BAE Systems has completed the first full rate production delivery of the CV90 Mjölner Mortar System to Sweden.
The first four vehicles will be handed over to the Swedish Army in September following the recent delivery that met schedule, budget and quality requirements, say the firm.
“The CV90 Mjölner has now become the 16th variant in the family of combat proven CV90 vehicles, demonstrating the ability of the platform to cost effectively adapt to a large range of mission sets to meet the needs of our customers.”
Developed and produced by BAE Systems Hägglunds, the turret system can add indirect fire capability to any suitable wheeled or tracked vehicle. A full-scale version of the CV90 Mjölner is on show at DSEI 2019, with support from Swedish Army personnel.
“Mjölner is a step-change solution on the battlefield – a turret system that is easy to train, simple to use, and highly effective,” said Tommy Gustafsson-Rask, General Manager for BAE Systems Hägglunds.
“Having the latest variant of the versatile CV90 on display at DSEI, with the support of our FMV customer, is proof of BAE Systems’ ability to deliver new technology milestones to a demanding program schedule.”
BAE say that Mjölner’s mechanical loading system can rapidly and reliably reload two smoothbore 120mm gun barrels on the vehicle in all combat conditions.
“Targets can be effectively engaged over a wide range distances through a full 60-degree frontal engagement arch without the complexity and cost of powered turret rotation, and with an effective elevating range of 45 to 83 degrees.”
“We are very pleased with the progress of the CV90 program to date, and we are meeting the key milestones for fielding on time, quality and budget,” added Mikael Frisell, Brigadier General/Director Land Systems at the FMV.
“This new variant is a powerful addition to our fleet of CV90s and also helps us prepare our brigades for the future by increasing the vehicles’ lifespan in support of Army capabilities.”
The Mjölner programme for the delivery of 40 vehicle-mounted mortar systems for the Swedish Army’s CV90s started in December 2016. The first four test vehicles were delivered to Sweden in February 2019 for training and validation; these vehicles are now certified for operational use.
Final delivery of the remaining vehicles will be completed during 2020, say BAE.
Why has the British Army never adopted 120mm?
In short ££££££.
I believe they are considering it as an option they are considering on the boxer. I wonder what the difference in range is between Amos and Mjolner. The Amos system was something like $5mm for the turret which is why Sweden pulled out and produced a cheaper version.
Hope so, considering how toothless the Strike Brigades are in their current form.
I’m not sure they will be that toothless. The US added a company of Strykers with 105mm guns to theirs, but they are not liked at all – basically a very tall and not very well protected vehicle with a 1960s gun that finds it hard to defeat modern tanks (a Javelin is a lot better) and is no better than a 30mm bushmaster or ATGW at killing APCs. And they have AH64s and 155mm spgs – as we do/will. What I hope they get is ground launched Brimstone and at least some 30-40mm cannon armed turreted variants of Boxer. There are some encouraging signs with MoD asking manufacturers to demonstrate UGVs fitted with Brimstone.
Its not just £ its also doctrinal, 120mm mortars are not that expensive, unless you want a turret mounted weapon like the Swedes have, but they are not very mobile – they either need a truck to tow them or a self-propelled platform (and the latter is expensive, so why not have an SPG instead?). I think the Brits have wanted their short-ranged fire support to be man portable – if you can’t carry it then you might as well call in artillery or an air strike as its not likely to be in the right place at the right time. The Israelis pioneered using APC mounted 120m mortars to accompany armour, to address dug in infantry and anti-tank weapons, during the 6-day war (they bought a lot of ex-Soviet and French 120mm mortars and put them in the back of old M3 Halftracks). The Brits have always mixed in a few RA OP vehicles (currently Warriors, soon to be Ajax) in the armoured brigades to call down divisional fires or air support for such eventualities where the battalion 81mm mortars need some extra punch. Given the better sensors and greater networked capabilities of the next generation of vehicles, calling down joint fires will get a lot easier.
I don’t understand how a country like Sweden, with a relatively smaller defence budget, and relatively higher wage costs, can, at least on the face of things, produce a far higher percentage of defence equipment domestically than the UK. Armoured vehicles, artillery systems, several types of aircraft, missile systems, warships, submarines etc
And most of it first-rate.
Where are we going wrong? Why do BAE seemingly shut and run-down all of their UK facilities as soon as one contract nears completion?
In the last 15-20 years we have lost the capability to produce (and presumably design), large calibre artillery pieces, tanks, IFVs (discuss, as far as I know AJAX is very much ‘assembled’ rather than manufactured in the UK, and likely to be similar with Boxer), SAR and reconnaissance aircraft, and probably more…
CV90 was a better base platform than warrior from the looks of things, especially with the 40mm stabilised bushmaster compared to a 30mm non stabilised 3 round rarden on the Warrior. It’s dominated export markets across Europe for the last 20 years which then funded its further development.
I also believe alvis owned haugland/boffers before they owned gkn or vickers its hard to keep track of all the companies. But think British armour manufacturing was already whiped out before BAE took over in 2002. Fres has been 20 years of complete incompetence from government planning.
Finney – maybe its the case that Sweden in the Cold War had to take Defence very seriously, bearing in mind it was a neutral Country ,and it had to stand on its own two feet.And since the end of the Cold War and the re-emergence of the Russian threat it simply carries on making the right decisions using limited resources that historically it has always been conditioned to make.
Some people say , Finney, So called liberal capitalism where companies are run primarily for short term profit rather than long term er functionality, is where we are going wrong. Its a fine philosophical question, Where does the money go ! Should it be reinvested or offshored , who can make those meta policy decisions ? It all sounds a bit bolshy or commie pushing against neoliberal economic thinking but we’d all like to see continuity and security in national military industries .
I think Sweden is an exception, compared to similarly sized European nations such as the Netherlands, Sweden has always have a large defence industry. There are good reasons for that, WW2 armaments sales made Sweden rich – all those licensing agreements for Bofors guns – and a large military and sovereign defence industry was also the price of neutrality. That said Sweden has also reduced the number of platforms made as they have become more sophisticated and expensive, and CV90 is a rather old design, although its been updated – mostly because it was a successful export product – if you like its stayed in production like the BAe Hawk, because there were always enough orders to keep the line open. Also cooperation between Britain and Sweden has increased in recent years, around 40% of the latest SAAB Gripen E variant is manufactured in the UK, leveraging technology developed for Typhoon. BAe of course owns the old Hagglunds AFV business and Bofors and Sweden are participating with us on Tempest. Post-cold war reduced defence budgets required some consolidation of the UK defence industry, and especially the AFV and shipbuilding industries as we had not really had an armoured vehicle product that had been an export success since CVR-T in the 1970s nor an exportable naval design since the Type 21 family and Oberon diesel subs. Part of the problem was the very bespoke requirements UK MOD put our for our kit often made them unsuitable for other customers. Germany, France and Sweden, on the other hand, continued to manufacture exportable AFVs and warships. Some stupid decisions by MoD have not helped – they should have bought the Alvis Scarab and the Vickers design instead of the abysmal Panther, and they should have stayed in the Boxer consortium and whoever dreamed up FRES is probably still having nightmares. That said the new UK-based joint venture between BAe and Rheinmetall is positive – it will build Boxer and carry out the Challenger LEP, and although the base vehicle for Ajax is assembled from Spanish kits, the turret, gun and most of the cool stuff is sourced in the UK. Indeed Lockheed Martin UK are making turrets for both Ajax and Warrior 2, so lets hope they make one for Boxer too. Supacat and Jankel have been quietly successful in the SF markets and BAe have developed a really great howitzer in the UK, although unfortunately MoD did not buy it, and they had to move manufacture to the USA (who did buy it). That’s the M777 lightweight howitzer used by the USMC, Airborne and Stryker brigades, and the Aussies, Indians and many more. Designed and first built in Britain by Royal Ordnance/BAe. While we don’t make as many platforms as in the past, we do seem to have had better luck exporting them recently. Type 26 and Typhoon have done well recently, CAMM looks like it will be an export success and other collaborative projects look like good decisions- like the A330 MRTT, Boxer (despite MoD’s best efforts to scupper it) and participation in the F-35 programme. We lead the world in gas turbine technology and MBDA is really successful, and although Leonardo, Raytheon and Thales don’t sound very British they made much of their kit here too.
You have to give them points for a very cool name for the system (for those who slept through their Norse mythology class “Mjolner” was the name of Thor’s hammer).
Presumably its future replacement will be called “Stormbreaker”… ?
MK4 CV90 as a Warrior Replacement? Could use the Brimstone A/Armour version too. Or what do you guys think of the General Dynamics Griffin 3 with a 50mm auto cannon as a replacement? UK could join with US to have commonality. Only carries 6 dismounts but 5 vehicles could carry a platoon.
The government seems to think the warrior will last until 2040 with this upgrade. If the Warrior is scrapped for whatever reason it would only make sense for them to replace with additional ajax and boxer vehicles.
If I remember correctly, the Griffin 3 hull is actually based on the Ajax.
As for the CV90, it did compete in the trials that saw the Ajax coming out the winner. If there is going to be a Warrior it replacement, chances are that it may be an Ajax derivative. However, considering how the Boxer was chosen, I won’t hold my breath on that.
It was a political decision, the trials were fres and consisted of wheeled vehicles, the boxer being the best or we would be buying the GD offering. The UK should have have joined the German puma ifv program. The Ajax is an ascod from the 1998′ program. if you turn a 25 ton vehicle into a 38+ ton vehicle it will never work as well as one designed to 35- 40 tons. The iveco panther command jeep didn’t perform well following the same light to heavy logic and is now being sold off !
GD claim the Ajax has a 10% growth capacity. Every image I see of it has these huge boxes strapped to the side. Is it armour or storage? It just looks very oversized.
The Lynx really looks the business but it wasn’t around when the selection was made and I doubt looks are the most important category when making a decision.
Overall I think the French have made the best selections with the Jaguar scout vehicle being much lighter and faster than Ajax. Ajax is to slow, noisy and heavy to be a scout vehicle.
As part of an armoured tracked brigade, the Ajax makes sense. As part of a strike brigade, it does not. The strike brigade is supposed to self-ferry to a conflict at speed. This makes perfect sense if your brigade is made up entirely of wheeled vehicles like Boxer etc. But if part of your team requires transporters how does it not slow down the reaction time and sped of getting to the conflict?
The best option would be to fit a Ajax turret and systems to a Boxer, to turn it into a wheeled scout. The remaining Ajax hulls could be used for other things like a dedicated anti-tank guided missile carrier fitted with Brimestone etc.
Davey, I totally agree, it is strange but some of the best vehciles for a strike brigade the Britsh Army had, got rid, and the company no longer exisits. Anyone remember Scorpion and its family, give that new armour concepts and a new engine and off you toddle, small, light, fast and hard hitting. But no lets reinvent the wheel.
The Griffin is an Ajax derivative developed for the US Market, so we are already getting that. CV90 is not a new design, although its been steadily updated (Swedish version used a bofors L70, export a 30mm bushmaster) – Warrior 2 with a stabilised CTA 40mm, automatic loading and programmable munitions and a new fire control system and sensors will be just as good. Interestingly the Aussie’s have not down selected either Ajax or CV90 for their new IFV, but will choose one of two brand new designs – the South Korean AS41 Redback and German KF41 Lynx offerings. UK have been asking a few UGV suppliers to fit Brimstone to them – so a networked Warrior, Boxer or Ajax platoon working with UGVs carrying Brimstone and a mini-UAV (like the UK-made Blue Bear offering the Army has funded and trialled) would be an awesome anti-armour combination.