Hang on a minute, when I was touting using a turret equipped with the CTA40 I was shot down by people saying that it would put the trials programme for the turret back to square one and it would take a substantial amount of time and money to do the work. I had tried to counter saying that it was only the module needed to be really tested and that Rheinmetall had substantial data from other installation that any trial would be shorter and cost less. Now everyone one is saying, no problem just slap on the Export Turret derived from the LM turret being trailed for the now cancelled WCSP.
Anyhow water under the bridge, there is a problem thought with installing a manned turret that size on the Boxer, namely it reduces the number of dismounts to four, as has happened with the Boxer CRV being purchased by the Australians and the Bundeswehr who have finally decided to go with a manned turret for their cavalry variant. Both use the same Lance turret but there is a remote version called the Lance-R but I do not have any data on why the Germans rejected it and preferred an manned option.
If we want to use the CTA40 the best option maybe to use the remote turret designed by Nexter, the company that has actually got the CTA40/turret combo working effectively, and their turret is also designed to house two ATGWs the size of the French MMP. This would allow us to have a maximum of eight dismounts or more likely six with all the equipment we want Sections to have these days as well as ammo for the vehicle. Dropping to four or one fire team could work but it would mean a minimum of six to seven vehicles to a Platoon rather than the four at present, an increase at of least fifty percent. This is the middle ground when it comes to cost.
At present a Warrior equipped Armoured Infantry Battalions has 57 Warriors, 8 FV432(m), 13 other FV432 variants, and 12 CVR(T) variants. All of these should be replace by versions of the Boxer. As mentioned above installing the Warrior Turret would lead to an increase in the number of Boxers required to carry the came amount of infantry, around 21 extra, but is IFVs also came equipped with ATGW launchers then there would be no need for the ATGW Platoon in the Manoeuvre Company so that reduces the total by 8. A rough calculation puts the number of Boxer variants required to equip a single Mechanised Infantry Battalion would be around 100, with around 70 being the IFV variant, a nice round number to deal with, and by far the most expensive option.
Alternatively you could have three Infantry Companies riding in the APC version of Boxer with good old M2 .50 Cals but also have a Cavalry Squadron with an around 20 Boxer CRV equipped with the manned LM turret carrying the CTA40 and two or more ATGW. This would allow each Infantry Company to be accompanies by four Boxer CRV and have a troop of four on Reece duties. This would be considerably cheaper and require fewer vehicles with the increased capacity of the Boxer APC over the Warrior.