CAN BOXER REPLACE WARRIOR AS AN IFV?

By Nicholas Drummond

This article considers the controversial question of whether the British Army still needs a tracked infantry fighting vehicle when WARRIOR is retired in 2025 or whether BOXER can fulfil this role.

Disclaimer: The author is an advisor to KNDS Germany which makes both Boxer and Tracked Boxer; however, the views expressed are his own opinions, not those of the Company he works with.

Under previous plans, the British Army intended to field four armoured infantry battalions in WARRIOR and four mechanised infantry battalions in BOXER. Four further light mechanised infantry battalions would have had a mix of FOXHOUND and MASTIFF mine-protected, ambush-resistant (MRAP) vehicles. This would have provided a total of 12 out of 31 infantry battalions with protected mobility. Under current plans, the four WARRIOR armoured infantry battalions will convert to BOXER and become mechanised infantry battalions.

The WARRIOR upgrade programme was cancelled in 2021 on grounds of cost.¹ It had been budgeted at around £750 million for 380 vehicles, but after a delayed development process, the cost rose to £1.5 billion. Any army has to live within its means, otherwise meaningful regeneration quickly becomes unaffordable. So the rationale for cancellation is easy to understand. 

The problem created by this decision is that the army has now reduced the number of infantry battalions with protected vehicles by a third. Ukraine has amply demonstrated that threat posed by artillery and armed drones makes protected mobility a universal requirement across all land force types. 

BOXER will be a superb mechanised infantry vehicle. Analogous to the US Army’s Stryker, it is designed to give the British Army a true expeditionary capability while offering utility across conventional and asymmetric warfare scenarios. Battalions that have them will literally be able to get in, drive 1,000 kilometres and be ready for operations when they arrive at their destination. BOXER’s unique combination of operational and tactical mobility will have a transformational impact, making it ideal to fight the FIRST BATTLE. This is the concept of deploying pre-emptively to prevent territory from falling into the hands of an aggressor. BOXER is also well suited to fighting the DEEP BATTLE, where infantry battalions act as a screening force. This enables artillery to be used to degrade enemy forces at stand-off distances. Sophisticated sensors linked to precision guided munitions and 155 mm artillery have become pivotal in establishing efficient kill chains. Forward located BOXER battalions will find and control fires. They will also use anti-tank missiles to destroy enemy armour as it approaches. Their most important function is to deliver infantry mass that physically holds ground. This approach reflects the “new way of winning” described by the Army’s new Land Operating Concept.²

However, when it comes to fighting the SECOND BATTLE and the CLOSE BATTLE, BOXER is less than ideal. Mobility is not the issue here. In some situations, like winter mud or deep snow, tracked vehicles will be preferable, but BOXER’s cross-country performance is a step-change versus previous generations of wheeled combat vehicles. The issue is protection. When you conduct a deliberate assault against an enemy position, you need to maximise survivability. An infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) needs to be able to absorb punishment in the same way as a main battle tank (MBT).

NATO armies have added appliqué armour to tracked IFVs so that they offer increased protection for their crews. When WARRIOR was used in Afghanistan, the “Theatre Entry Standard” added significant extra armour increasing weight from around 25-28 tonnes to well over 40 tonnes. BOXER weighs-in at around 32 tonnes with permissible weight growth to 40 tonnes. Once you exceed this limit, its off-road mobility is compromised. Besides this, the whole point of an 8×8 platform is to provide a rapid and agile combat vehicle able to travel vast distances at high speed. So when you add acres of extra armour, you defeat its core purpose. 

Current thinking among NATO members suggests that there is a need to have two separate platforms for expeditionary and manoeuvre warfare tasks. This has lead to a new duality:

• Medium forces built around 8×8 mechanised infantry vehicles
• Heavy forces configured around main battle tanks and tracked infantry fighting vehicles.

Wheeled vehicles excel at pre-emptive expeditionary deployments, which means they get where needed quickly and then hold ground to fight the FIRST BATTLE and DEEP BATTLE. Conversely, tracked infantry fighting vehicles deploy less quickly but are more resilient, making them ideal for combined arms manoeuvre, operating in partnership with MBTs, artillery and combat aircraft to fight the SECOND BATTLE  and CLOSE BATTLE. 

The United States anticipates re-equipping Army divisions around Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs) equipped with a mix of M1A2D Abrams MBT and the forthcoming XM30 Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV). The latter will replace the M2 Bradley IFV and will offer much higher levels of protection. This will complement existing Stryker Brigade Combat Teams equipped with the Stryker ICV. In Europe, France and Germany are jointly developing the Main Combat Ground System (MGCS). This is a family of vehicles that will include a main battle tank, an infantry fighting vehicle, and a manoeuvre support vehicle, all built around a common platform. This will provide a solution similar to Israel’s Merkava MBT and Namer IFV, which are both based on the same heavy platform. Future IFVs are expected to weigh in the region of 50 tonnes. This is well above the weight limit of any wheeled 8×8.

If the UK decided to adopt a new IFV to replace Warrior it has four potential choices:

• XM30 OMFV – GDLS Griffin / Katalyst based on the Ajax platform
• XM30 OMFV – Rheinmetall Lynx KF41
• Franco-German MGCS IFV
• Tracked Boxer

All of the vehicles listed above are still in development. The US Army will select its OMFV winning candidate by 2027. It could be a smart move to wait until this programme delivers, or even to join it as a partner. Either GDLS Griffin / Katalyst or Rheinmetall KF41 would be suitable for the UK’s needs. GDLS’s vehicle has synergy with Ajax and could be made at its UK facility in Merthyr. If Rheinmetall wins, its Lynx KF41 could be made by RBSL in Telford. The Franco-German MGCS IFV would give the UK a common platform for both MBT and IFV, which would be efficient, less costly and easier to operate. Tracked BOXER made by KNDS provides commonality with the Boxer fleet already being acquired. It has an increased GVW to 50+ tonnes, allowing a significant extra amount of armour to be fitted while using the same turreted mission module as wheeled BOXER.

If we separate the infantry fighting vehicle and infantry carrier vehicle (8×8) functions, does BOXER still need a turreted cannon? 

The answer has to be “yes.” 

The point of any cannon-equipped vehicle is to provide a mix of weapons that offer a layered response to different threats. A coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun will deal with enemy infantry in the open. A 12.7 mm heavy machine gun will neutralise light vehicles and aerial threats. A 30 mm or 40 mm cannon will defeat other IFVs or 8x8s and suppress dug-in troops. A Javelin ATGM missile will destroy enemy MBTs. It is not a good use of expensive anti-tank missiles to engage IFVs. So having a mix of weapons allows the right tool to be used for the right job. 

So far, UK BOXER will only have a 12.7 mm heavy machine gun mounted on a Kongsberg RS4 weapon station. This is good for self defence, but less than ideal for any kind of offensive operations. A variety of potential turret options has been demonstrated on BOXER and all appear viable. These include the Rafael Samson 30, which is in service with Lithuania, and KNDS’s RCT30, which has been selected by the Bundeswehr. The Nexter T40 and Kongsberg’s RT60 have also been shown in prototype or LRIP form. To be clear, using BOXER for offensive operations when it is only equipped with a 12.7 mm heavy machine gun is a no-no.

One school of thought is that as soon as you add a larger weapon to Boxer, it will look like an IFV so will be used as an IFV. Well, the US Army Stryker also has a turret. So the question is how do you use a cannon-equipped Stryker tactically? 

In defence, 8×8 vehicles will be sited in such a way as to maximises infantry survivability. This can be achieved by placing them near a main defensive line to provide direct fire support for dug-in troops. In urban areas, the vehicle might be hidden from view, or be positioned to cover key approaches, firing up a street or protecting a junction. It will also be placed where it can provide a withdrawal route in case troops on the ground are overwhelmed. In all defensive situations, 8×8 platforms will be ready to support the fight or to aid a withdrawal to the next defensive line.  

In the attack, 8×8 vehicles will be used to deliver infantry mass where needed. The key question is where should troops dismount?³ In a situation where an enemy is equipped with large numbers ATGMs, de-busing just in front of an enemy forward will be risky – unless the vehicle has an active protection system (APS).⁴ Initially, Stryker doctrine envisaged units de-busing one tactical bound or geographical feature from the objective. Training and experience suggests that Stryker units can advance so quickly, achieving a shock effect, that infantry can de-bus on the objective. So the answer to the question will depend on the situation. It will require the commander on the ground to make the right call. APS will enable 8×8 vehicles to be used in a way that’s very similar to a tracked IFV. This belief has shaped French doctrine. L’Armée De Terre no longer has a tracked IFV, merely the VBCI with a 25 mm turret. This was used like a tracked IFV in Mali and proved to be extremely effective.  

For a deliberate set-piece assault against a well-prepared defensive position, which may include a minefield that needs to be breached, a heavier protected tracked IFV will always be preferable to a lighter 8×8, regardless of the weapon mounted on it. Whatever the UK decided to do, if we decide that a turreted BOXER offers more utility than a tracked WARRIOR replacement, then we ought to resource the missing four battalions that were meant to get an upgraded WARRIOR.  

Ultimately, this discussion is not about wheels being preferable to tracks. It is about the need for both. Although the British Army needs to adopt a much greater expeditionary focus, something that BOXER will facilitate, it needs the duality of medium (wheeled) forces that can deploy with speed although they are less resilient, PLUS heavy (tracked) forces that are more resilient, but deploy less quickly. This approach is necessary so that the Army is usable across the widest possible range of scenarios, but also to enable us to operate with our NATO allies and partners, who are all heavily invested in medium and heavy forces. 

The unifying capability across FIRST BATTLE and SECOND BATTLE doctrine is artillery systems. As noted above, these will support both medium and heavy forces at stand-off distances. Our GMLRS regiments are gaining new rocket and precision guided missiles (PrSM) for their M270A2 launchers, increasing effective range from 70 km to 150 km for rockets, and to 499 km for PrSM. Furthermore, 52-calibre howitzers have set a new tube artillery standard with ranges increased from 20-30 km to 40-50 km. With artillery located further back, to increase counter-battery location times, and thus survivability, it is less dependent on tracked platforms to ensure mobility. This is why systems like Caesar, Boxer RCH155, Atmos, and Archer are gaining in popularity over traditional tracked self-propelled guns.

Any requirement for heavy armour comes with a supplementary need for heavy equipment transporters to ensure the operational mobility of the units equipped with them. All tracked vehicles create logistical support and transportation challenges. For this reason, heavy tracked platforms have increasingly become niche capabilities. Therefore, we are seeing armies focus their resources around building a larger medium element, supported by heavy and light forces. 

A quick observation about light mechanised forces is that these generally reflect the reality that not every unit type needs an 8×8 platform. Some capabilities can be well served by lighter, less expensive 4×4 MRAPs. Vehicles like FOXHOUND, JLTV, HAWKEI, AMPV, MILOS M16, EAGLE, and LINCE, are well suited to command, liaison, and light patrol roles. We also need smaller, less expensive personnel carriers, such as BUSHMASTER, COUGAR, PATRIA 6X6, GRIFFON, and DINGO. As a rule of thumb, in terms of weight classes, 50% of an Amy’s vehicles should ideally  be medium wheeled (8×8), 25% ought to be heavy tracked, and 25% should be light wheeled (4×4) to ensure utility across most anticipated deployment types.

To summarise, BOXER equipped with a turreted cannon and an active protection system able to counter anti-tank missiles, is capable of performing an IFV role. However, it lacks the passive armour protection needed to ensure the same level of survivability as a main battle tank. If you add extra protection to an 8×8 platform, you undermine its core purpose, which is to be an agile and highly deployable capability. Therefore, a dedicated tracked IFV is desirable as this can be heavier, more resilient and more survivable in an assault. Tracked vehicles are better able to negotiate the most challenging off-road environments, even though the difference between them and wheeled vehicle is less than it was. 

NOTES:

1. See UK Parliament report
   https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-05-03/debates/438852AB-7ED0-4A43-BD76-272088C64809/WarriorCapabilitySustainmentProgramme ↩︎
2. See British Army Review – Autumn 2023 – A New Way of Winning
   https://chacr.org.uk/2023/08/31/the-british-army-review-185/ ↩︎
3. See US Army publication: The Stryker Brigade Combat Team, The Infantry Rifle Company https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN31150-ATP_3-21.11-000-WEB-1.pdf
   ↩︎
4. Any vehicle equipped with APS can dangerous to its own or nearby troops, especially if they dismount close to it when an incoming anti-tank missile is neutralised. So the APS will need to be disabled across an assaulting formation before troops de-bus. For 8×8 vehicles that are not equipped with APS, troops may need to de-bus a tactical bound behind the objective and move forward on foot with the vehicle providing direct fire support.  ↩︎