As Europe continues to scale up its armed forces in the wake of Russia’s full-scale war in Ukraine, one subsector that deserves attention is the continent’s ongoing infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) programmes. Particularly worthy of scrutiny is Central Europe’s plans to produce thousands of IFVs at various levels of sophistication. Given the region’s proximity to Ukraine, it is critical that Germany, Poland, and others understand that defending Nato territory will require a delicate balance of expensive, highly advanced systems and low-cost, highly scalable platforms.
Currently, Germany has two important ongoing IFV contracts. Both the Puma IFV and Boxer Heavy Weapon Carrier IFV rank amongst the world’s most highly valued IFV contracts, and each programme demonstrates Germany’s role as a producer of specialised, high-end protective systems within the Nato alliance. As compared to many IFV programmes across the globe, the Boxer – and especially the Puma – offer top-tier protection of forces, which helps to justify their high per unit price tags.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Access deeper industry intelligence
Experience unmatched clarity with a single platform that combines unique data, AI, and human expertise.
Looking more closely, the Puma is a heavy tracked IFV contract, which is valued at $16.2bn during a contract period between 2014-2035 and supplied by Rheinmetall and KNDS. The Puma has one of the highest prices per unit of any IFV platform worldwide, at $27.9m per vehicle. While Germany’s defence budget is expected to increase dramatically in the immediate future to help it achieve Nato’s new standard of 3.5% of gross domestic product on core defence spending, the high per unit cost of this system means that the platform cannot be purchased at scale. Although the possibility remains that Germany will procure a total of 579 Pumas, this figure pales in comparison with that of other European nations which are buying far more IFVs – albeit usually less sophisticated platforms.
Germany is but a piece in the Nato puzzle, and if its role is to supply the alliance with advanced capability IFVs, it is likely achieving that goal. However, the lack of competition in the German market and relatively little collaboration with Nato partners on these platforms raises questions about whether increasing market competition and reducing the nationalist tendency to ‘procure it alone’ could have achieved lower per unit prices for Germany and any hypothetical partners. While Puma IFVs offer best-in-class protection and sophisticated command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems, the destruction of hundreds of IFVs in Ukraine each month should caution military decision-makers who believe that comparably low numbers of specialised systems are sufficient to counter a Russian army defined by its mass.
That said, Germany is procuring the Puma alongside the Boxer Heavy Weapon Carrier IFV at a larger scale and a relatively lower per unit price tag. The Boxer, a wheeled IFV, will cost Germany $26.7bn in its contract period of 2024-2040. While the Puma programme will deliver 579 units, the Boxer is expected to deliver 1,123 at a unit cost of $23.8m Rheinmetall’s Boxer is recognised as a highly mobile, heavily protected 8×8 wheeled platform that represents a bridge between traditional IFVs and armoured personnel carriers. Russia’s war in Ukraine has demonstrated the destructive power of loitering munitions and other anti-vehicle weaponry, therefore pursuing platforms that offer balanced advantages of manoeuvrability and advanced armor seems reasonable.
It is worth comparing Germany’s Puma and Boxer IFVs with Poland’s Borsuk programme, giving special attention to the role each country plays within the Nato alliance. To be sure, Poland is rapidly modernising its armed forces with high-end, sophisticated platforms such as the F-35, K2 Black Panther main battle tanks, HOMAR-A, and others. Even so, as a country on Nato’s eastern flank, it is pursuing numerous programmes to be delivered at scale – and the Borsuk IFV programme is no exception. While the total value of Poland’s defence budget is lower, they have managed to procure 1,400 Borsuk IFVs at a per unit price of $5.9m, or 21.1% of the unit price of a Puma. The Borsuk lacks the protection and electronic suite of Germany’s IFV programmes, but it is scalable so far as its supplier, Huta Stalowa Wola, can expand its supply chains to produce even more vehicles. It remains possible that the Borsuk is not as capable as the Puma and other comparable tracked IFVs, but it is critical that Nato can produce low-cost systems at scale if it is to successfully defend its territory against Russian aggression.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataThere are, of course, many other active IFV programmes across Europe that merit attention, but a focus on Central Europe highlights the CV90 acquisitions in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Together, their armed forces will receive roughly 400 CV90s, with more than half of these vehicles to be manufactured in the Czech Republic. The CV90 is a tracked IFV whose firepower and mobility are broadly comparable to those of the Boxer or Borsuk, and it carries a per unit price tag of about $9.0m. Its well-balanced mix of capabilities has made the CV90 an appealing choice across the continent, including in Western Europe, the Nordic region, and the Baltic states.
At a time of concern that Russian aggression will extend into the alliance’s territory, acquisition specialists ought to consider the ways that emerging military technologies are changing manoeuvre warfare. The war’s fast-paced, high-intensity environment demands a balance between scale and sophistication – an acquisition strategy that might be called ‘precise mass.’ Expensive, high-tech ‘boutique’ and ‘exquisite’ armaments that are difficult to field in large numbers would likely struggle to successfully counter a war machine that emphasises scale. The advanced capabilities of the Puma and Boxer programmes are therefore necessary but insufficient to defend Nato territory, and programmes that bolster Nato’s total fleet size are critical to crafting successful defence policy.
