The United Kingdom and Norway have formally joined the Common Armoured Vehicle System (CAVS) programme, becoming its sixth and seventh members alongside Finland, Latvia, Sweden, Germany, and Denmark, Patria stated.
By signing the Technical Arrangement, both countries will move into the next phases of the programme to meet their protected mobility requirements. The CAVS initiative is centred on the Patria 6×6 armoured vehicle, developed to provide modern and versatile mobility solutions for complex military operations.
Esa Rautalinko, President and CEO of Patria, said in the release: “Patria welcomes both the UK and Norway into the CAVS programme, including now already seven member nations. As European security needs to be strengthened, multinational collaboration is increasingly important for interoperability, interchangeability and security of supply among allies.”
Jussi Järvinen, Executive Vice President for Protected Mobility at Patria, added: “The CAVS programme provides its members a modern, versatile armoured vehicle designed for today’s complex military operations, similarly building efficiently shared defence capabilities and significantly decreasing delivery timelines. At the same time, by utilizing the local industry capabilities of member nations, it is possible to provide maintenance security and independent support, maintenance, and repair services in all situations.”
Patria, which leads the programme as prime contractor, stated that more than 250 of nearly 1,000 ordered vehicles have already been delivered. The company highlighted that local industry involvement from participating countries strengthens both security of supply and long-term support capacity.
The CAVS programme remains open to additional countries with similar requirements, subject to the agreement of current members.
BOOM!
I have been hoping we would buy this for some years now.
Very good news indeed.
Yep it’s a really good call, cheapish and reasonable, good weight, can be upgraded to STANAG 3 protection,European supply line that we can get built in the UK..if they order 1000 quickly that will really sort the army out, well we now know one bit of kit that will be in the autumn plan.. the only question is numbers and time… but as these come out at the 1 million a pop range 1000 of them is only a billion pounds ish..
Will be the mount going forward re SHORAD, from what I read was confirmed by the GBAD prog director, and also what Ben told me on here, who says he is with the Regiment.
That is interesting, it would make sense, fingers crossed it means they putting together a SHORAD purchase then.
I was told 120 for 12 Reg.
120 that’s a lot, what has 12 got 4 self propelled batteries?
Yes. I believe 4 SP and 2 LMM, one of which is also the HQ Battery.
That number returns the Regiment to what it once was. Stormer HVM was once plentiful in its allocation to BGs and Brigades in 1 and 3 Divisions, before the Labour cuts in 2004 decimated GBAD.
Then the army just needs to double the sky sabre and do somthing to manage tactical and short range ballistic missiles and jobs 👍
Cheers, that’s very interesting to know. Assuming it comes to fruition and isn’t cancelled!
Did the GBAD program director say anything about possible future armaments to add to the current systems (e.g. Moog turret with ASRAAMs or Boxer with ASRAAMs)? Or perhaps more vehicle mounted GBAD sensors like telescoped EO/IR or radar masts? Or is it just Starstreak/LMMs on a new chassis and nothing else?
I only read that he described the UK joining as “great news for the future of British Army SHORAD.”
Know nothing else. It partially corroborates what one of our posters here mentioned.
That is great news!
I’m guessing that’s LMM/Starstreak, but I suppose it could also include a gun system?
Do we know if we’ll be getting the 120mm mortar turret that goes on this one as well?
Hi Joe
Yes, it should be the new platform for HVM Starstreak. LMM is used on lightweight launchers as well by a couple of Batteries.
A Moog turret was shown on that Foxhound that incorporates both, so would be good.
Not sure on the 120mm, from what I read that is still scheduled for Boxer?
Ah, gotcha, didn’t realise they specifically made that distinction.
I did see that Moog turret, thought it was a good idea. There was also that skid-mounted gun system that we bought for Ukraine, that could go on the back of a flatbed truck, as I recall. I quite liked that system, potentially as a resource for protecting HQs and logistical nodes behind the lines. But it’d be good to use the same gun, so we’re not messing about with too many types of ammunition.
I didn’t realise we were going for a turreted 120 mm on the Boxer, I thought it was going to be like the Ares variant, a carrier with a hatch in the roof and a turntable. So much the better if it’s a turret, for sure!
Though it’s alao speculated that 120mm might end up on Patria instead.
I think the planned next big Boxer order ( to take to over1 000 vehicles ) either won’t happen or will be heavily reduced, which I’ll be happy with.
It’s cost is ruinous and that money could go towards lots of Patria and an IFV.
I remember a Gabriele Mollineli post on UK Armed Forces Commentary some years ago saying similar- we’re buying Boxer (and Ajax?) variants for roles that cheaper platforms could handle.
Patria is the perfect route to go in order to do that. Command and Control and other roles that necessarily and normally are stepped back from the main line of contact could easily be handled by Patria, with the forward troops being equipped with Boxer. Especially if a single ‘gold plate’ option for Patria is ticked by Procurement (as recommended by Spy or Davey on here), for the same engine as in Boxer.
I know, drones and other things mean that rear areas are more at risk these days, but they’re still lower risk than the front, and would (in theory) be well defended by GBAD.
The question then becomes, if we are to return to a tracked IFV (lots of messaging on the subject at DSEI from what I’ve seen, from industry at least), what role will Boxer fill? We all await a new force structure with anticipation..!
I presume a purchase of this platform will be to fulfill the Medium Protected Mobility element of the Land Mobility Programme. If so, the aim is to acquire around 2000 of them!
Yes indeed.
A decision that is actually sensible and cost effective.
Hi Daniele, Cavs is a decision so sensible it almost seems to good to be true, just waiting for the downside now.
Also, have you seen anything on the LMP Light Protected, I noticed in some images/videos from DSEI that the Nurol Makina NMS was being displayed (as the Nomad 4×4) on one of the British Army Stands between a Boxer and an Ajax, which was odd considering Nurol Makina had their own stand showing off their other two MRAP style vehicles including the NMS-L which was being pushed the last couple of years for the BA as a more JLTV style offer.
Morning John.
No, I’ve not heard anything on LMP. Assume you’re wondering if it’s prominent location means it’s been selected. I’m not familiar with that vehicle myself, I’ll have a look now.
That was what I was wondering, there’s no shortage of options and that was displayed on a BA stand when as far as I can tell others weren’t, but it hasn’t been reported on much.
With what I can see from the limited info available, NMS UK have already set up a factory in Leamington Spa for production of a few few models, although this was announced a while ago it does add jobs and provide a uk built option that is likely cheaper than most of the competition so would make sense, I think they are also offering the opportunity to build for export ontop.
Estonia have purchased the NMS 4×4 so I’d guess that’s where ours got the idea.
I found a couple of Turkish articles saying it’s a done deal for a UK buy but who knows.
I saw those to, they seem more about hyping up the Turkish Defence industry in Turkey itself rather than being actual confirmations of orders, some of them also go back quite a while to when some of the vehicles were first shown in the U.K.
Though with their investment in the U.K. they may have actually put themselves near the top, as some of the competitors are pretty costly.
It looks like a very good value platform and they seem to have made a big effort with UK content.
There are probably several more pressing requirements than a new vehicle in this class, but perhaps it’s cheap enough to just go for it regardless.
Agreed, there is no shortage of urgently required programs, but at this stage if it’s funding it should move ahead as even if they cut or delay it, with the way things seem to work in defence it doesn’t mean something else will be funded, just end up with neither.
Would a mix of the wheeled and the new tracked version be a wise investment. The tracked model has a very low silhouette, giving it built-in stealth and allowing commanders the option of using a tracked vehicle for certain terrain. Obviously, these will go some way to replacing the Bull Dog in due course.
The new tracked version is profoundly light in the 10 ton range.. STANAG level 1.. I would be very surprised if the army went for it.. all the tracked formations will be running 40ton + STANAG 6 vehicles.
The consortium has now grown by two, making this 6×6 potentially one of the most common military vehicles in Europe. The UK order would require a new facility, but would we source parts directly from Patria or produce them from their templates? The current manufacturing set-up may not be enough to equip Norway and the UK, so considerable investment will be necessary if we quickly need these vehicles before 2030. The basic 6×6 design (say 300 units) may serve as a basic Bulldog replacement; however, more sophisticated variants would require time. The danger the UK faces is over-egging the pudding with too many variations/adaptations. Initially, keeping it simple may be the only way to get these vehicles into service in a timely manner.
Sounds sensible 👍
Patria signed a teaming deal with Babcock for UK manufacturing.
Sonik, thanks for that, but do Babcock need to build a dedicated UK facility? Hopefully not, as the Army needs this vehicle in short order.
They’ve been building Jackal at Plymouth for a while and they already moved to a much larger site, so I’d presume they are pretty well set up, to start a new line.
Please please just buy the common version in the appropriate numbers🤞and DONT gold plate it!
I’ll second that.
There is one very sensible thing I would change and it’s one that the Patria is already designed to be able to have. The Patria was designed as a modular vehicle so that customers could order variants to suite their own requirements. The change I would make is one which in the long term will save money, simplify logistical support and increase the UK work share.
We don’t operate anything with the Scania Engine but one of the lower powered versions of the MTU 199 series is an option which as the higher powered versions are used in Boxer and Ajax is a bit of a no brainer.
I don’t think a remote weapon station would hurt on the APC version, they already exist. Hopefully we take a good look at the 120mm mortar version as well.
I suspect the 120mm mortar if it’s taken forward will end up on boxer, turret mounted 120s are also direct fire platforms and the boxer is a far better direct fire platform being as it’s STANAG 6.
Agreed 👍
Take your point, but it’s already integrated on Patria, which is a win. I guess it depends where we end up fielding these- I’ve not seen a fresh force structure in a while that makes sense of all of these announcements…
At last it seems some common sense prevails.
For those in the know, what will this be replacing? I did hear its Mastiff etc. I know some on here are far more in the know than me and i like and look forward to their input. And what will replace 432’s or as they call them Bulldog?.
Can someone please explain why we need these when were are already buying Boxer? Aren’t they essentially the same thing?
These are about half the weight of Boxer so much easier to transport by air, they should be more capable on soft ground and are somewhat amphibious. Boxer is also just hideously expensive, these are a fraction of the price and are more than adequate for a lot of duties.
You get 5 of these for every boxer 1 million a pop vs 5 million a pop. Boxer has significantly more armour protection.. armoured against 30mm APFSDS and will protect against a 155mm artillery strike up to 10 meters away but because of that is close to 45 tons in weight ( almost the weight of some Russian main battle tanks) .
Patrias is armoured against small arms and will only protect you from a 155 shell if it lands 80meters away or more.. but it’s only 20 tons..
Especially one can go close to danger and take fire from an IFV the other is designed to protect from incidental small arms fire and not go close to danger.
As a comparison, when we bought Warrior back in the day, they were not bought in the number required to replace all types. FV432 continued in support roles.
So Boxer, being so ruinously expensive, cannot do everything. It needs a cheaper type alongside it to replace the various support vehicles that certain Regiments and Battalions in the army have.
Which is what led to Bulldog being used at least 20-30 years beyond its sell by date, right?
I hope they learn a lesson and go full of all needed types with CAVS.
Yes.
It is a stated aim to reduce types in service which simplifies logistics and training.
Hi M8, You seem to be slightly more cheerful about the future. If there was one thing I’d change about the Patria it’s the engine, we don’t have anything else with a Scania. Just order it with the MTU V4 199, very similar output, it’s one of the options built into the modular design and it has massive Logistical commonality with the Boxer and Ajax.
What a lot of folks forget is our Logistics have been cut back just like the FIGHTY stuff, so why make things more complicated and more expensive !
Hello mate!
Not at all!! I’m as cynical as ever about this government, it’s motives, and attitude to defence. And the MICs readiness to milk the MoD dry.
Read some of my other posts!!! 😆
On Patria, I’m sounding upbeat as I’ve always liked the vehicle.
How it looks, who builds it, its price, and it’s usefulness to buy in bulk to replace our ageing vehicles.
The ruinous cost of Boxer only reinforces my liking for it. I’ve long called for a balance between quality and quantity to try to introduce mass rather than endless gold plating.
Though I echo AT John. It is early days, the Army, MoD, politician’s and Abbey Wood are quite capable of doing something that’ll inflate the price.
And agree on Logistics. You know I like the enablers!