BAE Systems has signed a framework agreement with the Danish Ministry of Defence Acquisition and Logistics Organisation (DALO) to provide repair and maintenance services for the Danish Army’s CV90s over a period of 15 years.

Under the agreement, worth approximately $400 million, BAE Systems will provide an upgraded level of operability for the infantry fighting vehicles.

“The agreement covers repair and maintenance services for the Danish Army’s fleet of 44 CV90s, such as the delivery of spare parts at a time when the service’s operational tempo remains at a high level.”

“This important agreement will secure the functionality of the Danish Army’s fleet of CV90s, and will ensure that they remain operating at a high capability level and tempo for many years to come,” said Tommy Gustafsson-Rask, managing director of BAE Systems Hägglunds, the company which designs and builds the CV90.

“We are proud to deliver these critical capabilities to the customer.”

According to BAE Systems:

“The CV90 infantry fighting vehicle provides world-leading, combat-proven capability and commands the 20-38 tonne class. It integrates a wide range of weapon systems, providing capability against a wide array of targets to land forces around the world.

With a total of 1,700 vehicles, in 17 different variants, in service or on order, the CV90 has covered more than eight million kilometres to date. Ten European nations, of which seven are NATO members, have selected the vehicle, and it has seen combat in Liberia, Afghanistan, and Ukraine.”

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

35 COMMENTS

  1. Not directly related but have been very impressed with the Bradley reactive armour in Ukraine they have been very resistant to catastrophic damage it seems, certainly greatly protecting those inside, not bad for a fundamentally old school if updated vehicle. Wonder how the CV40 has compared not heard much about their use.

    • Nothing wrong with old school. Even less related, my old fridge lasted 20 years and never leaked, we’ve had 2 since that leak all the time. I think it’s called a throw away culture where stuff isn’t built to last?
      Unsure if any similarities with military equipment.
      Bring back the Buccanear!

    • Both CV90 and Bradley have been used extensively in Ukraine,there is plenty of footage of both being used but the Ukrainians are best placed to judge the respective merits of both.An unavoidable negative is that Russia has captured examples of both to scrutinise.

  3. Why do I like the actual looks of these Tanky thingys … Why do the Ajax/Vim variants look so Ugly…. Why are we not buying more CV’s ?…. ( in defence of my questions, I ain’t got a clue about Army stuff really….)

    • To be frank, Frank, the majority of “tanky thingys” (sic) look good in graphics provided by the manufacturer. They aren’t encumbered with all of the paraphernalia that troops actually need when bangin’ around the hooloo. No cam nets, no tools, no CSups, no tentage, no side bins for carrying all of the CES that a crew and the vehicle need to live. The above graphic doesn’t appear to show any applique armour or external sensors, the list goes on……….
      The question of “why are we not buying more CV’s?” is moot because we haven’t bought any!

      All the best
      Ian M.

  4. This a bit off-topic but interesting points here on TDLR News: google for “The UK’s Military Crisis Explained”
    They state only 26% of our military budget actually goes on equipment, and that without the nuclear deterrent,” our real defence expenditure is about 1.8% of GDP.

  5. British Army miss out on this sadly , this should of Replaced Warriors in my book not Boxer , to late I guess 😕 🇬🇧 I’ll go and get my coat now 🤗

    • Sadly far too late. First (and largest) Boxer contract (Tr1) for the MIV was signed with Industry on 4/11/19.
      MoD declared on 22/3/21 that the Warrior upgrade (WCSP) for the IFV was cancelled (no reason stated) and that Boxer would now replace Warrior IFV (even though a MIV is not an IFV).

      Don’t forget your coat, Andrew!

    • Just wait to see the outcome of RM Lynx v GD Ascod/Griffin IFV competition in the US. It might influence the UK’s thinking on future tracked IFV’s if the powers that be can “think outside of the Box(er)” ! 😁 😬 The Aust Army has just ordered the Korean Redback IFV and already have the Boxer so it’s not impossible to have both in the fleet but roles might be different.

      • Given that our Government has decided that Boxer will replace Warrior, then their thinking on tracked IFVs will not happen for about 20 years when Boxer is in its twilight years.

        Of course you can have a MIV and an IFV and their roles are different – that’s what we were meant to have – IFV (upgraded Warrior) for the Armoured Infantry operating in support of tanks in the armoured brigades….and Boxer was for the Mechanised Infantry in the two Strike Brigades (which were later dropped) which had no tanks.

        We have had both tracked IFVs (and before that tracked APCs) and wheeled APCs (or wheeled PM vehicles) in the British Army fleet for a very long time.

        • Good evening Graham, and good to hear from you. I know the Boxer choice seems to be set in concrete but hopefully right horses for courses will be chosen. We’ll have to leave it to the experts!

          • Believe me, the experts (army staff) are not involved! It is both a political and a financial decision to supply Boxer to the Infantry in the armoured brigades.

    • CV90 Recce version. Yes, perhaps we should. That is what I would have preferred if I had still been in the mob.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here