense then that Germans would have preferred us not to have a Corps of 4 divisions covering 65km of front but instead be patrolling the Atlantic with a larger naval force. I doubt that human nature has changed since.
If the USN is not ready to face up to the Chinese navy, there is a big problem.
Good afternoon, Graham. Puzzled me somewhat. Firstly, though I’d expect so, best ensure that we are discussing the same interview:-
https://youtu.be/Q4i8Wk_TlDA
So, to my mind, Dannatt covered the major part with nothing I’d essentially find any query with – pretty much as you encompass the maritime aspect very relevant to ourselves. Where I comment above i.e. from ‘summerized’ to the ‘disingenuous?’ was the final moments, where I feel he somewhat let it down e.g. the ‘hiding behind’, ‘foremost power’, ‘British pride’.
As to our underwater maritime preeminence, in skills if not anywhere in numbers, it is probably worth noting that, by undersea, China & Russia in the Pacific are roughly tthe same distance from Scotland for a nuclear sub as the far Caribbean – both ways.
Rgs
Morning Gavin,
I was not reacting to an interview to Dannatt, but to your comments on Dannatt. I’ll take a look at the interview – thanks for the link. BTW, I read Dannatt’s book ‘Boots on the Ground’ a few years ago – it was hopeless – he had got an academic to do 95% of the writing who knew nothing about Defence – errors everywhere – and Dannatt did not correct them – I almost gave up reading it.
I do think though that many hide behind our island status as justification for a small army and for imposing ever more cuts on the army – not appreciating that we are mutually repsonsible for defence across the entire Euro-Atlantic region – we don’t just guard our homeland.
Cheers, Graham. Just leafing through the Update slowly.
Unbelievable waste and incompetent lack of foresight……… Its so easy to keep vehicles if properly decomissioned and stored in dry store. For the Navy and RAF its a whole more difficult game.
Jonno, were we talking about storing obsolete, decommissioned vehicles? Many problems – Ashchurch is now our only UK vehicle depot and its a small site, which cannot be expanded sideways, but there is finally some modernisation happening after years of neglect but don’t think it will increase capacity. There is very little CHE there at the moment.
There is only space for in-service vehicles which have a storage requirement – not fleets of old decommissioned vehicles as well.
The cost of storage is not insignificant. The vehicles have to have ongoing maintenance and must be periodically run up and exercised – that takes time and manpower. Certain other things need doing – you would have to maintain all the kit that goes on the vehicles including radios and weapons. You would have to maintain the safety case, embody any safety mods (like reversing cameras!), do any legislation-influenced mods, pay the Design Authority to maintain the drawings and documents etc etc. Then train military crews and mechanics (from where though?) to operate and field-maintain the old fleet. Then store quantities of spare parts, maintain the supply chain, and ensure availability of the ammunition for the weapon system..,and don’t forget to manage obsolescence.
It’s really expensive to do all this – and we don’t have the space at Ashchurch.
Hopefully it’s more than an armoured truck with a MG. It’s costing about £5.5m each and is replacing a capable tracked IFV.
No, first they will double the weight of it with armour and forget that it needs to reverse over tree stumps. Then probably add a sampson radar on top…
Really!😂😂
😂 I wonder what warships will sail without them in that case.
British Army specified the A3 version with more powerful powerpack (600kw v. 530kw), uprated transmission, better protection and greater loadcarrying capacity. Also UK modules are new, and vehicles have UK-specific equipment. Earlier trails were with Dutch/German specified A1/A2 versions. Australia went for an A2/A3 hybrid variant, with original powerpack but upgraded transmission. There are more than three variants – Command Post types include a Command/Utility vehicle, which is based on the Dutch cargo variant and is for platoon commanders – carries a 3 person command team and up to two NATO standard pallets for resupply. A Command Post variant for Company/Battalion command duties with C4i equipment, an Observation Post version for the RA, a Beyond Line of Sight version to command ISTAR drones, an EW / SIGINT version. The Specialist Carrier can field, 81mm Mortar, Drone and Loitering Munition teams and some will be configured as Repair Vehicles and the Infantry Carrier variant as engineer section carrier, fire/recce support carrier and infantry carrier + ambulances. Follow-on orders may include an IFV with a 30mm RT60 RWS, a 120mm NAMO mortar carrier, a precision strike version with Brimstone, a recovery vehicle (with a crane) and a bridgelayer.
Cheers👍
Recovery version will be needed or does the British army already have a recovery vehicle that can travel with boxers?
This vehicle has been available for years, why wait now to start testing? Rhinmetal should have handed a squadron to Bovington once the programme was signed off! All this nonsense is holding back vital equipment such as this and Ajax and all the time our troops have to make do with Grandad’s battle wagons. Sadly, our Defence Secutery is off to pastures new so who knows what the new person will do about this nonsense?
I have seen a single boxer driving at Bovington last year, but I think they have been busy (not that it’s an excuse shouldn’t be difficult to trial more than one vehicle) with the Ajax while also dealing with all the iraq/afghan vehicles and having to convert them along with tactics, now suddenly having to focus on the chally and Ukrainians.
I have never heard that ATDU could not test/trial more than one vehicle at a time!
I doubt they are working on testing/trialling Iraq/Afghan conflict vehicles. Those that went ‘into core’ did so years ago – and those that didn’t will be disposed of by now.
To take an example – the German built vehicle (an earlier version) was built by a German factory and has been in German units for years.
The British Boxer (a newer version which is a bit different) has never before been built by WFEL and never before been in service with a British unit. You think we should not test that a. it has been built right (Industry tests) and b. that the User is satisfied with it and has no issues (User tests)?
There is no massive hurry – Warrior is still doing a fine job for the armoured infantry with its high mobility and cannon, and will continue to do so for the next few years.
It would be a nonsense if we did not test new-to-service equipment.
‘no massive hurry’. If true that seems to me a key point and suggests that at the moment we should focus on numbers and capability of other versions; mortar, overwatch, recovery, AA and so on. After trials, the army can approach the MOD with a solid proposal, (also backed up with evidence from Ukraine fighting) for x number of Boxer IVFs with the CTAS 40mm. Then the politics and negotiations would start; we can only afford y number of cheaper RT60 with 30mm….
‘No massive hurry’ means Warrior can continue to ‘hold the ring’ for the Armoured Infantry until Boxer comes in – it would have held it even better if it had been upgraded in the mid-late 90s, as I would have expected, and wanted!
The Boxer build is glacial anyway, 3 per month (hope they can get that up otherwise it will take decades to fully get nto service), so Warrior needs to remain in service for quite a few years, and can do, until all Boxers are built and in service.
The numbers for each Boxer variant was clearly stated some time ago for the 523 Tranche 1 order – Wiki is just one place where the list resides. There is less clarity (ie none) on the variant mix for the Tranche 2 order of 100 wagons.
It is not hard to work out how many Boxer IFVs are required – we know that know – 5 battalions each of 9 platoons – plus enough for Trg Org, RP and Attrition Reserve.
As ex-REME I will be interested in their specialist vehicles – it seems that we are not buying the established Repair variant and the established Recovery variant, but a hybrid that can do both functions. That will be a design challenge and I am concerned – and so this vehicle may be delayed into service – trouble is you need REME wagons on Day 1, not a year or 2 after ISD.
Recovery variant is need from Day1 – standard part of ILS. Shocked if this is not the case. A recovery variant must be heavier than the heaviest vehicle in the Boxer family (not sure what that is).
Wiki says combat load out is 38,500 kg and stretch potential to 41,000 kg.
The British Army’s MAN 8×8 has a GVW of 32,000kg – so could not do the job on combat-laden Boxers. [BTW a number of these are being sold off:https://leomaschinen.com/product/man-sx45-8×8-recovery-truck/
Quite a problem! The ILS guy at Abbey Wood must have a solution?
Unless the info is wrong – Wiki: “Australia and the UK will receive a repair and recovery mission module, the details of which have yet to be released. The UK designation for this variant is Mechanised Infantry Vehicle Repair and Recovery (MIV-REC)”.
Is the 30mm RT60 as good as a 40mm stabilised CTAS?
Why no recovery variant from Day 1? (hopefully it has a winch as well asa crane!).
Industry trials this month – not sure whether this is Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT) or something before that – however surely you would not buy a new car if the manufacturer had not tested it, and particularly if a new manufacturer of AFVs had just made it. Not sure if these Boxers are the initial batch (of 117?) that were built in Germany – or the first ‘made in UK’ ones.
Customer testing is an unofficial term – maybe this means User Trials/User Validation Trials/Troop Trials or FAT. However surely you would want the User to test a new vehicle – this is the first time that British Army has had Boxer – need to check the stowage solution works for everything from medical kit to hand grenades. REME may want to run through some recovery drills and repair procedures. Vehicle Commanders will want to check integration of weapons has worked etc etc – its one think for a WFEL employee to check this, another thing for the User to check it.
Not sure there is a tearing hurry – Warrior remains in service for some years to come whilst Boxer goes though the final hoops.
After the manufacturers a vehicle would have gone to MVEE/RARDE Chertsey for extensive trialling in all aspects of it’s uses which would include vibration, noise etc then passed onto ATDU for troop trials however due to defence cuts Chertsey was closed and the drivers/engineers/scientists either re-roled or made redundant such is progress.
Yes, Brian, I know that all too well.
I was SO2 for Unmanned Vehicles at RARDE Chertsey in 1989-90. RARDE’s main activity was always cutting edge R&D (including designing and developing tanks up to and including Chieftain/Shir 1/Shir2/CR1 and also invented Chobham armour etc etc, but also did trialling as you mentioned.
Vehs & Wpns Br REME, also on site, did Ease of Maintenance Assessments amongst other things.
Jacko. Would you buy a new car without road-testing it? Irrelevant that Boxer is in service with French and German armies. We need to trial it with British TTP, other British kit, maintainers who won’t have worked on it before etc.
Just a few thoughts, all of which we’ve done to death here before.
Why 5 million each? How do others of its class compare cost wise?
Is it necessary for Boxer for all formations, resulting in so few for the Infantry. Example, where before FV432 remained in support of Warrior in Mech and AI Bns. That way maybe more Infantry Battalions beyond a mere 5, which seems so pathetic for 5 billion spend, could be equipped?
Could a cheaper OTS type, Patria for example, be bought to flesh out other formations, or would the costs of a 2nd type negate any advantage in concentrating the Boxer we will have into more Infantry units?
Cannon. Cannon. Cannon. Where are they?
Spending 5 billion on something with so little firepower does not seem right. Especially as the vehicle it replaces, Warrior and its replacement WCSP, was of a magnitude cheaper, was better armed, and would only furnish 1 Battalion less, at 4.
I’ve also read of Boxer being the likely new carrier for HVM, replacing Stormer. Hope DCP confirms.
Where are the overwatch variants with missiles to replace the Swingfire Striker capability and augment Spike NLOS Exactor?
Where is the SHORAD AD version with AA cannons?
Will Millbrook trials also take into account thick mud and snow, which experienced posters here have highlighted as potential issues?
Indeed. Do not make any sense the current Boxer variant quantities. I think currently the Infantry version is only enough to equip 4 battalions.
Yes, and that’s pushing it. 5 are planned, as the 2 AI Bdes are uneven! Some thing that bugs me.
Oh, for A2020….with 3 identical AI Brigades.
The initial plans when Boxer was supposed to be coming in to service, the heavy Mech brigades would be operating the upgraded Warrior. Whilst Nicer was to be a battle taxi for light infantry. However, as the Warrior upgrade has been cancelled. The Army have subsequently stated that Boxer will take Warrior’s place.
But, is that with the original purchased vehicles? Or a subsequent purchase to fulfill the IFV role? In which case, it will need to have a significantly better offensive capability!
So far what the army has stated doesn’t add up. Unless there is a future dedicated IFV purchase. Which comes in with Warrior’s OSD in 2030.
Nicer?
Quite right that the ‘elephant in the room’ is the weapon fit for the Infantry Carriers. Army requirement was for a 40mm stabilised CTAS cannon for the Armoured Infantry (AI) – not sure if that has changed as the Threat certainly hasn’t.
Not heard that WR OSD is 2030 – the March 2021 DCP said mid-’20s.
Duh Nicer – lol!
Like I said, today’s IFV must have a better stand-off range. The 30mm Bushmaster series is good, but the 40mm CTAS is better. Nexter/Giat have shown a non-penetrating unmanned turret with the CTAS 40 fitted. A important factor that is often overlooked, is that it can be reloaded from below.
I saw Warrior OSD as 2030 printed in the Times, so it must be true…..
30mm Bushmaster is a development of the 25mm version designed in 1976, so a revamp of a very old design. Still it is better than having a turret-mounted Browning 0.50 which was designed in 1917!
Guess 30mm Bushmaster is OK but would it be fielded as a stabilised cannon? …and of course not as good (as you say) for lethality and range as 40mm CTAS.
Warrior OSD was said to be mid-2020s but this might have slipped back to 2030 due to the news that the build of the Boxers that will replace it (unless a U-turn happens today in Parliament) is glacial.
Just 3 Boxers being built per month!!
Only 85 Infantry Carriers in the Tranche 1 order of 523 vehicles. If Platoon commanders have one of those types and not a C2 variant, then 85 is just enough for two of the five battalions in the ABCTs.
I think platoon commanders get the Command/Utility version, with space for a 3 person command team and a cargo deck for 2 NATO standard pallets.
Thanks James, thats interesting on 2 points.
First is that we will have 3 Infantry Carriers per platoon (so 27 per battalion) – thus the 85 ordered in the Tranche 1 order of 523 enables three of the five battalions to be equipped (81) but that only leaves 4 to be split between the Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve which of course is not enough by a long way.
Pl HQ was always 5? Pl Comdr, Pl Sgt, radio op, light mortar pair. But light mortar has gone now?
Second point is that this will be the first time that a Platoon HQ vehicle has had the possibility of carrying ‘Platoon stores,’ not that there ever realy was such a concept before AFAIK – a good development.
A Ukrainian website said that UK MoD was doing a U-turn on phasing out Warrior. That would amaze me if true.
Maybe they realised about Ukranian mud…
Someone should. The rainy season in eastern Europe is so bad it has a special name – Rasputitsa –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasputitsa
…and the mud is horrendous.
The Sun newspaper did report a u-turn on Warrior. But the u-turn was just the extension of the osd from mid decade to 2030. And the article did say that the report was contradicted by the MOD,
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23040410/u-turn-plans-to-axe-army-fighting-vehicle/
So I interpret this to mean that we will procure a Boxer variant with a cannon but we don’t know exactly what it will look like or when.
If we don’t get a Boxer with a 40mm stabilised cannon, then the armoured infantry will have an inferior vehicle to upgraded Warrior (WCSP).
The boxer build rate is glacial so I am not surprised that WR OSD has slipped to 2030.
I think there is an argument for kitting as many battalions as you would need whilst at war even if the kit is mothballed. Much of the cost of this kit must be in the R&D which is pushing up the cost if you spread it out per unit. Surely the actual build cost might come down if they were produced on a production line and that is only worth it if built in quantity.
Not too much R&D spend now on Boxer – originally it was designed and developed (D&D) decades ago. Sure there has been a small spend on D&D integrating British kit on the vehicle.
The initial UK order was for 520 units costing £2.3b, so about £4m each. Germany appears to have paid a slightly higher price for an order in 2015. A recent order by Germany of 100 + Australian built Boxers has a unit price of @A$ 10M. So the UK price looks in line.
The French Griffon 6×6 APC has a unit cost of @€2.2m, but is a less capable platform.
The price that bothers me more is Ajax with a unit cost of over£9m. Most of the variants won’t have the expensive sensor package of Ajax so the rest of the order looks very expensive.
Peter, The £2.3bn figure keeps doing the rounds but the official MoD press release (below) says £2.8bn for 523 vehs, ie £5.35m each:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/28bn-armoured-vehicle-contract-secured-for-british-army
Interestingly the original business case put to Treasury assessed the project (Tr1) as being £1.2bn.
If the French Griffon is a less capable platform, what alternative might be comparable to Boxer? – its unit price continues to astonish me.
Ajax was always going to be more expensive than Boxer as there was a lot of Design and Development to cover and ammortise – and the sensor package is expensive as you say, but I agree that £9m a copy is way too much. We bought the wrong recce vehicle from the wrong company, thats for sure.
Cannon?
https://www.kongsberg.com/kda/news/stories/2023/7/successful-live-fire-testing-and-demo-of-the-remote-turret-60-boxer-in-norway/
I’d read RWS with MG are coming with also possibility of a single Javelin ATGM attached.
A stabilised Cannon the likes of which Graham often comments on, which is a mandated army requirement, is needed. Anything else is a major retrograde step.
Yeh, the Kongsberg RS4. I am guessing these trials include an evaluation of the various configuration options of the RWS. My understanding is that the Warriors will be replaced by a yet to be designed ‘IFV like’ version of Boxer…with numbers TBA. I can see that it does make sense to understand what you can do with the Boxers you have ordered before buying more, so these trials do look like the Warrior replacement issue is being approached methodically.
According to reports, funding for 1,000 plus has been secured, so if that is true they’ll be in there.
Re the secured funding; I was unaware of that. thx. So depending on price we should be able to replace the Warriors with a respectable IFV. The only issue I can see is the build time versus the planned our of service date for Warrior.
Despite their spin on when Boxer enters service, I believe its well into the 2030s before any in service in number. Warrior til 2030 at the very least.
MoD announcement of March 2021 (Defence Command Paper) was that Warriors would be replaced by Boxer. 623 Boxers have been ordered so far; build has started.
Thx for confirmation of that number. My understanding is that Boxer is an expensive but well armoured vehicle. Arguably best in class for 8 wheeled MIV. And that this project is progressing smoothly and probably as fast as it can given that it includes significant skills transfer and rebuilding of UK industrial capacity. It was a smart decision to rejoin the Boxer program. I believe an acceptable solution will be found to the IFV gap created by cancellation of WCSP. In the meantime we just have to make sure that one or two hundred Warriors are regularly serviced and pass their MOT 🙂
WFEL is building just 3 Boxers per month – glacial! If we buy 1500, it will take 42 years to equip the army.
As I stated the MoD’s way of filling the IFV gap created by cancelling WCSP is to buy Boxer. Let us hope that they all have a beefy stabilised cannon and not a little MG.
The crews and REME will keep Warriors going alright until they are replaced by Boxer.
The big question is could the Kongsberg turret be fitted with the CTAS40? It makes little sense going for yet another autocannon. That uses another type of ammunition. It might be the same as the RN’s DS30. But it’s not the same as that used on the Apache for example.
Some of the lessons coming out of Ukraine are that you need a better chance of a first to see first to fire capability. So optics and thermal imaging is going to be key. But having a better effective stand off range. Which enables you to engage from further away.
Which also leads on to one of the big upgrades Warrior was going to get. Which was new more effective composite armour. This was designed to defeat 30mm APFSDS rounds. Will the Boxer IFV get the additional armour that it’ll need for this role?
Thought provoking questions; its good to get into some detail. I’m not qualified to give answers. What I would say is that most things are possible if you decide to do them. The WCSP may have been cancelled but the reasons for the features you mention have not gone away. If anything Ukraine illustrates that the army were on the right track.
There is no time to do anything slowly now. Too much time has been lost.
Most of our capital rebuilding programs are going full tilt: the frigates, CR3, Ajax, Boxer. Not sure more money would enable them to go any faster. We would have to buy OTS from a supplier who could deliver quickly. Would require eating a lot of humble pie but would be doable for some equipment – e.g. IFV, artillery. But my instinct is to carry on as we are doing for the UK: make meaningful, affordable incremental improvements e.g. NSM, pre-owed Archer, maybe a few more A400M but keep the focus on arming and training Ukraine: more tanks and IFVs and most importantly an air force. There are 40 redundant and well maintained F-18s sitting in Australia.
Paul, I think we have a different view on the phrase ‘full tilt’.
CR3 will take until 2030 for all 148 to be fielded – 9 years from Contract Award, so just over 16 per year on average – not very impressive.
Ajax ISD was meant to be 2017 – FOC will now be between Oct 2028 – Sep 2029.
Boxer is being built at 3/month so if we order 1500 then it will take nearly 42 years to deliver fully (I hope they get the build rate up pretty sharpish!)
I do agree with keeping the focus on arming and training Ukraine – they are keeping our biggest European threat down. But more speed than the above examples is required – we don’t have to throw money at Industry to get the rate up – there are other ways.
Morning Graham, well maybe I was wearing my rose coloured specs 🙂
What I was driving at is that it appears we are having to rebuild skills, UK supply chains and production facilities almost from scratch.
Be interested to know your thoughts on other ways.
I did my REME Industrial attachment with Vickers Newcastle in 1979, a proper tank factory. We had 5 companies making AFVs then – VDS, VSEL, RO plc, Alvis, GKN – all with purpose built or very well adapted facilities. The VDS took over RO and built a new tank factory at Newcastle and at Leeds. Then BAE took over all the above companies and MoD placed no orders for AFVs for 20 years! Atrophy of the Industry then happened of course. UK supply chains will still have been supplying spare parts.
How times change.
You are right that skills have had to be rebuilt and production facilities acquired.
Arguably one reason that Ajax has had its problems is that GDUK was a brand new company which initially lacked experienced staff and suitable premises.
Any RWS that can’t fire vertically to cheap drones don’t deserve the money
Retrograde step for the armoured infantry – yes.
An infantry vehicle accompanying tanks and lacking a cannon, and only having a MG, would take us back to the days of FV432 or even Saracen (for the wheeled analogy to work). At least in firepower terms that is.
Its only 30mm and seems to be unstabilised.
Agree DM 👍
It will be interesting to see what Australia makes of it.
“The T2000 manned turret of this vehicle carries two primary weapon systems – an integrated Spike-LR2 launcher (which can elevate, release its deadly payload and depress back into the turret) and a 30mm cannon called Bushmaster Mk.44S that can use various types of ammunition (even programmable).
It’s worth noting that Hanwha states the weapon system can be upgraded to a 40mm cannon or Bushmaster Mk.3 35/50mm cannon. The Bushmaster Mk.44S autocannon has the following characteristics:
Rate of Fire: 100 to 200 rounds per minute
Depression and Elevation angles: -10 to +60 degrees
Ammo carried: 200 rounds
Feed system: double feed (one belt with APFSDS-T shells, the other with HE shells, can be switched instantly)
The commander has a set of panoramic sights at his disposal that can be installed independently or as a part of the EOS R400S Mk.2HD weapon system. Additionally, Hanwha is offering its excellent Battlefield Management System as a part of the deal.
As you can see, Hanwha decided to closely cooperate with the Americans (the EOS company) and the Israelis (Elbit’s IronVision and Iron Fist systems) to maximize its chances.
According to the Price Waterhouse Coopers report commissioned by Hanwha, the company’s Land 400 Phase 3 Australian Industry Capability package will generate $9 billion in total economic impacts across Australia with $5.7 billion generated in Victoria.
“The Redback would represent a huge step forward for the Australia Defence Force in terms of its capability to deliver land forces safely and effectively in very high threat scenarios,” Mr Cho said.”
VIDEO
Thanks Nigel, sounds impressive?
When it was originally announced that the army would have Boxer it was only going to have a gpmg as armament however a civilian scientist did point out how backwards thinking this was so the army upped it to a .5 Browning not a great deal better all things considered.
Ah, the 0.50 Browning – adapted by John Browning from the 0.30 Browning in 1917/18 and fielded by the US Army in 1921. So good to have modern weapons!
Brian, the Army didn’t switch to .50 because a ‘civilian scientist’ pointed out it was backwards thinking. I mean, people in combat arms literally have a profession that is about how to understand and apply weapons effect. One of the reasons Infantry Platoon Commanders do their field firing range qualifications before getting to Battalion is so that they fully understand how their weapon systems actually work.
If you want an example of where civilian scientists won an argument to the detriment of combat arms, look no further than the removal of LMG. Boffins showed that LMG rarely actually hits the target at 300m. Bean counters move in and show how much money could be saved in removing the weapon system. Despite nearly every combat veteran still serving in the infantry at the time saying that belt fed support at section level was VITAL to winning a firefight, LMG was taken away.
Suppressive fire doesn’t have to hit targets, just keep the heads of enemy dismounted soldiers down. Billy Bonus if they do hit the enemy though. Sack the scientists.
Were you talking about Minimi? Hasn’t GPMG been reinstated in the rifle section? LSW was also binned – for the same reason?
The army needs IFVs to replace warrior. But what they are getting with Boxer is lightly armed APC.
Who’d have thought at the start of FRES we’d still all these years later only at the point of introducing Boxer into service with Ajax limping along behind!
If we’d have gone for Boxer and CV90 20+ years ago the army would be miles better equipped by now for less cost.
We might be starting development of their replacements!
Ajax beat CV90 though. It is impossible to say whether there wouldn’t have been issues with CV90.
I wonder why and how a paper project (GDUK’s Ajax) beat an established vehicle?
https://defense-update.com/20100210_cv90_fres_sv_demonstrator.html
CV90 recce variant is good, as I understand and in service already with Norway – it helped that the base vehicle (CV90 IFV) was well developed and reliable before the recce kit was added and integrated. Doubt there would have been any/many issues.
That paint job makes it a bit obvious🤦🏼♂️
Better than a recce vehicle so loud it can be tracked by sonar.
Jon, are you talking about the footage of Ajax roaring down a concrete road at Bovvy high speed with the microphone of someones phone only about 30 yards away?
I wasn’t. Just the old “we just need higher spec ear-protectors” debacle. Although I agree it doesn’t come across as quiet, I also admit that you can’t tell much from a You Tube video. I’m hoping that as time goes by it’ll evolve into something quieter. Maybe some new compound tracks that combine tough and quiet.
The YouTube video is misleading. Ajax operating on dirt at a slower speed will not produce such external noise. The internal noise when wearing a headset is a different issue – and was a faulty intercom system.
I’m in Scotland and should get a txt alert when they drive Ajax so I can bubble wrap the China and put ear defenders in!
Hopefully in service it’s quieter.
Ok that’s good news but do we get CV90 or still wait for ? Won’t say the word 🙄
?
We are not getting CV90 IFV (or upgraded WR) – we are getting Boxer instead.
We are not getting CV90 Recce – GDUK won the contract to supply Ajax some years ago – the vehicle got fixes done last autumn, then got through UVT and is now part way through RGT.
OT just seen the news that Ben Wallace is to quit as SoS Defence at the next reshuffle and he will not stand at the next General Election.
I’m not a great fan politicians as is well documented on here, but Ben Wallace walked the talk for defence which was a breath of fresh air.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66213245
Cheers CR
Who next?
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace to step down at next election
“Ben Wallace – the longest-serving Conservative defence secretary – has now confirmed he will stand down at the next General Election.
The defence secretary told The Times he’s “not standing next time” following speculation about his position.
“I went into politics in the Scottish parliament in 1999. That’s 24 years,” he told the newspaper.
“I’ve spent well over seven years with three phones by my bed.”
It follows a failed UK bid to make Mr Wallace the next head of NATO and as Prime Minister Rishi Sunak reportedly prepares to refresh his top team ahead of next year’s election.
Mr Wallace has been in post for the length of the war in Ukraine and has managed the UK’s provision of weapons and training.”
Best to promote a more junior minister in MoD to maintain continuity during ‘the war’.
Great platform, UK versions however badly armed, small numbers of Infantry carrier to many CP variants! Yes we will get more, and after seeing what is going on in Ukraine, probably a decent 30mm on the Infantry versions. However how long does it take, how underwhelming are our visions and plans and how much cash has been spunked just to get us here, at this moment in time with a destroyed Armoured Div capability, a couple of weak BCTs and a bunch of units which are claimed to be part of BCTs but with limited CS and CSS! It’s shocking, but at the same time, it’s time to get a grip, see the threats and respond accurately and accordingly!
Another waste of time and money. The CV 90 could have been in service now providing a proven tracked vehicle to compliment what’s left of our armour. What’s happened to the army, partly of their own making, is a tragedy. It will be ten years before anything useful results from all the re-structuring on the re-stucturing that has gone on and by then the force will be so tiny as to be almost unusable. Even now this could be turned round with some common sense applied.
Only broad info on the weapons fit possibilities for the Specialist Carrier variant (but no specifics).
Nothing said about weapons fit for the Infantry Carrier – if it is less than a stabilised 40mm cannon, then we have a less capable vehicle than upgraded Warrior would have been – if it is less than an unstabilsed 30mm cannon then Boxer will be less capable than current Warrior (first fielded in 1987).
Did an MoD PR minion write WO1 Gareth McQueen’s quote for him?!
A couple of obvious points (and stated many other on here, many times):
I could bang on about the mistake that was made in pulling out initially of this programme, but what’s the point.
So I’ll just say this vehicle has a lot of uses and is an excellent choice, even if it is not, and shouldn’t been seen by government, as a replacement of Warrior. It is neither tracked, nor armoured/armed enough to fulfil that role. But again, it is still an real boon in many other roles and we do need them….in the thousands really.
Excellent choice to equip the armoured infantry in the Armoured brigades? Have you asked the armoured infantry?
It is not good value – it is about the most expensive wheeled APC there is – £2.8bn for 523. Thats £5.35m each!!
It may only have a MG for suppressive/covering fire – its predecessor, Warrior, had a 30mm cannon, and we were all set to get the upgraded Warrior with 40mm stabilised cannon. If it only has a MG, objectives will not be taken, lives will be lost. Don’t doubt that Boxer is the replacement for Warrior – MoD announced that in March 2021.
There must be some doubt as to whether Boxer can keep up with the tanks cross-country, in particular in difficult going (deep mud, snow, ice).
We are buying it in bulk – 623 ordered so far. We will order at least another 400 if not another 900 – some mixed messages on final numbers.
We are not buying the recce version.
When we were first in the Boxer programme, it was to have been the replacement for residual FV430s, non-recce CVR(T), and Saxon – all would have been achieved a very long time ago. That would have been a good call.
Then we were going to buy Boxer to equip the Mech Inf battalions in two Strike brigades whilst the two armoured brigades would have had upgraded Warrior for their armoured infantry.
Now we are buying Boxer to replace upgraded Warrior – not such a good call!
Hi Graham, did you read my comments above? Are we are really disagreeing here?
To quote myself:
“So I’ll just say this vehicle has a lot of uses and is an excellent choice, even if it is not, and shouldn’t been seen by government, as a replacement of Warrior. It is neither tracked, nor armoured/armed enough to fulfil that role”
Furthermore as new modules become available and/or are purchased we can basically design them per combat mission, and something not far off ‘plug and play’, one hell of an ability. Then there’s not obvious bonus of them being much more widely manufactured…. rather than running down other parts of the fleet for ever dwindling spares (Challenger II much? Think we have about 40 in running order).
I’ll say it again though, I dislike that Warrior didn’t get upgraded, and the role of running alongside tanks (the very few sadly we have left) is still vacant. But that does not diminish the utility of these very versatile vehicles. On your point of these not being reasonable good value for money…what would be better?
And as for bulk, a few hundred is not bulk, it chickenfeed I’m afraid, especially if you want to actually have an ability to fight a war.
Hi Ross, I did read your comment so apologies if its thrust was misdirected. I was really airing a grievance that Boxer is now (and didn’t used to be) de facto the Warrior/upgraded Warrior replacement for the Armoured Infantry who fight alongside CR2/CR3 in our two armoured briagdes. Unfair of me to not note your comments on its probable/possible unsuitability to fill this armoured infantry role.
This business of having only 40 CR2s in running order cannot be true – we have 213 on the active list and most should be available (in my day REME had a target of ensuring min of 70% of key equipment was available, figure rising to 90% after 24hrs sustained work by crews and REME). Some people talking about cannibalisation don’t know what they are talking about – that should be done only on the non-active tanks.
The figure of 40 has to refer to what used to be called the Lead Armoured Task Force (LATF) ie they are 40 ready to deploy if required:
https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/formations-divisions-brigades/3rd-united-kingdom-division/20th-armoured-brigade-combat-team/
Or someone mis-spoke when they meant to say that about 40 tanks were deployed on ‘the Eastern front’ – 14 to Ukraine and 28 or so in our eFP BG in Estonia.
Certainly Boxer is a versatile vehicle – it will be interesting to see if we really use the plug and play modular concept to constantly re-role a base vehicle as much as the designers think we will. £5.35m is an eye-watering unit cost. I don’t think anyone else is offering the modular type vehicle – but if you forgo that then the unit cost will be much lower for other products. Piranha 5 is £1.91m. Stryker and VBCI is about £4-£4.5m. Not saying we should have bought them instead – I haven’t got a copy of the army’s requirements document to hand.
Boxer is almost certainly better armoured than most others but deployability by air will be an issue as it weighs – 36,500 – 38,500 kg (combat load out); 41,000 kg (stretch potential). Atlas A400M max payload is 37,000kg. Surely a medium-weight force as Boxer was meant to be a part of (but isn’t now) should be more easily deployed.
We will buy over 1,000 Boxers, perhaps up to 1,500. That is a massive order. 623 of that ordered so far in two tranches (523, then 100).
Hi Graham, apologies for the late reply.
So admittedly I may well (and frankly hope) I’ve got the wrong end of the stick on the 40 operational tanks. Allegedly it comes from the issues that the barrels are no longer manufactured, and thus once they are worn though then are taken off another tank. Though I suppose, even if it were true, worn barrels are still usually but just accuracy decreases?
Interesting comments on the Pirahna and Striker, both capable, but I’d agree they aren’t armoured enough, or in my opinion as flexible as Boxer in mission profile.
You do have very valid point on weight that I hadn’t considered….leaving the option of flying the modules separately, not ideal, but possible?
Lastly I wasn’t aware either that the plan is the get about 1,500, but if true those are much more appropriate numbers in my view.
Worth saying, that sadly the reason for me being overly concerned about numbers is partly logistical…but more about combat attrition.
Ukraine has outright proven that even US Bradley’s are basically as good as a BMP in regards to an artillery shell hitting it (though I suspect the crew fatality rate is lower), so having volume is just as important today as ever. No matter what the politicians claim.
If we actually had only 40 tanks that could go to war rather than three regiments (180) and an attrition reserve of say 20 – ie 20% only available – that would be like the Navy saying they had only one Astute available, and only 3 FF/DD – to go to war with. Heads would roll.
Some think cannibalisation is freely carried out. It is not. It is the last resort, done sparingly, strictly controlled and meticulously documented. Spare barrels were made from Day 1 of service (from 1998) and exist, as do spare engines (PowerPacks), spare tracks etc exist. Spare barrels would have been made over the years as a demand went in, and up to the last day of manufacture by BAE. It wasn’t as if no barrels were made from 1998.
If however the supply of spare barrels does get exhausted, then cannibalisation is a last resort option. But we bought 386 CR2s and 213 of those are in service – so over the years there have been up to 173 out of service tanks to cannibalise from. Plus, we have not fired huge volumes of 120mm ammunition in recent years, CR2s last kinetic combat mission being in July 2003(?) so wearing a barrel out would not be a frequent occurence. Only limited ammo is used in peacetime range sessions.
It is envisaged that the Boxer modules would fly seperately for A400M Atlas carriage.
The number of Boxers we end up with seems to be a figure between 1,000 and 1,500!
TBH, the idea that you’ll actually change modules for each mission is farcical. All Arms manoeuvre is about tempo – how quickly can you cycle your operations in relation to the Enemy.
On the modern battlefield you need to disperse and concentrate rapidly. FIND, FIX, STRIKE, EXPLOIT.
If you’re having to cart around extra mission modules everywhere and get them swapped over you’re going to both have a very vulnerable logistics chain and very tired crews. A key portion of battle prep is rest. If the crew are swapping out mission modules instead of resting you’re going to slow your tempo right down. Not to mention you’ll either not be able to disperse or you’re going to give the game away by bringing up those new modules.
You’d be at huge risk of the modern land equivalent of the Japanese being stuck on their carriers, repeatedly switching bombs and torpedoes at Midway
TASK ORGING is a ball-ache at the best of times, vital skill, but hard work getting it right.
Bob, I agree. You may well configure vehicles before a deployment, but to reconfigure on tour would be tiresome and mostly unnecessary. Its a party trick, really.
If in the DCP there is not serious indication, if not downright admittance, that the future bulk buys will have Cannon and other weapon choices like AA and overwatch I will be totally hacked off!
Boxer is a brilliant bit of kit and worth celebrating. I know it is not de rigeur with everyone these days but it sometimes worth taking a step back and looking at what we have and are getting imminently. Boxer is a superb platform and so will Ajax be when we finally sign it off and get it fielded, with the bugs and issues taken care of.
Archer is another world class bit of kit and I’d love to see us buy a load more of those to fully replace AS-90 so we can send the rest to Ukraine. What we do on the IFV front to replace Warrior is open to question but I suspect it’ll be a mix of turreted Boxer variants and Ajax-type platform. GMLRS is superb and it would be nice to see us take more of those too alongside more Archers.
Chally 3 with APS and the new L/55 should be a fairly good platform, just a shame we won’t get enough of them. Heresy I know, but I would shuffle them all off to Ukraine and buy latest Leo 2A8 with EuroTrophy in a reasonable number to really commit to heavy armour. I don’t think C3 is numerous enough to show that. I think by spending twice the budget you get twice as many cabs in half the time. Put in a UK Assembly line if you need to. 4bn gets you around 350 cabs with support and parts. If we figure on the 1.3bn we are spending on C3 to ballon out to 2bn+ as it is bound to do, the Leo starts to look like much better value and that’s the 9m per cab big boy version, full fat, L/55, APS, fused sensors, new BMS, all the Gucci toys and stuff.
We are also getting latest AH-64E Guardian.
I’d like to see a significant beefing up of SHORAD and tac/strat air defence mobile units – Boxer has some interesting modules, notably the SkyRanger turret which would really change the game for us in the anti drone role. We’ve seen how effective the Russian drones and attack helos are and SkyRanger or something like it would be ideal.
Point is if the MOD showed some ambition and really wanted to beef our ground capability up into something really special, it wouldn’t take that much above what we are already committed to spend. Of course they wont, but we can dream.
You couldn’t shuffle Chally 3’s off to Ukraine – they haven’t been built yet! Plus Treasury would not give MoD any money to buy Leo2s, if they had just given away the entire CR tank fleet.
CR3 spend is £800m, not £1.3Bn rising to £2bn+
Glad you like Boxer – it’s a fine replacement for Mastiff and the other wheeled PM vehicles, if massively over-priced – but it is arguably not a proper replacement for Warrior, well not if it doesn’t have a stabilised 40mm cannon and if its mobility, in arduous terrain and climatic conditions, is less than Warrior.
’What we do on the IFV front to replace Warrior is open to question but I suspect it’ll be a mix of turreted Boxer variants and Ajax-type platform’. Yes, I think that’s what the army is hinting it will try to do – devise permutations and combinations of Boxer and Ajax variants and troop formations to achieve the equivalent or better effect to IFV sections. No new 1:1 IFV replacement such as CV90.
why does it say British by Birth on the picture? the Boxer is German last i checked
It is ‘spin’. Perhaps they are alluding to the fact that they will be built in the UK (apart from the first 117-off) to a UK spec.
No mention that wheeled Boxer replaces a tracked IFV, principally operates alongside tanks, or what weapon system the infantry carrier will have.