Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

CV-90, why so much love ?

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Diagrams from student theses: 1. Compartment for equipment and diesel heater. 2. Compartments for equipment and oil cans. 3. Tray for equipment. 4. Air passage from engine compartment and e


16 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

Those are some really beefy sideskirts!  Any idea what they're made of?


The CV9030Cz is based on the latest Norwegian configuration, which utilizes AMAP armor. The skirts might therefore consist of a ceramic/aramad mix confined in steel or another metal. On the previous CV9030 models the MEXAS armor had a maximum thickness of 70 mm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...



"Bombekaster på belter

Hæren og Forsvarsmateriell demonstrerte den nye CV90BK (bombekastervogn) på Rena. Digitalisert kommunikasjon mellom våpensystem er hovedstikkordet for økt kampkraft. 

En stund lå tåken for tett over regionsfelt Østlandet til at demonstrasjonen kunne begynne. Det er nemlig ikke lov å øvelsesskyte uten klar sikt.

Telemark bataljon, Hærens våpenskole og Forsvarsmateriell beholdt imidlertid både roen og troen, og ikke langt tid etter lettet tåken. Dermed kunne de fremmøtte få se hva den nye CV90-typen hadde å by på.


Fire CV90 bombekastere sto klare. Alle fyrte av fem granater hver i retning av målet, som befant seg mellom to til tre kilometer unna.

Mortar Weapon Systems (MWS) er navnet på bombekastersystemet i vognen. Den store forskjellen fra eldre bombekastervogner er at innrettingen i CV90 er automatisk: MSW vet hvor det selv er, og i hvilken retning det peker.

MSW kommer dermed mye raskere til skudd etter at vognen er kjørt i stilling.


Fagsjef ved våpenskole, oberst Trond Haande, forteller at vognene vil tilføre Hæren en betydelig kapasitet innen beskyttelse og mobilitet.

De nye vognene gir også Hæren nye muligheter for å få ild på bakken i løpet av potensielt 1–2 minutter fra målet er observert, noe som er en betydelig oppgradering. 

– Takket være den nettverksbaserte kommunikasjonen mellom drone, stormpanservogn og CV90 bombekaster, oppnår Hæren bedre treffsikkerhet og utsetter personellet for mindre risiko enn før. Tidligere har informasjonen om målets plassering vært formidlet gjennom muntlig overføring. Nå kan dette skje elektronisk, sier oberst Haande.

– Vi i Forsvarsmateriell er glade for å ha levert CV90 bombekaster til Hæren. Dette gir økt kampkraft gjennom gode og fremtidsrettede tekniske og elektroniske systemer, sier Forsvarsmateriells delprosjektleder, Per Rune Hansen i Kampvognprosjektet. "


"Mortars on tracks

Hæren and Forsvarsmateriell demonstates the new CV90BK (Mortar vehicle) at Rena. Digitized communication between the weapon systems is a important aspect of increased combat power. 


For awhile the fog laid too thick over the region of østlandet before demonstrations could start. It is not allowed to practice firing without clear sight.


Telemark bataljon, Hærens våpenskole and Forsvarsmateriell meanwhile kept their cool, and not long after, the fog lifts. This meant that the visitors could see what the CV90 variant was capable of.



Four CV90 mortar vehicles stood ready. All fired off five shells in the direction of the target, which was between two to three kilometers away.


Mortar Weapon System (MWS) is the name of the mortar system on the vehicle. The big difference from the older Mortar vehicles is that the mortar system in the CV90 is automatic: MWS knows where it is, and in which direction it points. 


MWS comes with much faster rate of fire after the vehicle is in position. 



Head of weapons school, Colonel Trond Haande, explains that the vehicles will add considerable protection and mobility capacity to Hæren.


The new vehicles also gives Hæren new possibilities for rounds on the ground by potentially 1-2 minutes from the target is observed, which is a considerable upgrade.


-Because of the network based communication between drones, IFVs and CV90 Mortar vehicles, Hæren accomplices better accuracy and exposes personnel for less risk then before. Earlier, information about the target whereabouts had to be communicated verbally. Now it can happen electronically, says Colonel Haande.


-We in Forsvarsmatriell are happy to deliver the CV90 mortar vehicles to Hæren. This gives increased combat power through good and futuristic technical and electronic systems, says Forsvarsmateriell's part project leader, Per Rune Hansen in the Tank program."




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

These mortar-carriers with muzzle-loading mortars puzzle me.  I would think that a breech-loading mortar could provide a much more compact and better protected installation.  Is it really that outrageously expensive to develop a breech-loading mortar?


2 hours ago, Serge said:

Both solutions are interesting. 

Here, the CV-90 Multivogn is universal carrier. It can performe as a mortar carrier, but as a cargo carrier, an APC too. At a low price. 


It seems commonality and price is the answer. The CV90BK is simply a CV90 MultiC with a L16 81mm mortar and a FCS. 


You should not underestimate the Norwegian armies wish for cost cutting in the weirdest places, besides, we burnt all our money on the F-35s. 


MUCH cheaper solution than the AMOS:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The CV90BK is made from the former Mk-2 chassis, not the Mk-3 one. 

So, it can be interesting to save the turret weight to keep it to mine protection (I don’t know if the underbelly was reinforced.).

The 81mm is weak to be used to support armored units. 120mm is far better. The use of such a tiny caliber on such a capable chassis is an oversized choice.


The new and the old mortar carrier. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21.11.2017 at 12:26 AM, Serge said:

So, it can be interesting to save the turret weight to keep it to mine protection (I don’t know if the underbelly was reinforced.).


All the upgraded CV90s come with extra mine protection afaik.


On 21.11.2017 at 12:26 AM, Serge said:

The 81mm is weak to be used to support armored units. 120mm is far better. The use of such a tiny caliber on such a capable chassis is an oversized choice.


I suppose that the main reason for why these are outfitted with 81mm mortars is probably because that’s all the Norwegian Army has atm, and acquiring new 120mm mortars + ammunition would have added too much costs.


With that being said, the VingPos Mortar Weapon System was developed on the request of the Norwegian Army, and it is designed to be able to accommodate both  81mm mortars and 120mm mortars, so  might be that they’re hoping on acquiring some eventually.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3.9.2017 at 2:56 PM, SH_MM said:

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. 


IIRC the Norwegian and Dutch armies had some deep cooperation planned in the mid-2000s which would involve exchanges of equipment, joint accusations and access to each others training facilities. This included (from the top of my head, so I might be mistaken on some of it):

- That the Netherands would transfer 18 of their PzH 2000 to Norway, and IIRC a number of  Fennek recce vehicles as well.

- Norway on the other hand would supply the Netherlands with NASAMS 2 (upgraded from Norwegian stocks).

- Norway would also transfer LEGUAN bridge laying systems to the Netherlands, and IIRC also some mortar carriers.

- The Netherlands would upgrade Norway's fleet of Leopard 2A4s to A6.

- Norway would develop and produce specialty vehicles based on the Leopard 2 hull for both the Dutch and Norwegian armies. This included a so called Gjennombrytingspanservogn (armoured break through vehicle).


All of this seemed awesome, but then the people in FD (our MoD) started calculating, and they discovered that this could not be accomplished without increasing the budget (and this was at a point in time when our politicians were more interested in the opposite), so they ended up pulling out of most of the stuff. The Dutch were not pleased (they still ended up buying most of the stuff Norway had offered them however).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

BAE Systems introduces CV90 MkIV

Oscar Widlund, London - Jane's International Defence Review 
26 January 2018
The CV90 MkIV features additional payload capacity as well as an improved transmission. Source: BAE Systems

BAE Systems took the opportunity at the IQPC International Armoured Vehicles 2018 conference in London to launch the CV90 MkIV, which is the latest member of its CV90 family of armoured vehicles.

According to BAE Systems, the latest CV90 MkIV has a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 37 tonnes – up from the baseline vehicle’s 35 tonnes – which enables two tonnes of additional payload to be carried.

Mobility is enhanced with a powerpack comprising a new 1,000-hp Scania engine and an upgraded X300 transmission, which is supported by an active damping system that provides improved stability.

The vehicle can be equipped with the new CV90MkIV D-series of modular turrets that can accommodate a wide range of weapons, including main guns of up to 120 mm in calibre as well as anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs).

The company also claimed that the CV90 MkIV will be the first western infantry fighting vehicle with a qualified active protection system (APS). The vehicle is also equipped with the fourth generation of the NATO Generic Vehicle Architecture (NGVA), which facilitates future technology insertions and platform growth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

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

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.

  • Similar Content

    • By Serge
      The Armored Combat Vehicle Puma started as a privat-venture betwen Krauss-Maffei and Diehl in 1983. The two first prototypes were ready first in spring 1986 with a Kuka 20mm two men turret and second in autumn with a Diehl 120mm mortar turret. 
      ACV-Puma was intented as an export armored vehicle of the 16-28 t class. 

      By 1983 original concept, it was offered with two engine options (400/600hp) to cope with the level of armor protection asked.
      The running gear was a mixt of both Leopard-1 and 2 components :
      - Leo-1 : road wheels, track support rollers, torsion bars and even the driver's seat ;
      - Leo-2 : track adjuster, cooling system components and sproket hub.
      It was possible to run the engine outside of its compartment. 
      In 1988, the concept was improved further :
      - the class range reached 38t ;
      - the engines offer was 440 or 750hp strong ;
      - the chassis was now available in two length (5/6 road wheels) and  hight/low profil hull (20cm).

      The ACV-Puma was a contender at the Norwegian IFV programme from 1991 and the Turkish 1987 relaunched TIFV programme.
      Norway chose CV-90 and Turkey, the AIFV.
      (If anyone have information about how it was a serious contender, I'm interested)
      It was also evaluated by the Swiss army in 1991. I don't know if it took part to the Char de grenadiers 2000 programme. 

      In 1983´s concept, the difference betwen the low profil hull and the 20cm higher hight profil hull was obtained by a "box shape vertical raised" rear compartment. With the 1988's design, the front slop is now different to achieve a better ballistic protection. 
      When considering documentations of this period, it's important to note the mine/IED protection was not a priority like today. 
      I'll post soon a scan showing general layout of the troop compartment. It's a Marder/BMP old fashion one with soldiers facing outside. 
      Even if it was not a success at exportation, I think ACV-Puma must be known because of both :
      - the outdated combat beliefs of the 80's (still vigourous today) ;
      - and advanced proposal  such as the differential hull length from the drawing board. 
      I have a question :
      Does anyone known if a 6 road wheels chassis was ever built ?
    • By 2805662
      The following is derived from various wanderings, discussions, & tyre kicking, and covers an opinion on the forthcoming Land 400 Phase 3 Request for Tender, and is as per June 2018.
      General: Phase 2 will significantly shape participation in Phase 3. Costs for the two bidders that weren’t short listed for the Risk Mitigation Activity (GDLS & Elbit Systems) ran into the tens of millions of dollars. Costs for the losing BAE bid could rightly be assessed as double that. Combined with Rheinmetall’s Phase 2-driven “perceived incumbency”, nobody wants to waste money to be a stalking horse on the Commonwealth’s behalf. There is a plausible risk that only Rheinmetall will bid.
      Reorganisation of infantry sections: When Land 400 was conceived, Australian infantry sections consisted of two fire teams of four. This drove the initial “eight dismounts” requirement that has subsequently been relaxed. Now comprising three fire times of three, one of those teams will be the vehicle crew, the other two will dismount, for a total of six dismounts. Recent operational experience has highlighted the need for temporary attachment of specialist personnel, so a platform that has some spare seating could still count for it. 
      GFE Turrets: One possible tactic that the Commonwealth may seek to use is that of mandating that the Lance Turret, as used on the Phase 2 Boxer CRV, be used as Government Furnished Equipment (that is, purchased from Rheinmetall and provided to suitably configured hulls by competitors). This would simplify the turret training and offer spares commonality across both phases. Perceived savings for “buying in bulk” were (apparently) unable to be realised as Rheinmetall was reluctant to discount its turret. Costs aside, if an offerer has a GFE turret, who owns the systems integration risk? Who does the customer turn to solve potential issues between the turret and the hull when they, the customer, has mandated that particular turret? Commercially, this is a high risk proposition. 
      Unmanned turrets: Only GDLS offered an unmanned/remote turret for Phase 2, the Kongsberg MCT-30, as has been adopted in small numbers (81) by the US Army to meet an immediate operational need. A bias against unmanned turrets is unlikely to manifest itself in Phase 3 due to the likely presence of the PSM Puma IFV. Of course, that’ll likely to open the door to GDLS bidding the ASCOD fitted with Elbit’s optionally manned/unmanned MT-30 turret....should they decide to bid at all. 
      Likely bidders: This brings us to the inevitable list of potential bidders and their platforms. 
      BAE: Unlikely to bid. If they win SEA 5000, that may get them off the bench, as would a requirements set that looks a lot like CV90. In the event that they do bid, the CV90 Mk4 is the most likely platform. 
      GDLS: More likely to bid than BAE, but still waiting to see what the RFT looks like. (Tellingly?) Their ASCODs at Eurosatory we’re painted for upcoming European opportunities, not in the distinctive Australian disruptive pattern.
      Rheinmetall: likely to offer the Lynx and maybe also the Puma. With the reorganisation of Australian infantry sections (see above) the eight dismounts of the KF41 version of the Lynx are less relevant. Still, the modularity of the KF41 demonstrated at Eurosatory 18 definitely left an impression.  
      PSM: As a JV between KMW & Rheinmetall, Puma may be offered separately (unlikely if the Boxer =\= ARTEC in Australia model is followed). In the event that it is offered separately, its high unit cost, without the associated modularity of Boxer, may be a disadvantage. Also, PSM has no experience with industrial partnerships in Australia: a significant disadvantage. 
      Hanwha Defense Systems: Korea has been a bit “off” Australian defence opportunities, largely due to the cack-handed way in which the cancellation of the K-9/AS-9 was handled in 2012. The AS-9 was viewed as a loss-leader, primarily as Australia has a reputation of being a discerning (aka difficult) customer. If Hanwha bids their K21, it’ll be interesting to watch. 
      Whilst no means exhaustive, the above outlines some less-obvious factors currently at play for the 450-vehicle opportunity that is Land 400 Phase 3.
    • By LostCosmonaut
      I have a somewhat unhealthy obsession with Swedish armored fighting vehicles (although my disease is not quite as bad as T___A's attraction to communist frying pans and the like). By far the most well known Swedish AFV is the Strv 103, one of the more unusual MBT designs from the Cold War.

      However, there are also numerous other Swedish armored vehicle designs that I find interesting. Such as the Kranvagn, and the Strv 74.

      If you are interested in learning more about Swedish AFVs, I would highly recommend consulting this excellent site. Be warned, most of the documents therein are in Swedish, so at least have google translate open in another tab.
    • By delfosisyu
      I can't read russian or ukraine language so the range of information is very limited for russian AFVs.
      I'd like to have information about how fast turrets of soviet IFVs rotate.
      Especially BMP2, BMP3, BTR-82

  • Create New...