The UK has entered the assessment phase of a multinational armoured vehicle programme centred on the Patria 6×6, with no procurement decision yet taken, the UK Defence Journal understands.
In a written parliamentary answer to Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty, defence minister Luke Pollard said the UK joined the Common Armoured Vehicle System research and development programme in December 2025. He stated that the initiative is “a multinational programme with Finland, centred around the Patria 6×6 armoured vehicle†and confirmed that “the programme is in the assessment phaseâ€.
The Common Armoured Vehicle System programme was launched in 2020 by Finland, Estonia and Latvia to develop a shared 6×6 armoured platform, with additional European nations joining since. Sweden and Germany entered the programme in 2022, with Germany becoming a full procurement member in January 2025. Norway and the UK joined the initiative in September 2025.
The Patria 6×6, also known as the XA-300, is a wheeled armoured personnel carrier designed primarily for troop transport but configurable for a range of roles. According to the manufacturer, the platform can be fitted with optional features including amphibious capability, enhanced armour packages and a variety of weapon systems ranging from machine guns to medium-calibre turrets and a 120mm turreted mortar.
In January 2025, Babcock UK and Patria signed a memorandum of understanding aimed at supporting a potential UK Army requirement for the vehicle, signalling early industrial alignment should the programme progress. No contract has been placed, and the MOD has not confirmed fleet size, role or timelines.
The Patria 6×6 has already been ordered by several CAVS members. Latvia has procured more than 200 vehicles, with deliveries beginning in 2021, while Sweden has ordered a total of 425 vehicles under the designation Pansarterrängbil 300, with deliveries planned through to 2030. Finland has also signalled intent to acquire 160 vehicles, following delivery of pre-series platforms for testing.
One of my big hopes, this.
When Warrior came in they could not afford to use it in all roles, and FV432 remained and still does.
So who in the HELL in Andover thinks that Boxer, one of the most ruinously expensive types of APC out there, can be bought for everything?
A cheaper GOOD ENOUGH side kick is needed, such as this, that can be bought in bulk, to supplement the heavily armoured Boxers in supporting roles.
Has anyone else noted that the grandstanding over a big batch 2 ( batch 3 really ) Boxer buy has vanished? I understand it has been quietly dropped, when we used to hear of funding in place for over 1,000 vehicles.
Madness at that price, buy these as the heavy part of PM programme.
Stop GOLD PLATING, buy what is good enough in the numbers needed.
The Patria has been combat proven in Ukraine aswell so shouldn’t be too long an assessment.
In theory anyway.
Agreed. Germany is buying 876 Patria 6X6 CAVS in various configurations.
Your second paragraph Daniele, Yes I have. Theoretically delayed but no date given. I don’t know if the Patria ir right. I am not really an army man but given that we are assessing it I assume we are talking about the 2040’s anyway !!
It’s perfect,basically (sapper head on)an armoured taxi for Engr sects etc which are/were using 432s.currently RE are using protected mobility platforms for the Field regts this would fit the bill perfectly as a sect wagon🤞
Just for info mate, I also have a FOIA which I found which confirms that 22 and 26 will be amongst the Regiments due to receive the Boxer. So your boys should end up using both.
Yes so you said mate,BUT this a bit disingenuous it implies that the field regts do not go anywhere near the front lines so don’t need the same protection as Armoured Sqns! I’m sure if you said any of those infantry BGs will not fight on the FEBA they are going to be a bit upset!
Agreed. Outside the CS Sqns of the Armoured Engineer Regiments I’m not sure what vehicles the other Field Sqns use though? Mastiff?
Not many Field Sqns left to be fair, with 21 RE, and 23 RE, who support the Airborne, left, as so much of the Corps is assigned to EOD, CBRN, Air Support, General Support, the RM, Infra, and 42 Geo.
You had me worried for a bit mate!
25 Field Sqns in the corps at the moment,4 of them Ghurkas.
Yes some have specialist roles but if you look at their job description they ALL list combat engineering as part of their role!even the Armd Sqns have a field troop. After all all sappers are combat engineers first and foremostðŸ‘
Dern seems to think 4&7 would get Patria but 75 a reserve Regt is down in 4s orbat so who knows.
Hi mate.
Yes, I was not being clear, sorry, I was looking purely at Close Support Field Sqns in the regulars that were not assigned to one of those specialist roles and which AFAIK are not Armoured.
25? You’ve got me curious now I’ll have a look myself!
( Sad git….)!
Concur….25, excluding the 6 AE Sqns of 22 and 26 RE. Good stuff mate.
32 x3
21 x3
39 x4 ( AS Reg )
36 x2 ( Force Spt )
33 x3 ( EOD ) ( 1 is called EOD & Spt Sqn )
35 x3 ( EOD )
28 x2 ( CBRN )
23 x3 ( AS & Para )
24 x2 ( Cdo )
So my thinking was, maybe in error as you say, that you’d exclude the Field Sqns from 39,36, 33, 35, 28, 23, 24 as they’re either Para, Cdo, GS, EOD, AS, or CBRN, leaving the 6 Field Sqns of 32 and 21 who, I think, support 7 Bde and GS for 3 Div.
I’m keen to know what the Field Troops of all have beyond the AE Sqns with Titan, Trojan, Terrier.
I take it you mean plant etc? If so take what I say with a pinch of salt it was a long time ago😀
AFAICR each SQN had a plant troop with MWT & LWT we had two of each,a couple of 5t tippers and tilt trailers for LWT etc.
Memory has gone on the smaller bits of kit,I was in a UK based Sqn (34)so that would have been different in certain kit to BAOR Sqns.
All the heavier stuff like dozers,scrappers and cranes etc was in the Regt Spt SQN,along with four Scammell crusaders with 35t trailers for moving all plant in the Regt(23GJ68 my beast when I went to 60)
Obviously the AS Sqns have lots of BIG kith stored at the RAF bases.
I have seen reference to some Sqns having a terrier as well.
HTH ðŸ‘
For some reason your posts are really corrupted for me and I’m struggling to read them. lots of 👒s in them. :/
Never mind it’s not just you.
Thanks Jacko. I’ve had a look at Patria since posting and it does look like a good peice of kit, affordable and proven so probably not for us when we can spand ten years thinking about it. Only half joking. Tha family available would fill a lot of holes.
I agree, 6×6 from patria is great and it’s about 20% of the cost of Boxer. In an age of drones and top attack missiles realistically all armoured vehicles are just good enough, spending, £5 million + on an armoured vehicle for general roles is insane.
Image what the army could be like now if it’s had not pissed away so much money on FRES and to have Boxer fill the FRES UV concept is nuts. Patria 6×6 is much closer aligned with what FRES UV was suppose to be at an affordable price and built locally by Babcock who are the only people in the UK at the moment with a track record of delivery of armoured vehicles.
The British army should just use UOR to procure vehicles because it’s s**t at development programmes and they rarely produce anything worth having. Land vehicles in general are much quicker to procure and lend themselves well to the UOR program.
Indeed if it hadn’t been for the UOR programs the British Army would have almost no vehicles.
I have to say, I agree mate!
Foxhound, Jackal, some of the Mastiff and Ridgebacks, all brought into core.
I agree with everything above. I really hope they also procure this to replace Stormer for SHORAD with an appropriate turret.
Happy new year Daniele, fully agree with this.
Boxer makes sense as an IFV with a turret on, as an SPG in the form of RCH155, and maybe that Brimstone one and some others. Essentially anything where the armour or size is a requirement. Anything else, including ambulance, mortar carrier, even a lighter IFV, should be Patria.
Hopefully the assessment will move to procurement quickly.
Hi Joe.
And to you mate.
I mean they’ve joined the programme and Germany are already ordering.
Wish they could avoid committees and assessing for once.
Just get on with it!
Makes you wonder it’s only because Germany are ordering loads which shows they don’t see a Boxer only platform practical or cost effective, that we are belatedly considering this mix. Be nice if we headed the decision making rather than merely trailing ‘me too’ laggards. Bad enough having all these retired types expensively filling committees costing us a fortune in Brandy and cigars, but when we still never get timely decisions or often decisions at all it really is rock salt in the wounds. Read this morning that even the latest industrial GCAP tri national contract due in December was delayed due to delays in the uk’s defence industrial plan. This is becoming akin to a butterfly flapping its wings in South America ending up having eternal delaying effects in uk defence. Never mind, at least the Govt is accelerating the filling of potholes.
Agree . If Patria is good enough for Germany and Northern European Nations , in service and being built off production lines, then the UK should probably stop dithering and buy a sensible vehicle for a change . The Boxer modularity is probably slightly exaggerated . A Boxer Apc or IFV will probably stay that way in time of war., and a Patria APC is very similar to a Patria Mortor launcher on basic chassis and vehicle components. Where i think the Boxer can excel is using the Chassis for continuous modernisation and Niche options such as Artillery , Missile launchers for Land an Air , Elecy
Tronics , Drone station .Basically all sorts of stuff that people can think of that uk is currently lacking .
Yep just get 1500 of these. Use the 600 boxers for a wheeled heavy Mec brigade. Then all the army needs to do is sort out its armoured cavalry vehicle, find 500 IFVs and build 240 challenger 3s and finally order 80+ 155mm self propelled gun systems.
Easy really France can manage it…
Agreed mate, whether we like it or not Ukraine has proven that mass and numbers are a strength in there own right. Coupled with a decent number of tier 1 kit, increase the mass and fleet numbers by vehicles such as these, in a number of tranches and types.
I thought Boxer was going to be our APC?
It’s more likely to be our IFV and SPG now. Far too expensive for APC role.
Yeah, Boxer is a highly expensive APC/battlefield taxi, it’s not an AIFV.
A lot of the Boxers on order are basically replacing the FV430 Bulldon in the armoured battlefield support vehicle (ABSV) role – field engineer truck, mortar carrier ambulance, etc. Which poses the question: what role would the Patrias play? Maybe low-level air defence and counter UAVs (LLAD/C-UAV), but that is a pretty small number needed.
So I wonder if the Patrias would be intended for 3 Division or is the aim to put them in and 7 Infantry Bdes? At up to 20 tonnes, they sound the right kind of replacements for the Medium Protected Mobility role, currently fulfilled by Mastiff, Wolfhound and Ridgeback.
Whatever the army wants and needs, the MOD civvies, accountants and hapless D&ES have a bad habit of taking away a spec for a horse and coming up with a camel, as it were.
I recon Patria will probably be a support vehicle in 4 and 7 primarily, and then fill any gaps that aren’t filled by the current Boxer orders.
They quietly removed the Medium mobility requirement and kept the heavy, so that’s probably the Patria.
Are you sure Sam? The last I read , it was the other way round, they had dropped the heavy mobility vehicle.and kept the medium one.
That kind of made sense to me. Given the Medium is in the 15-20 tonnes class, it would look like the obvious replacement for Mastiff, Wolfhound and Ridgrback.
If we set out to design a heavy protected mobility vehicle, we would end up with something that looked awfully like Boxer in weight, armour protection and probably lack of cannon.
Basically, I think Boxer IS our heavy protected vehicle – albeit one that is too heavy and miles too expensive.
Yes I’m sure mate. You can look up on both Shepherd Media and Jane’s.
Agree with Sam. I too believe the Patria is for the retained Heavy part of PM programme.
Yes, you are both right. Pollard’s announcement on 27 October dropped the Medium PM slot and re-chistened it Heavy PM. Which confused everyone.
But what’s in a name, if the MOD wants to call a 15 tonne Patria a heavy vehicle, albeit something of an overstatement, fine with me as long as we push on and buy some!
Assessment Phase, No procurement decision !
Please insert this into every statement made by any Defence Minister about anything !
RCH 155 didn’t have a assesment, Sunak simply said “buy it” and everyone was howling…
Yes and now we just bought two for assessment.
Last government was big on announcements short on action.
I’ll believe it when they’re parked at larkhill with RATDU crawling over them
And this one isn’t???? Good grief Charlie Brown.
This has to be one of the most logical and safest purchases the MoD could make. They’re cheap, simple, reliable and capable, we couldn’t possibly afford to field an all Boxer force, especially if we wanted reserves in the case of a conflict requiring an increase in personnel. There’s also remote weapon stations and applique armour for light IFV duties, and of course the 120mm mortar. It’s a no brainer.
It can be upgrade to Stanag 4 too. Agree with everything you say. As well as excellent interoperability with many close allies.
Armor is paper thin. Clearly inadaquate for any fighting role.
Capable of being upgraded?doesn’t seem to bother the nations using them.
It can. To Stanag 4. And it’s essentially replacing Bulldog as a box on wheels initially.
CAVS baseline protection is level 2, keeps out rifle fire. Can be increased to Level 4 but at what cost? Is the vehicle still amphibious at that level and what impact does it have on payload.
Stanag 4 is Boxer’s baseline protection (heavy machine gun & 155mm artillery at 25m). Can go up to level 6 (30 mm & artillery fire at 10m).
A couple of the CAVS roles involve being close to the bad guys: anti-drone/aircraft and 120mm mortar.
As a truck/APC bringing supplies and men to the front line, CAVS seems OK but anything fighty would be a bad idea. It is not a cheaper Boxer, it’s a more expensive MAN truck.
I agree that the UK should buy a large number but not at the expense of Boxer or Ajax.
What’s going to keep your sections not on boxer safer a MAN truck or a Patria? Horses for courses,it seems Boxer is for the Armoured Brigades but the others still need a higher level of protection than a truck.
I agree which is why I support the acquisition.
But not for NEMO or as a Stormer HVM replacement.
Grinch,
armour is paper thin? At 20% the price of Boxer and much less weight it is not surprising that it would have less armour protection. As you say It has STANAG 4569 Level 2 with an option for Level 4.
LEVEL 2 is protection from:
7.62×39mm API BZ at 30 meters
6 kg (explosive mass) Blast AT Mine activated under any wheel or track location or under vehicle centre.
155 mm High Explosive at 80 m
LEVEL 4 is protection from:
14.5×114mm API / B32 at 200 meters with 911 ± 20 m/s
10 kg (explosive mass) Blast AT Mine: activated under any wheel or track location or under vehicle centre.
155 mm HE a distance of 25 meters.
Is that so bad for 2nd or 3rd echelon troops?
Just looked up the profile of Ben Obese-Jecty, seems his time as an Officer in the Duke of Wellingtons Regt has given him an insight into the way the Army works. Hopefully at sometime in this Parliament and the next he will have a role with the MOD. It is always good to have an MP has experience in a role that reflects their appointment with either the Government or Shadow.
Look forward to seeing more of him in the future.
Please don’t nick Ben from us in his constituency’. At long last we have an MP who seems “interested”!
Are these Electric ?
Is this for the role Dingo was being looked at for or what is this to replace?
No.
God forbid that an actual ‘procurement decision’ be taken by the UK!! Another few years of testing, assesment and analysis is in order, surely!
This Patria 6×6 looks like a near relative of the ol’ Alvis Stalwart.
Oh I loved the Stalwart as a kid, remember when they used to have those races on World of Sport most Saturdays over a military assault course between all manner of vehicles. Never won but for a vehicle of that size it was incredible the way it used to bound around that course.
My best guess is it will replace the Mastiff, Wolfhound and Ridgrback vehicles in the Medium Protected Mobility role, i.e. a 15–20 tonne class vehicle. So issued to 4th and 7th Infantry Brigade Groups.
It could replace Bulldog in the Armoured Battlefield Support Vehicle (ABSV) role in 3 Division, except that there are Boxers ordered to fulfill most of the roles, like mortar carrier, ambulance etc.
So I think Dern is right in saying that it could take on the roles Boxer isn’t planned for, such as a LLAD vehicle to replace Stormer.
A direct quote from Luke Pollard on 8th January to answer a parliamentary question:
The long-term replacement for the FV430 series Bulldog is being considered as part of the Heavy Protected Mobility sub-programme, within the Land Mobility Programme.
The Heavy Protected Mobility sub-programme is in its Concept Phase and is currently evaluating the Finnish led Common Armoured Vehicles System (CAVS) Programme’s suitability in meeting UK’s Heavy Protected Mobility requirements.
The programme is being considered and is part of the Defence Investment Plan.
Fantastic… the rebirth of Stalwart.
I must confess a bit of a mea culpa on this, I was initially rather taken with boxer (I still believe it’s an excellent vehicle that has it’s place), but agree that the unit cost is excessive. And as rightly pointed out by many, volume is just as important (almost more so) than all the bells and whistles.
The Patria could be the solution potentially.
You get what you pay for.
Ross, I’m not sure what the huge appeal is for Boxer. As a wheeled MIV it should be at a mid price point, yet it is the most expensive APC in the world at about £5.5m each. The modularity feature is a party trick that we will probably never use in the field. It’s certainly not air transportable.
I accept that it has great protection but you would expect that from a 40 ton APC!
The biggest slap in the face is for MoD to declare in March 2021 that this MIV will now carry the infantry in the armoured brigades, but it has no cannon and may not have the mobility to keep up with tanks motoring fast cross-country – an IFV is required for the AI role.
So we have just entered the Assessment phase. Just in case anyone doesn’t know the MoD operates the CADMID/T cycle to introuduce new equipment or services.
Phases of the CADMID/T Cycle:
Concept – This initial phase identifies the need for new capabilities and outlines potential solutions.
Assessment – In this phase, the feasibility and risks of the proposed solutions are evaluated. Key decisions are made regarding the project’s direction.
Demonstration – Prototypes or models are developed to test the proposed solutions. This phase assesses performance and viability.
Manufacture – Once a solution is validated, it moves into production. This phase focuses on creating the equipment or system.
In-Service use – The equipment is deployed and used in operational settings. Ongoing support and maintenance are provided during this phase.
Disposal/Termination of Service – At the end of its life cycle, the equipment is decommissioned. This phase considers environmental impacts and potential for recycling or repurposing.
Thanks Graham, I did not know the CADMID/T acronym. As the thing already exists, is understood, and is in use, can some of those be removed?