Mark Francois MP (Conservative – Rayleigh and Wickford) recently posed a question to the Ministry of Defence about the timeline for the UK’s new Boxer armoured systems.
Francois asked, “what the estimated minimum deployable capability date is for the Boxer (a) 120mm self-propelled mortar system and (b) 155mm self-propelled artillery system.”
Responding on 11 November 2024, Maria Eagle MP (Labour – Liverpool Garston) clarified the terms used within the Mechanised Infantry (BOXER) programme.
She stated, “The Mechanised Infantry (BOXER) programme uses the terms Initial Operating Capability (IOC) and Full Operating Capability. The Armoured Mortar Vehicle is a project within this programme and therefore uses those terms. The Mobile Fires Platform project is a part of the Close Support Fires Programme, which uses the term Minimum Deployable Capability instead.”
Eagle further noted the current status of these definitions within the programme, adding, “Whilst the Mechanised Infantry (BOXER) programme has an IOC, the definition of the IOC for the Armoured Mortar Vehicle project within the programme is yet to be confirmed. The Mobile Fires Platform project does not have a confirmed definition for Minimum Deployable Capability (MDC).”
She concluded by stating, “Therefore, an estimated IOC or MDC for either variant cannot be projected at this time.”
This response indicates that the Ministry of Defence is currently unable to provide a specific timeline for when the Boxer Armoured Mortar Vehicle or Mobile Fires Platform will reach deployable status.
The UK has nonetheless been moving forward with plans to enhance its artillery capabilities through these advanced Boxer systems. At the Defence Vehicle Dynamics (DVD) exhibition in September 2024, Patria and Rheinmetall showcased the UK’s first prototype of the Boxer Armoured Mortar Variant, featuring Patria’s NEMO 120mm turreted mortar system.
Meanwhile, the British Army also recently confirmed its selection of the Remote-Controlled Howitzer 155mm (RCH 155) system for its Mobile Fires Platform in April 2024. This project, developed jointly with Germany, aims to replace the aging AS-90 self-propelled howitzers. Mounted on the Boxer, the RCH 155 combines improved mobility and increased firepower.
These developments underscore the UK’s commitment to strengthening artillery capabilities by leveraging the versatile Boxer platform. However, the Ministry’s response suggests that, while progress continues, precise deployment timelines for these systems are still uncertain.
They need to pull their fingers out.
Although based upon this, at least 120mm mortar seems like likely.
Can’t be late if there’s no time frame given 🙄
A wheeled SPG seems like a bonkers decision to me
Not so sure, SPGs have a greater need for strategic mobility, more than tactical mobility over difficult terrain as long as they are in range they have a lot of manoeuvre options, an MBT or IFV needs to be where it needs to be.
A tracked howitzer will fire and move to a new firing position to avoid detection. As will a wheeled one.
The advantage of tracks is that it can move cross-country in all weather conditions. The wheeled howitzer less so, as it is more likely to get bogged down in mud in the Eastern European autumn season, as we are seeing in Ukraine. If it has to resort to movement by road, then its movement becomes more predictable and easier for enemy ISTAR to locate and destroy.
The Pzh2000s seem to have suffered from mobility problems due to their mass, even though they are tracked.
Ukrainian terrain is difficult for all platforms.
Wheeled vehicles have to be light.
But tracked vehicles can’t be too heav or will not have much advantage.
As has the AS90 and C2.
They need to remove the rubber track pads that will give the tracks more bite no Russian kit uses track pads
Really? Have you ever heard of counter-battery fires? It appears not.
So wheeled vehicles don’t change position then…. Gosh I thought they were mobile. Artillery can and would plan its movements before it had fired a shot… it does not fire and scatter in a random unplanned manoeuvre… a vehicle that will be providing and receiving direct fire or need to hide from direct fire needs to be far more tactically mobile than artillery.. the important bit for artillery is the speed at which it can disengage move to a new already planned fire position and fire again…or be moved strategically quickly to the correct area..the ability to wade through deep mud is less an issue.. an MBT may very well need to put itself in deep mud due to tactical need, self propelled artillery actually purposely taking up a position in deep mud is far far less likely. Wheeled vehicles are faster and more strategically mobile than tracked vehicles.. for a self propelled gun that speed ( to reposition ) and strategic mobility is probably more important than a bit of extra tactical mobility over deep mud.
Everyone is obsessed with tracked everything.. but tracks have a negative and a positive.. the negative is weight leading low speed poor strategic mobility.. on balance with a very heavy gun system and the need strategic mobility a lot of armies go with wheels.
Usual standard of manners from Stephanie. Don’t let the Trolls make you bite.
Bit disrespectful. Let’s be constructive.
Why do you need to go to tracked only terrain to fire a 40km range gun?
It’s not that. Tracked SPGs can keep up with the tanks and IFVs which SPGs support. In complex terrain, tracked SPGs are not constrained by terrain and are never forced onto tracks, where they would be more vulnerable.
There are no tracked IFV’s in BA and there will not be, fast mobility to protect against counter fire and fire on the move can only be achieved in roads or fast tracks that either both vehicles can use and in 40km radius there are a lot of roads.
Your point have value but i think it is offset by other more valuable ones.
Currently Warrior still serves in the armoured brigades – and it is a tracked IFV. It will be some time before Boxer has fully replaced Warrior in said brigades.
There is talk about having cannon-equipped ARES suitably modified to take an Infantry section, in the armoured brigades instead of some or all Boxer infantry carriers – if that ever happened that would be a tracked IFV.
I think we have had the discussion about using roads/fast tracks or going cross-country before. The tactical situation will dictate the best way for our forces to move across the ground. You seem to think the field army will always use roads/fast tracks as that enables higher speeds. Speed across terrain is not everything.
Caesar? Zuzana? Dana? The Chinese array of wheeled SPGs? ATMOS 2000? AHS Kryl? Type 19? G6? Archer? Bohdana? The Turkish designs?
I dunno mate. If everyone from the French to the Swedes to the Indians, Chinese and Japanese are doing it, there must be something there thats appealing
It should not be tracked or wheeled. Tracked combat vehicles (including SPGs) suit the armoured brigades.
Wheeled combat vehicles suit other brigades.
We perhaps should have tracked SPGs and wheeled ones.
Uncertain in service date, really?
Whilst I understand that these projects can be complicated there should be a proper Project Management plan with dates and deliverables… Either the MoD is playing politics behind a veil of secrecy or they have forgotten how to run a project properly.
Cheers CR
To have forgotten implies they once knew…..
I knew someone would pick up on that 🙂
When I was still working for MoD they were investing in Project Management and spent quite a bit on training courses but they have probably cut back on that skill set as a ‘saving measure’ in the same way they reduced their financial controller personnel. There was a Commons Select Committee report on the latter process a few years ago. Basically they reduced the grades of the financial controllers so the higher grades with the authority and experience felt (or were laid off).
The MoD has been deskilled to save pennies and we know how that has turned out…
Cheers CR
So they did once know then – bugger me wonders will never cease – Thanks for the insight.
Training seems to be the first thing cut in most companies when money gets a little tight- well that and the travel budget of course.
Maybe they could cut that as well ? That would lend itself to a new tag line:
“Join the Army see…Wales” (Once a year during the off season)
As an ex-Project Manager I fully agree…and of course there will be a Project plan.
However most Project Managers don’t have to deal with capricious MoD politicians who fail to make timely decisions or else make wrong decisions or keep changing their mind…and cost cutting Chancellors and Treasury seniors who want to spirit away much of the earmarked funds.
Remember who changed their minds twice on what type of carrier aircraft we would have and who reduced the T45 buy from 12 to first 8 then 6.
Closer to the article, it was not a MoD Project Manager who decided that the army should abandon IFVs and have wheeled APCs with a mere MG instead. It was a political decision to buy only 148 tanks and to impose Boxer RCH-155 on the army whilst they were in the middle of assessing a number of contenders.
Pretty tough being a PM in the MoD. I am glad that when I was a PM in DE&S, that my low cost £60m Project was not interfered with. It came in on time, on budget, was high quality and was very popular with the troops.
I was on the research and longer term planning side of things as a PM.
I was PM’ing a future needs assessment project, the sort of thing that advises future force mix planning so quite important to get right if you want a force to be able to fight in 10 or 20 years time. It was a small project about 1/4 mil for a year.
I went on leave for three days and came back to find that the customer representative (the desk officer) had changed the nature of the project at a fundamental and that my Technical Lead had agreed the changes and got them all signed off. Seemed fair enough, except that the desk officer had made the decision without referring back to the Flag Officer in charge of the capability planning. The latter was seriously peed off when he found out, which was a few weeks later by which time we had parked everything we were doing and started what was in effect a new project. By the time we got back on track I recon about 20% of the budget was peed up the wall and I had to lecture a one star on the challenges facing my team with all the chopping and changing. He didn’t argue, but understandably wasn’t happy…
Madness – I still remember facing off with the one star pointing out my team had worked hard under instructions from his team and that there was a lasting impact on the program… The room was full of uniforms mostly senior to me, but I wasn’t going to let my team be lumbered for their mistake. I must admit my hands were shaking at the time 🙂
Cheers CR
A very useful account of your Project. Horrendous when such things happen. I am sure that such interference and obstruction happens more often in MoD projects than in civilian life.
I imagine they’re probably waiting for the SDSR before setting timelines in stone.
I believe a certain MP is trying to pull the wool over somebody’s eyes. The Initial Operating Capability is normally defined in the User Requirement Document (URD). This lays down what the user wants the vehicle to do, its systems and when it is required by. It also leads into the delivery schedule, whereby from concept, to development and then to delivery plus any through life support is contracted to key milestones. This is normal business practice and saying the IOC is not defined yet is BS.
Which could mean the Army are either still making up their minds (as per usual) or that they might be putting it to competition.
About what might the army still be making up their minds? Whether they still want mortars in an infantry battalion, or whether to adopt 120mm or retain 81mm type, or to determine how many tubes per mortar platoon? I am sure that all these things have been worked out.
As for RCH-155, the army has never had a look in. Sunak mandated this equipment as the AS-90 successor.
I suspect the Rishi RCH decision is in part inspired by the legions of people in all corners saying the army can’t do procurement, and spitting on Ajax. At which point a clueless PM goes “Well I’ll just pick a vehicle for them and they’ll have to like it, how hard can it be?”
I’d like to think I’m wrong, but I do wonder.
I too wonder about that. Sunak decided on RCH because he wanted a tangible outcome to his Anglo-German cooperation meeting with Scholz.
Sometimes PMs make very bold hardware decisions – it was Johnson himself who decided to retire all Harriers and the last of the carriers (Ark Royal and Illustrious) as Liam Fox could not decide how to fully meet the 8% cut that HMT had imposed.
And so the saga goes on, and on, and on and…well you get my drift..I fail to see why anyone should be surprised…or why anyone bothers to ask any questions regards armoured vehicles anymore.
UK don’t do well in decision making for AFV etc or in service dates sadly .
Have ordered any or just said we like them? seems as if it warm words but no orders, We do have 6 AS90’s left in Baltics and under 14 working Archers, enough to cover may be two Battle groups.
Looks like the MOD trying to look as if its doing something but really just window shopping and bending the truth.
Been a few accusations of this nature of late, including comments coming out of Kyiv so can’t help but be concerned that words are not necessarily being backed up with actions. Probably not overt (geez I hope not) but gradual creep shielded behind apparent refusal to set dates while bean counters detail perceived savings in so doing. Very short sighted if true but somehow Starmer has that air about him sadly where words and actions already appear nuanced at best that raises endless suspicions.
The MOD/Army never buys any thing, never orders just shows an interest. Any thing ordered next year is at least 2 to 3 away from service. A lot talk but no action on every thing, will the SDR change that, may be. Time is not on the Army’s side.
They short of kit/ammo and what we have left is old wearing out with few spares.
It’s not like a car, nothing that an army orders is sitting in a show-room that you can just drive off the lot.
I know, i was trials team, but thank you for your great in sight, it takes for a large bit kit 2 or 3 years depending on how many are delivered to units and the Teaching School in my case 14 Regt to trail them, write the books, train instructors then train Detachment commanders, then crew, plus command post crew/REME, get the spares in and the Ammo. just saying.
RCH 155mm will not enter service at least until 2026/27 most likely C3 will beat it in to service.
Have a good night then.
Seems like we have fewer 155mm guns than many small ENATO nations.
We have i believe 20 working in total, so the Baltic states out gun us on tube artillery, pretty sad
We have ordered Boxer mortar carriers (just 28 so far). But I don’t know if we have ordered 120mm tubes for them.
Sunaks unilateral decision to select Boxer RCH-155 before competitive evaluation must have caused shock, chaos and despair in the army’s Boxer team.
He also decided that this German product which has been trialled by the Bundeswehr, was insufficiently developed (he was obviously quite the artillery expert!)….and that it needed further development by an Anglo-German team.
We may not order even tranche 1 of this SPG until we can be sure such further development has proceeded satisfactorily.
By the the last worn out AS90’s will be gone and 14 Archers will not cut it if called on,
These Boxer variants look set. I wonder whether the defence review will divert some of the planned 1000+ Boxer funding to a couple of hundred tracked IFVs.
Unlikely. Best likely to get is more ‘fight y’ versions of Boxer.
As suggested by reports coming out of the army itself regards ARES.
Who knows.
I would take a life extension of warrior as a win to be honest.
Yeh. I think Digital Concepts Engineering did at one time demonstrate an “autonomous’ Warrior which as a by product, could aim and fire the Rarden on the move.
Maybe enquiries should go to firstly to Sunak, who reportedly dropped RCH155 in the army’s lap with no competitive testing.
And secondly, to all defence secretaries, DCDC of Capability, and CGS way back to around 2007, when the first of the 6 AS90 Regiments the army had got it’s guns chopped.
It’s been a steady decline ever since, down to 3 post 2010 SDR, and 2 after A2020R aro7nd 2015 which introduced Strike.
Now, with the unforseen need to give what remains to UKR, rightly, there is next to nothing left, 155mm wise.
No program was introduced in all that timeframe to replace them.
Why? Who took that decision? And when will there be accountability?
That this will take years is no real surprise given the nature of our defence procurement and inability to just buy OTS from Korea.
I look to put blame in those who came before.
So essentially what you are saying is when you find yourself dropped into a pile of dung it is fair that those that made the pile and didn’t clear it up should at worst have a share of the blame?
Which is why Daniele will never have a future in politics! Whoever heard of being held accountable for decisions made to meet short term political goals which impact national security long term… What does he want to do, get these people fired from their corporate/ policy roles in think tanks and suchlike?!
If he does read this, I trust that he takes the above as the compliment that it’s intended to be.
Seriously, though, this is the problem- procurement and sustainment policy is not fit for purpose when short term in-year goals take precedence over long term capability. Of course, MOD needs to manage their budget and not just blow through it by keeping everything and buying whatever they want. But they also need to have a fair set of rules applied, and some long term certainty to plan.
They could also do with a dedicated Major Projects department, with professionals (not necessarily in uniform) of high calibre (pun intended) to see a project through from beginning to end. But that’s another topic.
Mate, I was laughing, as intended.
Yep Sunak deal never knew he was an expert in Artillery platforms 👍
Hi M8, I’m no Sunak fan and yes it did seem to just be landed on the Army without going through the normal expensive process of “Project XYZ122 followed by a requirement issued, RFP, trials and a down select process.
Doing it this way makes perfect sense only if it is followed with an urgent order to fill a gaping requirement, or is a complete no brainer decision (foregone conclusion).
A good example of the 1st would be the Archer SPG (which has gone very quickly), a bad one would probably be the NSM (which seems to have gone AWOL).
As for it being a no brainer well I think it sort of is, we are committed to Boxer and it proceeding as per schedule. So why waste time / money looking for other systems when can just add the RCH module, it makes perfect sense from a commercial, industrial and logistics point of view.
The glacial progress is probably like everything else at the moment, twiddle thumbs time till the New SDR lands and HMG wrestles with funding all the various requirements.
Starmer is presently in Paris and I’d suspect that the French will not be pulling their punches about the need for UK to up the Ante budget wise and engage with European NATO.
I actually hope that they maximise the usability of the Mission modules and buy the Tracked Boxer IFV to properly replace Warrior and cross mount the RCH module.
Afternoon mate.
All that is fine.
The issue is it should have been underway after 2010 so someone should be held accountable in my book.
NSM is indeed puzzling. Probably not a priority for them. I do wish they’d get on with an air launched ASM, not just wait for SPEAR 3.
Air launched ASM is a huge issue..we are after a nation off islands with island airfields in three seas/oceans..having an airforce with out an ASM is profoundly bonkers..the ultimate in sea blindness..it’s like the RAF forgot about all the blue bits on their maps.
No they haven’t they just go up through the grey bits and see the only Blue bit they like. 😉
The thing is we always say the same thing about Politicians, that they don’t make decisive decisions.
Well just for once he actually did make one and it’s not actually barkingly stupid. Now if they added either few more hundred Boxer (preferably tracked), and possibly the Skyranger module I’d say “good call”.
As for NSM I don’t see much from GB or MS at present, who would probably know why it’s taking so damn long to fit them.
Who knows it could be the issues of trying to integrate different generations of tech, Norway having an overload of orders or MOD spinning the bills out 🤔
Indeed the NSM fit out is pretty static but there is some hope – HMS Portland is now in Norway,she should return with them,and HMS Dragon has had basic works done so she will get them when she returns to Ops.
I think the problem was 155mm systems were not seen as very “expeditionary” after all a 30-40 ton very large self propelled 155mm gun is not what you want for either intimidated warlords or irregulars…and after all the west had won history and peer warfare was a thing of the past…
Unfortunately the “end of history” was infact total bollox and a modern army really needs shed loads of 155mm systems to fight a peer war and our leaders have left the army in a pickle.
I don’t know, the Germans got some pretty good use out of parking Pzh-2000’s in FOB’s and lobbing shells at Terry. Much like Canadian Leopards it was a case of “And you’re going to do what about this exactly? Mortars? That’s cute.”
I think in general the lack of Armor in Afghan from our side was a financial decision not to spend on supporting it, rather than “It wouldn’t have been useful.”
I don’t understand that question when there aren’t even orders.
The list of current army equipment in Wikipedia is very accurate and up-to-date. It gives 54 AS-90s and a planned 116 RCH 155s.
That sounds good on paper. The Boxer howitzer has come like a bolt from the blue, without competitive bidding or any trials. We have to hope that the army pushed for it and planned for it and that it wasn’t just dumped on them as the cheapest available option, which is a very MOD civil servant/accountant way of proceeding.
The choice of a wheeled gun and wheeled mechanised APC throws up a much larger and more worrying question about the latest rabbit hole the army is disappearing down with our combat brigades.
Very true 😟
The boxer gun was dropped by Sunak when he returned from a visit to Germany! As has been said in different threads why on earth commit to a system that has not passed acceptance trails let alone being in production! Utterly bonkers🤬
The army did not push for Boxer RCH-155. That was one of the artillery systems that they were set to evaluate in competition with other equipment such as South Korea’s K9A2 (Team Thunder) and Archer (Archer Artillery Alliance). Some thought that Nexter’s (was Giat) Caesar might also be in the mix.
PM Rishi Sunak selected RCH-155 for the army – political deal with the German Chancellor.
I wonder where these 54 As90 are
Some in Estonia, I forget the number – Martin says 6 (but I think it is more than that).
Apparently none at the RSA according to someone who works there, which I find puzzling. If correct it would indicate that there is no further training ever envisaged for RA or Ukrainian gunners.
Might be one gun at the REME trg org.
The remainder will no doubt be at MoD Ashchurch, split between the Repair Pool and the Attrition Reserve.
I’m the guy at larkhill there’s none at larkhill and as far as I’m aware ashchurch is empty as well
Thanks David. I couldn’t recall who had previously said that.
Why would Ashchurch have no AS-90s?
We bought 179. Some 32 (20 serviceable, 12 U/S as a spares source) went to Ukraine last year and 16 in Sep/Oct this year. A handful in Estonia with the RA. So where are the rest of them?
They’ve been getting scrapped over the last few years in Warminster by babcock our reme at the school were regularly nipping overthere to keep ours on the road . There’s a trawl happening now for spares etc and our reme are sending most of their kit specific tools
There is a big difference between cannibalising a wreck of a vehicle for spares and scrapping a vehicle, which disposes of it entirely.
True but most of the guns in storage have been cannibised for spares at warminster they’re reduced to empty she’ll and any useful items retained
Yes, I am sure that is the case, ie that many hulks remain at Ashchurch.
The royal artillery isn’t in a good place right now
Well, there were 7 gun batteries, each of 8 guns, in the AS-90 regts (1 RHA and 19 RA, both at Larkhill).
2 of these have been re-equipped with Archer, likely as 6-gun batteries. That leaves 5 btys of one assumes 8 guns, therefore 40 guns of the available 54, leaving 14 in training and reserve.
Graham points out that there don’t appear to be any in training, which would be odd and unusual, as the successor Boxer RCH-155 is not due to enter service until 2030. I wonder where the next AS-90 gunners are to come from over the next 5 years if Phase 2 training has been halted.
None in any regt or the school just six in Estonia
What’s your source for that David?
I work at the Royal school of artillery
Good man! You can maybe help us here.
Apart from the two batteries with Archers in 19 Regt, and one with 6 AS-90 in Estonia, what are the other 4 btys in 19 and 1RHA doing with thrmselves if they now have no guns until 2030?
There were 57 AS-90s on the books in autumn 2023, according to MOD summary. Apparently, new government has gifted a further 16 to Ukraine in July and Septembet this year. Which should leave 41.
Where did they all disappear to??!
There are 14 archer 6 or 8 will replace As90 in Estonia that will leave 6 or 8 with 19 regt . 1RHA currently have some L118 and 1 battery in Estonia. 6 archer currently in Finland to fire as they haven’t been signed off to fire on spta the remaining archer are being used for spares to keep those 6 working . There’s been a scrapping program running at Warminster for a few years dismantling As90 our reme used to nip over to get parts to keep ours running if there are any As90 anywhere in the UK its unlikely that they’ll be serviceable
Just to add, a few days ago on Twitter there was a film showing the last AS90s in the UK being taken away from RSA/Larkhill on low loaders on the way to UKR.
They were given a proper send off.
AS90 is finished in the British Army.
Blimey, that’s dire.
I am much in favour of assisting Ukraine as much as we can. But the entire field artillery supporting our two warfighting brigades (12 and 20 plus Estonia BG).has plummeted from 56 SP guns to 12 second-hand Archers.5 of the 7 AS-90 btys are now left with no guns, other than any spare L118s that can come from storage.
We have to hope that events don’t require us to take the field anytime in the next 5-6 years, because the Boxer RCH 155 ISD is 2030, and that’s if all goes as planned and there are no Ajax-type delays.
The only other field artillery left in the inventory are a few spare 105mm towed guns in storage.
If we are going to give so much of our kit away, surely there should be a UOR for replacement guns for the interim, coming from the Treasury, as all UORs do. We might usefully have tried to get some guns from US Army storage.but seem to be just meandering along hoping nobody notices how bereft we are.
Hope the Defence Select Committee picks up on it and demands early temedial action from the MOD.
With few exceptions UOR procedures only kick in if our forces are in a shooting war.
The only exception I can think of was the Chieftain Stillbrew programme many moons ago.
Rather sad, especially given that AS-90 (despite being essentially unmodernised) still has a better spec than most of the newer M109s out there in the wider world.
Yes. That was 16 in two batches a few weeks apart. 6 and 10.
If we have 41 AS-90s on the books and 6 are in Estonia, nil at Larkhill, and nil with any other RA unit, then the balance will be at MoD Ashchurch, even if they have been partly or wholly stripped for spares (cannibalised)…unless we have sold any hulks for scrap to a scrap metal contractor!
This year’s numbers are due at the end of November. This isn’t taking account of the number given to Ukraine this year.
116 Boxer RCH-155 to replace what was once the 189-strong AS-90 fleet. That sounds typical.
So they have chosen it, but haven’t actually ordered any. That’s helpful
The German RCH-155 needs further development by an Anglo-German team, before any orders are made.
Isn’t the RCH Boxer based 155 still in development? The commitment is clear and funding is in place. Given its ability not just to fire and scoot, but also fire on the move, it looks to be the best choice. Like so many projects, land and naval, it will be 2030 before the current weaknesses are overcome.
FYI fire on the move was done at slow speed and only with a 9km range on the test we saw in video, and no details about accuracy.
I wouldn’t get too excited about fire on the move just yet. the RCH 155 is still in development and none are operational. it’s also bloody expensive at £11 a unit.
I would have thought the Archer system on a Man truck would be a lot cheaper to buy and maintain. Furthermore the UK army already uses the Man truck for a variety of tasks, so must have existing spare parts in a warehouse. FYI that same Man truck platform is also being marketed with a Bofors to counter drones.
My 2 cents
We do like going for the most expensive kit. Boxer as an APC?
The Swiss Army have just chosen the RCH 155mm System mounted on a Piranha 10 x 10 Chassis to replace their M109’s.
£11 a unit lets buy 10,000 at that price we can flog them for 50% cheaper than any other 155mm unit and make billions 😂🤣.
Here we go again. The Strategic Defence Cuts Review is going to be an absolute corker.
Might have been a good idea to actually have boxer rch in service before unloading all bar 6 of our As90
The timelines did not mesh.
K9 would have been the better choice straight off the shelf and already in use in other nato countries
The UK plans to procure more modules than chassis for the next batches of Boxer armoured vehicle procurement, British Army officers said on the last day of SAE Media Group’s Future Armoured Vehicles Survivability (FAVS) 2024 conference held in London from 11 to 13 November.
The next batches will be specialised versions of Boxer: Repair & Recovery, Armoured Mortar, Close Support Bridging, Mobile Fires Platform (MFP), Short Range Air Defence (SHORAD), Serpens Deep Find Radar (DFR), and Mounted Close Combat Overwatch (MCCO). SHORAD Boxers include Command and Control, Forward Repair Team, Active Sensor, Counter-Small Aerial Targets (C-SAT), and SHORAD Mounted variants.
(From Jane’s)
That’s all well and good but it doesn’t fill the glaringly obvious gap in our 155mm capability the Koreansoffered to build and operate a uk based spares cabability here in the uk and it was flatly turned down by sunk agreeing to rch
Mate; I don’t give any indication I disagree with you.
Just share relevant information from a reliable source to the discussion.
Is it really necessary to have all those variants on a Boxer?
Could we buy a cheaper type for support roles ( I keep thinking Patria ) and put the Boxers in infantry units to mechanize as many Bns as possible.
Also, will we now have modules sitting at Ashchurch with not enough drive modules to carry them?
Why does Radar need to go on a Boxer? What’s wrong with a flatbed truck?
Yes. K9 was one of the contenders that the army was to evaluate for the MFP programme.
Did not suit Sunak though.
Yes the whole situation is barking mad same with ajax millions wasted could have just bought cv90 off the shelf with the same suite fitted it’s already in service with other nato countries already so spares on the battlefield would be available