Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

CV-90, why so much love ?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 106
  • 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

Just a couple of updates to the last few posts…   It has been confirmed that the 20 additional CV90s for the Norwegian Army will be CV90RWS variants based on rebuilt Mk I hulls. We still do

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

Videos of live fire exercise celebrating that Forsvaret has finally received its last CV90s:

https://www.tu.no/artikler/vi-har-samlet-det-beste-fra-cv90s-skytedemonstrasjon-i-en-video/464305

https://www.tu.no/artikler/vi-sender-live-forsvaret-feirer-panservogn-leveranse-med-skarpskyting/463551

 

 

Another video from forsvaret:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Apparently the Norwegian government is suing both BAE Systems and Rheinmetall Norway AS (formerly Vinghog AS, a Norwegian company) regarding the recce variant of the CV9030NF1 (Mk. IIIb) vehicle, after there were changes to the specifications of the Vintaqs II's observation mast (not sure if the Norwegian Army decided to change the specifications or BAE/Rheinmetall). Two years ago Norway therefore decided to start the procurement of an alternative sensor mast.

 

3173_mil-flotex-rein_noble-eksperiment.j

CV90 with Vintaqs II

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Found an article about this that also mentions which sensors systems they’re looking at to replace Vingtaqs II. According to Rheinmetall Norway/Vinghøg, it’s the lack of clear and comprehensive specifications that has caused the delays in the delivery of this system. It then gets a bit confusing further down where it says that according to sources who were involved with the CV90 project, a decision was made to attach the sensor system to the hull instead of attaching it to a movable system???

 

Anyway, I guess the armed forces must have zero confidence in Rheinmetall Norway’s ability to deliver the product in the coming years because otherwise it seems a bit harsh to go so far as to cancel it in a world where we’re still waiting for NH90s that were ordered almost two decades ago…

 

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

the recce variant of the CV9030NF1 (Mk. IIIb) vehicle

 

 

 

Minor nitpick, but the CV9030NF1 is the designation for the 17 Mk I vehicles that were upgraded for service in Afghanistan. The designations for the new CV90 include CV9030 Mk IIIb if we're talking about the entire fleet of vehicles with turrets, and if we're talking about the specific variants, it's CV9030 SPV (the IFV), CV9030 STRILED (the command & control variant) and CV9030 OPV (the recce variant).

 

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

 

600 million NOK to new combat vehicles for the Army

 

The government will accelerate the upgrade of the Army's CV90 combat and support vehicles, and will spend almost 600 million NOK on this. In the new long-term plan for the defense sector, the Army will have four mechanized battalions, all of which are set up with CV90 combat and support vehicles. A hastening in the process of upgrading these means that the Army will initially be supplied with another 20 CV90 combat and support vehicles. The acquisition will be carried out directly from the Norwegian industry in the period 2020 - 2023.

 

https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/fremskynder-forsvarsplaner/id2704271/?utm_source=www.regjeringen.no&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=RSS-2581966-ownerid380

 

It looks like Norway is going to acquire another 20 CV90. There is no info on what variants this order will include, but if it’s a direct purchase from the Norwegian industry, I suspect there will be more of the turretless support variants based on Mk I hulls. It was the Norwegian industry that was responsible for rebuild of these vehicles the last time, and Norway should still have more hulls available as out of the original 104 CV9030N (Mk I), 16 hulls have been upgraded to CV90RWS STING (combat engineer vehicle), 16 to CV90RWS Multi-BK (multi-role mortar carrier), 37 have been sold to Estonia and a few have also been used in mine/IED tests. In any case, as suggested by the wording in the second to last sentence of the quoted paragraph, Norway will probably have to order more CV90s than that (and of the turreted variants as well if those aren't included in this order) if it wishes to realize the army structure mentioned in this post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Just a couple of updates to the last few posts…

 

It has been confirmed that the 20 additional CV90s for the Norwegian Army will be CV90RWS variants based on rebuilt Mk I hulls. We still do not know the composition of the upcoming order, but unless they decide to add additional variants to the Norwegian CV90 family, there are only two to choose from, namely CV90RWS STING (combat engineer vehicle) and CV90RWS Multi-BK (multi-role mortar carrier). This also means a third order of (between 20-40 vehicles, if I have to guess) CV9030 MkIIIb will also probably take place sometime in the next years

 

Regarding the upcoming lawsuit between Rheinmetall/Rheinmetall Norway and the Norwegian state, more details have been revealed here as well. The article is pretty long, but I’ll translate the parts that I found to be the most relevant:

  •  According to Oslo district court, it was discovered that the original spring charged sensor mast could be a safety hazard for personnel inside the vehicle.
  • The updated version, however, is claimed to be too sensitive to harsh environments to fulfil the Norwegian requirements.
  •  This issue can apparently be fixed by switching to an electronically stabilized camera, which Rheinmetall Norway had originally intended to be a part of the system but abandoned for reasons that are not specified in the article.
  • Because of these as well as other delays, the Norwegian side concluded that it would take several years  until the system could be delivered, and that’s why they decided to terminate the contract in 2018.
  • For these reasons, the Norwegian state will also be suing Rheinmetall for 76,6 MNOK, as well as the cost of acquiring a new sensor system!

 

  • Rheinmetall & Rheinmetall Norway are refuting the claim that the updated solution would not fulfil the Norwegian requirements. They are also pointing out that their solution has been found acceptable by both the Norwegian Border Guard (fitted to their border installations) and the Malaysian Armed Forces  (on the AV8 Gempita).
  • They are also claiming that most of the delays were caused by an incompetent Norwegian project management failing to come up with clear and comprehensive requirements, demanding several changes after the contract had been signed, as well as attempting to but failing badly at coordinating the CV90 project/BAE Systems Hägglungs and the Vingtaqs II project/Rheinmetall Norway (according to Rheinmetall, a better solution would have been to let Hägglunds handle the CV90 part of the Vingtaqs II project, as had been planned initially).
  • In another article, Rheinmetall have also been really leaning into the angle that incompetency is running rampant in the Norwegian Defence Material (and its predecessor in the Norwegian Defence Logistics Organization) by pointing to various acquisition projects that have been problematic (NH90, Archer etc.). To prove this, they’ve also issued a request to be able to go through the documentation of all Norwegian acquisition projects in the later years, but the court did not allow this, stating that it would be sufficient if Rheinmetall can prove that the project management have been incompetent in this specific case.
  • (On a sidenote, one would think it that might not be the smartest idea to attack the entire agency from whom you’ll be competing for contracts in the future, but it certainly did not stop Rheinmetall Norway from winning a contract on the delivery of new soft-mounts for the M2A2Ns.)
  • For these reasons, Rheimetall claim that Norway did not have the right to terminate the contract, and are demanding that the latter pay a refund at the discretion of the court (calculated to be at around 125 MNOK).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 100th refurbished and upgraded CV90 has been delivered to the Swedish Armed Forces:

 

 

The RENO of 172 Strf 9040 (IFV), 40 Sripbv 90 (FCV), 22 Epbv 90 (FOV), 12 Bgbv 90 (ARV)  and 16 Lvkv 90 (AA) includes the following changes:

 

Quote

 

Protection

  • Reverse camera for driver
  • New type of batteries
  • Electrically driven commanders chair

 

Firepower

  • Browning M1919 (SweMG m39) -> FN MAG (SweMG m58)
  • New internal design (FC & FO vehicles)
  • Improved kill ratio CV90
  • All CV90 family equipped with 40 mm gun (except ARV)

 

Sensors

  • Battle Management System
  • New radios
  • New IRV-camera (FO & AA vehicles)
  • New radar monitor and command monitor (AAV)
  • Changing navigation equipment, NAV 90 -> POS 2

 

https://plsadaptive.s3.amazonaws.com/eco/files/event_content/CY59uoNfwTShAV6orby6TYDsGNTmYrADO5auSTX2.pdf

 

Although not mentioned in the list above, the ARV variant also gets a Saab Trackfire RWS. All upgraded vehicles also get a "D" added to their designation (e.g. Strf 9040 D, Bgbv 90 D etc.).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The choice of a roof mounted MG on the Strf 9040 D instead of a typical coax is an interesting one. The drawbacks of such a solution are obvious; you can no longer carry out barrel changes, clearing malfunctions etc. from the relative safety of the AFV's interior. Now, on the up-armoured Strf 9040 C, the Swedes were perhaps willing to accept such drawbacks because they regarded the existence of a weak spot/gap in the armour (as you for example could see on the pre-production CV9030 OPV) as a worse pill to swallow. The Strf 9040 D does not have this armour, but it could be that they're planning on acquiring it at a later stage (the PDF document in the previous post confirms that they're at least looking into various options). According to this blog, there is another explaination, however, namely that there apparently wouldn’t have been enough room for the BMS if they didn’t get rid of the coax. Of course, these explanations do not have be mutually exclusive either.

 

Anyway, onto something a bit different…

 

Here are some recent photos of Norwegian CV9030 MkIIIb in Lithuania:

 

xevFEY5.jpg

 

hwr6lO7.jpg

 

8BoINN6.jpg

 

In the three years that have gone by since we started seeing Saab Barracuda MCS on Norwegian CV90s, I’ve never actually seen it on more than just the odd vehicle here and there. I guess the money and/or will isn’t there to outfit entire units (even just a platoon or two) or they must still be testing it.

Link to post
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.

  • 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...