On March 27, Poland placed an order for the first hundred domestic Borsuk infantry fighting vehicles.

Adam Świerkowski, editor of Defence24, a leading Polish defense media outlet, answered key questions about the new vehicle and discussed the historic contract for the national defense industry.

The contract for 111 vehicles is valued at PLN 6.5 billion, which is, according to simple calculations, about €14 million per unit. However, this figure includes costs for expanding production capacity. What is the actual cost per unit?

It is impossible for me to determine the exact price of one Borsuk, because for obvious reasons I do not know the cost components that, as you rightly pointed out, are included in this amount. Huta Stalowa Wola has already taken steps to increase its production capacity (including for the Borsuk), and these investments need to be supported. The production of our BMP-1 successor is just beginning. It’s necessary to create stable supply chains, find suitable subcontractors and partners, so over time the unit price should decrease for further orders.

For comparison: Latvia is paying €370 million for 42 ASCOD infantry fighting vehicles, about €8.8 million, with very limited benefits for their industry. Slovakia will pay about €8.5 million per unit for its 152 CV90s (including specialized versions, which in some cases are much cheaper than combat ones). In this case, the local industry involvement is likely much greater compared to Latvia.

Does Borsuk seem expensive compared to these examples? If you don’t know the historical context, yes. But the fact is that ASCOD and CV90 are mature platforms with well-established supply chains and economies of scale. Borsuk is still on this path, which should lead to a significant cost reduction in the long run. In addition, this is our domestic development, which gives us much wider opportunities in terms of its further modernization, adaptation or export. Of course, there is still the issue of sub-suppliers, but it’s not so critical.

Why didn’t Poland opt for existing European IFV procurement programs or localize production, as it did with Rosomak (Patria)?

The development program for the new Borsuk floating infantry fighting vehicle started long before Europe even started thinking about joint procurement of such equipment. Abandoning in-house development for a licensed product would be a step backward in terms of production independence. Many countries choose to purchase vehicles with manufacturing or assembling licenses, believing they can’t develop such a complex project as an IFV independently, or that doing so would be too costly and time-consuming. Poland started working on the Borsuk back in 2014, meaning we were already halfway or near the finish line when others were just starting to consider similar projects.

What advantages do the decision makers see in the Borsuk over its competitors?

It’s better to ask them (laughs), but in general, the journalists agree with their views. First of all, it’s amphibious capability, although its significance has diminished somehow since 2022. However, for some countries, this capability may be highly desirable, offering serious export potential. It is also worth noting the very good firepower, which is not inferior to competitors, and perhaps even exceeds them. Mobility, situational awareness, and mine protection are all at a very high level. But the key advantage of Borsuk is that it is entirely ours, created not under a license for which we should have had to pay. It is the result of the work of many Polish engineers who have created the world’s best amphibious infantry fighting vehicle.

How does the Polish military community assess the readiness of the ordered infantry fighting vehicles to counter modern threats, including those posed by UAVs? No versions with EW systems or even net defenses have been publicly shown so far.

Many of the concepts that were laid down during the development of the Borsuk are now outdated. The war in Ukraine has become a catalyst for changes that have only recently begun to be implemented in various armies. Borsuk needs additional equipment to counter UAVs, and I hope it will get it. This includes, for example, jammers, extra armor, or active protection systems. As for netting, I really don’t recall seeing it demonstrated with such defenses. But this is not a problem – it is enough to purchase and install them.

Poland previously showcased the Pangolin dynamic protection system for light vehicles, yet it hasn’t been applied to Borsuk. Why?

The reason is quite simple: work on this system has not yet been completed. A small fragment of it was demonstrated at last year’s MSPO exhibition, where Pangolin modules were installed on the rear turret of a Rak-G mortar. Since its chassis is derived from the Borsuk, we can roughly imagine how it will look like with Pangolin dynamic protection elements.

It is likely that the full coverage of the Borsuk with Pangolin elements will lead to a loss of buoyancy, but at the same time significantly increase the level of protection against several types of threats. This is possible because Pangolin is a modular solution that can be adapted to different types of threats. And you know very well how effective dynamic protection can be, because you put it on everything you can (laughs).

Do you see any potential for cooperation with Ukraine in the production of these infantry fighting vehicles, if Ukraine decides to purchase them? What components or technologies could be shared?

This question should be addressed to industry representatives and politicians, as it’s their area of expertise. In my opinion, potential cooperation with Ukraine is quite possible – as always, everything depends on the agreements of the parties. You may have your own solutions that you would like to integrate into Borsuk to make it more “yours” and have the purchase price partially offset by the participation of your industry. At the initial stage, the subject of negotiations would probably be the production of enclosures or final assembly – although this is just my guess. This question would be better answered by Polska Grupa Zbrojeniowa.