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

It's fascinating how large these wheeled vehicles have gotten.  Here's another size comparison (Namer vs Eitan). 

To think Namer can potentially resist a 125mm frontally while Eitan likely wouldn't survive a 35mm...

Crazy size for battle taxi 

35-40 ton 8x8 to carry 6-8 dismounts at near 10mio Eur a piece, and then you end up buying 15-24 ton 6x6 to do the work 8x8 was supposed to do while 8x8 pretends to be an IFV

Like Patria 6x6, Pandur 6x6 etc 10 dismounts plus a crew of two, driver and commander,

YouTube

Patria 6x6, APC, troop transport - Focus on essentials

Patria 6x6 - Focus on essentialsIn modern warfare, the need for large tactical troop transportation is still existing. Patria 6x6 vehicle is built on the her...

Amphibious MRAP like Protolab PMPV that supposedly costs under 1 million in base variant

https://twitter.com/i/status/1128247756496211968

Sisu GTP 2+8 dismounts

Refleks said:

It's fascinating how large these wheeled vehicles have gotten. Here's another size comparison (Namer vs Eitan). To think Namer can potentially resist a 125mm frontally while Eitan likely wouldn't survive a 35mm...

Don't make the mistake to confuse size with mass and either with capability.
The 8x8 are so large because the wheels need to have huge diameters. This raises axle hight wich increases overall vehicle height. The huge wheels and the large motions they are capable off are the main reason why modern 8x8 have such good cross country mobility.
This is not directly linked to weight. Even lightweight 8x8 or 6x6 will use such wheels and are high as a result.
In addition there are modern ergonomic requirements and blast protection. Which eats up space like crazy. The old vehicles like LAV/Piranha, Luchs, all BTRs etc have horrible blast protection. Which either limited their usefullness or caused major upgrades which conciderable increased weight and had negative impact on mobility.
The Eitan weights only half as much as a Namer. Roughly. Yet it carries more troops. Its usable interiour volume is actually larger. But its protection is not nearly as good... protection against direct attack with large caliber AP shots that is. The Eitan has significant protection (at least K4) and is equiped with an ADS. So against a lot of threats is pretty well equiped. Since its not supposed to go head on with tanks its protection certainly is adequate.