The 13 mission modules on the British Army's new Boxer vehicle explained

The British Army's new Boxer could be described as the Swiss Army knife of armoured vehicles thanks to its unique modular design which means it can be rapidly adapted to fill a range of roles on the battlefield.
It combines an eight-wheeled armoured drive module powered by the same multi-fuel Rolls Royce engine that powers the Ajax armoured vehicle - with 13 switchable mission modules that can be changed to fit the mission or threat environment in just 20 minutes.
All 3D images of the Boxer vehicle variants are provided by ARTEC.
More: www.forces.net...
#forcesnews #britisharmy #armouredvehicle #allterrainvehicle
Subscribe to Forces News: bit.ly/1OraazC
Check out our website: forces.net
Facebook: / forcestv
Instagram: www.instagram....
Twitter: / forcesnews

[@alexscarbro796]

“Getting 623 boxers”….. in true British government style that’ll be “trimmed down to the current requirements, 23”

[@robbiepemberton]

which after all the over-runs on delivery and the sheer amount of overcost and hidden maintennace and suplly chain stings, is about all we'll be able to afford. F35 anyone?

[@ashleygoggs5679]

Unless our government is incredibly stupid i dont see them cutting the amount of Boxers, Before when the government was cutting our budget we lived in the age of peace and the cold war was the only threat. Now with the war on russia it has shown the complete and utter dismantling and preperations of almost every nato military, it has shown we are extremely under prepared for an invasion. NATO as a whole has brought complacency in every member making every nations military understaffed and under gunned becuase they know they have allys who can fill the voids. However with almost all nations doing this its made NATO as a whole less potent. My point being is that if the government is listening to military experts and analyzers then gutting the military further will be to the extraordinary detriment to global sexurity. I think honestly if NATO member complacency never happened and most of the larger nations stayed at full strength, perhaps russia would never have invaded ukraine.

[@alexscarbro796]

@@robbiepemberton ironically, despite their initially high cost, the F35 cost and the supply chain actually looks quite attractive now so so many have been made and exported.

[@Hipporider]

Yes indeed. The UK governments over years have white anted the UK forces and white anted UK culture with mass immigration. Very sad to see. 🇦🇺

[@hb1338]

@@alexscarbro796 Rubbish. The F35 is costing 50 per cent more to operate, twice as much to maintain, and is available for half the time specified in the sales contract. In any other environment, it would be called a lemon and painted yellow.

[@petemcphee2]

The criminal stupidity of MoD is that we left the Boxer programme in 2006. We should have had these vehicle 12 yrs ago when other programme partners received theirs. Instead we wasted billions on Ajax which will never produce a safe IFV.

[@hisredrighthand5212]

They got a good deal though, having all 623 (so far) produced in the UK. Also Rheinmetall is basically the best German defense company and more cooperation with BAE, even if the acquisition of 55% of a part of BAE Land Systems for GBP 23 million isn't a massive step, it might be the start of some excellent joint developments. Seems to me an unmanned GMLRS module for example with new missiles might be a worthwhile venture. HIMARS have been very successful in Ukraine so far because it's difficult to tell them apart from cheap Grad rockets, and as you would expect in Russia, an S300 operator would likely have to call up the chain of command to get the all-clear to shoot them down. Also you can rather easily hide them for a good part of the trip by firing them in a volley together with Grad or Smerch rockets, but eventually they'll update the software on the S300 causing much more of them be shot down. So a new system with new rockets that fly at exactly the speed of Grad or Smerch or Tornado rockets and are generally optimised to fool Russian and Chinese SAM systems might make for a successfull product.

[@TheBooban]

And still buying Ajax. Why?

[@brilobox2]

@@TheBooban because if they can make it not turn soldier’s bones to dust it won’t have been a waste of 5 billion quid.

[@Foxtrottangoabc]

If they can turn it around on ajax I think it will turn out OK. I notice general dynamics who make ajax have won the usa griffin light tank contract which originally used an ajax chassis for prototype . Gd also competing in usa for ifv contract for us army . So being hopeful maybe in a few years GD will be able to do some serious upgrades on ajax to make it come good , maybe even a new hull chassis 🙏

[@peterwait641]

They pulled out of boxer because it was going to be too heavy to put in aircraft and then ordered Ajax which is too heavy to put in a an aircraft without removing engine and tracks lol

[@aliancemd]

Good job the Germans, they have a designed a nice piece of equipment. They really like making everything “modular”

[@philippdinkhauser5639]

Thank you

[@danielspillett5393]

SHAME IS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BRITISH DESIGNED AND BUILT NOT GERMAN A NEW WARRIOR OF OUR OWN WHY PAY GERMANY MONEY

[@gaptaxi]

@@danielspillett5393 Have you even seen the amount of money literally thrown into the Gutter just to keep the Smelly Old Majors in the MOD on extra money, they have wasted Billions of Pounds on different platforms that hardly got past the development stage. And AJAX is no different, it is so big it was never fit for any role other than to fatten up MOD parasites. As the UK has no tank building facilities for MBT´s we are basically forced to use Rheinmetal, who are very successfull with Leopard, blame Leyland, they crippled the Chieftain with their l60, good to see RR engines in the Boxer.

[@philippdinkhauser5639]

@@danielspillett5393 hello, it is a Joint venture project. I am sorry to tell you.q

[@ab-ym3bf]

​@@danielspillett5393didn't take long for a britnat to shout nonsense. It was a European project where several countries contribute, and will be produced in 5 different locations. Note the remark ofnit being equipes with rr engines.

[@leebennett7014]

They forgot to mention the specialised brit only module. You know the one. Its the one that deploys the tea bags milk and sugar automatically. The most protected combat vehicle in the British army.

[@bremnersghost948]

NATO Standard BV ;-)

[@kutter_ttl6786]

​@Shauna C Someone missed their afternoon tea.

[@cliffordwebb3656]

The auto brewer saves on one crew member.

[@stabilis8895]

​@@kutter_ttl6786 He's right though, it's an over used, unfunny joke.

[@leebennett7014]

@@stabilis8895 Don't worry about it mate. Most squaddies see the funny side of it. Trust me ;)

[@morganfreeman8618]

The tracked version is cool as well. And the Nemo mortar module. And the IFV with a 120mm gun on top.

[@RJM1011]

The AMOS mortar would be better.

[@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617]

@@RJM1011no direct fire is just as important as in direct!

[@RJM1011]

@@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617 That's why the AMOS is BETTER than the Nemo !

[@danielspillett5393]

NOT AS GOOD AS A BRITISH MADE AND BUILT AFV WOULD HAVE BEEN

[@danielh4032]

@@danielspillett5393 wasn’t Britain part of the original development consortium but withdrew so now is having to build other’s design?

[@wudruffwildcard252]

Sykranger should be on the top of the list of any country right now, but no orders yet. Kind of weird when you see how drones decimate troops and armored vehicles in Ukraine. 🤔

[@Janoip]

7 Month later finaly Germany order some & Denmark also but on a Standard-APC Piranha V

[@da90sReAlvloc]

What a beast , it's about time our army is getting better gear , now they need more ammo and better equipment

[@TommyBahama84]

And better living conditions for the soldiers

[@da90sReAlvloc]

@@TommyBahama84 yes exactly our soldiers defend us and the country you would at least think the government could look after them a bit better, Mark B. You stay safe 👍

[@tomsaunders9944]

@@da90sReAlvloc Ew cringe

[@tomstravels520]

And which 4 are we getting? Because without a Warrior replacement we better be getting one of the ones with 30mm cannon

[@latchdoorlatch996]

Not one i think there all personel carriers ambulance equipment carriers and command and control..

[@Nihtglom]

Ours are fitted with the CTAS40 autocannon, not the 30mm.

[@tomstravels520]

@@Nihtglom that would be even better

[@martinvenus405]

The UK will get the Lance IFV, the Command Vehicle, the Specialist Carrier and the Ambulance.

[@CabbageBloke]

@@Nihtglom No they're not. All the British version have in terms of armament is a RWS. The only vehicle in UK service using the CTAS40 is the Ajax family. Boxer doesn't have it.

[@regarded9702]

A helpfully overview of the different types. Just what I was looking for

[@lllPlatinumlll]

155mm howitzer module!!! Maaaaaate that is exactly what I was thinking we need, and you've already got it! UK I love you please save us, there are still faithful living in the colonies!

[@noobster4779]

They dont "already have it" because it isnt even sold yet. Its still a prototype in late stage developemeant and testing in germany.

[@lllPlatinumlll]

@@noobster4779 Close enough for my liking. It looks rather like that massive experimental tank destroyed they made only one of. I think it was a 130mm naval gun on a centurion chassis.

[@HingerlAlois]

@@noobster4779 In December 2022 Germany ordered 18 of them for Ukraine (216 million € contract), thus we‘ll probably see the first of them in maybe 2 years in Ukraine. Germany is probably going to order a bunch of them for its own armed forces soon, as Germany wants to establish new medium forces (Boxer IFV, Boxer RCH 155, wheeled mortar carrier etc.) that can faster move on their own for example from Germany to the Baltics.

[@scratchy996]

​@@HingerlAlois The Boxer production lines are booked for the coming years. To get theirs faster, the Germans had to order Boxers from Australia.

[@HingerlAlois]

@@scratchy996 Yes the Boxer IFV will be produced in Australia. We‘ll see if orders get placed for Boxer RCH 155 and Boxer Skyranger SHORAD etc. where those will be produced.

[@CookieMonster-nt8hh]

i would've loved a deeper explanation of the IFV modules. what are the differences and similarities? what was listed read like a tv commercial. I'm pretty sure all of them have day and night optics, providing hunter-killer capability

[@DennisMerwood-xk8wp]

One modern missile would destroy this contraption. Coffins.

[@gamingrex2930]

The requirement of "hunter killer" is that there are at least two CITVs and supporting fire control hardware/software in order to allow the gunner and commander to track and acquire two separate targets at the same time. So your commander and his mate, the gunner, are able to stare in two different directions and then quickly designate targets to pew pew with 30 mm. Yes all of the Boxers have day and night optics, but not all the variants can look in two directions at once.

[@ashg9023]

Knowing the planning we are subjected to its going to be the training, medical, cargo, and transport boxes. They seem the cheapest.

[@stephenchau8800]

@@DennisMerwood-xk8wp then no one should be fielding IFVs or even APCs if we follow by your logic. but yet we still see armies in the world field them regardless.

[@td6460]

@@stephenchau8800 Officers continued to order waves of infantry into direct enemy machinegun fire in WW1 long after the machinegun had been invented. Decades after.

[@cardboard3716]

The boxer is the thunderbird 2 of armoured vehicles its so cool

[@gordon295]

So it's a German Vehicle ...Rheinmetall MAN Military Vehicles (RMMV) manufactures the Boxer in cooperation with fellow German defence contractor Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) under a bi-national programme

[@diedampfbrasse98]

yes, brits only assemble a kit which for most parts is imported for those british "production" facilities. But hey, if you are a nation of EU hating xenophob people you dont want to be reminded of having lost so much military development and production capability to the international competition. Put in the last screws, slap a sticker with a Union Jack on it and the fools will be happy. Next up for that is the Challenger 3, which will do something very similar as Rheinmetall is NATO-fying the Challenger tanks.

[@georgepantazis141]

Australia 🇦🇺 got these too.

[@hawk7825]

Truly futuristic modularization. NICE !

[@orion3253]

definitely a modern streamlining of what designers have been doing since the birth of armored fighting vehicles. Just look at the variants based on the Sherman tank hull or all the M113 variants that have been in service since the mid cold war to present day. Hell there's even fire fighting M113s working for NASA.

[@jammiedodger7040]

Now the British army just needs to acquire Tracked Boxer.

[@gaptaxi]

Better off with CV90?

[@jammiedodger7040]

@@gaptaxi Definitely not as that a completely different platform integrating Tracked Boxer will be really easy as it basically the same vehicle with Tracks instead of Wheels plus it extremely modular and it means modules can be used on both Wheeled and Tracked meaning we can swap modules between the two. Dedicated platforms should all be British designed and made.

[@augustiner3821]

​@@jammiedodger7040from the German perspective, I observe a very effective cooperation with the Brits. I guess you get what you need.

[@jammiedodger7040]

@@augustiner3821 The problem is the Army is neglected but over the last couple of decades they have neglected everything meaning that we lack enough of everything and everything left is coming to the end of it’s life and there no replacements for any of it and it going take longer to actually replace everything because twits destroyed our industrial sector so they are literally now in panic mode buy foreign equipment to fill the gaps and tracked boxer needs to be part of that.

[@jammiedodger7040]

@@augustiner3821 We both know that Germany will buy Tempest in the end ; )

[@gregzy789_gaming4]

Can 100% promise the British army won’t have any turreted version's just pink and fluffy version with no guns at all.

[@peterwait641]

Don't think ajax rubber turret isolation gasket will work lol

[@AdamTucker-ne5yd]

I served a guy some food and coffee today, he had MoD on his shirt. I said "judging by your shirt, you've got a pretty cool job" He replied saying he was on his way to a site to go and 'play' with the Boxers in the mud and to search the vehicle up and see how cool it is. They boxer is alive and getting dirty as i type

[@flivverj7934]

this is genius. repair would be so much quicker with this

[@shadowboy7097]

I always watch ur vedios . The way I explain is fantastic. I m from India . make a vedio on IAF lvh prachand . Love from India ❤❤❤❤

[@whya2ndaccount]

"Squad"! Surely when you plagiarise someone else's video you can adapt the narration to local conditions - try "Section".

[@southern_poacher688]

i thought the exact same thing, what a stupid mistake

[@olebrasderuiter1200]

Well for clarification yes you can switch modules in 20 minutes however it is rarely done as it is impractical to keep spare mission modules at the front

[@wolfyys]

I do wonder why we went with archer when the RCH-155 should be the no-brainer choice given we're already adopting boxer.

[@davidhouseman4328]

The archer purchase is short term cover, so it's likely it was what's available.

[@_ob200]

Should have gone with the k9 thunder. Basicly a beefed up as90. Archer has terible cross country mobility. Tracked howitzers although slower are more mobile cross country and we have experience with them.

[@terrytumble162]

Suspect we’re waiting to see which performs better in Ukraine.

[@HedgehogZone]

Nah, the korean tech is garbage in comparison to the german ones! Nobody in their right mind buys them. (And yes poland did make a huge mistake buying the k2!)

[@Foxtrottangoabc]

The boxer artillery maybe a bit top heavy it looks pretty wobbly when firing

[@gordonjamieson861]

wunderfull vehicle

[@stevenbreach2561]

Looks like the tracked version would be everything the Ajax isnt

[@SRDPS2]

0:12 some people: "t-Fourteen aPmata is revolutionary, modular platform" Literally 4x4 Box: what about become everything

[@WolfeSaber9933]

Looks better built than the T-14 Armada series from Russia.

[@jimdoyle8757]

That's a nice bit of kit

[@SamFBM]

2:00 now i wasnt expecting that

[@IC3XR]

Australia has already been operating these for years U.K is a bit late to the party, lmao

[@ashleygoggs5679]

Becuase the MoD are disgustingly incompetent. Taking AJAX of a squabble over BAE for instance. If the MoD was more competent Britain would have had a much more ferocious army by now, but ofcourse once again we are playing catchup which is a massive let down.

[@IC3XR]

@@ashleygoggs5679 yeah it’s pretty sad to see. I’m sure the U.K will recover though

[@Jaxymann]

Given the profusion of drones in the modern battlefield, I reckon a dedicated UAV module could be useful: imagine a Boxer carrying multiple small drones that could be launched & recovered for conducting reconnaissance, target acquisition & providing enhanced situational awareness of the battlefield.

[@hisredrighthand5212]

I wonder why the UK didn't order some Skyranger 30 modules as well. Would seem to me like the perfect SHORAD addition to a company of Boxers, whether in APC or IFV configuration. If I'm not mistaken, their previous Skyranger 35 modules were first of all not able to fit on all Boxer types, and they required a team of 2-4 different vehicles playing different roles: - a Skyranger "Search and Control Node" equipped with search and tracking radar - a Skyranger Gun Effector armed with a KDG revolver cannon capable of firing AHEAD rounds (i.e. able to measure their exact speed as they pass the barrel and then program the shell with the exact timing as it leaves the barrel, so it detonates mere meters away from the target and propels a cone of tungsten fragments into it) - and two different Skyranger Missile Launchers for different short-range air-to-air missiles, one for Stingers and the other for a second option Even if you pass on the stinger carrier, that's still three vehicles. The Skyranger 30 module however - fits with almost (?) all smaller Boxer variants - has it's own search and tracking radar - and is able to fire both AA missiles and a high energy laser in addition to a slightly lighter 30mm AHEAD autocannon. I mean first of all there are few systems that can take out these pesky cheap Iranian Shahed-136 drones, and most of them waste a $200,000+ missiles on a $15,000 drone, which can become a problem if your enemy just keeps churning them out. And given that they may have been the biggest headache to Ukraine since the war began, doing way more damage than all the hypersonic missiles Russia had lobed into major cities in the preceding months, damage that to this day hasn't been fixed entirely, it seems likely that similar drones will become common in war, especially since almost any state actor would be able to build something similar. The Ukrainians using the predecessor to the AHEAD system use the shortest burst-mode available on the Gepard - 2x3 shells and that seems to create enough damage to make the drones crash. The Skyranger 30 can fire single shots, so assuming one 30mm AHEAD shell is $1,000, you can turn the tables and make the drones an economic problem for the enemy. The laser seems - at this point at least - a bit like a gimmick, but having a missile agnostic launcher to double the range, for example with the Mistral 3 to over 7 kilometers seems like a good idea though, since the smaller 30mm shells only have a range of 3km. What do you think, the Skyranger 30 module is pretty new, do you think they'll end up being the fifth module in service with the British Army?

[@wickendiana8310]

I think the Stormer with the startreaks HVM still fulfil the SHORAD role well, the british army has some 150~ of them, (no clue how many combat ready) I dont think they need a reeplacement for them (for now)

[@hisredrighthand5212]

@@wickendiana8310 I'm sure the Stormers/Starstreak are excellent, but that's why they cost over £110,000 a piece. And according to Wikipedia the Brish Army has 62 of them in service, each with a total of 20 missiles. Seems to me buying a two dozen Sykranger 30 modules and fitting them with Starstreak missiles wouldn't cost a lot of money - and unlike HVM Stormer, they would protect any armored formation not just from jets, helicopters and cruise missiles, but also from any kind of drone, loitering munition and like I said Iranian Suicide Drones.

[@dasmaurerle4347]

German engineering!❤❤

[@larrypog5050]

Interesting..thank you for the report

[@kindnuguz]

Love ya Brits ❤ although we banter back and forth, Britain is the oldest brother and US is the middle brother with Canada and all others in nato as identical twins in this great big family; I wouldn't want it any other way.

[@likemostthings]

wow! these are incredibly flexible and well thought out.

[@XpVersusVista]

and they cost the same as the most modern version of the Leopard main battle tank. 15mil per vehicle. Ridiculously overpriced for an IFV. An IFV that costs more than half of the top of the line main battle tank is already overpriced, let alone with matching price.

[@user-ej3up2hm2w]

Swiss Army Knife?! Means it does everything badly. Complete White Elephant from the start.

[@robdunne4650]

The British Army needs more soldiers, tens of thousands more!!

[@FLIXXE]

I am sorry but the Artillery Modul looks like someone took the cannon of a Destroyer and nailed it on the Plattform. But what a capable thing. 20 min for a Modul change is crazy.

[@tonymoloney3223]

I've just been watching Jerry Anderson this is straight out of thunderbirds

[@BuddySpike101]

Why didn’t we just use the LAV-25. It’s probably cheaper and not having a main gun on this seems stupid to me.

[@davidhouseman4328]

Protection levels

[@RJM1011]

One with the AMOS would be GOOD for the UK.

[@jonnyh9388]

It is nice to see an MOD procurement project that hasn't turned into a nightmare.

[@Danny-zi6xw]

yet

[@MrSatyre1]

This is the F-35 of APVs. You'd think someone would have figured that out long before now. But sadly we're so invested in it, warts and all, it would cost far too much and take far too long to develop and field a better alternative.

[@johnlavery3433]

I don’t get if you’re trying to say if it’s good or bad, because the F-35 works very well and anyone who can buy it is buying it. And all the criticism is ultimately dirived from Peir Sprey, a man who claims to have helped design the F-15/16/18/22 and the A-10 on Russia today, despite the fact he has not worked any any of the companies involved, has if you look at his record was in fact a significant opponent of the design philosophy of every one of those places

[@danielspillett5393]

F35 B IS SUPERB STEALTH SUPER SONIC CAN SHOOT DOWN ANY ENEMY AIRCRAFT WITHOUT THE ENEMY EVER SEEING IT WAS THERE CAN BOMB WITH OUT FEAR OF DETECTION THEY FLEW INTO SYRIA DROPPED ITS WEAPONS AND FLEW OUT AGAIN WITHOUT RUSSIAN RADAR PICKING THEM UP OR KNOWING THEY WHERE THERE

[@DennisMerwood-xk8wp]

@@danielspillett5393 All Lockheed Marin and US Airforce propaganda John and daniel - and you fell for it, hook line and sinker The US Air force has already said publicly that the F-35 is a flop. The Air Force announced a new study into the tactical aviation requirements of future aircraft, dubbed TacAir. In the process of doing so, Air Force chief of staff General Charles Q. Brown finally admitted what’s been obvious for years: The F-35 program has failed to achieve its goals. There is, at this point, little reason to believe it will ever succeed. According to Brown, the USAF doesn’t just need the NGAD (Next Generation Air Dominance) fighter, a sixth-generation aircraft - it also needs a new, “5th-generation minus / 4.5th-generation aircraft.” Brown acknowledged too many issues with the F-35 and suggested the only solution was to fly the plane less often.

[@jedilordlog8543]

@@DennisMerwood-xk8wp "The US Air force has already said publicly that the F-35 is a flop." Give us a link to that. You provide no proof to any of your Chinese cocksucking ass claims.

[@aflyingcowboy31]

@@DennisMerwood-xk8wp cool story. General Charles Q. Brown also said: "Brown, when asked Thursday if the F-35 program is a failure, said that is “nowhere near” the case.“ The F-35 is a cornerstone of our [tactical aircraft] capability and for our fighter capability,” he said." “And that includes continuing to buy the 1,763 like we’ve already outlined, but we also have to take a look at it to make sure it has the capability we need with block four but also is affordable. I know we’re working with Lockheed Martin and others to ensure we do that because there are some cost pressures as well. But the intent is to continue on the number that we’ve laid out. And in using that study to help inform how we best get there.” "Commenting on NGAD and F-35, Brown said: “As far as NGAD versus F-35. We’re not going to take money from F-35 to do NGAD. We’re going to look at some of the other parts of the fighter force to take a look at NGAD, to help fund NGAD. It’s [we] want to keep the F-35 on track, but also look at NGAD.” If it was such a failure they wouldn't continue to buy the amount they initially set out to. You fell for the propaganda that the F35 is bad, hook line and sinker. Well done you read one quote out of context and thought you knew what you were talking about. If you knew what General Charles Q. Brown was referring to when he stated "The F-35 program has failed to achieve its goals." you would understand why he said that, the plane is fine, they just didn't meet their goals of creating a cheaper plane that would replace a wide range of existing fighter, strike, and ground attack aircraft, that is what he was talking about (hence the need for a new 4.5 gen plane) and the reason the F35 didn't achieve these goals is because the military asked for way too much from one airframe i.e. F35A, F35B, and F35C.

[@1421davidm]

Have they sorted out the overheating brakes problem yet ?

[@asan1050]

ThanksMuch!

[@al-azimahmed1188]

I love the fact the mod makes out this8x8 apc some new development that the world has never seen. We are always behind with everything and we seem to pay triple the price. We should have either kept and upgraded the warrior or bought the cv90. But as usual we spent tax payers money on the ajax😢, which won't be in service for a decade. Let's just but the BMP-3

[@James-fg8rf]

I’m sure you were closely involved with R&D and procurement. You must have really gotten into the details and mechanics to write such an authoritative comment. Hope next time MOD takes notes from you!

[@wolfyys]

​@@James-fg8rf The MOD needs to take notes from someone, our procurement record as of late has been nothing short of a train wreck. Re-turreting warrior was both 20 years overdue and a spectacular disaster for what should have been a relatively simple endeavour. Ajax has been a poster child on how not to develop an AFV with signs that its still got problems that have effectively been plastered over in a vain attempt to show they can at least deliver something. Ironically, the only systems that have entered service on time so far are those the MOD has had little or no direct involvement with.

[@James-fg8rf]

@@wolfyys what are those examples of projects that were not overdue and where the MOD had no direct involvement in?

[@wolfyys]

@@James-fg8rf Husky, Jackal, Sharpshooter, Ridgeback, Cougar to name a few. Not to mention Boxer

[@James-fg8rf]

@@wolfyys I only know two of those tbf. But those two that I know were MoD procured no? Also, notably absent is the Warrior you mentioned above which was what piqued my initial interest. Either way, fair point, best of luck, take care :)

[@i.jwilson2885]

I would love to see an MLRS version made if possible.

[@julmdamaslefttoe3559]

not really in our doctrine

[@scratchy996]

@@julmdamaslefttoe3559 Himars would disagree with you.

[@Akm72]

The question is; do you really need the rocket artillery to be mounted on a 24 to 41 tonne Boxer chassis with a 700 to 800hp engine or is a lighter 16 tonne HIMARS with a 290hp engine good enough? Ideally you want to minimise fuel use when it's in the warzone and make it as easy as possible to transport the platform to the warzone in the first place, whether by ship or by aircraft. IMO Boxer might be a bit more than needed for the role.

[@julmdamaslefttoe3559]

@@Akm72 though if left without modern amenities such as crows, Basic protection up to 20mm. Detection, IR/Thermal imaging, It becomes a Katyusha a MLRS Like alike of Russian TOS-1 is not needed in our doctorine focusing on ship/Static based systems and cruise missiles/Hypersonic missiles/155MM/105 artillery to do that job this is evident in the UK's MOD choice to remove 60mm Mortars from service in 2018. and doubling its already existing Himars (a much more precise and surgical instrument) in 2022. lobbing vague bits of explosive is becoming a less of the fashion for EU/UK forces. I seriously doubt the boxer or anything alike a MLRS system will see UK service. Coating a Area in missiles is not effective, considering the price of a missile compared to a 155mm Artillery "Creeping Barrage" maybe another country may do? who knows its adaptable system. I'm not saying it wouldn't be useful to make a MLRS of it, and if you was to make one, a boxer would be fine to do so. Mobile, modular, protected, and so on.

[@Tomartyr]

@@julmdamaslefttoe3559 M270B1 MLRS is literally in British service right now bro (and HIMARS isn't)

[@RUDI-UK]

Bring one to Londonderry this weekend. We're going to need it.

[@paulbeesley8283]

Same engine as the Ajax? Why does that not reassure me?

[@diedampfbrasse98]

the overwatch variant is rather silly with its 8 missiles for 12km range. the artillery version can easily cover the missile range and more with smart anti tank rounds like Bonus or Smart155, while not only carrying more rounds but also taking on much more tasks.

[@spannerpasser]

Is there a repair and recovery variant? Every class of AFV the British Army has introduced with the exception of AS90 had a repair and recovery variant. As a former REME Vehicle Mechanic I’m interested in the vehicles my modern counterparts operate.

[@1chish]

@ 00:29 the video shows the "Armoured Engineer Group" module.

[@Calisota]

​@@1chish but its not a Pionieer Vehicle with crane or winches to pull out large vehicles. Its not like a Leopard 2A1 Badger for instance

[@HerrLBrodersen]

FFG has one developed and presented it at some expo.

[@Janoip]

i know 7 month later but yes even a bridge-laying modul with a Leguan bridge that is normaly on a leopard 1/2, Abrams++ base😂

[@chrisbacon3071]

Whoo! Boxer lets goo! Better then Ajax!

[@MatthewMakesAU]

I want one for my commute

[@liamh9814]

Mention Ajax in the first minute was not a bright move.

[@peterwait641]

It has comfy seats !

[@Ajadams93]

Shouldn't replace the warrior but work along side it.

[@davidhouseman4328]

That was the plan, but money.

[@RJM1011]

@@davidhouseman4328 Yes money and the UK Gov always stabs it's own people in the back so there is LESS for everything the UK needs ! I have lost £30,000.00 this year THANKS to the UK Gov £20,000.00 of that is THANKS to the last Labour Gov of the UK !

[@scratchy996]

The Warrior has reached its limit. They should be placed in storage, not discarded. The main advantage of the wheeled platforms is that they have higher strategic mobility, they can move on their own , without the need for trains and special transporters. In case of a crisis, you can deploy them quicker, on the battlefield you can move them quicker where more troops are needed, in defensive and offensive roles. If a tracked vehicle rolls over a mine, it loses the track, an 8x8 can lose several wheels and still drive to safety. Then there is the modularity. If two warriors are damaged, you have two warriors out of action. If a Boxer gets a hit on the module and another gets a hit on the vehicle, you put the intact module on the intact vehicle and have functioning vehicle in under an hour. In need, you can swap modules with your allies who also have Boxers on the field. You can develop new modules over the years, depending on what needs might arrive. And there is the Boxer tracked version, which uses the same modules.

[@Ajadams93]

@@scratchy996 I do agree however tracked vehicles move better over all terrains also in urban environments neutral turning allowing to move around streets fast. When tanks are advancing in front with a battle group advance it’s been shown in the past that wheeled vehicles struggle to keep up with the moving battle. Like you said keep warrior in storage because it’s proven in battle and have a tracked boxer as well as wheeled.

[@RJM1011]

@@scratchy996 There's nothing wrong with having tracked AFV it all comes down to where you are going to send them to be used and what for. The UK had wheeled AFV's in the past and wanked them off. It also all comes down to money and the UK Gov both Labour and Tory keep letting people down in the UK so people earn less and pay less taxes to pay for what the UK needs this year I have lost £30,000.00 and £20,000.00 of that is THANKS to the last Labour Gov of the UK. Thank you.

[@Joe-rp8xn]

RCH 155 gonna look great in war thunder

[@theflyingfool]

Where do you store all the modules you're not currently using while you're on the battlefield? How long does it take to get the one you want out to you?

[@matthewfothergill1265]

Forces news in their other video finds that the company building it is only building 3 per month...😂 So we'll get a full force of these sexy beasts by 2060. Great 👍 🎉

[@calimdonmorgul7206]

Will Britain receive only Boxers made in Britain?

[@davidhouseman4328]

​@@calimdonmorgul7206nope some from Germany, and also there's a second UK site.

[@scratchy996]

@@calimdonmorgul7206 That video was about the second production facility being built in the UK, with 3 per month as the initial capability, that can be scaled up. The first 117 Boxers for the UK are being built in the two production facilities in Germany, meanwhile the UK production and maintenance facilities are being built, which will deliver 506 vehicles.

[@martinstock]

@@scratchy996 ... while Germany has just ordered 123 Boxer from Australia where there is also a production line. A number of production lines in different countries is surely a benefit. Esp. in case of a military conflict.

[@scratchy996]

@@martinstock True, but I was talking about the European production, there is one in the Netherlands too, and one in Algeria. The demand for Boxers is so high that the Germans had to order their next batch from Australia, which is a win-win for both countries. I think that's also a political move, to influence the Land 400 Phase 3 decision.

[@emersonmsd]

Don't forget the soft padding so no one can hurt themselves. And remember, complexity is the enemy of reliability.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

the vehicles have been serving in combat conditions with excellence in Afghanistan since 2011

[@DennisMerwood-xk8wp]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Afghanistan..haaaahahahah..against tribesmen with AK-47's on horseback!

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@DennisMerwood-xk8wp well, against what is challenger 2 proven? 50-60 years old sovjet era export tanks and 50 year old RPG´s. thats a great performence ;)

[@DennisMerwood-xk8wp]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Keep drinking the KOOLAID Zhufor. You are being duped.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@DennisMerwood-xk8wp so, how many british soldiers died in afghanistan due to "horse riding tribesmen with AK-47´s? Oh right.... almost 460. So they were a threat. And btw they employed IED´s with enough explosive power to blow up MBT´s

[@michelefur]

É incrível as forças armadas do reino unido 👏👏

[@dasmaurerle4347]

It's a German vehicle...🙄

[@andym9571]

It's a German / UK / Dutch co production

[@dasmaurerle4347]

@@andym9571 not UK. They quit the project. It's what they do best, apparently😂🤦

[@andym9571]

@@dasmaurerle4347 My understanding is that the UK quit in 2003 but rejoined in 2018. Most of the ' British' Boxers are made in the UK

[@dasmaurerle4347]

@@andym9571Originally it was France, Germany and the UK that started the project in 1995. After France decided to do their own thing in 1999, the consortium Artec was founded, which consisted of Alvis 🇬🇧, Stork 🇳🇱, Rheinmetall 🇩🇪 and Krauss-Maffei Wegmann 🇩🇪. Alvis pulled out in 2003, and Stork was bought by Rheinmetall in 2010. Currently Rheinmetall holds 64% and Krauss-Maffei Wegmann 36% of Artec GmbH. I don't know the exact circumstances, but the Boxer is most certainly built under license in the UK and Australia. There's also a factory in the Netherlands. But it's definitely 100% 🇩🇪 nowadays.

[@robbiepemberton]

You will NOT change this over from one role to another in 20 minutes, are you having a laugh? It'll take 2 weeks for the paperwork request to come through, another 2 weeks for it to be approved. Then a week for the requester to acqknowledge permission. Then 4 or 5 days for the work to be scheduled, then the work to be deferred because the parts and/or manpower isn't available. Then when the work happens something will break during the process and then the chain will start all over again with asking for permission to order new parts. It suck but at least it's better than the system the Russians use.

[@Foxtrottangoabc]

Is their an anti air version

[@olegz710]

2:18 This is the scariest one for the enemy

[@danielspillett5393]

AS IF ITS THE TROOP WHO ARE IN IT THAT SCARE THE ENEMY

[@aking-plums6985]

Has the Boxer got a MLRS module similar to that of the HIMARS?

[@gaptaxi]

It has a Brimstone Anti Tank module, we let the RA have a bit of fun too! ;)

[@VhenRaTheRaptor]

As of now? No. Could there be? Wouldn't exactly take much. There is more modules then as described above. There is one with a direct fire 105mm gun, there is one with AA missiles/guns and a radar system. There is a mortar carrier. There is a scout vehicle module with ATGMs and autocannons and extra sensors. There is a bridgelayer... That is the neat part about Boxer. You can implement new stuff just by building a new type of module.

[@aking-plums6985]

@@VhenRaTheRaptor You would have thought that a MLRS would complement the Boxer RHC 155 artillery module system.

[@VhenRaTheRaptor]

@@aking-plums6985 MLRS doesn't require a frame this heavy. The basic boxer drive module... weighs as much as a fully loaded M270 MLRS. That is a Boxer without a weapon/APC/cargo/whatever module attached. Boxer is heavy.

[@aking-plums6985]

@@VhenRaTheRaptor Hi mate, do you think that they won't make an MLRS module due to the weight of the basic Boxer drive module as well as a MLRS module?

[@maxo.9928]

The GERMAN army knife of armored fighting vehicles lol. That ship sailed Brit Bongers!

[@georgegeorgakopoulos5956]

In Forces News We Trust

[@Jeffybonbon]

But do we have the troops to use them?

[@JustAGuyProduction]

I still prefer a RX-78-2 for missions.

[@iceniwargames6347]

So a warhammer player decided to build an STC vehicle in real life and the army is buying them. Cool.

[@darkawakening01]

You, sir, are a man of culture.

[@FuriousFire898]

Its the new CVR (T) Family! Lets go I know there not tracked

[@davidhouseman4328]

Ajax is covering that role.

[@Akm72]

It's a bit bigger than CVR(T).

[@gaptaxi]

It really is the Dog´s Doodahs, makes AJAX look ancient, which it is? Really good move by the MOD to choose a ready made kit and not let smelly old Majors earn their retirement money on failed vehicle designs of the last 30 years! Very well done!

[@jammiedodger7040]

We need a proper replacement for the CVRT that is a like for like replacement.

[@dannyblackwell2426]

4 out of the 13 and doubt the UK will get the overwatch! mod don't like fitting vehicles with lethality

[@scratchy996]

That's the good thing about the Boxer, you can always develop other modules.

[@dannyblackwell2426]

@@scratchy996 i like the overwatch myself i think that add loads of lethality to uk forces

[@StoccTube]

A boxer MLRS seems like an obvious module?

[@beigegaming9905]

This seems like it’d be difficult to produce during wartime. I’d imagine most of these sensors and hardware would be in shorter supply. Correct me if I’m wrong but with a potential full scale war on the horizon, would producing this be viable over other vehicles? Again, feel free to disagree.

[@stephenchau8800]

We got allies. remember. NATO has many. And i mean many countries under its belt (whether officially or no). And because they are in a collective alliance. every country compliments the other. both in army capabilities and also in production... say.. the Belgians need extra raw materials to maintain large productions of FN guns. the nearby european states or australia. or any other country that has a surplus or have huge mining operations as well as large deposits of those materials can quickly hand it over to belgium. so. in any case. while semiconductors and chips may be a little harder.. but as WW2 taught us..if we can't produce it due to shortage of certain materials. or be it that that components is the one causing production bottlenecks..we omit it, Simplify it. or we downgrade with a cheaper alternative. while this would impact some performance of the products. its still very much acceptable by NATO standards.

[@beigegaming9905]

@@stephenchau8800 while I agree, when it comes down to resources, if India were to stay neutral in WW3, nato would be put supplied and while, initially, it may have better electronic capabilities, China is making huge strides in the semi conductor industry. But, the belt and road initiative is failing. They do not have the capacity to keep it up while NATO had the supply chained to do so. If India is for or against one side though, I believe that that side will thrive in the war bringing in further resources. It may be acceptable but when it comes to fighting half the worlds populations, I’m not sure it matters if it’s the latest tech or not. And currently, France is telling Europe to take its own, independent, stance on China. Which is fine, but it provides a rift that China, Russia, Iran, whoever, can exploit to create a canyon. I do agree that initially, this gets the job done. But after several months this becomes impossible to reproduce without major changes applied to it. There are too many points of failure with modern tech that, when wartime comes, will either get phased away because it’s too hard to produce or will be innovated on so much that the previous problem ceases to exist. I just would find it hard to reproduce in a pinch. Creating something solid and reproducible won world war 2. But, initially, new tech crushed it (and ended it in the pacific theatre)

[@stephenchau8800]

@@beigegaming9905 well..while sure..india does have alot in materials and manpower..they are a self centered bunch. and i doubt they will side against china..in any case..more realistically. They would be firmly neutral or side with the west. but again. who knows. they might even do their own thing and cause more trouble for everyone involved. and i do agree the potential rift caused by more of..strategic de-risking of china by Europe..you gotta remember china is also on a time limit. a bubble of demographic troubles about to pop within the next few decades. running low on fresh water for their industrial base. and not to mention seeing the current war in Ukraine being a failure as it completely was not what china had planned. as they were hoping a russian victory would mean they can lay a casus belli for a taiwanese invasion.. but for now..they invading taiwan would be a total suicide. economically and politically..and not to mention.. if they do invade..what can they gain? the chip making facilities in there are already either evacuated to elsewhere or scorched earth by the locals. since the chip industry is heavily human knowledge dependent. which means capturing them intact would be a insanely difficult job...which does lead to the fact that if china does..semiconductor and chip for production of military products would become major bottlenecks. but we humans are resourceful. wouldn't take too long before we find ways to replace or innovate new replacements. a gun is still a gun.. and for a Boxer IFV. its still a IFV...albeit simplified.

[@Foxtrottangoabc]

Germany is going to buy 100 boxers from the new Australian plant near brisbane . The uk has new two up and running boxer manufacturing plants , I think Holland may have one and germany have at least one so between allies there is scope to crank up production

[@hirdy161]

Anyone else played Mass Effect? It's a Mako

[@redberries8039]

I don't understand the gun variants, too many buzzwords

[@davidbell7094]

That is an excellent piece of kit,plz don't sell it to America like we did the Harrier jump jet.!!

[@ianbird9143]

The problem is we need one with a big gun…. But that’s still in Yorkshire… and we are on Bosnia…..

[@Foxtrottangoabc]

Would .50 calibre rounds not make a good turret , can carry way more rounds floor suppressing fire and good distance for ground and air

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

basic APC variant has a .50cal in remote weapon station.

[@diedampfbrasse98]

.50cal is simply too weak and limiting for a lot of tasks on a modern battlefield ... especially on longer range. a modern 30-40mm autocannon packs a far greater punch, excels in engagment range and has fancy ammo options like air-burst or APFSDS ... and can double as an effective air defense again, if the FCS supports it. The air defense capability of a .50cal is laughable given the poor precision and standoff distance of drones, helicopters etc. For a vehicle a .50cal is good for self-defense against infantry and buying a few minutes to get out of trouble, thats why RCWS rely on it, but for serious combat tasks of mechanized units its not enough. Its not even enough to suppress/take out an ATGM position, given the range ATGMs have these days, and these would be the most common threat to an armored vehicle these days.

[@Foxtrottangoabc]

👍

[@grainy7930]

.... The future of war thunder looks good

[@bradz9413]

Freaking brilliant well done UK

[@diedampfbrasse98]

psst, its german engineering and development ... buying the licence and slapping a british sticker on it is hardly brilliant.

[@nigelmacbug6678]

pity we are not replacing ajax with tracked boxer

[@markmilan57]

Never seen before.

[@MacKay1812]

That's mint

[@ghostdriver740]

What I see are all METAL COFFINS! No assurances.

[@tedcopple101]

Was this the vehicle that was built out of square where the left-hand side was longer than the right?

[@peterwait641]

That was "step change " in measuring Ajax lol

[@peterwait641]

They will fix the CTA 40 cannon version with a thick silicon rubber gasket with crush reinforcement round bolt holes on the turret ring lol

[@HUNTERSRD_]

More bits more problems when you don’t need them

[@simonjackson7269]

Thunderbird 2!!!

[@tillytilford2158]

Pity we’re only getting a few. The Army is finished.

[@vld1600]

So.. it looks to me, like we are getting 1100+ new vehicles (Ajax family and boxer), none of which will be kitted out with ATGM or anti tank capability.... I guess Boris was right the other year, the days of the tank are long gone and never to be seen on a battlefield in Europe again.

[@Mnemica15]

Have you heard about that lil conflict in the east going on ?

[@vld1600]

@@Mnemica15 Exactly, I'm just amazed at how the the British Army still thinks it can get away with very little in the way of anti tank apart from a few tanks...

[@noelgrippen4707]

​@@vld1600 If the British army had its way, it'd be much bigger. Its the governments lack of investment that is starving the armed forces of what they need.

[@davidhouseman4328]

​@@vld1600there are still tanks, artillery, drones, fighters, helicopters and personal ATGMs for destroying tanks.

[@vld1600]

@@noelgrippen4707 I 100% agree that the Army are starved of funds, but I'm not convinced that they spend what they have wisely or that procurement is effectively managed. After all, it is the army that decide how they spend the money, and just having lots of wheeled vehicles that can't really defend themselves should the encounter enemy army may prove to be a waste of lives and not just money.

[@nottfue8883]

will this not fly off and be weaker then the rest of the vehicle expecially inf attacked by at

[@lexon7vod]

cool but when the shell hits it's dead right? :P

[@JacelSadiasa]

wow

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

No Sky Sabre version?

[@marius-arnoldpeper9228]

Do you mean sky Ranger?

[@gareththompson2708]

Please tell me the Brits are getting an IFV variant. APCs are good for asymmetric wars and peacekeeping operations. But if you are going to be prepared for a potential peer or near-pear war you really should have IFVs.

[@Oakawiw]

Don't worrie Yankee boy we got it covered

[@greyvoice7949]

Problem:- You need the right module in the first place and to be honest specialist vehicles tend to be better than modular ones. A design flaw on the base unit means every last vehicle in the series has that flaw... Also still going to need an anti drone capability that has a very long reach. But in reality drones are really going to complicate the battlespace given one can be launched locally , spot and drop then you are dead...

[@Ruhrpottpatriot]

It's not like the Boxer isn't in service for more than a decade.

[@philippdinkhauser5639]

There is a Module with mantis oerlikon 35mm anti air gun. Special with anti drone System.

[@wraith600original1]

cant see the point of 3 IFVs just put all the best features in 1 module best main gun with coax 50cal + remote 50cal for split use commander and gunner

[@diedampfbrasse98]

these turrets are just the options a buyer can chose, not what the british army is getting ... and the reason for these options existing (there are more then 3 btw, for example the Puma turret is another option) is simply that these turrets are third-party developments independent of the vehicle and are offered for other plattforms as well (old and new tracked IFVs, Scouts etc.) ... so the buyer can unify the turrets in his army across vehicle types, depending on his preferences and existing arsenal.

[@stenmard4685]

Balatack!!!