The ARTEC Boxer is a wheeled or tracked armoured vehicle, this article describes its capabilities
The ARTEC Boxer is a wheeled or tracked armoured vehicle, this article describes its capabilities, modules, and variants
Boxer is described by ARTEC as;
BOXER is a truly modular vehicle providing multiple functions for its users, several communication interfaces for participation in network-enabled warfare and diverse mission relevant capabilities. The flexibility of its modularity allows BOXER to be easily adapted to meet diverse mission requirements, in rapidly changing circumstances and global environments. BOXER has impressive integral growth potential so that future emerging military roles and changing requirements can be met, without degrading the vehicle’s capabilities such as mobility.
Boxer is available in several variants.
Boxer is produced by ARTEC GmbH (ARmoured vehicle TEChnology) under the overall management of the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation (OCCAR). Artec is owned by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann GmbH, Rheinmetall MAN Military Vehicles GmbH (RMMV) and Rheinmetall MAN Military Vehicles Nederland B.V. (formerly Stork). As the UK has now rejoined the Boxer programme, as managed by OCCAR, Artec will produce most of the vehicles and modules in the UK with a value split between RBSL and WFEL (described in Part 1 of this article)
Boxer Drive Module – Wheeled
Weights, Dimensions, and Performance
When it was introduced, Boxer was significantly larger than in contemporaries, but recent vehicles have caught up somewhat. The reason for its size (and resultant high weight) was high levels of protection (especially top protection against fragments and cluster weapons) and a desire to ensure sufficient space to accommodate the embarked personnel with their stores rather than hanging things on the outside.
In common with all similar vehicles, its combat weight has crept up since its introduction, with different equipment fits and protection influencing the final weight and dimensions.
| Length (APC) | 7.93m |
| Length (155 mm) | 10.5m |
| Width | 2.99m |
| Height (Hull Roof) | 2.38m |
| Height (Lance Turret Roof) | 3.24m |
| Height (155 mm Turret Roof) | 3.94m |
The maximum gross vehicle weight is 38.5 tonnes, this has increased since first introduced through the A1 and A2 revisions.
Comparing that with transport aircraft dimensions and capacities below.
| Width | Height | Length | Payload | |
| C-130J | 3.12m | 2.74m | 12.1m | 15–16 tonnes |
| C-130J-30 | 3.12m | 2.74m | 17.0m | 15–16 tonnes |
| A400M | 4.00m | 3.85m | 17.0m | 30–32 tonnes |
| C-17 | 5.50m | 3.80m | 26.0m (inc. ramp) | 60–64 tonnes |
Width and length are no problem for all those above but a Boxer complete with both drive and payload module would be too heavy for a C-130 and at the upper end of the weight, marginal at best for the A400M.
Although A400M has a ‘brochure’ maximum payload of 37 tonnes the actual useable maximum weight will likely be less and in any case, towards the top end of the payload, the range would be restricted.
The maximum vehicle weight includes fuel, ammunition and other items that could often be removed for flight, but it is hardly ideal and in general, compromises would need to be considered if the Boxer is likely to be transported by air.
The C-17 could easily carry one at substantial distances although, for both, the 155 mm artillery variant will be challenging regarding height. The Air Portable Ferry Bridge has an MLC of 35 so would be unsuitable for Boxer, a variant. With an MLC of 50, the Rapidly Emplaced Bridge System (REBS) would be suitable.
As weight has grown, transportability by air has been affected. Although the UK’s A400M’s have a stronger floor (to accept Terrier) than standard A400M’s, recent German trials have confirmed that the A2 variant will need to be carried on A400M in a split configuration, drive unit and module in separate aircraft, it is planned that three A400M will be able to accommodate two Boxer.
This will restrict air landing operations and place a greater demand on finite transport but perhaps this can be offset by a likely infrequent deployment by air.
The Trench crossing is 2m, step climbing 800 mm, gradient 60%, side slope 30%, and it has a ground clearance of 500 mm. Mobility is reported to be excellent with all wheels being driven, the front two axles steering with selectable four-axle differentials and two inter-axle differentials.
A central tyre inflation system is fitted to enhance mobility.
The Dutch/Germans use Michelin 415/80R685 XML tyres (27 inches (0.69 m) in metric) which are ‘tuned’ to give maximum soft soil (mud) traction, but only carry 4.5T per tyre. Block 1 of Australian Boxers will be fitted with 415/80R685 XForce 2 tyres (higher load rating @5T and sand-optimised) and Block 2 (and all future Boxers for Australia) will be fitted with 415/80R685 XForce ZL tyres (even higher load rating @5.6T allowing further growth potential and all-round off-road pattern).
Future Boxers are likely to be heavier than the initial Dutch and German vehicles, so they are likely to be fitted with the XForce ZL tyre.
None of this negates the need for a recovery variant, as the video below demonstrates
The driver position has a fully protected hatch with integral vision equipment.
Automotive and Capacities
Boxer is fitted with an MTU/Rolls-Royce 8V199 TE20 multifuel engine, based on the Mercedes-Benz Series OM500 truck engine, developing 536kW (720bhp) coupled to a 7 forward 3 reverse speed Allison HD4070 automatic transmission. The Euro III-compliant Series 199 has a two-stage intercooler and has been optimised for military use with modifications to the lubrication system, turbocharging system and electronics.
To reduce thermal signature, the hot exhaust is discharged together with the cooling air via thermally insulated ducts.
The engine series is the same one that powers Ajax. Pack change can be completed in less than 30 minutes.
Its maximum speed is 103 km/h with a road range of 1,050 km to support longer self-deployments.
The suspension arrangement is shown below.
Boxer Drive Module — Tracked
KMW recently revealed a concept of a tracked drive module.
First shown in 2022. the tracked drive module is larger than the wheeled version but can use any of the mission modules
IT ALL CAME OUT' – GAVIN NEWSOM BLOWS UP AFTER BEING EXPOSED LIVE ON AIR
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — As the 2028 presidential election cycle rapidly approaches, life is getting increasingly complicated for California Governor Gavin Newsom.
The ambitious Democrat, widely expected to declare his candidacy for his party's highest nomination, is currently drowning in a massive, rapidly expanding ethics scandal centered on hundreds of millions of dollars in questionable corporate donations. As federal investigators continue to circle both the governor and his wife, First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom, the sheer scale of his fundraising tactics is raising serious alarm bells across the political spectrum.
At the absolute center of this controversy is Newsom’s unprecedented and unapologetic use of "behested payments"—a controversial practice in California law that allows elected officials to personally solicit massive, unlimited donations from deep-pocketed corporations, wealthy individuals, and labor unions to fund specific charities or government initiatives.
While technically legal under the state's highly permissive rules, government watchdogs and ethics experts are fiercely arguing that these payments represent a glaring, dangerous loophole. It essentially allows special interests—many of whom have active, highly lucrative business before the state of California—to gain massive political influence and curry favor with the governor, entirely outside the strict boundaries of traditional campaign finance laws.
The $347 Million Man
According to official California disclosure records, the scale at which Newsom utilizes this loophole is utterly staggering. Since 2011, Newsom has reported soliciting more than $347 million in behested payments.
To put that massive figure into perspective, data from the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) reveals that all elected officials statewide combined directed roughly $556 million in behested payments between 2011 and 2026. Newsom alone accounted for nearly two-thirds—a whopping 62%—of that total.
By stark contrast, his predecessor, former Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, reportedly solicited a relatively modest $35 million in behested payments during his entire tenure.
"Behested payments are ripe for abuse," warned Sean McMorris of California Common Cause, pointing out the obvious ethical minefield created when powerful elected officials lean on organizations that have direct business before the government.
The Optics of Influence Peddling
The ethical concerns are not just hypothetical; they are rooted in a pattern of massive corporate donations followed by highly favorable state actions.
Public reports have raised serious questions about several major donors who opened their checkbooks at Newsom's behest and later benefited immensely from state contracts or policy decisions. For example, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the healthcare giant Blue Shield donated a staggering $20 million to initiatives heavily supported by Newsom. Shortly thereafter, the corporation was miraculously awarded a highly lucrative, no-bid state contract related to vaccine distribution.
Similarly, the Kaiser Foundation contributed nearly $10 million before securing a significantly expanded role in California’s massive Medi-Cal program. In another instance, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria donated millions to organizations associated with the governor and his wife’s initiatives. Later, they benefited significantly from favorable state decisions involving tribal gaming matters, including efforts to block a rival casino from opening nearby.
While proving an explicit, legal quid pro quo is notoriously difficult, critics argue that the actual transaction is irrelevant. The concern is that the system inherently encourages and rewards a "pay-to-play" culture. Assemblyman David Tangipa slammed the practice, describing behested payments as a blatant form of "political influence peddling," boldly arguing that just because the system is legal does not mean it isn't deeply corrupt.
The Family Business and Federal Heat
The issue has drawn even fiercer scrutiny because millions of these corporate dollars have been funneled directly into organizations tightly linked to the governor’s inner circle. Approximately $4.8 million in behested donations were routed to the California Partners Project, a nonprofit organization co-founded by Jennifer Siebel Newsom. For many critics, corporate money flowing into a charity run by the governor's wife creates, at the very least, a glaring appearance of a massive conflict of interest.
The intense debate over this influence-peddling loophole comes at a highly precarious time for the governor. Newsom recently acknowledged that both he and his wife are currently the subjects of multiple, ongoing federal investigations. While neither has been charged with any wrongdoing, and the Department of Justice has remained completely tight-lipped about the exact nature of the inquiries, the specter of a federal probe casts a dark cloud over his 2028 presidential ambitions.
A "Laughable Slap on the Wrist"
Adding insult to injury for government transparency advocates, Newsom recently agreed to pay a $31,500 ethics fine handed down by the state's campaign finance watchdog, the FPPC. The fine was levied after the commission found that Newsom flagrantly failed to legally report 36 separate behested payments—totaling more than $5.6 million—within the required 30-day timeframe.
The late disclosures involved massive corporate donations solicited during the 2024 and 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, pulling in vast sums from corporate titans like BlackRock, Amazon, Lockheed Martin, and Anthem Blue Cross. While Newsom's office brushed off the violation as a mere paperwork oversight during an emergency, critics blasted the $31,500 penalty as a "laughable slap on the wrist" for a wealthy politician manipulating a quarter-billion-dollar shadow fundraising system. This marks the second time Newsom has been fined for late reporting of these payments, having previously paid a $13,000 fine in 2024.
Supporters of the governor are quick to point out that these behested donations have funded critical public initiatives, including wildfire relief and charitable causes. However, the public benefit of those projects does absolutely nothing to eliminate the massive concerns surrounding transparency, corporate influence, and the ability of powerful special interests to funnel unlimited cash into causes promoted by the state's most powerful executive.
As Newsom attempts to position himself as the future of the Democratic Party, the growing scandal surrounding his $347 million loophole is forcing a national reckoning. The American people are left to wonder: if this is how Gavin Newsom runs California, how exactly would he run the country?
