What does the Boxer Heavy Weapons Carrier look like? What is its role?
Boxer armored vehicle production sets up tension between rising demand and supply bottleneck - Breaking Defense
Artec will expand Boxer assembly lines to five facilities across Europe this year, offering production capacity of 200 vehicles per year, but such a target remains dependent on whether suppliers “can keep the pace” of industrial planning, according to an company official.breakingdefense.com
Production Bottleneck, trade, politics.
German Bundeswehr
- Thread starter benherrmann
- Start date
Don't worry, I saw two Aussie TV Channels calling them tanks. Go figure.
Specs haven’t been released, but I believe that is what we call our turreted Direct Fire High Survivability Lift variants.
So Lance turret, 30mm gun, twin-round Spike launcher, 12.7mm in an RWS etc.
The Boxer "Heavy Weapons Carrier" is the Australian CRV RECON II variant with some minor localization (radios, software, possibly MG5 instead of the FN MAG). So basically 30mm gun, twin Spike LR launcher.
The heavy weapons carriers are intended to serve as an integrated fire support vehicle.
The heavy weapons carriers are initially planned to equip three platoons (4 vehicles each) in the heavy weapons company in each infantry battalion of Medium Forces brigades. This company serves as a mobile, flexible anti-tank and anti-vehicle force that is intended to employ en-bloc throughout the AOR of the battalion to be able to create focus points for this - in particular to react to e.g. augmentation of hostile forces faces with e.g. a tank company at battalion level. In this role they replace the current Wiesel 1 MK/TOW fire support vehicles in identical numbers. Wiesel has to be replaced in this role since it is not mobile enough.
Additionally the platoons may be tasked with supporting infantry companies (also in Boxers). In this role they serve to support mobile infantry forces with gun and anti-tank fire support. It is medium-term planned to buy sufficient heavy weapons carriers to equip both the heavy weapons companies of battalions and a fire support platoon in each of those battalions' infantry companies. Once these additional platoons exist they would replace the current Spike LR ATGM teams and 40mm GMG teams in these companies that are being transported in Dingo 2 and Eagle V vehicles. Similar to the Wiesels in particular dismounted Spike LR teams are seen as not sufficiently mobile.
There are somewhat nebulous plans to "flexibly" use the marginal transport capacity of Boxer CRV in these roles, with possibilities such as transporting and deploying loitering munitions or the transport of UGVs and UAVs having been mentioned. That is more of a bullshit bingo, long-term kinda thing.
In order to satisfy both requirements above the Bundeswehr would need at least 130, possibly up to around 150 "Heavy Weapons Carriers Infantry" medium-term. Funding to my knowledge has been cleared for 97, although the project seems to now have been transferred into the 100 Billion Fund and it's all a getting a bit obfuscated. There is also some overlap with a possible additional, future buy of "Wheeled Infantry Carrier Vehicles" for medium-term a third, longterm possibly envisioned a fourth battalion in the Medium Forces Brigades, and there is obfuscation about which battalions exactly would be equipped as above (i've seen a requirement of 128 units stated if equipping 4 battalions - 26 each - plus schools etc).
There's a lot of flux about possible doctrine and derived structure, the above is what the Infantry School is intending the vehicles for (and is lobbying for) in its planning.
With this flux it is in my opinion possible that the battalions could go down to only two infantry companies (along with a mortar/recce company and a dedicated fire support/anti-tank company), in which case 20 "heavy weapons carriers" per battalion and with some creative moving of units 100 total would be sufficient. Published Infantry School planning doesn't go in this direction, but there are some other hints around that point towards this, especially relatively short-term to just have the units fully ready and geared up by ca 2027.
The Bundeswehr wants first deliveries in 2025. The German assembly line is full, and Australia could be pressured ... err, asked ... to possibly defer some vehicles from their line to be delivered later in lieu of shifting some vehicles to Germany. There were already some negotiations about joint procurement with Australia with possible government-to-government sale in 2018, so there was a hook-up point for more current plans.
The main benefit for Australia in this is that the production line there will definitely run longer.
Last edited:
P.S. after some adaptions to above post
For the "in my opinion" part:
For the "in my opinion" part:
- There have been some rumours that the medium force infantry battalions may be cut by up to 120 men compared to today. This could fit in by numbers very well with transforming one company to instead act as fire support/anti-tank with Heavy Weapons Carriers. The Infantry School plans have these battalion-level anti-tank units hooked up as platoons in the heavy weapons company, which a) other than these and command vehicles doesn't use Boxer and b) suffers from a fair amount of bloat anyway, with seven (!) platoons in the company.
- The current number of Boxer GTK APCs in the force would very well accomodate equipping exactly those infantry battalions assigned to Medium Forces for a Boxer-only outfit if cut by a company. Currently some units still use Fuchs APC. While there is a project in planning to replace remaining Fuchs, this replacement a) is not intended to be more Boxers and b) is unlikely to be realized in any form by 2027.
I think this is a win win and explains why the AusGov truncated the ordered numbers. Not to cut costs (well not just do that), but sell to Germany, this also allows the production line to stay open longer. Australia will have enough vehicles in the first order to get capabilities rolling locally. Building a greater number will also allow a greater amortisation of setup costs. I imagine Germany is highly regarded as a customer, so doesn't hurt Australia's wider regional export ambitions. I don't think either country should have concerns with defence deals between them, things should be more fluid than they are. Australia isn't Saudi Arabia, and Germany isn't Saudi Arabia. Also Australia's FTA with the EU is in play.
Having a production line out of EU is advantageous for everyone. Australia has shown its a difficult country for an opposing power to pressure, and difficult to cut off from supplies of raw materials. Australia also tends to have spare production capacity, because it order volumes are below production capabilities. Being a country of less than <30m.
There is also more in this. Australia's deployment of E7's to Germany for example. Australia and Germany have some complimentary defence capabilities that may be of interest to the other. They should view each other as supportive, not as competitors/rivals. Australia typically focuses on light, mobile and highly agility combat, while IMO Germany tends to conops around more protected and less agile strategies. While Germany does everything basically as part of NATO, Australia does basically everything as not part of NATO.
Germany is a big defence force, it may be prudent to have some nucleus of different doctrines in its capabilities, so if conflict happens, and one doctrine becomes less effective, they core capabilities and skills are there to adapt. For Germany this may be more about designing equipment, and training other forces, than having to use that capability herself directly.
Germany will also send 240 soldiers to Talisman Sabre in Australia later this month (basically after the Navy in 2021 and the Air Force in 2022 it's the Army's turn in 2023).
Apparently it's planned for GenLt Mais, inspector general of the Army, to visit them during this deployment and also make a visit to the Rheinmetall factory.
Funny how media is reporting on this. That China may be upset with Germany exercising some troops in Australia.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/JRDP2LPSONK63DXPIRDNDCGOF4.jpg)
Germany sends troops to Australia in a first as Berlin shifts focus to Indo-Pacific
Germany will, for the first time, send troops to Australia as part of joint drills with some 30,000 service members from 12 other nations, underlining Berlin's increased focus on the Indo-Pacific amid rising tensions with China in the region.
www.reuters.com
Meanwhile moving the E7 to Germany doesn't seem to also beg the same questions. Because Ramstein is closer to Beijing that Williamstown is. Australia moving forces to Germany could be seen as moves against China.
Ramstein to Beijing is 7885km
Williamstown to Beijing is 8873km
If great power conflict breaks out between the US and China, I would say Ramstein and bases in Germany and the rest of Europe are much more likely to be a target of Chinese long range strike than Williamstown, or any base in Australia is.
Also unlike Germany, Australia is not a manufacturing competitor to China, and Australia in fact supplies raw materials to China. Germany is at higher risk to grey non kinetic/cyber attacks than Australia.
While the NATO pact arrangement works against a European based aggressor, it means far less to someone who intends to cripple the US/Current global order outright, and just surgically strike military installations in Europe to help them achieve that. Or worse, the US simply needs all of its European theatre resources and ups and leaves. Or both.
Hence why engagement with IndoPacific powers is very relevant for NATO, and particularly Germany.
China isn't some minor regional power. European thinking about China needs to centre around it being 10 times bigger/Powerful/Capable than Russia. And that the buffer nation between the EU and China, is Russia.
You are asking logical questions of the CCP, when it isn't logical in how it reacts to outside events. I do think that they have more important events that they can choose to whinge and screech about. The glorious leader of Australia has decided to ask NATO to expand to expand into the Indo Pacific. That'll kick the CCP whinging and screeching into turbo powered overdrive.Funny how media is reporting on this. That China may be upset with Germany exercising some troops in Australia.
Germany sends troops to Australia in a first as Berlin shifts focus to Indo-Pacific
Germany will, for the first time, send troops to Australia as part of joint drills with some 30,000 service members from 12 other nations, underlining Berlin's increased focus on the Indo-Pacific amid rising tensions with China in the region.
Meanwhile moving the E7 to Germany doesn't seem to also beg the same questions. Because Ramstein is closer to Beijing that Williamstown is. Australia moving forces to Germany could be seen as moves against China.
Ramstein to Beijing is 7885km
Williamstown to Beijing is 8873km
If great power conflict breaks out between the US and China, I would say Ramstein and bases in Germany and the rest of Europe are much more likely to be a target of Chinese long range strike than Williamstown, or any base in Australia is.
Also unlike Germany, Australia is not a manufacturing competitor to China, and Australia in fact supplies raw materials to China. Germany is at higher risk to grey non kinetic/cyber attacks than Australia.
While the NATO pact arrangement works against a European based aggressor, it means far less to someone who intends to cripple the US/Current global order outright, and just surgically strike military installations in Europe to help them achieve that. Or worse, the US simply needs all of its European theatre resources and ups and leaves. Or both.
Hence why engagement with IndoPacific powers is very relevant for NATO, and particularly Germany.
China isn't some minor regional power. European thinking about China needs to centre around it being 10 times bigger/Powerful/Capable than Russia. And that the buffer nation between the EU and China, is Russia.
I wonder how such a request would be received in Berlin? Macron may not be too keen on the idea.
Connections between nations should occur not just through NATO, but country to country as well.
Its not clear what a global NATO looks like. The US tried SEATO. It failed. If NATO is struggling to expand to Finland and Sweden, there are far greater challenges to add Japan, South Korea (and Taiwan?) to NATO. However, NATO is the default framework for large scale military collaboration. Working on standards, multinational strategy, military interoperationalness are excellent and are areas where expanded global NATO makes sense.
Australia and Germany are both significant western Powers in their region and carry significant inertia and significant attention of a opposing power. They have smaller nations in their spheres. There is complimentary military capability. Both have some strategic space to allow for overseas support, or supporting outside their immediate region.
Germany has power outside of NATO. To the Chinese and Chinese assessment, Germany is a significant nation globally. Chinese decision on global reactions may simply be based around how Germany sees situations, as it assumes most of the EU would follow Germany's position. Russia seems to think similarly, that smaller EU nations will generally follow Germany.
Rudd made this clear in his discussions in Germany. Germany tends to underrate it diplomatic weight globally.
Macron I think is not a deal breaker. France for 100+ years has been contrarian. The whole expansion of NATO thing has been fuelled by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. One can imagine what would happen if China invaded Taiwan, how a cascade of a block against China would be quickly sought by nations surrounding China.
I am not sure simply adding 100 nations to the existing NATO charter solves the worlds problems, or is even possible. Non aligned nations in Asia are not the same as Finland and Sweden. That said, ignoring Japan, South Korea and Australia is absurd, these three nations are playing a huge part in NATO affairs in Europe and globally. South Korea is arming Poland and eastern Europe. Australia is coordinating NATO military airspace. Japan looms economically, industrially, massively probably more than Germany and France combined.
Germany should seek direct military relations with Japan, South Korea, Australia and key players like New Zealand and Singapore. Talisman Sabre is a great example of a massive, military exercise that occurs outside of NATO. So is RIMPAC. These are literally two of the largest military events in the world.
Don't forget NZ is a NATO Partner as well.
I agree about the French and you would think that with there Pacific colonies they would keen on a strong security pact in the region. The French are excitable at the best of times; just look at their farmers, and De Gaulle threw more than one hissy fit over NATO, US and other things. It seems since De Gaulle, French leaders have believed that throwing hissy fits if they don't get their own way, is a job requirement. Just as an aside I think that they will be behind much of the EU intransigence over the EU - Aussie FTA. The French are less tolerant to slights and offence than the Sicilian mafia and they'll be after revenge for the Attack Class sub cancellation. They have a habit of playing dirty and using trade coercion. NZ has first hand experience of that.
I agree about the Germans and their underestimating their diplomatic clout. I think that it's their reticence after the Nazis and WW2, and I would say the same about their political attitudes regarding their defence. I would like to see them having a larger defence presence in this part of the world and maybe they could negotiate a deal with Australia about training in the top end, just as the US does. They could come over the ditch and do their mountain flying here in NZ
There was a very large German run NATO aerial exercise recently and the exercise was severely impacted by civilian flight traffic in Western Europe. In the Top End they wouldn't have that issue.@StingrayOZ Happy to be convinced otherwise realistically neither Australia nor the US can pose any credible threat from a base 8000lms away unless it’s a B series with refuelling and very long range weapons . That distance from Ramstein would mean using the most direct flight path …. which would mean flying over Russia and or Iran and also over China for a fair part of the flight.Funny how media is reporting on this. That China may be upset with Germany exercising some troops in Australia.
Germany sends troops to Australia in a first as Berlin shifts focus to Indo-Pacific
Germany will, for the first time, send troops to Australia as part of joint drills with some 30,000 service members from 12 other nations, underlining Berlin's increased focus on the Indo-Pacific amid rising tensions with China in the region.
Meanwhile moving the E7 to Germany doesn't seem to also beg the same questions. Because Ramstein is closer to Beijing that Williamstown is. Australia moving forces to Germany could be seen as moves against China.
Ramstein to Beijing is 7885km
Williamstown to Beijing is 8873km
If great power conflict breaks out between the US and China, I would say Ramstein and bases in Germany and the rest of Europe are much more likely to be a target of Chinese long range strike than Williamstown, or any base in Australia is.
Also unlike Germany, Australia is not a manufacturing competitor to China, and Australia in fact supplies raw materials to China. Germany is at higher risk to grey non kinetic/cyber attacks than Australia.
While the NATO pact arrangement works against a European based aggressor, it means far less to someone who intends to cripple the US/Current global order outright, and just surgically strike military installations in Europe to help them achieve that. Or worse, the US simply needs all of its European theatre resources and ups and leaves. Or both.
Hence why engagement with IndoPacific powers is very relevant for NATO, and particularly Germany.
China isn't some minor regional power. European thinking about China needs to centre around it being 10 times bigger/Powerful/Capable than Russia. And that the buffer nation between the EU and China, is Russia.
TXL is on the other side of Germany from Ramstein too
I wouldn't put too much regarding Australian-German relations on the Wedgetail deployment btw. The aircraft is based out of an entirely US-American Airbase and not even co-hosted with NATO AEW&C aircraft, nevermind any German Air Force units.
The only "overlap" it will have with Germany is that to deploy into its likely AOR on NATO's eastern border it will fly through German airspace. And, like most aircraft deployed over there, it will likely be refueled by German tankers.
I wouldn't put too much regarding Australian-German relations on the Wedgetail deployment btw. The aircraft is based out of an entirely US-American Airbase and not even co-hosted with NATO AEW&C aircraft, nevermind any German Air Force units.
The only "overlap" it will have with Germany is that to deploy into its likely AOR on NATO's eastern border it will fly through German airspace. And, like most aircraft deployed over there, it will likely be refueled by German tankers.
My statement was to show the absurdity of this fear that German troops training in Australia would somehow upset China. Not that the E7's in Germany will start carpet bombing runs Beijing. The E7 has no weapons.
Its not being based in Germany to annoy China, its being based there because NATO has a lack of high tempo AEW assets to cover its own immediate airspace. Because America over estimated its ability to build a mostly spaced based network to do this job, which resulted in the Americans not pushing ahead with a flying AEW program, and NATO, completely dependent on the US, bar its own small fleet, which had completely copied and is locked into the same death spiral as the US, also has degraded capabilities.
The only NATO member who invested in AEW in a considerable way was Turkey, who feels the least in NATO, and probably doesn't get much E3 time from the NATO fleet. So they bought E7's. Then when the Ukraine war started and Ukraine and the west needed levels of AEW coverage, they quickly became dependent on Turkey for that capability, which also Turkey has need of herself.
As apposed to China striking Australia which requires it to neutralize/over fly/sail past, Japan, South Korea, the United States, Vietnam, Singapore, Indonesia, India. Or conversely German troops in Australia to swim, 8,000km to China.
German troops in Germany are as much a threat to China as German troops in Australia. There is no closer movement to China by having them exercise in Australia. Any fear shows falling for Chinese propaganda and misinformation.
Which gets to the heart of the NATO mindset. Australia doesn't need to join NATO for protection from China or Russia. Australia is not in a precarious position, arguably less precarious than Europe is.
But there is this mindset that Australia is "not in the club". Australia is more active in NATO activities than many NATO members are.
Australia and Germany should have a "Status of Forces" Agreement, with each other. This would better able to facilitate large scale deployments and exchanges. I know this is a bit of a touchy issue, but Australia recently completed an agreement with Japan that the British later copied, and I think Germany will find Australia much easier to deal with in that regard.
Being able to do things directly with each other, without three services and thousands of Americans facilitating everything would be again hugely beneficial. We could embed people in each others programs, in each others forces, share knowledge, develop expertise, provide joint and cohesive feedback to defence industry etc.
The Wedgetail deployment is mostly driven by a lack of US capacity, and the US are well into their E7 program. But it may be an opening, to kick off a wider relationship. Australia has been trying for a while to build something with Germany. Ukraine is a case study where it makes sense to collaborate directly with each other, boxer is another.
Small steps.
Was really in response to Ramstein being a target which I’m not So sure about but understand where you are coming from.
Thread title changed to broaden scope of topic.
I don't see Ramstein as being a high risk target for kinetic action, but its not impossible. Its as likely as any joint Australian/US base being hit. As one of the biggest US overseas bases in the world, and one with key capabilities, outside of the US, it would be a target if someone was trying to degrade the US's fighting and power projection capabilities, even if just temporarily. Cyber, grey, EW style attacks are more accessible and cheaper.
The idea that China can't reach Europe is just plain incorrect. They are already there. They are already on the ground and in the supply chain. Not soldiers, but they have a type of footprint there.
Security implications of China-owned critical infrastructure in the European Union | Think Tank | Parlement européen
Security implications of China-owned critical infrastructure in the European Union
www.europarl.europa.eu
Despite risks, EU continues to fund research with Chinese military-linked universities
Despite efforts to prevent EU technology leaking to China’s military, the European Commission is continuing to fund at least five research projects involving some of China’s top military-linked universities.
sciencebusiness.net
EU champion Airbus has deep links to Chinese military industrial complex, report says
The planemaker has key manufacturing facilities in China and its local CEO is a member of the Communist Party.
www.politico.eu
WSJ News Exclusive | China Bought Italian Military-Drone Maker Without Authorities’ Knowledge
Italian and European authorities weren’t aware that a Chinese state-controlled company bought an Italian military-drone manufacturer and transferred its know-how and technology, revealing how Beijing is skirting weak investment-screening in Europe to acquire sensitive technology.
www.wsj.com
A bigger question would be what would European defence look like if the US significantly reduced its European footprint. That is a very real prospect, and something that has been already occurring for decades. Something the Americans have been quite open about and something many in Europe perhaps underestimate what that would mean.
The UK & France bought their own E-3s, in addition to the 16-strong (originally 18) NATO fleet. Sweden also operates 2 Erieye outside NATO, Greece has 4 EMB-145 Erieye, & a some years ago Italy bought 2 G-550 CAEW, plus 2 more recently.
The UK decided to dispose of its E-3 & buy Wedgetail (but far too few), but its last 2 E-3 were still able to do some surveillance in eastern Poland last year. Italian G-550s, Swedish Erieyes have also been operating in Poland, despite Sweden not (yet) being in NATO.
So, it's not just a matter of NATO's "small" fleet of increasingly old E-3 & Turkey's Wedgetails. There have always been the French & RAF E-3 fleets, Greece has operated Erieye for a long time, Italy's had a couple of G550 CAEW for 10 years & now has 4 . . . .
Getting a little off track from the Bundeswehr...
So its not just one or two airframes that have high airframe hours, the entire fleet is fast approaching the stage where it will no longer be possible to be flight worthy. The large number of airframes still operational is actually a huge problem in depleting spares and logistics. Due to a lack of spares, items that need replacement come off any are remanufactured and then put back on, which takes time and money.
This has been an issue for a long time, the US was aquiring aircraft for spares since the 90's.
707 based aircraft were the most expensive aircraft for the USAF to operate. The E8/E4 were running around nearly $90m a year! In 2018. The only aircraft that comes close is the B2 bomber.
The problem with the E3's is they are all based off the same aircraft and that aircraft logistics are essentially dead. As dead as a 707 airliner.
So its not just one or two airframes that have high airframe hours, the entire fleet is fast approaching the stage where it will no longer be possible to be flight worthy. The large number of airframes still operational is actually a huge problem in depleting spares and logistics. Due to a lack of spares, items that need replacement come off any are remanufactured and then put back on, which takes time and money.
This has been an issue for a long time, the US was aquiring aircraft for spares since the 90's.
707 based aircraft were the most expensive aircraft for the USAF to operate. The E8/E4 were running around nearly $90m a year! In 2018. The only aircraft that comes close is the B2 bomber.
The E3 is also technically outdated. It is not designed for a modern 21st battlefield with stealth aircraft, low observable missiles, drones, modern jamming and spoofing. E7 has extremely good sensor fusion, and great situational awareness. It can operate in a complex battlespace with peer adversaries.
I think the likelihood of a kinetic attack on Ramstein would be much lower than a kinetic attack on a joint Australian/US base. The reason being that a kinetic attack on Ramstein would trigger NATOs article 5. Cyber attacks below article 5 threshold would be likely though.