Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

20643293_1887560438171532_26633292040097

 

IFVs offered for the Czech Army.

 

CV90 turret armament options:

HGgbzrn.png

s6w4GAq.png

 

Main armament options:

  1. 120 mm tank gun
  2. 35 mm Bushmaster III (capable of using 50 mm Supershot, but it's a smaller catridge than the Rheinmetall one)
  3. 30 mm Bushmaster II (capable of using 40 mm Super40 ammo)

Left sponson options:

  1. Storage box
  2. 7.62 mm MG
  3. 12.7 mm HMG
  4. 40 mm AGL
  5. HEW (future option, IMO rather unlikely due to the high power consumption of lasers)

Right sponson options:

  1. Storage box
  2. Spike ATGMs
  3. AT-4 RPGs

Also APS, RWS and panoramic commander's sight are optional.

 

Overview over older CV90s:

Xo8c6op.png

Spoiler

Txl4uyA.pngeVfojIi.png7u5w4vv.pngKwaF2fj.png

 

Original CV90 has extremely poor protection, second, third and fourth generation CV90s are only qualified with STANAG 4569 level 5 ballistic protection (though it is estimated to be exceeded by BAE Systems) - it's commonly quoted at 30 mm AP(FS)DS protection, but back then there was no official standardized testing against 30 mm AP/APDS/APFSDS ammo. I am really confused about the low level of mine protection, only STANAG 4569 level 3 and that only on the CV90 Mk III - there was no mine protection at all in the previous models! That's the same level of mine protection as found on the Marder 1A5, which is a much older design were the designers never put any thought into mine-protection at all. Seems to be quite a big oversight, specifically given that Sweden and Norway both bought MEXAS mine protection kits for KFOR and SFOR.

 

Mobility stayed the same according to BAE Systems, so essentially they decided to keep it on an early 1990s level? Not sure if this is good, though the initial CV90 had great mobility at its day.

 

Only the new fifth gen CV90 (though still officially known as a CV90 Mark III) does have STANAG 4569 level 6 ballistic and level 4 mine protection, but given that the quoted weight is equal to the quoted max combat weight, they seem to have sacrificed growth potential for this.

Z1N6C3M.jpg

wDyKoIl.png

CV90 Mk III payload is 16 tonnes, which is less than that of ASCOD 2 (19 tonnes).

w6mnX8i.png

Also, I didn't knew that BAE Systems never manufactures the turret for the CV90, but always uses a subcontractor for it.

Spoiler

ChCTvdq.pngalr8RPQ.pngow5c1bY.png5Y5iIvS.pngdBXJ6qF.pngSZdQ25c.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

CV90 turret armament options:

HGgbzrn.png

s6w4GAq.png

 

Main armament options:

  1. 120 mm tank gun
  2. 35 mm Bushmaster III (capable of using 50 mm Supershot, but it's a smaller catridge than the Rheinmetall one)
  3. 30 mm Bushmaste

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Txl4uyA.pngeVfojIi.png7u5w4vv.pngKwaF2fj.png

 

  Hide contents

 

 

CV-90 worth a thread of its own

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

http://www.janes.com/article/73339/china-develops-new-rpg-defeating-net-for-afvs

 

@Collimatrix, what are your thoughts on this?  Similar idea to slat/cage armor? 

 

 

I believe it's the same principle.  I also think that the Polish were working on something similar.  I think @Militarysta posted it some time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

If you think you have enough material, go ahead and make one!

CV-90 is one vehicle I don't know much about.

I don't have it but we do have it. 

 

I will open one about it. It will help keeping clear material and talks. 

 

Look at the T14 thread. I worth to be split because it deels about both K17 and Kurganets-25 too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Serge said:

I don't have it but we do have it. 

 

I will open one about it. It will help keeping clear material and talks. 

 

Look at the T14 thread. I worth to be split because it deels about both K17 and Kurganets-25 too. 

And technically, the Kurganets and K-17 are not Armata. They're two separate types of universal vehicles. The thread is technically named for the T-14, T-15, and T-16, as well as the Koalitsiya which I believe tends to go under the SPH thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Serge said:

I don't have it but we do have it. 

 

I will open one about it. It will help keeping clear material and talks. 

 

Look at the T14 thread. I worth to be split because it deels about both K17 and Kurganets-25 too. 

 

10 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

And technically, the Kurganets and K-17 are not Armata. They're two separate types of universal vehicles. The thread is technically named for the T-14, T-15, and T-16, as well as the Koalitsiya which I believe tends to go under the SPH thread.

 

I am against creating 100s of threads that are barrely active. Reason why i put all those vehicles in one thread is:

1) If you want to find info on new big series of Russian universal platforms/AFVs - you go to "that one thread" instead of searching 8 different threads to find anything on T-14, T-15, T-16, Koalitsiya, Kurgnanets-25 IFV, Kurganets-25 APC, Boomerang K-17 IFV, Boomerang APC and so on.

2) There is not much info on any of those vehicles. You will have 8 almost completely empty threads, if we do separate threads.

So no, it stays as it is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

 

 

I am against creating 100s of threads that are barrely active. Reason why i put all those vehicles in one thread is:

1) If you want to find info on new big series of Russian universal platforms/AFVs - you go to "that one thread" instead of searching 8 different threads to find anything on T-14, T-15, T-16, Koalitsiya, Kurgnanets-25 IFV, Kurganets-25 APC, Boomerang K-17 IFV, Boomerang APC and so on.

2) There is not much info on any of those vehicles. You will have 8 almost completely empty threads, if we do separate threads.

So no, it stays as it is.

 

For the record, I was not advocating the creation of numerous threads. I'm plenty satisfied with what we have now. Just explained the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...