It probably is , but the funny thing is we are basically ordering same specs as the Latvian Boxers so a relatively developed model . But from what i have heard OCCAR is coming up with ever increasing price tags on their own as the time goes by(2018-2022), the creative cost cutting is just a consequence of low public support for OCCAR Boxer purchase.

At the same time German government has actually threatened consequences publicly if we were to walk away from Boxer which we should. I would be walking away as fast as my legs carry me. fuck OCCAR . And seeing the inabailty of OCCAR to actualy produce shit  , no wonder Poles are shopping in Korea as Geman armored vehicle industry is an absolute joke , lots of shiny toys to show off but no real capacity to actually make them in any number. 

It also makes no sense for us to purchase Boxer in the first place, If we commited to Patria AMW ,fill the missing quota with those from Poland and be done with the shit show. But no we somehow went from relatively low cost AMV (XL) to the most expensive 8x8 on the market which our military only ever saw in a brochure.And now we will have 2 different types that are still just an 8x8 apc ,

As for project management, OCCAR charges a 19mio eur development and managment fee. I suspect there are lots of cushy jobs and side gigs inside and around OCCAR consortium as its otherwise just inexplicable to be joining the OCCAR  for any practical reason.

Particulary now that it seems all 8x8 mechanized force that ditched tanks and IFVs for 8x8 is an outdated concept that was only ever suited for low end insurgency in the third world. Especially when you are buying 8x8 APCs that are pushing ever closer to IFV costs

My knowledge of the details of thiy program is very limited.

But what I know from the defense industry in general is that the price scales with reliability of the customer. The developement and other fees scale with the likelyhood of the customer canceling. This way they try to minimise losses or even make a profit regardless if the deal evaporates.

Since the UK have a pretty bad reputation as defense customer its not supprising that they are charged a premium. The UK is not alone in this. The German government also has to pay for their past mistakes.

The German defense industry can produce. They are running at full capacity... Just not for the UK (or Germany). The last big orders came from other countries and the orders are worked off one after the other. This also is a significant problem for the 100 billion program here. Since the industry will not increase capacity or hire more workers without binding assurance that there will be long term demand. Without this they will work the orders off one after the other so they get a mid and long term perspective.

Several European governments left so much scorched earth in the defense sector they won't be trusted anymore.

I think I got confused with who "we" was. You're Slovenian?

The UK Boxers are running at £5m apiece but that is without any turreted armament. Unless you count a .50 cal on a RWS.

Indeed we (Slovenians) are the most unreliable buyer , when the government changes so do business deals , Boxer is on the chopping block as the government in Leaving signed the deal mere days before it was voted out , they also signed a deal for C-27 Spartan that is also now facing scrutiny. 

Ours are much more expensive i suspect because of heavy armament and very small numbers, they are to be armed with 30mm cannon and Spike anti-tank missiles . They are meant for a medium battalion group as a quasi IFV 

Across a number of new procurements across Europe €5m seems to be the price of a new turret, while €10m is a complete vehicle.

The medium battalion group sounds a bit like the "Strike" formation that the British Army were proposing a little while back, except the Slovenian version sounds like it has appropriate firepower.

RovingPedant said:

The medium battalion group sounds a bit like the "Strike" formation that the British Army were proposing a little while back, except the Slovenian version sounds like it has appropriate firepower.

These "medium" forces build around the various >30 t 8x8 AFVs are en vouge nowadays.
They offer a cost effective way to increase the number of HIC and peer conflict capable combat units while being light enough to be usefull for COIN and LIC should the need arise.
Their combat profile usually is a bit like that of the former US armored cavalry but with wheeled AFVs.

The interesting bit is that large armies probably due to the cost and numbers required use a lot of APC 8x8 with 12.7 or 40mm RWS while small eastern european countries opted for much heavier armament. But on the othe other hand if you look at the Baltics there is renewed interest in 6x6 APCs as a cheap addition to these wheeled quasi IFVs

Seeing the utility of the 30mm US decided to upgrade at 6 Striker brigades with 30mm turret replacing the 12.7mm til '27

When it comes to turrets, in 2018 the cost of Elbit UT-30 Mk2 was around 1.3mio Eur but sans cannon , i have no clue how much a 30mm cannon costs , but i know the addition of Spike ATGMs was a 0.5mio+ option. 

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Somewhat surprised at how low the CV90MK4 is in comparison to Lynx and Ascod , also that maned turret seems to be the choice for Czech and Slovaks given the internal volume

CV90 is quite compact. They all carry the same number of dismounts too.





 

YouTube

CV90 Mobility

CV90 Mobility. A Bradley get stuck in the snow during tests in Norway while the CV90 with ease goes up the mountain.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

The interesting bit is that large armies probably due to the cost and numbers required use a lot of APC 8x8 with 12.7 or 40mm RWS while small eastern european countries opted for much heavier armament.

Its a bit more complicated.
Most of the heavy weight 8x8 are heavy because of the mission profile and environment they have been developed for.
The boxer originally started as a replacement for the Fuchs, VAB/AMX-10P, M113 and similar vehicles. Its developement started in the first half of the '90. At this point we talk about a 20-25 t vehicle. Its weight and size grew as a result of requirement creep. Which caused the French to leave the program and develope the VBCI and VBMR. The resulting vehicle while really good ended up being massive and heavy. A 1 for 1 replacement as originally intended was not feasible anymore. So the number procured was lowered. This is why the Boxers originally used by Germany and others are only lightly armed. They are not intended as wheeled IFV, FSV or something like that. They are simply APCs and equipment carriers with no real combat function.
The other heavy 8x8 also got heavy because of the extreme focus on protection that became fancy during the GWoT era.
Striker is a litte special again because there have been limiting strategic mobility requirements. Which conciderably limited the capabilities of the vehicle. Since Striker was never really intended for HIC or a near peer war light armament was concidered sufficient. A larger weapon also would have been to heavy.
Once the heavy and well protected 8x8 APCs became available someone figured out they could carry decent armament and work as wheeled IFV replacement. Once these found customers and proved usable and usefull the original users of the heavy 8x8 also started to buy them.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

But on the othe other hand if you look at the Baltics there is renewed interest in 6x6 APCs as a cheap addition to these wheeled quasi IFVs

This is everywhere now. The French went with the 6x6 VBMR. The German Army still uses the Fuchs and still grades it up. Germany also recently joined the CAVS program to get a new 6x6 to replace the Fuchs fleet. Its quite ironic since these will do what Boxer originally was supposed to do while Boxer now fills roles that originally (in the '90) have not filled by Fuchs. It has finally dawened on the decision makers that you can not effectively replace a sub 20 t 6x6 with a allmost 40 t vehicle.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Seeing the utility of the 30mm US decided to upgrade at 6 Striker brigades with 30mm turret replacing the 12.7mm til '27

It was more because of the changes in the global environment. A serious weapon simply was needed and being Ro-Ro capable in a C-130 became less important. Which makes a lot of sense.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

When it comes to turrets, in 2018 the cost of Elbit UT-30 Mk2 was around 1.3mio Eur but sans cannon , i have no clue how much a 30mm cannon costs , but i know the addition of Spike ATGMs was a 0.5mio+ option.

These deals usually also include spare parts, tools, training equipment, documentation etc. So the complete cost of a procurement program usually does not give the unit prive by simply diving cost by number of vehicles or items delivered.
This for example is why its so expensive to introduce new equipment. Buying somthing you allready have is rather cheap in comparison.

Well armed 8x8 past and present

Land 400 theoretical application