BAE Systems is showcasing its CV90MkIV with a new turret at the Eurosatory defence exhibition in Paris.
This configuration is set to be delivered to Slovakia and the Czech Republic in collaboration with their defence industries, according to a press release from the company.
The CV90MkIV represents the latest evolution in the CV90 family of vehicles, which BAE Systems claims has a legacy of world-class mobility and survivability spanning more than two decades.
“The CV90s that we are working to deliver now will provide crews and soldiers with increased mobility, protection, and lethality as well as improved combat awareness. It is a truly relevant system on today’s battlefield,” said Tommy Gustafsson-Rask, managing director of BAE Systems Hägglunds, which designs and produces the CV90.
“We are committed to delivering defence capability and economic growth through industrial partnerships across Europe, and the CV90 is a prime example of how we are doing that.”
BAE Systems highlights that the CV90 family, particularly the Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) variant, is known for its combat capabilities, agility, and power in the 23-38-tonne class.
The vehicle integrates a wide range of weapon systems, providing comprehensive target capability to land forces globally. According to the company, the CV90 has proven its effectiveness in recent conflicts, including combat in Afghanistan and Ukraine, as well as operations in Liberia.
The company has experienced strong demand for the CV90, securing contracts for multiple upgrade programmes and the development and production of new vehicles.
BAE Systems Hägglunds has invested significantly in its facilities in Örnsköldsvik, Sweden, and has established robust partnerships with local industrial partners in various markets to enhance local supply security.
With a total of 1,700 vehicles ordered in 17 different variants, the CV90 has covered more than eight million kilometers. BAE Systems notes that the vehicle has been selected by 10 European nations, eight of which are NATO members.
What might have been. 🙄
The one that got away 😁
Or was left on the shelf. 🙂
Another George “torture” article for many!
Lol.. 😁 …us die-hards won’t give up on this one!
The fact that the British Army decided to ignore CV90 (coupled with the Ajax and Boxer clusterfuck) tells you all you need to know about why the MoD and armed forces are in such a mess!
Inexplicable to me why Warrior protection, firepower and electronic architecture upgrades just did not happen in the 90s, 2000’s or 2010’s. Only upgrades were the BGTI fit and the Bowman fit.
We always used to upgrade our AFVs regularly and frequently.
Some press articles saying a new labour govt could magic up to £200billion simply by closing various tax allowances/ give aways. No guarantee they would do this of course, and even if they did there is a queue of urgent demands; post office, infected blood, bankrupt local authorities etc. Still, it would be interesting to know what was the cost of the WCSP?
They’re not going to bring back the WCSP at this point though, already getting rid of Warriors.
So you want to take money out of citizens and give it to politics.
Increasing even more the political economy….
Rather a pejorative perspective, but yes. The thinking is that the purpose of the reliefs, to encourage investment, is not being achieved. Individuals exploit them for personal gain rather than business benefit. Or increasing defence spending of course. Just for comparison the UK defence budget is about £50 billion I think 🤔
I thought that personal gain is one of most important things for freedom loving people. But i guess Great Britain is nothing like that anymore, a mere socialist, social democrat country…
The ‘common good ‘ is a better principle. It is both more just and more sustainable. As we are seeing you cannot assume that society as a whole will prosper just because individuals pursue their own interests. The concept of ‘enlightened self interest’ begs the question of the definition of what you understand by ‘enlightened’.
Hopefully they reinvest all those savings back into the UK economy and its people and not into their own pockets!
Exactly!
Given that £1bn had been originally earmarked for upgrade to 245 Warriors and £430m had been spent which included a £227m overrun, no doubt MoD was hoping/expectingthat the production contract might be delivered for c.£797m (£1,227m- £430m) at 2011 prices.
I am sure that the numbers of upgraded Warriors might have to be adjusted from the 245 figure and the 2011 estimate would certainly have to be revised to 2021 prices.
Background from Wiki: “In March 2011, it was announced that Lockheed Martin had effectively won the competition to develop both the WFLIP and the FRES turrets. Severe budgetary pressures made it uncertain whether these defence projects were to be delayed or curtailed, but it was announced in October 2011 that the Warrior upgrades to 245 turreted Warriors would proceed at a cost of £1bn, extending the service life of the Warrior to 2040 and beyond. The scheduled in-service date for upgraded Warriors was 2018.
By March 2020 Warrior CSP was in the “demonstration phase”, demonstrating capability for a range of military missions set by the MoD. A total of £430m had been spent so far. No in-service date had been set, but the demonstration phase was due to finish in 2021. In June 2020 the House of Commons Defence Select Committee described the project as running over three years late and £227 million over budget.
In June 2020, Lockheed received an Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) from the MOD for the production contract for Warrior CSP”.
Thanks Graham. All academic now I suppose. The army seem to have accepted that they will have to fight without IFVs. £1billion is not a lot in the grand scheme of things.
The army has been forced to accept that they will not fight with IFVs in the two armoured brigades. You can’t argue with a ranking politician, who has been guided by beancounters.
It was said (in March 2023?) that the army staff was going to determine how to increase the lethality for the Boxer fleet – no idea if that got anywhere, but RS4 Kongsberg RWS for the first tranche were already ordered (RS4 cannot take a cannon, just a MG or GMG)
£1bn is not a lot in AFV upgrade or new purchase terms. Our Boxers will cost about £5.35m each ie. £2.8bn for the first tranche of 523 vehs, which makes it probably the most expensive MG-equipped, wheeled APC in the world.
I believe RS4 does take ATGM
True. I deliberately missed that out as I was comparing Warrior cannon to Boxer MG only.
I don’t believe that we have specified any kind of ATGM for Boxer though.
Complete list of weapon options from Kongsberg RS4 datasheet:
‘Browning M2 and WKM-B (12.7 mm), M249 (5.56 mm), M240, UKM-2000C and M134 Gatling (7.62 mm), MK19, MK47 and H&K GMG (40 mm grenade launchers with airburst option), various Non-Lethal effectors. The RS4 allows for M240 (6.62 mm) coax kit or various ATGM integrations’.
So have we changed our tactical approach to accommodate the fact that IFV’s are obviously now no longer required- or have we (as is more likely) now just decided that even the little number of soldiers we have are not worth the cost of paying for the protection these vehicles afford.
Its no wonder no one wants to join.
“Join the Army – see the world …from sub standard accomodation and with sub standard protection”
Hardly a great tag line is it…
IFVs are very much required (that is why the army staff wrote a Requirement document), just that the MoD at the highest political level has de-funded (ie cancelled) the IFV programme (Warrior upgrade), and forced the army to accept Boxer APCs into the armoured brigades to work alongside tanks.
The army staff was supposed to be determining how to increase the lethality of Boxer, which is difficult given that the RWS ordered for the Infantry carriers (APCs) in the first tranche of 523 vehicles cannot take a cannon, just a MG, GMG or ATGM.
The army staff will also have to work out how to tactically handle a wheeled APC rather than a tracked, cannon-equipped IFV in the armoured brigades.
It is not that Boxer does not offer enough protection – I have no qualms about its armour package, just that it has very little firepower to defeat enemy lt/med armour.
It certainly is a poor tag line. ‘Join the army, get into a Boxer…and be annihilated by BMP’s within minutes of your first fire fight’.
So is the general.consensus on here that Boxer was picked purely due to defined role. in strike brigades which are now defunct before they even started …and that is has been shoe horned into a role it was neither designed for, nor best equipped for at the expense of a more suitable vehicle?
If that’s the case why is it continuing to be procured( at least in the.numbers touted) surely it can’t just be cost,it must have some technical and strategic merits over a Warrior type vehicle…surely?
That is a good summary. Tragic, isn’t it?
Bringing the Boxer programme forward was a massive mistake for 2 reasons –
1. The Boxer programme (a lengthy one) then collided with many other AFV programmes – CR3, Warrior upgrade (WCSP), AS90 replacement (MFP) – and something had to give, financially.
2.There possibly wasn’t a sanity check done on whether the army needed as many Boxers – without the two Strike brigades in the Orbat, where was it to go? To 1st Deep Recce Strike Bde (although that had not been configured to have Infantry) or to 7 Lt Mech Bde? Not sure if the army staff/MoD did a sanity check. If a sanity check had been done then no-one sensible would have thought of putting it in the armoured brigades as their Armoured Infantry were to get upgraded Warrior.
Comparing a wheeled APC (Boxer) to a modernised IFV (upgraded Warrior).
The negative points. Without a cannon Boxer cannot effectively engage enemy vehicles (such as lt/med armour (BMPs etc)) or strongpoints – our Boxers may not achieve their objectives in the advance or they may be taken out by enemy fire long before our troops have even debussed. The ‘jury is out’ as to whether these wheeled vehicles will keep up with the tanks in deep glutinous mud and snow and ice. Our tanks will have to work harder to try and defeat not only MBTs, but en lt/med armour and strongpoints as Boxer can’t do this – do we have enough tanks in a BG to do the extra workload? Boxer is not a nice, cheap option – the wagons are £5.35m each, so they may well be the most expensive wheeled APCs in the world. The delivery programme will take a ridiculous amount of time – options range from 10-20 years!
In not proceeding, MoD has wasted a ton of money on the Warrior upgrade programme.
The plus points of Boxer? It can drive faster on roads and may need less maintenance than a tracked vehicle. Jobs for British workers, although set against that LM laid off 180+ workers when the upgraded Warrior was cancelled. Modularity – the mission module is swappable, although many doubt the real usefulness of this ‘party trick’ feature.
I would love for Boxer fans to challenge the above and show that I may be wrong.
Sadly mate, the money normally earmarked for upgrades went to the UOR MRAP programs. No excuse for before we went into Iraq then Afghan though!
That shouldn’t have happened. UORs are direct-funded by HMT and the MoD for core equipment should be untouched.
True, but the Army decided to keep all of its UOR MRAPs. Which then meant they had to come out of the core budget. The rules are that if UORs become supported, ie an Army based contract. The Treasury gets its money back.
Thanks Davey for that explanation.
Actually efforts to upgrade Warrior started in early 1990s and dragged on for years because of a decision to develop and install CT40. BAE warned that a brand new turret would be needed. LM didn’t listen but eventually had to agree. Yet more delay and major problems with recoil forces never fully resolved.
The lesson from this is to avoid gold plating solutions. Warrior could have been improved adequately, with gun stabilisation and automatic 30 mm and remained in service for years. For once this was not the fault of politicians, rather an engineering failure.
The earliest reference I can find to Warrior upgrades (not BGTI and Bowman) is dated 12 Jun 2001. army-technology dot com website.
“Warrior manned turret integration programme
Under the British Army’s manned turret integration programme (MTIP), a new two-person GKN Sankey turret with a 40mm stabilised case telescoped weapon system (CTWS) cannon, to allow firing on the move is being trialled. GKN Sankey’s turret is equipped with L21A1 30mm Rarden cannon that can destroy the most advanced APCs from a maximum range of 1,500m. The turret was developed by CTA International, a joint venture formed by BAE Systems and Nexter Systems (formerly Giat). A contract was awarded in June 2004 for the delivery of one Warrior vehicle fitted with the turret by December 2006.
The upgraded vehicle’s cased telescoped armament system (CTAS) began company firing trials in June 2006 and MoD firing trials in October 2006. It completed the trials in December 2008 with high levels of accuracy and reliability. During the trials, the upgraded Warrior fired 90 rounds from the 40mm gun and 600 rounds from the chain gun.
Thales has delivered a new STAG (surveillance, targeting, acquisition and gunnery) gunner’s sight for the MTIP which is stabilised in two axes and includes a second generation thermal imager and eyesafe laser rangefinder”.
WCSP came along later in 2011 – and amounted to three significant upgrades packaged together – fightability (turret and cannon), protection, electronic architecture.
I will send a second post which will be of interest to you.
Yes, BAE and LMUK competed for the upgrade contract with BAE putting forward a new turret and LMUK (who had zero experience of AFVs) advocated retaining the original turret. Both of course required the installation of the 40mm CTAS cannon as it was mandated GFE. Amazingly, and disastrously, LMUK won the contract and as you say were forced to change their mind and agree to develop a new turret. An inexperienced company doing a crucial AFV upgrade – much like an inexperienced company being contracted to build Ajax! What could possibly go wrong with either project??!!
It was MoD and its politicians that forced the 40mm CTAS onto Industry so they have got to take full responsibility for that weapon selection. MoD must also take some blame for a slew of failures including failure to deliver GFE at the right time. Evidence from LMUK to Parliament on this subject is most illuminating. Was 40mm selection really goldplating? The army say they needed the larger calibre to outrange and outmatch the opposition and wanted commonality with Ajax cannon – sounds reasonable to me.
Peter, Certainly there were engineering failures at LMUK, a company totally inexperienced at AFV design and development work, and which should never have been selected for WCSP over the OEM & DA for Warrior, BAE Systems.
You may be interested in this. Blame for WCSP project failures can also be laid at the door of MoD:
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/12158/html/
Should be in the British army as well…
It’s not impossible for a bit of a backflip if there’s a real need for a tracked IFV and having a mixed fleet.
The requirement for an IFV remains – that is why the army staff wrote a requirement for one, to be met by an upgraded Warrior.
But ‘politics’ has intervened and our Infantry won’t now get an excellent modernised tracked IFV. They won’t even get a wheeled IFV – they will get a wheeled APC with just a MG to face BMP-3s and similar vehicles in the future – the outcome in combat is sadly not going to be in our favour – we will lose men and vehicles at an awful rate.
[BMP-3 is fitted with one of the followIng options, depending on year of manufacture (simplified listing; in reality there are many more weapon fit options):
:2K23/Bakhcha-U/Berezhok turret with 100 mm 2A70 cannon, which can fire conventional shells or 9M117 Bastion ATGMs (AT-10 Stabber)
:30 mm 2A72 30 mm dual feed autocannon with 500 (300 HEI and 200 AP-T) rounds and a rate of fire of 350 to 400 rounds per minute. Range of 4km.
:AGS-30 grenade launcher and Kornet-EM (Berezhok turret only)
:AU-220M Baikal remote weapon station turret with 57 mm BM-57 autocannon. The combat module can carry 80 rds and fire 80 rds per minute including air burst, HE, fragmentation, armour-piercing and guided munitions with a maximum range of 14.5 km, which can defeat side armour of MBTs].
Evening Graham, one can only hope that the powers that be see sense and make better choices. If its going to be as bad as you say then that’s criminally stupid. The Army deserves the best and what’s fit for purpose. They have the Ajax family already, at worse add a tracked IFV from that, it’s not that difficult. Why not have an actual live competition between the two types to truly know whats best? Help silence all us armchair critics.. Lol 😁
One hopes that better choices are made in the future. Most AFV decisions on either upgrade or new procurements in the last 30 years have been non-existent, slow, expensive or just terrible!
Boxer is an excellent, if hugely expensive, Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV). It has very good Protection, adequate Mobility and huge Capacity; many are impressed with its party trick of modularity.
But, it is not at all suited for the Armoured Infantry who work closely with tanks in the armoured brigades and are going up against well armed IFVs (and tanks of course, but then our tanks take care of their tanks). Putting Boxer up against BMP-3 is like briging a knife to a gunfight.
Not sure why you want to develop an IFV from Ajax – it started life as an IFV – ASCOD 2 Ulan/Pizarro – your plan is expensive and very time-consuming – you might as well buy the original article.
The key point is that there is now no money for an IFV, no matter what your procurement strategy is. HMG has ‘taken the saving’.
Morning Graham, I enjoy reading your replies. Sorry if we’re a bit aggravating… Lol 😁. You can see in Gaza the Israeli tank with wheeled apc and tracked ifv combinations, very different adversary to Russia in Ukraine, but we can bet “military” eyes are on what works and what doesn’t do so well.
No-one is aggravating to me…usually.
The IDF of course has completely different terrain and threats to deal with, compared to us. Regarding terrain/weather, I doubt the IDF has to operate in much deep glutinous mud in the pouring rain or in snow and ice conditions. So, hard to draw too many relevant lessons.
It was of course envisaged that we would have continued with tracked IFVs (upgraded Warrior) for the Armoured Infantry working with tanks in the armoured brigades – and (for a previous Orbat) Mechanised Infantry (different to armoured infantry) in Boxers working with Ajax in the two Strike brigades. In the case of the latter there was therefore envisaged to be a track and wheel mix in the same brigade.
Strike brigades with Boxer/Ajax combo – dead and buried.
We should have bought cv 90 and not mucked about with the ajax
CV90 recce variant. Yes, too true.
The army certainly knows how to bugger things up the 5 billion wasted on ajax could have been put to better use As90 and warrior upgrades
David, I don’t see that £5bn has been wasted on Ajax – it came right in the end (after endless engineering issues and major delays).
A good number (30-40?) have been issued to the HCR (Ajax) and 6 Bn REME (Apollo/Atlas) who are gaining familiarity with their vehicle whilst it undergoes Reliability Growth Trials (RGT). I have heard no negative reports during RGT.
For a bit over £5bn the army is getting 589 modern and effective Ajax recce vehicles and variants. [Mind you, it is not the vehicle or the company that I would have selected – CV90 Recce from BAE would probably have been delivered faster and with fewer engineering issues].
Should we blame the army that much? It was politicians who selected the GDUK option.
It seems politicians have already decided the royal artillery is going to get a boxer with a turret on it instead of trials between it and k9
I was aware that there are 19 OP vehicles in Tranche 1 but had not heard any details of its specification.
But are you talking instead about Boxer RCH-155, the AS-90 replacement? Yes, it is a SPG, so it clearly has a turret – the gun has to go somewhere!
The discussion in this thread was really all about the infantry section carrier.
True I merely pointing out that politicians are getting involved with procurement. We had some ajax at the rsa when it was being initially trialled I must admit looking at the size of the vehicle compared to a cvrt you can hide in a bush it really didn’t impress me . Cv90 would have been a far better option it’s used by a number of nato countries so spares would be readily available in the feild .
It is hard to reconcile the large signature of Ajax with the British philosophy of conducting recce by stealth!
Yes ajax certainly isn’t stealthy that’s for sure
This CV90 doesn’t go away 🤗 you never no Ajax might get some sales 🙄 🇬🇧
Unlikely I think the ajax build line will be dismantled a lot of nato countries went for cv90