UK Defence Forum

SW1 wrote:

Ron5 wrote:

SW1 wrote:Boxer has already had the 40mm CTA integrated

"Integrated" is an elastic term. Also that picture is almost certainly photoshopped.

Lockheed mounted their Warrior/Ajax export version turret on a Boxer too.

Well if you take time to read the tweet it explains the image is a artist impression with the real images to be released shortly

Either of these could be a sign of things to come (rather than the 30 mm).
- interestingly, the T40 turret was developed for the (French) recce wagon replacement at a time when the dominant thought was that it would be tracked; just like the AMX-10 it was to replace

Meanwhile the Boxer UK production facility takes shape...

I wonder if we'll find the Dutch line, under that roof?
The orders for them have been completed, whereas more German orders (and exports, from that other line) are likely

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I wonder if we'll find the Dutch line, under that roof?
The orders for them have been completed, whereas more German orders (and exports, from that other line) are likely

We are getting two lines in the UK

WFEL Stockport - Krauss Maffei Weggemann
RBSL Telford - Rheinmetall

They are assembling half each with WFEL building the drive modules and RBSL the payload modules.

tomuk wrote:WFEL Stockport - Krauss Maffei Weggemann
RBSL Telford - Rheinmetall

There's logic to that, glad though that we didn't divide the new 'half-Leo' - if it emerges - into two between those two companies. Good to the form, we have managed to do that
- for Ajax (GD/LM), and
- for Warrior (LM/BAE)
and no broth is perfect without too much salt thrown in, for good measure, with the Gvmnt gun & its feed system (the latter component, I guess, only modified for the Warrior... never throw away a good opportunity when you can tinker with something that has already taken a while to 'solve' - as in " A Royal Ordnance and GIAT 45mm Cased Telescoped Weapon System (CTWS) demonstrator was completed in 1991 with the prototype the following year").

tomuk wrote:They are assembling half each with WFEL building the drive modules and RBSL the payload modules.

I do not think this is correct. I believe both sites will be manufacturing and testing complete vehicles. The Command and Special Carrier variants will be produced at RBSL and the rest at WFEL. Approx half each.

By the way, there was an earlier comment that the mix of variants in the UK order was a "mystery". It is not. That was announced when the order was placed.

Nicely setup for a follow on order competition.

https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events ... ouncement/

The announcement will protect 700 existing jobs at Thales’ facility in Glasgow and create 25 more. A further 30 apprenticeships will be supported by the contract. This helps ensure that taxpayers’ money is re-invested in the UK; further, it is invested in devolved administrations and the Northern Powerhouse supporting the government’s levelling up policy.

The UK decided to re-join the Boxer programme in 2018 and since then has committed £2.8bn to deliver over 500 vehicles to the British Army. The first vehicles are scheduled to be ready for service in 2023.

Our commitment to armoured vehicles is a commitment to British industry.

SW1 wrote:https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events ... ouncement/

The announcement will protect 700 existing jobs at Thales’ facility in Glasgow and create 25 more. A further 30 apprenticeships will be supported by the contract. This helps ensure that taxpayers’ money is re-invested in the UK; further, it is invested in devolved administrations and the Northern Powerhouse supporting the government’s levelling up policy.

The UK decided to re-join the Boxer programme in 2018 and since then has committed £2.8bn to deliver over 500 vehicles to the British Army. The first vehicles are scheduled to be ready for service in 2023.

Our commitment to armoured vehicles is a commitment to British industry.

Presumably the same one as fitted to Ajax.

Ron5 wrote:

SW1 wrote:https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events ... ouncement/

The announcement will protect 700 existing jobs at Thales’ facility in Glasgow and create 25 more. A further 30 apprenticeships will be supported by the contract. This helps ensure that taxpayers’ money is re-invested in the UK; further, it is invested in devolved administrations and the Northern Powerhouse supporting the government’s levelling up policy.

The UK decided to re-join the Boxer programme in 2018 and since then has committed £2.8bn to deliver over 500 vehicles to the British Army. The first vehicles are scheduled to be ready for service in 2023.

Our commitment to armoured vehicles is a commitment to British industry.

Presumably the same one as fitted to Ajax.

I think it has the same engine as Ajax too

SW1 wrote: I think it has the same engine as Ajax too

And Renk could just as well be a British company as we get all the gear boxes from them
... and w/o 'boxes' gearing for other things, too

SW1 wrote:I think it has the same engine as Ajax too

Would be interesting to find out as our Boxers are the first to be fitted with a more powerful version of the engine already installed on both German and Dutch vehicles. This allow the vehicle to have a greater all up weight without affecting its performance. So if Ajax and Boxer share the same engine design do they share the same variant?

More than one commentator, most notably the Telegraph, has said that some Boxers will be equipped with 40mm gun turrets as a result of the review. It's easy to conclude turrets from the cancelled Warrior upgrade will be used but is that technically possible without spending another bucket of gold on development?

If they could put it on a Patria AMV it shouldn’t be too different to put it on a Boxer, what with its vaunted modularity and all.

I should say, reuse the turret design from the Warrior program as no production turrets have been built.

Mind you, seeing that Lockheed have no one to blame except themselves for the WSCP cock up, why they should be rewarded?

PS they also mounted a derivative turret on a Boxer. The so called export version.

Ron5 wrote: It's easy to conclude turrets from the cancelled Warrior upgrade will be used but is that technically possible without spending another bucket of gold on development?

A great idea... touted around here for the last five years (where do I collect the bets ?)

Ron5 wrote:should say, reuse the turret design from the Warrior program as no production turrets have been built.

and only the guns that go into them a fixed commitment

Ron5 wrote:they also mounted a derivative turret on a Boxer. The so called export version.

which I hear is better.
- so use the notional (already committed amounts, put to a purposeful use) savings to put some nice missiles on (from the available extras list)

Ron5 wrote:https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events ... ouncement/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/0 ... y-arrives/

"Just over 500 of the new Boxer have been ordered and this number is set to increase, including a variant with a 40mm cannon."

It sounds promising. Warrior upgrade was never going to work.

The old platforms that are about to be retired

- A dozen Hawk
- A dozen C130
- 24 T1 Typhoon
- 2 T23

that could make a very attractive defence diplomacy package for a friendly country in a strategic position. Estonia? Greece? Just a thought...

Typhoon to Greece please. That'll go down well with their close neighbour

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.

SD67 wrote:It sounds promising. Warrior upgrade was never going to work.

Why not? It was most of the way through trials so it was working
.

Lord Jim wrote: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.

I’d maintain that it would still require repeating a large portion of the trials, but most turrets would require that.
But if you want a CT40 on it your choice is between that and the French.
The size of the portion that needs repeating will likely vary based on previous evidence, but it will not be trivial for any system.

Yes of course some trials are going to be needed, but as an example I see no reason we could not have a turreted Boxer in service by 2025 at the latest if such trials were carried out at an appropriate speed.

For me if we to stop and rethink for just a moment as said by AAC we only need 1 in 4 Boxers's to be turreted and if we were smart right now we could be looking to rethink the light mechanised infantry as well.

As said before for around 1.4 billion we could get 750 Griffon 6x6 and 250 Jaguar CVR's enough for 3 Brigades of light Mech infantry we should then add the Jaguar turret to Boxer's of the Heavy Mech infantry

For me a Boxer Battalion should be made up of

60 x APC ( with RWS = 20 x 12.7 , 20 x 30mm & 20 x 40mm GMG )
20 x Turreted ( with 40mm and 2 x ATGW's )
9 x 120mm Nemo mortar

Allowing each Company to have 18 APC's , 4 turreted & 3 Nemo Boxers it would also allow 2 x Recce groups of 4 turreted Boxers

Edit ; If we did go with Griffon and Jaguar as above then Light Mech infantry Battalion could look like

60 x Griffon APC ( with RWS = 20 x 12.7mm , 20 x 30mm & 20 x 40 GMG )
9 x Griffon 120mm mortar
20 x Jaguar CVR ( with 40mm and 2 x ATGW's )

allowing the same look as a Boxer Company 18 APC , 4 Jaguars & 3 120mm mortars

Good footage on the EOS site of Dutch Boxer live fire tests with EOS RWS fitted with a M230LF 30mm chain gun

Lord Jim wrote: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.

No one is saying it's not a problem.

But the MOD now have over 200 CT40 weapon systems and no turrets. So either we have the most comprehensive spares catalogue known to man, or money has to be spent on a new turret integration. Modularity might make that easier from a design, but it doesn't make certification and test any faster.

mr.fred wrote:SD67 wrote:
It sounds promising. Warrior upgrade was never going to work.

Why not? It was most of the way through trials so it was working
.

Taking a 30 year old hard worked platform and ripping out basically all the key systems, hoping the new bits work with the old bits, there's been reports of it needing a new chassis.