news

Patria and British defense firm Babcock International additionally signed an agreement to manufacture the armored carrier in the U.K. under the program, called Common Armoured Vehicle System or CAVS, the companies said. The Finnish defense company is the lead designer of CAVS, based on the Patria 6x6 wheeled platform and manufactured in Finland but also locally in Latvia, with plans for production in Germany.

The APC costs between €1.1 million and €1.5 million (US$1.3 million-1.8 million) per vehicle, based on recent purchases by Latvia and Sweden.

The Boxer, for comparison, is supposed to be €4-5 million for its APC variant and €7-9 million for its IFV variant. I couldn't find per-unit costs for the Ajax (it also comes as both an APC and an IFV, as well as some other variants, like the Boxer, so costs would differ between them), but the total cost is around €4.7 billion for 589 vehicles, which averages out to around 8 million per vehicle - so maybe the IFV ones are something like 10 mil, while the APCs like 6 mil, as a rough guesstimate. Maybe somewhat cheaper, since a big part of the ballooning costs was presumably R&D and testing, so after that's ironed out the actual manufacturing costs shouldn't be as big.

“As European security needs to be strengthened, multinational collaboration is increasingly important for interoperability, interchangeability and security of supply among allies,” Patria CEO Esa Rautalinko said in a statement. Patria says it’s received orders for nearly 1,000 6x6 vehicles, and delivered more than 250 through the CAVS program, making it the current best-seller in the Finnish company’s portfolio. Separately, Patria announced a new tracked APC at DSEI UK on Tuesday for all-terrain troop transport, which it aims to have ready for serial production in 2027. Babcock will manufacture the Patria 6x6 vehicles for the British Army, under the agreement announced on Tuesday, after the U.K. Ministry of Defence officially joined the CAVS program. “Our partnership brings clear benefits,” said Jussi Järvinen, Patria’s executive vice president for protected mobility. “The UK needs a proven ready-to-use vehicle platform, and the Patria 6x6, already operational in NATO countries, will be locally built and supported to meet British Army requirements.” Babcock said CAVS is being used by a growing number of countries in the Joint Expeditionary Force alliance, of which the U.K. is a member, with JEF members Finland, Latvia, Sweden, Denmark and Germany all buying the APC. “We are proud to be working with Patria as their official build partner on the 6×6, and as a strategic partner of the British Army, we are perfectly positioned to deliver a large fleet of formidable, proven armored personnel carriers,” said Tom Newman, the CEO for Babcock’s land sector.

CAVS has Stanag level 2 ballistic and mine protection, designed to withstand armored-piercing rifle rounds, and can be upgraded to level 4 for protection against high-caliber AP rounds. The vehicle can carry up to 10 soldiers in the rear, in addition to the driver and commander. The all-wheel-drive, diesel-powered APC has a maximum combat weight of 24 metric tons, including a maximum payload of 8.5 tons, and has a top speed of more than 100 kilometers per hour and a range of more than 700 kilometers.

The all-terrain troop carrier was unveiled at the DSEI UK defense show in London on Tuesday, and fills a hole in the market between lighter and heavier vehicles, according to Patria. Trackx is designed to carry 12 soldiers with equipment, including a driver, commander and ten dismounts. Patria is pitching Trackx as a modern alternative in the 13-18 metric-ton class of tracked armor, a segment still dominated by the M113, a 65-year old design that has recently seen extensive use in Ukraine. With most recent armor designs trending heavier, the new APC could provide European forces with a lighter, more affordable option for all-terrain troop transport.

“There is nothing similar on the market, there is currently no comparable product segment from any other manufacturer,” Jussi Järvinen, Patria’s executive vice president for protected mobility, told Defense News in a written reply to questions. “Competitors mostly manufacture lighter or significantly heavier and more expensive vehicles.”

either too light or too heavy... wait a minute

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interim_Armored_Vehicle "In a June 1999 communique, U.S. Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki said "our heavy forces are too heavy and our light forces lack staying power." ... He called for a mid-weight unit that would strike a balance between heavy armor and infantry."

Trackx is the first production-ready vehicle to come out of the European Union-funded FAMOUS program to develop future high-mobility armor, for which Finland is the lead nation and Patria the coordinating company. Patria presented a FAMOUS concept vehicle at the Eurosatory defense show in Paris last year. The new APC could be “a very suitable solution” for countries that operate the M113 or MT-LB type light tracked armor and are looking for a replacement, according to Patria. The M113, with more than 40 variants, is one of the most widely used combat vehicles in the world, with more than 80,000 vehicles produced.

The maximum combat weight of Patria’s new APC is 15.5 tons, with ballistic protection against small-arms fire that can be upgraded to protect against armor-piercing rifle rounds. Patria says it has extensively tested Trackx on roads, in forests, bogs and snow. The vehicle is equipped with rubber tracks, and designed to have low ground pressure, a low center of gravity and adjustable hydro-pneumatic suspension for each track wheel. Trackx has drawn “considerable attention” from potential customers, as the APC addresses gaps in land mobility, according to Järvinen. He said most of the interest is from countries in the EU, but there are also inquiries from outside Europe. With regards to potential markets, the executive said “it’s important to note” that the FAMOUS program member countries contributed to development efforts and helped set the requirements. In addition to Finland, eight EU countries participate in the program, including France, Germany and Spain.

The total budget of the FAMOUS program is around €132 million ($155 million), including around €9 million in funding from the European Commission and €95 million from the European Defence Fund, with the remainder funded by the member countries and the participating companies. For Finland, the program is part of a project to replace its existing fleet of all-terrain vehicles, with a requirement to operate in harsh northern weather and terrain conditions. Patria’s partners in the FAMOUS consortium include France’s Arquus, French-German KNDS and Spain’s Indra. The Finnish company said the manufacturing role of its partners will depend on potential customer nations. Patria said its operating model is based on the strong role of local production, and it has experience in setting up wheeled-armor programs in other countries. The company is the lead designer of the Common Armoured Vehicle System based on the Patria 6x6 wheeled platform, which is manufactured in Finland but also in Latvia, with plans for local production in Germany.

“When the Navy goes and industry goes and [negotiates] contracts with the shipbuilders … we have got to ensure those folks who are pricing those components — of course, we want to be competitive — but we have got to reflect prices that can allow us to have the labor pool that we need for the long term,” said the official, who spoke to reporters on the condition of anonymity. The official also said that the nature of shipbuilding programs means cost is driven up by schedule delays. “Getting a workforce that is sustained, that is retained, that gets trained … and stays. That’s the best, cost model we can have … If that’s a short-term adjustment in what our labor rates look like and how they reflect against the service industry growth that’s happened in the nation, then we’ve got to adjust.”

The issue of pay for shipyard workers — especially the kind of entry-level ones the service is anxious to see join the workforce in the coming decade — has been a pervasive problem for both the Pentagon and industry. As shipbuilding executives often put it, over the years, food service, retail and other industries have slowly increased their respective entry-level wages to be competitive, or even better, than the pay a first-year shipyard worker could expect. “People can go do far less difficult things for just about the same money from an entry wage standpoint,” Kari Wilkinson, an executive at HII, the United States’s largest military shipbuilder, told Breaking Defense last year. “I will say though that within a year-and-a-half to two years, you can double your salary as a shipbuilder.” Despite the promise of better pay in the future, the workforce attrition numbers speak for themselves. Brett Seidle, a senior Navy civilian, told lawmakers in March that “50 to 60 percent” of new industrial base workers, recruited through the Navy’s ongoing campaigns, quit within their first year on the job. “Those folks are coming, and then we’re attriting out way too quick,” he said at the time.

HII, General Dynamics Electric Boat and senior Navy leadership have lobbied Congress and two different administrations to move forward with the Shipyard Accountability and Workforce Support plan that would, among other things, increase wages for various shipyard workers. That bill, colloquially known as SAWS, has appeared to stagnate on Capitol Hill in the aftermath of numerous lawmakers calling out the Navy for a “lack of transparency” on its funding requests. “It’s incredibly frustrating to know how important building a submarine [or] building a destroyer is, and to hear often that there’s a story of, ‘Well, I’ll go to Chick-Fil-A’ or ‘I’ll go to,’ you fill in the blank,” the official said. “We must overcome that as an enterprise.”

I, uh, I'm not sure if I'm just tired but I have no idea what that last quote is even saying. I'll go to, you fill in the blank? Huh?

Breaking — Israeli Forces Deploy Howitzers in Syria:

Local sources confirm that Israeli forces have stationed howitzers in Syria capable of reaching the capital, Damascus. The artillery is reportedly placed at IOF-controlled positions since the fall of legitimate government, including Haramoun 1 and 2 in western Damascus countryside and military barracks near al-Hamidiyah in Quneitra.

According to Yedioth Ahronoth, this marks the deepest Israeli incursion since 1973, reaching 10 km from Damascus and 38 km into Syrian territory. Hundreds of 210th Division soldiers reportedly raided two abandoned Syrian bases, seizing or destroying mortars, anti-tank missiles, Soviet tanks, and 3.5 tons of explosives.

Zionist-aligned Druze factions in Al-Rihla reportedly welcomed Israeli troops, exposing previous government’s depots and requesting protection from the HTS. Israel now reportedly holds an 5–10 km strip with eight positions, cutting arms routes to Hezbollah. Commanders indicate further deep raids may follow.

🔹@enemywatch

To an outside observer, the drills would appear to reflect that Washington’s relationship with Cairo, a cornerstone of US policy in the region, remains on solid ground. But underneath all that military hardware, the sands are shifting, as Egypt slides closer to China. It’s time for the US to wake up to the danger, reorient its bilateral relationship and perhaps use the next Bright Star to make a different point altogether. Bright Star exercises began in 1980, born out of the Camp David Accords that saw Egypt become the first Arab state to make peace with Israel, and have long been a barometer of US-Egypt ties. While they came to a halt during the Arab Spring, their return in 2017 under Egyptian President Abdel Fatah El Sisi was meant to reaffirm the strategic partnership that successive administrations in Washington have called indispensable.

But though the US-Egypt relationship may be indispensable now, there’s competition. Just four months earlier, Cairo hosted “Eagles of Civilization 2025,” the largest Sino-Egyptian bilateral exercise ever. Featuring Chinese J-10 fighter jets, KJ-500 early warning aircraft, and Z-20 helicopters, the drill signaled Cairo’s deepening military relationship with Beijing. Far from being a one-off, Eagles of Civilization 2025 capped a decade of growing Sino-Chinese defense ties, involving arms sales, technology transfers, and Chinese participation in Egyptian infrastructure projects with dual-use potential. One month, Cairo is integrating Chinese forces and reportedly purchasing Chinese-made air defense systems. The next, it is carrying out exercises with the United States and NATO partners. To Egyptian officials, this is all a part of a hedging strategy aimed at maximizing benefits from both Washington and Beijing while minimizing costs.

I can't believe the Egyptians committed geopolitical adultery. Outrageous!

Unless Washington confronts Cairo’s double game, the Bright Star exercise series risks becoming less a symbol of enduring partnership and more a symptom of flawed US strategy. To Washington, Egypt’s behavior is a strategic liability. Joint exercises like Bright Star give Egypt familiarity with some US tactics, techniques, and procedures. If that information makes its way to Chinese forces, it could erode US military advantages. And more broadly, this situation sends muddled signals to the region: if Egypt can have it both ways, why shouldn’t others? While Washington cannot stop Cairo from hedging altogether, it can set clearer boundaries and guidelines. US financial assistance to Egypt has continued on autopilot. Washington provides Cairo $1.3 billion annually in Foreign Military Financing (FMF), nominally to sustain peace with Israel, support counterterrorism, and increase interoperability with US forces. In practice, it has become a subsidy for the regime helping to arm Egypt while simultaneously freeing up Cairo’s own funds to purchase Chinese military systems.

Congress should consider Cairo’s actions and initiate a review to determine whether current levels of FMF to Egypt align with U.S. interests. Cairo shouldn’t be overconfident in the outcome of such a review. After all, the Trump administration suspended nearly all security aid to Pakistan in January 2018 after running out of patience with Islamabad’s double game of receiving US funding while backing the Taliban. More recently, India, another Bright Star 25 participant, has faced tariffs over continued purchases of Russian oil. Washington can also restrict the scope of Bright Star exercises as a signal of its displeasure. For example, if Cairo continues to deepen ties with China, the next Bright Star should be smaller in size and limited in mission sets. The Bright Star exercises have been a reminder of what US- Egyptian cooperation can deliver by enhancing interoperability and operational readiness. Yet without a recalibration based on Cairo’s drift toward Beijing, Bright Star and other drills risk projecting a façade of US influence even as China gains ground. Bright Star should reflect an enduring partnership, not an outdated commitment that no longer aligns with US strategic interests.

Y'know, I'm not, like, an expert on Cold War-era arms deals, but I feel like back then it was more so the tendency to try to entice countries by giving them stuff, not threaten them to take it away? Like, surely cutting cooperation just drives that country further towards China, now that they're the only ones who can offer them the gear they need? no carrot, only stick . carrots, in this economy?

I make the "in this economy" joke, but honestly I do wonder if this behavior is actually connected to de-industrialization to some degree - perhaps when the empire has a bountiful harvest of military equipment, it can afford to just hand stuff out left and right, on the off chance that it helps bring countries into its sphere of influence, and is willing to take the risk that some of those countries play both sides for freebies - but when supplies are tight, it has to pick and choose who it gives stuff to more carefully? At least for the immediate post-Soviet period, the US, and the West more broadly, was in a position where they were the only ones that could really supply the fancier military tech countries might need - but now with China catching up, there's less of a reason for countries to get tangled up in deals with Western countries specifically. The US is still a leader in the latest planes and air defense I guess, but that stuff's too expensive for most countries to afford in anything beyond token numbers anyway.

~~As Beijing beckons,~~ is Washington sleepwalking ~~on Egypt~~? Just like, in general?