The first newly-upgraded CV90 infantry fighting vehicle for the Royal Netherlands Army’s fleet was recently unveiled during a rollout ceremony at the BAE Systems Hägglunds facility in Sweden.

The firm say here that the first newly-upgraded CV90 infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) for the Royal Netherlands Army’s fleet was recently unveiled during a rollout ceremony at the BAE Systems Hägglunds facility in Sweden.

“Customers, local dignitaries, and BAE Systems employees attended the event, which celebrated the first vehicle completed in the 500 million euro upgrade program. The upgrade enhances the CV90 vehicle’s capabilities by providing vehicle crews with improved protection, firepower, and ergonomics, and significantly increased combat effectiveness.”

“This rollout is an important step in the mid-life update of the infantry fighting vehicles for the Royal Netherlands Army,” said Vice Admiral Arie Jan de Waard, the National Armaments Director, and director of the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO).

“The upgrade of the CV90 results in a state-of-the-art infantry fighting vehicle which provides more protection, a new turret, greater firepower, and a new IT infrastructure. The vehicle enhances crew operational effectiveness when facing new threats and keeping our infantry safe at the same time. It is a powerful combination of man and machine. The 122 upgraded Dutch CV90s will be futureproof,” he added.

BAE Systems also say that the Dutch CV9035 vehicles have been equipped with several enhanced capabilities, such as an Active Protection System (APS), an Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ATGM), and a new Electro-Optic Aiming System (EOPS), which provides additional situational awareness.

The vehicles also include an “upgraded fourth-generation digital backbone, with embedded and more robust cybersecurity, to future-proof the electronics”.

“We are committed to delivering the most modern and adaptable IFVs to meet our customers’ requirements, and we are extremely proud of the technological developments underway as part of this significant mid-life upgrade program,” said Tommy Gustafsson-Rask, managing director of BAE Systems Hägglunds.

“This is the first step in delivering the IFV that meets our Dutch customer’s needs, increasing their combat efficiency on the future battlefield.”

You can read more on this directly from BAE Systems here.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

92 COMMENTS

  1. To ask the obvious: if these have all the goodies as described, and are good enough for the Netherlands, are there any conclusive arguments why they would not be suitable for the British army?

    • Good question, Its not just the Netherlands, but Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Slovakia, Czech Rep plus others. I have argued the same, if GD cannot get Ajax and varients to work then we should look at something that does work.

      • Would you rule out the German Puma and the other one whose name escapes me, and if so, why? I feel uncomfortable (no pun intended) in adopting CV90 (in place of Ajax) simply on the grounds that it’s an old platform. Accordingly, I feel equally uncomfortable with UK’s dependents on German armour (CH3 / Boxer) but at the end of the day, it’s what does the job the best that really matters and not nationalistic preferences.

        • The article is about IFVs, not recce vehicles. CV90 IFV is not a replacement for Ajax, however the CV90 recce variant should be re-considered if Ajax is canned.

          • Seconded, all in favor, vote aye. Presume the ayes declare winner by acclimation. Order. Deploy. Next issue?

          • Geez there is this guy (Robert Clark, director of defence and security at the think-tank Civitas, has been following the Ajax saga for years.) who reckons it can/should be replaced with Boxers with upgraded turrets.

          • Ukraine has shown that tracked vehicles still important for war during autumn winter months of mud and rain . The original purpose I believe of trackedcajax , like the warrior vehicle was to keep up with the heavy armoured divisions of challenger tanks when they drive accross the countryside and not use roads

          • Belated reply (I was on holiday). I have looked up Robert and he is an ex-servicemen who deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. We are talking about recce vehicles here as Ajax is a recce vehicle – and not IFVs. There is a Boxer combat recce vehicle – the Norwegians have bought it. By upgraded turrets, I presume Robert means one like the LM turret with a 40mm CTAS cannon. I presume all role kit intended for Ajax could and would be integrated onto Boxer CRV.
            I have no idea how effective Boxer CRV would be as against any other option.
            Clearly we should acknowledge IanM’s comment, based on specialist knowledge, that fixes have now been done for Ajax and MoD is validating those. We must field Ajax if the fixes are good.

          • At the risk of upsetting some people, why bother Graham, some post here in ignorance, they don’t understand the difference between an IVF and a AFV and they’re not inclined to inform themselves about regarding that subject or other other subjects, it seems they just want to post angry comments about subjects they don’t even understand the basics – ffs.

            I know this is not an endearing comment, but I’m sorry, can I put this into some sort of perspective it just makes me completely wild.

            “…Wild? I was absolutely livid!”
            (apologies to Gerald the gorilla)

            I recently posted this link before, go to the RUSI web site and download the pdf on the Ajax issues and read the other articles. You will be thoroughly informed about the vehicle/systems and the various issues and the wider ranging problems concerning British defence.

            https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/emerging-insights/lessons-ajax-programme

            RUSI – “The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) is the world’s oldest and the UK’s leading defence and security think tank. Our mission is to inform, influence and enhance public debate to help build a safer and more stable world.”

            It’s right there on the tin “inform”.

          • Thanks Magenta. I find it baffling that people confuse infantry carriers, be they IFVs or APCs, with recce wagons, but that’s just me. To the uninitiated they can look quite similar externally, i auppose. At least most of us don’t call anything with a cannon, a light tank.

          • Surely the suite can be configured on CV90, I’m almost 100% certain the Cloggies have a Recce Car version

          • Yes, there is a recce variant of CV90 and MoD considered it for the Ajax competition but rejected it, not sure why. My point was that the article was about IFVs not recce wagons.

          • So how is Warrior going to do the job?

            The Ukrainians are loving the CVR(T)s we sent them. Perhaps it’s time for a rethink?

          • Late reply as I was on holiday. Ukrainians love the CVR(T) but their benchmark was very low – most of their kit pre-war was primitive vehicles that were aged and of poor design.
            We should not consider retaining a 50-year-old vehicle, if that’s what you mean by a rethink.There were many reasons why it was being replaced, and arguably should have been replaced after about 20-25 years service ie in the early/mid-90s.
            If WR is being lined up as a temporary, short term replacement for Scimitar, if Ajax is canned – there are several ways it would do the job.
            First this IFV needs to be converted to a recce vehicle. It could either be converted to a recce vehicle with existing role equipment swapped out from Scimitar – low risk. Or it could be a more sophisticated beast with Ajax role equipment swapped on to it.

          • Why do we need a recon vehicle in an age of drones…. the whole concept appears expensive and behind the times. Of course we should scrap Ajax it is a flawed platform. If we need a recon vehicle buy CV90 in the recon form at least it is made by a British company, would bring extra commonality with other NATO users and it a tested platform.

          • You are suggesting we should only use drones for recce and bin all other methods including armoured recce vehicles?

            Drones are not a new thing – the British Army fielded its first surveillance drone in 1970, the Canadair CL-89 drone.

            Armies need several ways to achieve military tasks, not just one. Drones have limitations – limited loiter time, and they can be jammed or shot down. Don’t think they are a single perfect way to conduct reconnaissance and surveillance.

            If manned recce vehicles are outdated, why does every army in the world still use them?

            Or are you talking about the threat to a recce vehicle by an attack drone? The first anti-armour weapon was fielded in 1917 and smart AT weapons were first fielded in the late 1950s. Does not follow that you scrap all armoured vehicles in your inventory – you won’t have an army then.

            Why buy CV90 recce variant when we are told that Ajax fixes have now been developed and are now being tested.

        • No I would not rule out Puma or any other tracked vehicle that can do the job in in all the variants that are needed. I undertand the issue of being dependent on a diffrent country supplying what we need but then again in the case of Germany they do make good tracked vehicles. As for the CV90 being an old system the MkIV does seems to have many modern concepts and abilities built in. Would I prefer these IFVs/APCs to be built in the UK yes, but most of all I want the troops that are doing the job have the equipment that they need to go into harms way.

          What has really caught my attention is that GDLS have just won the contract in the States to produce a light tank, although no real details have been made or non that I could find it looks like this light tank will be in the 35-40 ton range with a 105/120mm main gun. SO how come GDLS can gat the chasis working in the States but have issues here in the UK.

          To be honest I wish we could have a tracked Boxer concept that way the modules for the tracked and wheel IFVs/APCs would be interchangeable.

          • I love the concept of a tracked Boxer as the permutations and interchangeability could be endless. Has such a beast ever been suggested and could it be prototyped? The cost savings over the life of the basic vehicle could be significant. During the life of the Saracen/Saladin/Stalwart family, I don’t believe a tracked concept was considered and the FV432 was an all-new vehicle, which replaced it.

          • Thanks, GG for the link. This must be the way to go by offering a tracked variant in the mix. The Telford plant could be expanded and the assembly split in the same way as the wheeled version. How much R&D has been done and is it a viable proposition for the UK Army?

          • The IFV that keeps on giving. I’ve mentioned before that this is not a wheeled Boxer with track option, something familiar to land forces since WW1. This is German (credit where due); shorthand for entirely redesigned running gear and thus bona-fide Tracked, but full Boxer DNA.
            Not privy to your last (ex RN, but monitor various sites – it’s all out there), but the German tag probably answers for R&D. Thus same lack of knowledge regarding UK Army. A law unto themselves in many respects, if you bear in mind that they somehow ”negotiated’ themselves out of Boxer when envisioned – and then came back 20 years later. Instinct says probably viable and thus potential for build here, then.

          • Yes spoke about this a few months ago it’s ironically based on the same Austro Spanish design Ajax came from even shared some parts with Ajax in prototype form. As others noted at the time a great deal of separation has occurred from the original ASCOD design which has a similar vintage to the CV90 ( so original design isn’t directly related to the most recent versions/ developments necessarily) and that between the US light tank and Ajax I couldn’t possibly comment on all that without my head exploding however. Even the Puma design started in the 90s so the development of these vehicles seems to be long drawn out. Whatever alternative we went for would surely be substantially built here, esp as the two alternatives mentioned are made by the partners in Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land.

            Wales would be the big looser mind unless some agreement could be arranged to exploit the factory there but not sure how GD would feel about that unless they quit uk (land vehicles) altogether, which is distinctly possible if Ajax is cancelled I guess as they do little else.

          • Personally, I would wait until events in Ukraine roll out a bit more. Already we have seen Anti-Tank missiles turn Tank warfare on its head. Surely any current model of IFV or Tank is now obsolete and ineffective following the Ukraine war?

            Not a Tanker, we tended to yomp everywhere.

          • Ibuk. I wouldnt rule out tanks and IFVs at all. The Ukraine war is an example of what happens when an army. The Russians. Are engaged in war without attempting to secure air superiority. Having zero UAV / drone defence and crucislly lavking an active protection system. The number 1 learning point from Ukraine in fact has to be that all armoured combat vehicles need an integrated APS, troops need anti UAV weapons and that an army alive yo the UAV threat and equipped to deal with it hasnt yet been fielded vs an enemy force awash with drones.
            Probably the best defence against UAVs is likely swarming hunter killers designed to provide top cover and kill other drones.

        • Puma doesn’t work as well as the Germans would have you believe, it’s not called Der Pannen Panzer Puma for nothing…

          The new IFV on the market is called Lynx and is far better than Puma by all accounts.

          • Thanks, JB, it was Lynx that I could not remember. I just feel the UK should be looking at the latest vehicles if poor old Ajax bits the dust. Didn’t know about the Puma issues…..they just keep the lid on things better than the UK press.

    • The issue is what is the core spec of the platform: we will never really know that as what all the goodies onboard that added so much to the weight will never be disclosed fully.

      I must admit I do find the whole AJAX thing quite strange as it does appear to be lash-up between a horse/ox & camel maybe with a bit of fat rabbit thrown in for good measure……..

      It appears to have turned into an unnecessarily sophisticated/complicated platform.

      The trouble is that it is very hard to judge how good a weapons system actually is without knowing the full details. Take Trophy: that comes in varying degrees from Full Fat to Lite with varying usefulness. Same with just about anything if you go for the cut down version it may well be lighter and cheaper but it might not be anything like as useful as the full version.

      My **guess** with AJAX is that too many full fat systems were put onto one platform + heavier turret 30 -> 40mm + more armour. Whereas, most other countries would have put on or two of the specialist systems on each vehicle so the vehicles had to work as co supporting groups. You are also stuck with older and heavier systems from the project inception that were baked in at an early point in time. That is total guesswork and I have zero sources for that. It seems pretty bizarre to me to order 500 vehicles and expect them to used as lone vehicles. If they are being used for lone recon then you don’t need large numbers at that spec…..

          • Because his comment is all about Ajax, which is a recce vehicle, whereas the article is about IFVs.

          • But in the above comment he was referring only to the Ajax platform so that article is irrelevant to his last comment surely.

          • There is an issue that I am also guilty of and that Is the use of the term Ajax, correctly I suppose we should call them the Scout SV family, but most including myself use Ajax for the class name. Yes Ajax is the Recce/Strike vehicle, Joint Fire Support and Ground based surveillance vehicles, Ares is the APC/Overwatch, Athena Command and Control, Argus Engineer Recon, Atlas Recovery and Apollo repair.

            However, if the main first batch type Ajax has issues in noise and vibration, then that is a issue with the drive train/suspension which would effect all variants.

          • Thanks. Good points. I agree that if Ajax recce/strike vehicle has noise and vibration problems probably all variants do.

      • I agree with you re Ajax, if the latest evidence in Ukraine tells us anything these sort of vehicles get taken out so regularly that it’s at best debatable that you want an all singing, all dancing everything in one box vehicle as ideal as it looks on paper. This is especially so if all these bells and whistles so detract from its ability to operate as an all- terrain platform. As Hunt said today about the economy surely you get the basics right first, establish confidence in the machinery behind it and then use those strong foundations to go for the desirable growth. Of course if we had had the base vehicle ten years or so back when such bells and whistles weren’t available then you would have had that successful base platform to experiment on while still maintaining the base capabilities none of which we have now thanks to this ‘all or nothing’ debarcle.

        • Which is the opposite of what RN did with T45 or even more so with QEC or T31. Simplest viable spec. Get it into service with loads of growth margin.

          Army tried to do the same with Sky Sabre and wanted to stall that for a longer range version…..rather than take the Ceptor based offering or ER version that was derisked…..

          Sometimes the thinking is so confused and gold plated it is hard to see any thread of basic common sense…..

        • Regarding the Ajax debate. Are Ruussian recce vehicles being taken out in huge number? I know their tanks, IFVs and trucks are being taken out, not sure about recce. If they are, it is in large part because the Russians operate their vehicles poorly, tactically. We would do a better job.
          Not sure what you mean about Ajax having erything in one box. It is a recce vehicle, albeit a cutting edge one. It operates as an all terrain platform as it is tracked. It needs bell’s and whistles as regards ISTAR kit as it is a modern recce vehicle. If it had basic role kit it would be no better than Scimitar.

    • We are talking about IFVs here, not recce vehicles.
      Warrior upgrade programme (WCSP) was cancelled and it looks like Warriors are now being replaced by Boxers – don’t know why. Maybe you get a good discount on buying in bulk as we already have a Boxer order in.
      CV90 would be better than Boxer as an IFV. So, no arguments as to why not to consider them for our Armoured Infantry.

      • Agreed. There is a reshuffle of FS coming apparently around Christmas time, maybe the musical chairs music will stop all over again with Boxer units dropping into their own brigades/seats and CV90 ordered OTS for 5 AI Bns.

      • Thanks for that, As for IFVs, would be interested to know more about using wheeled vehicles which presumably have to operate in a battle group and keep up with tracked tanks. Do other operators opt for this combination? As for the recce requirement, how does a relatively light armed and armoured vehicle finish up at an all up weight of 42 tonnes?

        • Mechanised and armoured infantry often work with tanks and have to keep up with them. Think only the French operate wheeled infantry wagons with tanks, not sure if that is successful. We have solid experience since 1962 of operating infantry in tracked vehicles with tanks. No idea why we want to now try Boxer in that role. CR3 will be very fast across very rough terrain and in the mud and snow. I doubt Boxer will keep up in those terrain ypes.

          AJAX. Army was not trying to roughly copy Scimitar and to specify an 8 ton vehicle. The protection level specified required a vehicle exceeding 35 tons. Not saying the Army got its Requirement right.

      • There was a time when anything to do with BAE was *perceived* (broad overstatement) very late and eye wateringly expensive.

        That time has somewhat passed.

        IRL the reason that army wants COTS/MOTS is that it has been blamed for so many messed up procurements recently and just wants cost certainty.

        That is not, in my view, totally fair as some projects like Sky Sabre NLAWS (maybe BOXER?) and possibly CH3 have/are delivering good value. However, it is a seductive thought process!

        • And of course CV 90 is a Swedish design and built product with a great pedigree ( product and company) that happens to be owned by Bae, it’s not like Bae US has a poor reputation by association or it’s products overpriced. Problems in the uk, where they exist generally, often have causes that go well beyond Bae or any other individual company anyway, it seems endemic to UK plc tbh that has plagued us post war. Indeed I would say Parliament rather seems to be the model for such wider failure.

          • The issue is the constant moving of the goal posts. Get the specification and costs sorted, put the order in and leave it unless something major happens. Otherwise we end up with the cluster we keep on getting the BAe procurement.

          • Spec is bound to change during 10 or 15 year procurement process. Threat changes and so does available technology. Only one significant change package made by MoD in Ajax programme, that’s not bad.

          • In 1985 General Dynamics was investigated for overcharging the US Government $244 million through improper billing and admin charges. The audit looked back as far as 1973. Also had to pay back $4 million in over billing of navy plane and sub parts ! The Government should have retained shares in BAE to keep an eye on the company!

        • I worked with BAe some time ago, they’re had zero attitude to risk and therefore the commercials were eyewatering. Trouble is between BAe and MoD we have reduced our ability to export, too many bespoke and expensive products.

          You mention T31 in another post which is a great example of a base product that is attractive to foreign buyers and its gaining buyers.

          • It depends on the contract type used.

            Unfortunately, BAE does have to protect itself from ‘the good ideas club’ fiddling with the specs all the time. So plenty of prelims and overheads are added. You can’t really blame them for that.

            I do think T31 and actually QEC are quite good examples getting base products into service sans whistles and bells.

      • Think it’s the MoD not the army. Army was well pleased with the last BAE armoured vehicles, Titan and Trojan. Army would have liked BAEs M777 howitzer too. MoD unhappy with Nimrod MRA4 saga. It is MoD who contracts with Industry, not individual Services.

        • The Government caused some of the Nimrod saga by insisting badly corroded ex Saudi comet air frames were used despite advice from BAE that new air frames should have been built.

    • Well Trevor now that HMG have to make cuts ,Ben Wallace may finally put a stop to Ajax money pit and go for something that works unless hunt puts a stop to IFV altogether. 🤔

      • Is Wallace going to happily.write off £3.2Bn and ask Hunt for many more billions to buy a substitute for Ajax?
        Don’t understand your IFV point. We have been talking about recce vehicles not IFVs.

      • Jeez as you say it was actually derived from one indeed the original vehicle was used very differently between the Austrians and the Spanish without the basic design falling down a black hole. Every time we get to debate Ajax we just get repetitive comments about it not being an IFV. Yes we know but it’s not exactly like most people are comparing Submarines to B52s, there are substantial overlaps in aspects of the debate. We are just going round in circles here with some people parroting a trope without any reference as to why they feel it’s actually relevant to say it in reply to others comments. We seem to be mimicking the very intransigence and dogma that plagues MoD thinking.

  6. Well. to be fair, as i see it Labour are going to be in power maybe as soon as the end of the year, they will of course hold a defence review and I expect, the following:
    1) Nukes to go
    2) Carriers to go
    3) New frigates to go
    4) Tempest to go
    5) End all miltary support to Ukraine (replaced by taking in more refugees and giving them more Aid)
    6) End Ajax
    7) Armed forces to be reduced in which to send the message that the Uk is
    deescalating
    8) Leave NATO (I honestly believe that Starmer will be replaced when Labour get into power by the far left)

    Why i wouldnt be suprised if Hunt carries out some of the above. So all this talk of what new kit the Uk should purchase is just that, talk

    Mind you it could be worse, they could make Diane Abbot Defence Sec

    • Labours policies are never clear as the hard left still control a good section of the party and therefore many policies would not be approved by these left wing Nazis! Hence the lack of clarity from Starmer! Good job for him and Labour the stupid Tories are utter shite and ripping themselves to bits! All Labour has to do is keep the hard left Fascists and anti-semites under wraps (which they know to stay quiet) to get a bite of the power sandwich for probably 2 terms! Me, personally I give up, all our elected politicians are utter crap, and we no longer vote for the best, but, for the least worst!

  8. It occurs to me that with the likelihood of Finland and Sweden joining NATO, it makes sense that UK forces are best placed to support the northern NATO area because of the UK’s geographical location and, if so, given that Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands all operate the CV90, isn’t this yet another argument for the UK acquiring the CV90 from a logistical and operational viewpoint?
    [Edit: forgot to mention Estonia]

      • That failed attempt at mockery was uncalled for. Aside from me saying “yet another argument” (there has been so many others put forward by myself and others here in the past, there seemed no point going over the same ground again), how about 5.56mm (our initially intended calibre was less than that), Boxer, MLRS, the new Rheinmetall smoothbore for Chally 3, etc.? (..and the Army did consider Leopard)
        It was no accident that British Empire/Commonwealth forces in WW1 & 2 and the Cold War were allocated the northern part of the Continent. Since then, NATO borders have expanded and are due to expand further. Gone are the days of the BAOR and, imo, Poland, Germany, France and their neighbouring nations are best placed to look after the eastern border. With our small army, we’re still best placed to support the northern part of the Continent but perhaps now with more emphasis in bolstering the northern front and our Nordic allies.

        • Sorry Davy, no mockery intended. Trying to be purely factual. We certainly consider foreign equipment during procurement except for significantly armed warships and submarines as I understand it. Top priority is for equipment that meets the Spec then next is VfM, then political considerations, but sometimes that order gets jumbled. Pretty sure we never actively consider whether any or many allies operate a particular equipment.

  10. Nothing to see here, move on, move on, just an armoured vehicle which has matured, increased its capabilities and not only maintains, but improves its operational effectiveness within budget! Move on, nothing to see here for the Brits!!!! 😤😏

    • Ben Wallace is a really decent chapleast Seems to have a great sense of duty, modesty and serving the government and country. And a good worker. Hope for more of his kind in the UK Tory party! We’ve just got a Labor government in here in 🇦🇺 and though I didn’t vote for them they seem to be doing a pretty good job so far including in the medua. Strong on defence too!

        • That autocomplete will get you everytime 😂
          Generally democracy does work. When governments of either complexion are elected they generally govern in the national interest while blaming the opposition for the country’s problems. Its all part of the game. Right now the UK and West generally are as near as dammit is to swearing in a war situation: so what will be required is solidarity and sacrifice while looking after the most vulnerable. Watch how the Ukrainian people are coping, and learn. Individualism and market forces will have to go on the back burner for while, as Ms Truss and her chancellor have discovered.

  12. RE CV90 and all others mentioned have any of them ever been in a peer to peer battle zone, i know some were in Afghan and iraq where they did well but so did warrior which is still In its original configuration. Ukraine shows that both tracked and wheeled Afv/Ifv are used extensively and suffer heavy losses.

    • Heavy losses are suffered by armies with poor morale, poor equipment, poor logistics and engineering support and who tactically handle vehicles badly. Does not follow that UK would lose most of its recce vehicles, tanks, AFVs and trucks in the next war….whether or not the other side have got drones.

      • Graham, most of what you say is true, but it’s not just drones it is the modern tech advances that would cause the casualties, tactical surveillance and mapping of units in lifetime followed by drone corrected arty fire are what causes the most damage, the battlefield are full of sensors covering all aspects of electronic and light spectrums making cam and concealment very hard. I think of how many afvs and trucks we had on a battalion level deployment where most of the travel would be conducted at night to cover us, this may no longer be possible within a 30mile radius of the FEBA

        • Hi mate, I hope all of what I said is true! I only mentioned drones as so many on this site think that armoured warfare is impossible if the enemy has drones and also that they think that drones have no weaknesses or counters. You are of course right about a multiplicity of sensors and smart weapons that threaten our forces, more so since I left the army in 2009. I have no doubt that we will continue to move and fight at night as most enemy soldiers will not have anything more sophisticated than the Mk1 eyeball. If we feel we cannot move at all within 30 miles of the FEBA by day or night then all our men and kit really are sitting ducks and will be destroyed in situ.

          • Graham part of my point is that techie wise the army is probably lacking in certain areas, and if we fight a peer to peer enemy we could take heavy casualties. I agree that fighting lesser nations we will do well, but remember the Zulu beat us at Isandlawana with clubs and spears, although we hammered them later at Rourkes Ddrift

    • The use of IFV’s in Ukraine ,predominantly Russia , is not necessarily a good indicator how well they do in battle. It’s more a reflection of what poor Intel and coms and lack of combined arms will do to outdated IFV’s.

      The thing CV90 does it does extremely well.
      Considering that IFV’s that have gone up against peer such as the Bradley fair pretty badly in comparison to the CV90 , just look at Norway evaluation . I can without a blink of hesitation say that there is no other IFV that can drive where the CV90 can, it is so far beyond anything you can imagine. I’ve seen it personally and I could not walk or crawl in some of those places where it cruised by at 40 mph.

      I personally think that UK’s decision was 100% political and that is unfortunate that you most likely never going to get to enjoy the CV90 because it’s something else in the field.

    • They have not gone away – we still have hundreds in service! All because the bean-counters never funded full replacement of the 432 fleet by Warriors, back in the mid-80s.

  14. What the Army needs for recce, is a small, tracked vehicle like the German Wiesel. Small, light, air transportable and very fast.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here