Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
Serge

CV-90, why so much love ?

Recommended Posts

Lets start a thread about the CV-90. Past, present, futur. 

Link to the Linström's page about the initial Stridsfordon-90 project :

http://www.ointres.se/projekt_strf90.htm

 

An interesting SH-MM post about evolution of CV-90 :

And a summary about contenders for the forseen Czech IFV programme :

http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.pt/2017/08/which-new-ifv-for-czech-army.html?m=1

 

From a well known blog. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UDES 09 armor layout:

xalTTaZ.jpg

 

CV90 base armor (various versions):

Spoiler

 

Bewygal.png

txnSnr2.jpgkT5PgPe.jpg

Df8a2hO.jpg

 

vT7kh14.jpgNyvUQM3.jpgfyEi0wF.jpg

 

According to the guy who posted this image, the UFP might include an aluminium layer:

BL7jFBA.jpg

 

...

7HkzKHT.jpgyQdumHa.jpg

 

 

CV90 and Bradley. Making an IFV taller than the Bradley would be a real challenge.

wZw64XQ.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Dutch CV90, a few reposts:

 

Various thicknesses:

 

...Yes I know I posted it in the German vehicles thread, sue me.

 

Driver station:

 

Commander station:


Gunner station:

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

CV90 and Bradley. Making an IFV taller than the Bradley would be a real challenge.

wZw64XQ.jpg

 

Taller than a Bradley : Bradley NG.

 

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Bewygal.png

Raised roof of a forseen Strf-90C upgrade. 

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

kT5PgPe.jpg

 

Mk-III hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Serge said:

 

 

Taller than a Bradley : Bradley NG.

 

Raised roof of a forseen Strf-90C upgrade. 

Mk-III hull.

 

 

How much headspace does that add and how does it compare to other IFV's?

 

Also the Bradley NG doesn't used the raised roof version of the AMPV hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

Also the Bradley NG doesn't used the raised roof version of the AMPV hull.

 

Roof of the Bradley NG is raised by seven inches (178 mm) according to BAE Systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

How much headspace does that add and how does it compare to other IFV's?

The new roof for Strf-90 is 170mm higher. A rebuilt chassis was made at least 5 years ago. 

 

To well consider the eight of troop compartment, you must consider seats design first. 

Bradley, Namer... are using basic seats. CV-90s, like SPz-Puma, are using close to the floor configuration to achieve a very low profil compartment.

So, comparison can't be made trough absolute figures but through momentum. By 1998, the Warrior-2000 rear compartment was 50mm higher than the initial MCV-80 one.

The Bradley NG is 178mm, the futur Strf-90 will be 170mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Serge said:

The new roof for Strf-90 is 170mm higher. A rebuilt chassis was made at least 5 years ago. 

 

To well consider the eight of troop compartment, you must consider seats design first. 

Bradley, Namer... are using basic seats. CV-90s, like SPz-Puma, are using close to the floor configuration to achieve a very low profil compartment.

So, comparison can't be made trough absolute figures but through momentum. By 1998, the Warrior-2000 rear compartment was 50mm higher than the initial MCV-80 one.

The Bradley NG is 178mm, the futur Strf-90 will be 170mm.

 

I realize there are different style seating, which is why knowing the floor to ceiling distance of various vehicles is necessary for a proper comparison of head room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

When did IFVs start getting suspended seats for mine protection?

Maybe the very first tracked one could have been the Strf-90.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

What did the earliest, first-generation CV-90s offer against contemporary IFVs?

 

Not much IMO. Based on BAE System's statements it had worse protection than the average IFV (only vs 12.7 mm AP, but apparently this was only limited to the frontal arc; just look at the armor schemes), it had a sub-par FCS, no stabilizer and no vectronics. It was somewhat more mobile than other IFVs and had a 40 mm gun, but no ATGM launcher.

 

Given the competition, it's quite a bit suprising that the CV90 became so successful, but there are numerous unknown factors affecting arms purchases (such as price, local industry involvment, readiness for series production, other contract objectives, etc.). Germany at the same time had the Marder 1A3 (with better armor and in case Marder M12 model with 30 mm gun and improved FCS), the TH-495 (offered as APC with 12.7 mm HMG and as IFV with either 20 mm, 25 mm or 30 mm gun; it had a proper hunter/killer configuration with fully independent sight for the commander), the ACV PUMA and in theory also the Marder 2 as export offers.

 

Of the two variants of the ASCOD variants, both have their own drawbacks and advantages, but I'd consider them to have a fair chance against the CV9040 and even against the CV9030 (Mk 1). They have better armor than the CV9040 (depending on variant either a similiar MEXAS kit as later used on the CV9030 or a reactive armor kit against RPGs), somewhat similiar or even greater mobility (at least in terms of power-to-weight ratios) and probably equal firepower. The IIRC Spanish ASCODs also had a BMS from the start.

 

In general the European IFV market in the late 1980s/early 1990s had a lot to offer. MOWAG build the Trojan IFV, which in terms of conceptions was an improved Marder design. If it wasn't for the Swiss government cutting funds at the end of the 1980s, the Swiss Army would have probably bought Trojans. MOWAG stopped building tracked vehicles after this time, having created numerous tracked vehicles that all lacked success. The vehicle comes with better base armor and a 25 mm autocannon compared to the CV90, but would have had a harder time against the CV9030 with MEXAS. There was however a Trojan prototype with the German M12 turret.

Ironically the Swiss government, after purchasing the CV9030, never decided to buy add-on armor in a large enough quantity for all their CV90s, they bought only 40 kits; i.e. on average the previous M113 "IFVs" were better armored.

 

There are many more IFVs that seem to be competitive against the CV9040 and in some cases even the CV9030 Mk 1 with MEXAS. The British Warrior 2000, the Italian Dardo and the Japanese Type 89 are examples from the same timeframe. The contemporary Bradley model also was better in many aspects. The Warrior 2000 was one of the three shortlisted contenders for the Swiss Army (original there were 8 options, but only the CV9030, Warrior 2000 and Marder M12 were shortlisted).

 

It seems that the CV90's main advantages were the low weight/size, the low cost and the ability to modify the design to the user's needs with options for local component production. The Swiss Army (after six weeks of troop testing with the Marder M12, Warrior 2000 and CV9030) liked/disliked the following aspects of the CV9030:

  • good protection, specifically liking the concept of the modular applique armor, the low size of the vehicle and separating the fuel tanks from the crew compartment
  • decent mobility, offered with the larger 670 hp engine for the first time. The seven roadwheel pairs and the low weight resulted in a lower ground pressure, which is especially important when driving through snow
  • the concept of having only a single sight for commander and gunner was disliked
  • the high potential for future upgrades was seen as advantage over the other offers. The maximum weight supported by the chassis was 30 metric tons, only the internal volume was too small. Thatt's why the Swiss CV9030 is the first variant with raised roof at the rear compartment, something latter done with all new/upgraded CV90 variants
  • main factor was the lower price-to-performance ratio  of the CV9030 according to official Swiss documents

 

JOi3GdU.png

The Marder M12 was only offered with second-hand hulls from the German Army and had a weight of 34.4 metric tons, but its overall conception (and mobility) was considered to be slightly inferior to the other offers. In theory it could have been a more serious contender, if the spaced armor was replaced with more weight efficient ceramic armor such as MEXAS. It was not able to fully keep up with the Leopard 2 when traveling through terrain (a key requirement of the Swiss Army), but was very cheap and its turret was considered to be very good.

 

The Warrior 2000's turret (made by Delco) was seen as the most modern offering on the market and had top-notch electronics including automated tracking of targets. However during the Swiss evaluation, GKN (as manufacturer of the Warrior 2000) was bought by Alvis plc., which at the same time also owned Hägglunds. At 31 metric tons and quite a bit of extra hull height, it was heavier than the CV90. The Warrior 2000 had better crew ergonomics and a better turret than the CV9030, but was not fully developed - there still were some teething/reliability issues; according to the manufaturer they could be fixed, but the Swiss Army took no gamble. The CV9030 was a low risk and low cost option, even though performing a bit worse than the Warrior 2000.

 

17 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

When did IFVs start getting suspended seats for mine protection?

 

In the late 1980s/1990s. But I doubt that the CV90's seats were installed for mine protection; first of all BAE Systems mentions no mine protection in their recent presentation, also the belly armor is too thin.

 

17 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

I realize there are different style seating, which is why knowing the floor to ceiling distance of various vehicles is necessary for a proper comparison of head room.

 

No idea, but the original Bradley is build to fit the average 50% of the US population only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

-snip-

 

 

From what I have been told from the army, the Bradley failed the mobility trials, the Marder was too heavy. Probably the width had something with it to do too, since we have a quite a myriad of small tunnels, bridges and roads in Norway.

The lack of 8 man troop capacity did not help either. 

 

The Norwegian army's doctrine favored mobility and firepower over armor, this can be seen with the NM-116, which was built as a substitute IKV 91, since the army could not get themselves a IKV 91. Since the CV90 was designed specifically for the Fennoscandia terrain it had a direct advantage. 
Our AT doctrine does not need IFVs with ATGMs, instead we have dedicated AT teams transported inside the CV90. 
The 30mm was judged to be the best balance between firepower and ammunition capacity. 

 

Why the ASCOD lost? I can see 3 main reasons:
Cost, the army back in the day was very interested in the vehicles cost effectiveness, which can be seen with the M113, Leopard 2 and alike. 
Cooperation with Sweden, during the Cold war, the Northern countries tried very hard to cooperate and unify, but pressure from the great powers stopped this from completely happening. 
Industry, Norway wants to grow its domestic industry, this had a very big role to play. 

 

This probably caused a domino effect with Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands. We cooperate closely with the Netherlands and buy in bulk together to lower costs. 

 

 

But since this is becoming a bash-the-British-CV90-Thread, why not add some of the Norwegian soldiers own complaints about the CV9030N:
The troop compartment is disliked for squeezing so many troops into such a smalls space, like tuna can. 

The lack of hunter-killer capability, apparently  fixed now with a RCWS used for hunter-killer. 
Lack of MGs, causing the commander sometimes to grab his HK and fire out from his hatch. 

And shitty thermals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

No idea, but the original Bradley is build to fit the average 50% of the US population only.

 

I have no idea what the 50th percentile was back when the Bradley was being designed, but the raised roof of the NG is to accommodate up the 95th percentile male.

 

6lGwslD.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Xoon said:

Our AT doctrine does not need IFVs with ATGMs, instead we have dedicated AT teams transported inside the CV90. 

 

That's essentially the same as with the Marder, with the difference that the MILAN launcher on the Marder was mounted at the commander's hatch during travel and could be used to engage heavily armored targets. Once the infantry left the vehicle, the missile launcher was carried by the AT team. For the Puma the ATGM launcher will be fixed, but both the infantry squad and the IFV will share the same stock of missiles.

 

23 hours ago, Xoon said:

Cooperation with Sweden, during the Cold war, the Northern countries tried very hard to cooperate and unify, but pressure from the great powers stopped this from completely happening. 

 

Can you elaborate? I've never heard of any "great powers" (USA, Soviet Union, NATO?) stopping any cooperation between the Scandinavian countries.

 

23 hours ago, Xoon said:

This probably caused a domino effect with Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands. We cooperate closely with the Netherlands and buy in bulk together to lower costs. 

 

The Netherlands were offered to buy the Puma IFV or cooperate in the development during a very early stage. They opted for the CV9035 instead, because of their wish for a 35 mm gun, the lower cost of the CV9035 and the earlier possible introduction.

 

I am not sure how deep the cooperation between the Netherlands and Norway is, but I'd imagine it wouldn't be as deep as the cooperation between the Netherlands and Germany currently is - though it might have been a closer cooperation at the time the CV90 was chosen. The Dutch tanks are semi-integrated into the German Army (and located in Germany), while just recently a new cooperation on air-defence was made. The FlaRakGruppe 61 will be subordinated to the Dutch Air Force, while the procurment of future air defense systems will be made jointly - that means the Netherlands might buy MEADS/TVLS at some point in the future, while both countries look for a VSHORAD system to properly fill the gap left since Gepard/PRTL Cheetah were decommissioned (maybe Skyranger on Boxer?). The current systems relying on Stinger SAMs only (i.e. Fennek and Wiesel) are not capable enough for protecting moving convois. The German naval infantry is part of the Dutch Korps Mariniers, while the Luchtmobiele Brigade is subordinated to the German Division Schnelle Kräfte.

 

At the same time Germany and Norway are buying submarines together, but the Dutch are not interested in the U212 class. So European military procurement is still in a pretty bad shape, where cooperation is limited and rarely used when it could save costs.

 

23 hours ago, Xoon said:

But since this is becoming a bash-the-British-CV90-Thread, why not add some of the Norwegian soldiers own complaints about the CV9030N:
The troop compartment is disliked for squeezing so many troops into such a smalls space, like tuna can. 

The lack of hunter-killer capability, apparently  fixed now with a RCWS used for hunter-killer. 
Lack of MGs, causing the commander sometimes to grab his HK and fire out from his hatch. 

And shitty thermals. 

 

Well, the title of the topic is a bit biased and certainly makes it look like this is a bashing topic only, I didn't have the intention to bash anything for no reason. The CV90 is a popular choice and it is not inferior to most other IFVs, but it is often praised for questionable reasons and has a large fanbase, that sometimes doesn't look at the facts. In so far I think the title chosen by Serge, "Why so much love?", seems to be quite fitting. I once posted in another forum that the the basic CV90 (Strf 9040) armor should protect against 14.5 mm/23 mm AP in the frontal arc only (both rounds with the same penetration), but then was told by another poster that the CV90 clearly had better armor and all-round protection against 14.5 mm ammo, while the frontal armor should resist 30 mm APDS. The Norwegian CV9030 with composite armor then would resist 30 mm APFSDS ammo frontally and APDS ammo at the sides...

Now, BAE Systems' own presentation says something against such myths, together with the armor schemes from the UDES 09 prototype (23 mm LFP armor, 6-10 mm side armor). I've seen people posting in forums that the Strf 9040 is the best IFV!

 

Not being as good as claimed by fanboys doesn't mean that the CV90 is bad, it is just not very good either. It is average and has a number of advantages (low size, seven roadwheels pairs, separated fuel tanks, low costs) over other IFVs from the same time; however if rating vehicles only by armor protection, FCS or power-to-weight ratio, the CV90 is certainly not the best IFV. The fact that the CV90 won the Swiss evaluation by price and reliability, but not by performance is something that surprised me when reading; I never considered the Warrior 2000 to be something special and I also didn't think that Kuka's M12 (E4) turret was superior to the CV90's E30 turret at that time.

 

The Norwegians essentially dislike(d) all things that the Swiss also disliked on the evaluated CV9030: low troop compartment size (that's why tthe SPz 2000 has an enlarged one), bad thermal imagers (thats why the CV90 Mk II has second generation thermal imagers) and no hunter-killer capability (too expensive to fix for the Swiss Army).

 

____

 

Not very well known, but Germany actually tested an upgraded version of the CV9030CH in late 2001/early 2002. It was rejected for several reasons, which is why the Puma development was started in Fall 2002. I am still searching for more info on that, but there is an archived question in the Swiss parliament, where a member of one party questions the value of the CV9030CH in the Swiss Army based on the German critique. I.e. it appears that the CV90 in Germany was fitted with a mine protection kit, which was still found unsatisfactory. The basic conception of the vehicle has been claimed to be based on the ideas of the 70s and 80s. The weight of nearly 30 tons of the up-armored variants was too close to the weight limit of the chassis, limiting the growth potential and upgradability of the CV90 in thte future. The exact wording of the Swiss MP says that the CV90 got "the last place" in the evaluation, suggesting it was tested against other vehicles (or concepts for future vehicles). I'll try to look into that topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

That's essentially the same as with the Marder, with the difference that the MILAN launcher on the Marder was mounted at the commander's hatch during travel and could be used to engage heavily armored targets. Once the infantry left the vehicle, the missile launcher was carried by the AT team. For the Puma the ATGM launcher will be fixed, but both the infantry squad and the IFV will share the same stock of missiles.

I did not know this, always great to learn new things from you.

 

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

Can you elaborate? I've never heard of any "great powers" (USA, Soviet Union, NATO?) stopping any cooperation between the Scandinavian countries.

I am sadly not a very good at Norwegian history. I spoke with a actual historian awhile back who talked about the cooperation between the countries.  We also tried to unify defense and such with Denmark and Sweden.  This did not get anywhere however because of political pressure from the US and the Soviet Union.  Instead Norway and Denmark joined NATO.  It was also attempted again to unify the Scandinavian countries later, but this deal got killed by Denmark and Sweden joining the EU. 

 

Norwegian history, or Scandinavian history is very hard is since it is a pain in the ass with a lot of propaganda and romanticism. 

 

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

 

 

The Netherlands were offered to buy the Puma IFV or cooperate in the development during a very early stage. They opted for the CV9035 instead, because of their wish for a 35 mm gun, the lower cost of the CV9035 and the earlier possible introduction.

 

I am not sure how deep the cooperation between the Netherlands and Norway is, but I'd imagine it wouldn't be as deep as the cooperation between the Netherlands and Germany currently is - though it might have been a closer cooperation at the time the CV90 was chosen.

As far as I understand it is not nearly as deep as with Germany, it is mostly to save money on procurement. 

 

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

At the same time Germany and Norway are buying submarines together, but the Dutch are not interested in the U212 class. So European military procurement is still in a pretty bad shape, where cooperation is limited and rarely used when it could save costs.

It's all about politics. And right now it is a mess. 

 

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

Well, the title of the topic is a bit biased and certainly makes it look like this is a bashing topic only, I didn't have the intention to bash anything for no reason.

It was sarcastic. But I believe every choice should be properly bashed, the more popular the more bashing needed. 

 

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

 

The Norwegians essentially dislike(d) all things that the Swiss also disliked on the evaluated CV9030: low troop compartment size (that's why tthe SPz 2000 has an enlarged one), bad thermal imagers (thats why the CV90 Mk II has second generation thermal imagers) and no hunter-killer capability (too expensive to fix for the Swiss Army).

 

____

 

Not very well known, but Germany actually tested an upgraded version of the CV9030CH in late 2001/early 2002. It was rejected for several reasons, which is why the Puma development was started in Fall 2002. I am still searching for more info on that, but there is an archived question in the Swiss parliament, where a member of one party questions the value of the CV9030CH in the Swiss Army based on the German critique. I.e. it appears that the CV90 in Germany was fitted with a mine protection kit, which was still found unsatisfactory. The basic conception of the vehicle has been claimed to be based on the ideas of the 70s and 80s. The weight of nearly 30 tons of the up-armored variants was too close to the weight limit of the chassis, limiting the growth potential and upgradability of the CV90 in thte future. The exact wording of the Swiss MP says that the CV90 got "the last place" in the evaluation, suggesting it was tested against other vehicles (or concepts for future vehicles). I'll try to look into that topic.

Even the Swedes realized this, hence the SEP program. Though, Norway will most likely use the CV90 for a long time, just like the M113. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 2 septembre 2017 at 2:41 PM, SH_MM said:

In the late 1980s/1990s.

The introduction of mine protection was the discovering of the TMRP-6 in Yougoslavia.

 

On 2 septembre 2017 at 2:41 PM, SH_MM said:

But I doubt that the CV90's seats were installed for mine protection; first of all BAE Systems mentions no mine protection in their recent presentation, also the belly armor is too thin.

The very purpose of this seat was to enshure the hull low profil by Hagglunds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Well, the title of the topic is a bit biased and certainly makes it look like this is a bashing topic only, I didn't have the intention to bash anything for no reason.

The CV90 is a popular choice and it is not inferior to most other IFVs, but it is often praised for questionable reasons and has a large fanbase, that sometimes doesn't look at the facts. In so far I think the title chosen by Serge, "Why so much love?", seems to be quite fitting.

The title comes from a French forum where the topic devoted to CV90 is called "CV90, pourquoi tant d'amour ?"

 

My purpose is not to bash any AFV. My purpose is to collect efficiently, in a dedicated place, informations about CV90 to help anyone to form his own opinion. This is the best to avoid fanboys attitudes.

 

For me, I was very impressed by the Swedish consistency of the programme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3.9.2017 at 4:33 PM, Xoon said:

As far as I understand it is not nearly as deep as with Germany, it is mostly to save money on procurement. 

 

That's also the driving force behind the Dutch-German cooperation: saving money. The Netherlands cannot afford to have their own tanks, while Germany cannot afford enough soldiers (or rather find enoough people to do the work given the low wages) - just let Dutch crews take a few leased German tanks. Germany cannot afford to buy a new resupply ship? Let's just take the Karel Doorman when available/required.

 

On 3.9.2017 at 4:33 PM, Xoon said:

Even the Swedes realized this, hence the SEP program. Though, Norway will most likely use the CV90 for a long time, just like the M113. 

 

The SEP is really an odd case. It was designed from the very beginning with superior protection than the CV90 (two armor packages, including one with protection against 30 mm APFSDS ammo), but it wasn't meant to replace the CV90.

 

On 3.9.2017 at 9:11 PM, Serge said:

The introduction of mine protection was the discovering of the TMRP-6 in Yougoslavia.

 

Not really; the TMRP-6 is an EFP mine and therefore is not related to shock proof seats as used on modern vehicles. The EFP won't create a such a large shock as a conventional HE mine or an IED.

Mine proof/decoupled seats are mostly focused on meeting the STANAG requirements for mine protection, which are not fitted with EFP warheads, but pure HE mines. This is certainly an oversight, for example it is possible to modify the ASCOD Ulan to mee the STANAG 4569 level 3 mine protection requirements (8 kg TNT) by adding a 25 mm steel plate to the belly; this wouldn't survive the smaller TMRP-6 (5.1 kg TNT), which has an EFP warhead that can penetrate 40 mm steel at 800 mm distance according to the manufacturer.

 

6aZIOaB.png

The TMRP-6 has less HE content than required for STANAG 4569 level 2 mine protection (6 kg TNT), so decoupled seats are not really required to deal with it.

 

First vehicles with proper mine protection and decoupled seats were made in Africa. Germany tested a few of them in the early 1990s and decided to start developing the Dingo MRAP shortly after. Two prototypes were made, the last one finished in 1995 (one year before the start of the wars in Yugoslavia); one year later it was decided to upgrade the Marder 1A3 with a mine protection kit and decoupled seats, though funding delayed the introduction in service. At this time, NATO had not encountered the TMRP-6 mine. Canada, Norway and Sweden all bought MEXAS kits for a limited amount of AFVs before KFOR/SFOR, though at this time they might already have known about the TMRP-6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×