Skip to content

Canada Wishes for CV90 Vehicles

May 28, 2009

CV90One of our readers turned us on to this interesting little tank from Sweden, the CV90 Infantry Fighting Vehicle that Canada is seeking to purchase for its “close combat vehicle program“. From Dave Pugliese’s Defence Watch:

The turret can be outfitted with a variety of guns, depending on the customer’s needs; 30mm Bushmaster II cannon or the latest generation with a 35mm Bushmaster. There are also options for a 40mm gun; also a 120mm gun for those who want a light tank capability. The firm is highlighting the vehicle as having the most advanced survivability kit available. CV90s are now in service in Afghanistan. The vehicle being shown at CANSEC is configured to carry 7 soldiers. It has a remote weapons station and comes with advanced electronics package that includes a defensive aid suite. Cameras on the front, left and right of the vehicle give good situational awareness.

The Swedes seem to “get it” concerning vehicles, ships, and weapons for low intensity conflict, despite not having fought a war for centuries. We still like the Stryker for its quietness and ease of maintenance (except for off-road conditions of course). But this is a very good concept worth looking into, and costing about $1 million each. Well done.

McLean’s has further details:

Although agile and quick-handling on roads and solid ground, the army has found LAVs often get stuck in boggy ground along riverbeds where the Taliban have increasingly chosen to stage ambushes.One of the vehicles under serious consideration is the CV90, which is essentially a light tank that’s capable of carrying troops, according to defence sources.

In terms of size and firepower, the BAE Systems vehicle falls in between the LAV III and the 64-tonne Leopard tank.The British defence giant is offering Canadian industry the opportunity to build the turret and other components for the CV90.The 32-tonne iron monster – with a 35 mm cannon and crew of three – affords roughly the same level of protection as a Leopard tank, which has thus far survived strikes by ever-increasing Taliban roadside bombs.

Now the track vehicles are very handy on the other side of the world in Afghanistan, but this would likely be a rare occurrence in most types of armored warfare around the world, where roads are so prevalent. I think the Canadians are doing well to buy these off the shelf weapons, instead of a grandiose defense project for tracked armor, which spends far out of proportion than the enemy it is likely to face.

H/T to the Torch.

20 Comments leave one →
  1. Graham Strouse permalink
    December 26, 2009 7:29 pm

    I like the simplicity & flexibility of the CV90 A LOT. It’s a helluva lot more “modular” the an LCS, for one thing. ;)

    Sort of like the American Shermans in WWII & beyond (according to Wiki, Sherman platforms were still in use in some countries in the ’90s–that’s staying power). A good platform.

    I have reservations re. the Strykers–I’m not really sure there mission was properly defined. I think they’d be better border patrol vehicles in the American Southwest & the cost is daunting.

    I’m still a big fan of Israeli’s T-54/55-based Achzarit & Markeva HAPVs for close quarters urban fighting. They’re robust, heavily armored & versatile HAPVs which can effectively deploy urban combat troops & support them effectively. Israeli’s Remote weapon platforms also afford a considerable amount of (fairly) cheaply modular adaptability.

  2. Mike Burleson permalink*
    July 30, 2009 7:51 pm

    Thanks for the info!

  3. SwedeMechInf99 permalink
    July 30, 2009 7:09 pm

    Quite by ALex:
    “Mike, the CV90 owes its orgins to a vehicle orriginally designed for the British Army as the ‘natural successor to warrior’, but when FRES came along and some MOD civil servant canned it (as it was not European enough…look who bought it), BAE carried on with it redeveloping it and selling it as the CV90 on to other nations around the world.”

    Wrong wrong wrong!

    CV90 originated as a Swedish cold war project with the goal to mechanize a whole bunch of infantry brigades (as most of the 700.000 soldiers in the army used bikes and trucks for transport). The project was given to Hägglunds and Bofors who developed CV90 according to the requirements of the Swedish army. Production started in 1993 and today about 1 200 units have been ordered.

    Hägglunds was purchased by Alvis in 1997 who then got purchased by BAE in 2004.
    Bofors was purchased by Saab in 1999. In 2000 United Defense purchased the heavy weapons division of Bofors from Saab, and in 2005 BAE purchased United Defense…

  4. Mike Burleson permalink
    July 10, 2009 4:37 pm

    Mystery solved! This is probably why this article popped back up, if anyone did a search for “Canadian armored vehicles”. the following is a new story:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/rebuilding-the-forces/article1211665/

  5. Mike Burleson permalink
    July 9, 2009 6:10 pm

    Sometimes someone will find an older article on Google and link to us.

  6. solomon permalink
    July 9, 2009 5:22 pm

    Gotcha, this showed up in top posts and i was wondering.

  7. Mike Burleson permalink
    July 9, 2009 5:14 pm

    Solomon, this is an older article.

  8. July 9, 2009 4:02 pm

    This article didn’t show up on my reader…is it a technical difficulty?

  9. July 9, 2009 1:27 pm

    Mike, the CV90 owes its orgins to a vehicle orriginally designed for the British Army as the ‘natural successor to warrior’, but when FRES came along and some MOD civil servant canned it (as it was not European enough…look who bought it), BAE carried on with it redeveloping it and selling it as the CV90 on to other nations around the world.

    yours sincerly

    Alex

  10. B.Smitty permalink
    May 29, 2009 2:01 pm

    There’s a certain amount of “empowering” that comes from a turret with an autocannon, coax, good FCS and commander/gunner combo.

  11. Mike Burleson permalink
    May 29, 2009 6:11 am

    Admittedly I think I do lean more toward the APC, but it may be good to have some cover fire from .50 caliber gun, as long as we don’t confuse the vehicle with a tank. Its all about empowering the infantry, as a land mothership.

  12. May 29, 2009 3:04 am

    The original IFV wasn’t about fighting other AFV with IFV at all. I planned to write about the IFV concept problem and saw VERY old sources about what IFVs were supposed to be.

    You advocate APCs, not IFVs. APCs don’t need to be high performance vehicles, and they can be MUCH cheaper than gold-plated Strykers.

  13. Mike Burleson permalink
    May 28, 2009 9:52 pm

    “Stryker is furthermore only good for logistical movement”

    Thats good enough! IFV’s shouldn’t be fighting other armor (a fault in the orginial concept), but let their infantry passengers do the fighting.

    “The basic CV90 is NOT adequately protected by modern standards.”

    Thats what cage and reactive armor is for. they are even putting this technology on main battle tanks in Afghanistan!

  14. May 28, 2009 7:17 pm

    “All the armor a networked force needs short of an all out Fulda Gap war scenario.”

    A naked, standard CV90 can be penetrated by a 60mm WW2 bazooka. The effect would be limited by a spall liner, but the penetration could kill two men inside and possibly set off their explosive ammunition.

    The basic CV90 is NOT adequately protected by modern standards. It was adequately protected by lame mid-90’s peacetime standards.

    “…where roads are so prevalent. ”

    Mike, roads are prevalent in places where many people live, but roads in themselves are not of much use for a brigade on the march. It’s the pavement that counts. Unpaved roads can quickly be torn apart and turned into mud lanes by a marching brigade or even battalion. A huge part of the global population lives in areas with lots of rain but poor roads.

    The road mobility of the Stryker is furthermore only good for logistical movement, not for tactical movement. Such high ground pressure vehicles tend to stick to roads, and that’s simply poor, predictable behaviour. They’re no line-of-sight fighting vehicles.

  15. Distiller permalink
    May 28, 2009 4:14 pm

    All the armor a networked force needs short of an all out Fulda Gap war scenario.
    And all the armor an expeditionary force can realistically sustain within blowing the budget.
    By far the best cavalry combat vehicle out there, and with still a lot of room for growth and subversions.

  16. west_rhino permalink
    May 28, 2009 3:19 pm

    Reminds me a bit of tne Merkava in that original concept offers an ability to trade ammo storage for seating armored infantry.

  17. May 28, 2009 3:12 pm

    The CV90 is said to be a robust and well-designed IFV.
    Its only major weakness is the rather moderate protection.
    It depends a lot on what add-on armour will be used, of course.

    Btw – the Canadians recently bought Leopard2 of the latest version.

Trackbacks

  1. The Next Army Procurement Disaster Pt 2 « New Wars
  2. Top New Wars Posts « New Wars
  3. Marketing… « ELP Defens(c)e Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: