The Czech Republic has finalised a monumental $2.2 billion (£1.6 billion) contract with BAE Systems Hägglunds, FMV, and the Swedish government to procure 246 CV90 MkIV infantry fighting vehicles.

The contract signifies a significant development in the enhancement of Czech Republic’s military capabilities and defence sector.

The vehicles will be purchased in seven distinct variants and will be supplied through an industrial partnership with Czech industry, providing a significant economic boost domestically.

Czech industrial partners are expected to contribute to 40% of the acquisition’s value in development, production, and assembly contracts. The deal also promises future industrial opportunities with significant monetary value, going well beyond the immediate flow down of contracts to Czech industrial partners.

Tommy Gustafsson-Rask, managing director of BAE Systems Hägglunds, expressed optimism over the agreement. “As the ninth member of the CV90 User Group, the Czech Republic and its Army will benefit from this combat-proven infantry fighting vehicle with a leading combination of mobility, firepower, protection, and future growth potential,” he stated. “This contract also represents a significant win for Czech industry that will last for decades.”

The contract will also broaden the local defence sector’s access to BAE Systems’ global supply chain, creating additional opportunities for cooperation and enhancing local competitiveness. This agreement is expected to increase the Czech Republic’s national sovereignty, aligning with the intentions of the Czech Ministry of Defence.

BAE Systems Hägglunds has previously produced over 1,400 CV90s in 17 different variants for European countries, with five being NATO members. Slovakia recently joined the Czech Republic as the eighth and ninth member countries, respectively, of the CV90 User Group.

You can read more by clicking here.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

55 COMMENTS

    • It’s hard to resist that… may the powers that be give the Army what it really needs 🇬🇧.
      and it doesn’t all need to be wheeled… Lol 😁

      • True – the army requirement is still for a tracked IFV with 40mm cannon and digitisation to replace Warrior – that won’t have changed.

        However, the politicians have chosen to order 623 Boxer (with goodness knows what weapon system, just one that will fit into a Kongsberg PROTECTOR RS4 RWS, as those have also been ordered).

        • I think Kongsberg do a RS6 remote weapon station which mounts a 30mm cannon….similar to the one on the Apache I believe. So if we are not ordering any more than 623 we could swap some RS4 for the RS6?
          Pity not to make use of the CTA turrets we have bought though.

          • Kongsberg RS6 can take a short barrel (therefore quite short range), low recoil, unstabilised 30mm cannon.
            The army requirement (which I assume still stands) was for a long range, stabilised 40mm CTAS cannon.
            So very different indeed.

            I am sure you are right that we have bought CTA turrets (c/w 40mm cannon) for both Ajax and upgraded Warrior. We must try to fit the Warrior turrets to Boxer if possible.

            We do need to order far more than 623 Boxers – I believe the requirement is for about 1,000..

          • I think, also, the Aussies have been really struggling with off-road mobility on the turreted versions. I do have a mate still in 5 RIFLES who said that from what they know already, a turreted Boxer is too heavy for off road mobility on soft terrain. Sadly, I don’t think they know what to do about that.

            There is another impact on this – there are several career paths for armoured infantry soldiers that actually disappear with WR – so promotion prospects go down by about 30% which is already affecting retention.

          • A wheeled vehicle is always going to struggle when carting around its own weight plus a 4 ish tonne turret!

    • Cv90 vs Boxer:
      Boxer returns next service with a brimstone volley.
      Cv90 retires hurt
      Boxer wins match

          • In defence of the CV90, wouldn’t it be overall more survivable on tracks than wheeled Boxer? Why not have a sensible mixed fleet, and okay, more Boxer for high end mobility. I know we’re not on the European mainland but if we ever had to go into battle there (again) you’d want something more substantial for the frontline than just on wheels. Recently a lot of European countries are ordering tracked IFV/APCs, so why aren’t we?
            There’s even the Ascod 2 chassis if you want commonality and continuity with the Ajax family…cough, cough.

    • …and judging by the report here, the CV90s are very little more costly than Boxer (which is probably the most expensive APC in the world!)
      Worth it to buy the AI the vehicle they really need.

      • It looks like army spending priority is artillery: decision to double MLRS by various means and purchase of small batch of used Archers. I guess the decision to let Warrior run on and that its replacement will be a Boxer IFV ( cannon TBA ?) means there is breathing space. I read somewhere that Sweden have gifted Ukraine 50 CV90. Be interesting to see how these perform and if this prompts a rethink.

        • Warrior will only run on for a couple of years (to mid-2020s) then be replaced by Boxer. I hope it is Boxer IFV (ie Boxer with a cannon, preferably a 40mm stabilised cannon) – but we shall have to wait and see – perhaps the DCP coming out later this month will inform us. Of concern is that a number of Kongsberg PROTECTOR RS4 RWS have been ordered which do not take a cannon!

          They can take the folowing:

          Browning M2 and WKM-B (12.7 mm), M249 (5.56 mm), M240, UKM-2000C and M134 Gatling (7.62 mm), MK19, MK47 and H&K GMG (40 mm grenade launchers with airburst option), various Non-Lethal effectors. The RS4 allows for M240 (6.62 mm) coax kit or various ATGM integrations.
          Source:https://www.kongsberg.com/globalassets/kongsberg-defence–aerospace/2.1.-products/defence-and-security/remote-weapon-systems/protector-mct/protector-rs4.pdf

          https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/04/06/british-army-wants-more-punch-in-its-boxer-vehicle-fleet/

        • CV90 have been in service across Europe since 1993 and combat experience with the type was gained in Afghanistan by Norway (from May 08) and Denmark (from Autumn 06). I think we know how it performs.
          Too late for a rethink – 623 Boxers have already been ordered.

          • I expect it to go officially to 1,000 plus in the DCP, it’s been reported several times those options would be taken up.

            Though it would save a fortune if the options are not taken.

          • You can always save a fortune by not buying enough kit for all the units in the Field Force. £m were surely saved by not replacing every FV430 by Warrior in the mid/late 1980s!

          • Yes, that example had occurred to me.

            Graham, why are we buying possibly the most expensive APC out there?
            What makes it that good to justify that price?

            With a machine gun….some need a cannon surely, in the infantry section vehicles at least?

            432s remained in the AI Bns, so why not order a cheaper type to supplement?
            I often know very little on APCs and IFVs beyond their names, so I read that the Patrica, similar in look to Boxer, is so cheap by comparison.

            Use Boxer in the infantry Bns to maximise the number of Bns mechanized and use the cheaper option in other arms.

            What is so wrong with this that the army don’t go for it, even for financial reasons? It cannot be just about logistics, they were operating at least 3 types in Bns before. Warrior. 432s, Scimitar.

          • Hi Daniele,
            UK has history (cosy familiarity?) with Boxer, having joined the Franco-German ARTEC consortium in 1996 (MRAV Project which for UK meant replacing residual FV432, SAXON and non-recce CVR(T))). Strong rumour has it that cold feet at Abbey Wood occurred when it became apparent how big and heavy the vehicle was and it could not fit in a C-130. UK withdrew from ARTEC in July 2003 to pursue UK national project FRES.[France had already left in 1999]

            The UPS of Boxer is of course its modular structure ie extreme versatility and it also means you can transport mission modules separate from the drive module (base veh). Not sure there is any other reason beyond this party trick to justify a £5.2m unit cost. Build quality is bound to be good, I think, as ARTEC is principally two German AFV builders (KMW and Rheinmetall); engine is a good German MTU unit.Composite armour is good and veh is well armoured (24t basic weight; combat weight 36.5-38.5t; stretch potential to 41t!!). So big, so heavy!
            [Boxer can be transported in A400M tactical airlifter, but not in one piece. The loading ramp of an A400M cannot take a load greater than 32t, so the drive and mission modules need to be separated for air transport. Two Boxers can be transported by three A400Ms, two for the drive modules and a third for the mission modules.] You could argue that you may as well send Boxers by sea as the tanks in a ABCT will be going by sea].

            We replaced APCs (FV432s in mech bns) by IFVs in ‘armoured brigades’ when Warrior came in (1987). Key feature of IFV is provision of a cannon and almost all IFVs in the world are tracked to give them the cross country mobility and gap crossing skills (at speed) to keep up with tanks.

            If we get standard Boxer with a RS4 RWS and a HMG, then we have gone back to having an APC, and are out of the IFV business. If Boxer is to be a chariot for the AI then each infantry section vehicle must have a cannon (and WCSP would have given us a stabilised 40mm CTAS cannon, so in the interest of progress we should have no less). Ideally we should have tracked Boxer with the LM CTAS turret and 40mm cannon to have a true IFV. But that’s not what we have ordered! We have ordered wheeled Boxer with RS4 RWS (and probably a HMG).

            432s remained in the AI Bns as the Treasury did not fund Warrior on a one for one replacement. 432s were in various roles – in the Inf Bn – they were armoured ambulances, mortar carrier and REME artificer (IC Coy Fitter Sect). 430 variants were in other (non-Inf) units but that is perhaps another story. There was a plan to convert ‘surplus’ Warriors into 432 replacements by removing the WR turret and plating over and doing other mods but that came to nothing. Of course now those 432s will be replaced by Boxer variants.

            If we have to go back to having APCs for our AI Bns and they have to be wheeled, then other vehs are cheaper than Boxer, such as the Finnish Patria as you say which also has modularity. I honestly don’t know why Boxer is flavour of the month when it has ‘that’ pricetag – makes a mockery of HMG claim that they buy kit that represents great VfM.

            Of course the reason Boxers are replacing Warriors is that MoD has ordered 623 Boxers but now don’t have the two strike brigades to put them in – embarrassing!

            I don’t think the army is in the driving seat on this issue of cancelling WCSP and buying Boxer – it sounds like politicians scrapped WCSP and forced Boxer on the army to use the Boxers that had been ordered for the redundant strike brigades (Gen Carter has screwed everything up, again). I am sure the AI would prefer to have had upgraded Warrior (and to have had it 5-10 years ago) than wheeled Boxer with a pop gun.

            Could we operate a Boxer/Patria mixed fleet as a money saving measure? – yes, we probably could. As you say we operate multiple AFV types – and always have done. From my REME background, I never found it a problem to support multiple AFV types either in the same bde or the same unit.

          • Always something to learn from this latest deployment I think – latest 40mm version in a full scale armoured assault. Daniele beat me to it but I’m thinking the 623 doesn’t include the IFV which will replace Warrior?

          • I shared the variant mix here a few years ago. Only 84? Infantry section vehicles, and quite c2 variant heavy.

            I hope to God you’re right, as it stands they’ll have a RWS with a Javelin ATGM attached.

            Some clarity regards Boxer modules will be good.

          • RS4 PROTECTOR RWS as ordered by UK MoD for Boxer can take the following according to Kongsberg:

            Browning M2 and WKM-B (12.7 mm), M249 (5.56 mm), M240, UKM-2000C and M134 Gatling (7.62 mm), MK19, MK47 and H&K GMG (40 mm grenade launchers with airburst option), various Non-Lethal effectors. The RS4 allows for M240 (6.62 mm) coax kit or various ATGM integrations.

            [No mention of stabilised 40mm cannon, CTAS or otherwise!]

            Source:https://www.kongsberg.com/globalassets/kongsberg-defence–aerospace/2.1.-products/defence-and-security/remote-weapon-systems/protector-mct/protector-rs4.pdf

          • The unspent WCSP money has been handed back to HM Treasury, so none is left. It will help go towards buying Boxers.
            WCSP programme including design & development (D&D), testing and 380 finished Warrior vehicles was £1bn. Very cost-effective, even allowing for the over-budget spend on D&D.
            The same money would buy about 180 Boxer APCs, and even fewer Boxer IFVs.

          • Its a total mess. I was happy with WCSP for the AI Bns and Boxer MIV for Mech Bns in the Strike bdes – in the old Orbat of course.

            The changed Orbat and the decision to axe WCSP has mucked the 523+100 order up. I hope someone is unscrambling it – WCSP was cancelled in March 2021, so they should have done so by now!

          • Yes, and we’re still waiting for the usual MoD mists to clear so we can see where we are at.
            Then, we will be able to judge.

          • A very good question.

            The order I believe is 523 (mixed types – see the Boxer Wiki entry) ordered in Nov 2019, presumably this was the Tranche 1 order for the two Strike bdes that were then in the Orbat.

            + a second tranche of 100 (infantry carriers, command-and-control (C2) vehicles, and ambulances) ordered in April 2022.

            The political decision to scrap the 380 x WCSP and buy Boxer instead for the AI was announced in DCP in March 2021.https://www.overtdefense.com/2021/03/23/warrior-capability-sustainment-program-axed-in-favor-of-boxer/

            Arguably we have not yet seen the order for Boxers that will replace Warriors (WCSP). We clearly both hope it will be an IFV and not an APC with MG.

            What has confused things has been the Orbat change! We now don’t need any Boxer APCs for the Strike brigades (they no longer exist), but do need Boxer IFVs (preferably the KMW tracked version) for the 5 x AI Bns in the two ABCTs.

          • So we need to convert 380 Boxer APCs to IFVs? We have enough CTA turrets to do this I think.

          • That would be a good idea if the LM ie CTA turret could be made to fit Boxer – we need to have bought Boxers with the right size turret ring. If not the RT60 turret might be an option but it is for a 30mm cannon not a 40mm CTAS:
            https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/boxer-ifv-variant-rt60-turret-emerges/

            Need to first establish if 380 x section vehicles is the right number. It looks to be far too many. So not as many as 380 need the 40mm turret. I reckon we need about 210 in the Field Force (5 x AI Bns) plus a number in the Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve.

          • I would be very reluctant to give up the combat and logistics advantages of the (Ajax) CTA 40mm. We should design and manufacture a Boxer module which accepts the turret. Just my view.

  3. $9m each is slightly less than the unit cost of AJAX. Boxer contract is @ £5.2m per vehicle.
    Has the £ suddenly surged in value?

    • £7.23m per CV90, at least at todays exchange rate. No idea how that compares bang per buck (if that’s even the right term in £), guess it’s rather subjective. Mind you if we ordered it anyway, you can imagine the price would go up existensionally after its gold plated so probably a moot point.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here