BAE Systems Hägglunds has signed an agreement with Rheinmetall Weapon and Ammunition to integrate Rheinmetall’s 120 mm L44A1 Low Recoil gun onto a new CV90120 prototype built on the CV90 MkIV chassis, the companies announced on 8 October 2025.
The deal pairs Rheinmetall’s high pressure 120 mm L44A1 LR gun with a CV90-based vehicle that BAE says will receive a new engine, heavy duty transmission, active damping, an upgraded electronic architecture and an active protection system, according to the company.
Rheinmetall describes the gun as compatible with all NATO standard 120 mm rounds and capable of firing programmable three mode high explosive rounds such as the DM11 as well as enhanced kinetic energy rounds, the press release said.
BAE frames the CV90120 as delivering main battle tank level direct firepower while retaining the tactical and strategic mobility of the CV90 family, a combination the companies say will reduce cost for customers that already operate or plan to operate CV90s, the company stated. BAE also highlighted commonality benefits for training and spare parts across forces that use CV90 family vehicles.
“Our customers will benefit from the combined expertise and resources of our two companies, resulting in a solution that offers enhanced firepower, protection, and mobility – a winning combination on the modern battlefield,” Tarkan Turkcan, CV90 platform director, is quoted as saying in the press release. The release adds that BAE Systems Hägglunds has produced over 1,400 CV90s in 17 variants for 10 European nations, a pedigree the company says underpins the upgrade programme.
The companies position the CV90120 as an option for armies seeking heavier direct fire capability without adopting a traditional heavier main battle tank chassis, and they say the integration will help militaries seeking a balance of firepower and mobility while preserving logistics commonality with existing CV90 fleets.
If Britain requires an extra armoured division fast, and it does, at circa £10m/unit, CV90120 makes a great deal of sense, offers a good solution; mixed armoured regiments of (overwatch) heavy and medium tanks once more…..
So it won’t happen.
Dont understand why we never bought the CV90 series anyway.
Politicians and the MoD are stupid thats why.
Blair’s Britain. Ajax produced jobs in Wales.
GDLS will, no doubt, be lobbying for ASCOD IFV business with, no doubt, a 120mm turreted variant.
The Ajax program problems will not help their cause: jobs versus fit for role (but ‘jobs’ wins every time)
One detail though…
Under Blair, we had FRES.
The Wales jobs in poor area in old tractor factory thing was 2015 and Cameron.
Agree it is jobs every time, neither Labour or Conservatives in their current forms give a jot for Defence.
Blair’s Britain is a reference to the state that this country is in as a consequence of decisions taken in the round 1997-2010.
‘The Labour Government selected General Dynamics as the preferred bidder for its specialist vehicle competition, beating rival bidder BAE Systems, in March 2010.’ House of Commons Library 31 March 2023.
The Ajax contract was the Future Rapid Effects System Specialist Variant (FRES SV).
The rest of FRES fell prey to the Financial Crisis of 2008.
The fallout from that crisis in Britain and the economic damage sustained was attributed by many to the regulatory failures of the Financial Services Authority, set up by Gordon Brown in 1997.
Monro, FRES UV migrated to MIV, ultimately to be met by Boxer.
Indeed. Quite so.
The whole FRES UV/MIV process, 1999 Boxer MRAV-Piranha-VBC-Boxer Initial Operating Capability final quarter 2025; TRACER/FRES SV process, 1996-2025 Scout SV-Ajax Initial Operating Capability (slipped from 2020) Oct-Dec 2025 illustrates the muddle that is Britain’s Ministry of Defence.
Too many cooks, too many chiefs; maybe shut down (MoD) and start over?
It’s often amusing on this site, there are the same people arguing we have to build domestic that are also arguing it resulted in bad buying decisions.
To me capability and cost should be the driver for defense, domestic capability should be a bonus and not a deciding factor. Every piece of military kit these days has a vast multinational supply chain, so just putting it together domestically does nothing to build our defense capability other than creating jobs, since we would always need to rely on other nations in the event that we have to surge the capability.
Depends upon the contracts agreed, transfer of IP and technological gain is significant in why India for example wants stuff built there. Poland is doing the same. All rather nuanced.
Fair point, although these days then confidential stuff is added after construction most of the time. Like happened with the tide class.
Monro,
‘GDLS will, no doubt, be lobbying for ASCOD IFV business with, no doubt, a 120mm turreted variant’.
A 120mm tank gun is a bit big for a IFV!
Nevertheless, The Philippines have the ASCOD 2 105mm low recoil variant in service and the 120mm ASCOD medium tank, with a gross vehicle weight of 42 tonnes, fitted with the Italian Leonardo Defence Systems HITFACT 120mm turret, was exhibited at Eurosatory 2018.
Imagine the jobs in Wales…I wonder…is there an election in Wales anytime soon…..
Quite agree with you.
I disagree – teach a man to fish and all that! Ajax might have cost more and perhaps less capable than an off the shelf product. But hopefully we have learnt from our mistakes, developed a skilled workforce, and now have our own established industry and future spinoffs. Most of our current military equipment will likely be destroyed in the first few weeks/months so we need to have the skills here to MacGyver what comes next.
Very important point, it’s all in the quality of the agreement. It can be about bolt tightening or it can be a lot, lot more, I certainly hope the Harland and Wolff scenario isn’t simply about bolting stuff together with no new skills and asset building going on.
CV90 would have been built in the old Vickers tank factory in Newcastle…but BAE may have volunteered that a bit late in the day….
Elliot, to replace CVR(T) or Warrior?
We should have bought this a long time ago not the ajax would have saved millions and we would have had been able to source parts from other nato countries that have cv90
Can they put thus same gun or equivalent on an Ajax chassis?
The Phillipines acquired the ASCOD 2 based Sabrah vehicle equipped with a low recoil 105mm turret, in service date was 2024.
‘During Eurosatory 2018, General Dynamics European Land Systems presented a new variant of the ASCOD 2. The ASCOD medium main battle tank (MMBT), with a gross vehicle weight of 42 tonnes, is fitted with the Italian Leonardo Defence Systems HITFACT 120mm turret.’
Global Security 2021
The HITFACT turret is equipped with Leonardo’s 120mm smoothbore low recoil L45 cannon.
Leonardo also offer the L45 cannon as an upgrade for the old U.S. M60 tank.
Maybe UK MoD should consider a panic purchase of ‘cheap as chips’ M60s. They have spacious turrets and very nice turret heaters but would need a a retrofit by Leonardo of ‘Cooking Vessel FV706656’ and, for the cavalry, Gucci leather seats.
Never do the right thing. It seems to be the thing we do best now along with our super dim present Government. If you put a 120mm on an Ajax wont it vibrate the thing so it probably falls apart.
We are unlikely ever to find out. Does anyone in ‘The Ministry’ still have any confidence in GDLS UK?
Oh! Wait! Welsh Senned elections coming up in May 2026. As you were! Stand by!
At one point in history, the use of a 120mm gun on a medium-sized platform would result in a rapid degradation of the vehicle’s overall integrity. In plain language, ‘shake the life out of the thing’ hence, the MBT, as we know it.
Rheinmetall describes this as a high pressure version of the L44 used on the Abrams. Not sure how low recoil is achieved but CV 90 at@35 tons is a bit light for such a gun.
The intended 120 mm L44A1 LR (Low Recoil) gun has a massive muzzle brake and other features designed to reduce recoil which, apparently, avoids damaging the vehicle.
The design dates back to 1998. Has it undergone exhaustive trials to evidence vehicle integrity after having fired several hundred 120mm rounds? Probably not….
The vehicle itself now weighs 40 tons so may incorporate enhanced structural integrity to cope.
The Russo-Ukraine war seems likely to run and run so Britain/NATO need to get their act together to prevent it spilling over into NATO member states…but, unfortunately (and dangerously), no urgency is evident….
Thanks. I assumed that a muzzle brake was part of the design but couldn’t find specific confirmation. I did know that the Italians reduced the recoil of their 120 mm gun by nearly half by retrofitting a muzzle brake for the Centauro 2.
Perhaps more relevant than MBT? The continuing success of CV90 variants just proves how wrong we were picking a non existent vehicle from an American company producing an appallingly bad product in Spain! SO much for Ajax will be British form its Bootstraps & 10,300 British jobs!
We do seem to be in a bit of a muddle.
Not BAE syndrome has had an impact, although to be fair, they did screw us over.
We are now in another too big to fail syndrome but, we should just get on board with CV90 MK4 and go for interoperability with other allies.
Overstaffed government departments create work for each other, an overcomplicated self licking lollipop.
For example, ‘Mission Oriented Management’!
There is a great deal to be said for starting up a new ministry of national security with brand new staff to gradually take on the MoD workload and simply allow the existing MoD to wither on the vine.
Enough is enough.
I don’t think there is any money for any new tracked IFV. My bets: the Boxer ambitions for 120mm mortar versions and more than 623 will be dropped to pay for Patria and Nomads; the RS4 RWS will get Javelin; half the planned RCH Boxer howitzers will be swapped for pre-loved tracked PzH 2000 and a lite WCSP will be re-instated if we are lucky.
Paul, We have already ordered Boxer mortar carriers. Qty 28, ordered as Tranche 1. No-one has reported what calibre of mortar they will carry.
Right. Thx. It’ll be the cheapest one then:-)
Why do I have the gut feeling that the MoD really messed up when they went with Ajax.Even the communications system Morpheus is delayed by a decade, so Bowman a system that was coming into service when I left is to be upgraded again.
I am sure that with the numbers of IFVs and variants that we need BAE would have built them here in the UK. I for one like the CV90, Ajax, only time will tell if the MoD got it right, but at the moment it seems to be one big cluster f***.
Indeed were they willing to build it here, I would be surprised had they not unless the ownership model somehow precluded that.
Ajax with its 40mm is thinking small again. Still it would match our ’40mm Portee SP guns’ on Boxer. The mind boggles.
Jonno,
I’m sure you are joking. Ajax has 40mm cannon (huge for a recce vehicle) and Bradley M3 CFV (its US equivalent) is a mere 25mm peashooter.