BAE Systems and Slovakian company KOVAL SYSTEMS a.s. have entered into a contract that will see the joint production of new infantry fighting vehicles (IFV), specifically the CV90MkIV, for the Slovak Armed Forces.
KOVAL SYSTEMS has secured this significant contract from BAE Systems Hägglunds, the manufacturer of the acclaimed CV90 series of military vehicles.
As part of the agreement, KOVAL SYSTEMS will be responsible for the complete assembly of the CV90s’ turret in the Slovak programme, as well as the production of the mechanical elements for the turret.
The two companies are set to produce an initial 80 articles at the Belusa-based KOVAL SYSTEMS facility, with the potential for further production. Initial turret articles will be manufactured by KOVAL SYSTEMS, followed by testing scheduled to take place in Örnsköldsvik, Sweden in 2023.
Tommy Gustafsson-Rask, the Managing Director of BAE Systems Hägglunds in Örnsköldsvik, Sweden, emphasised the company’s commitment to the project: “Together with our Slovak partners, we are committed to delivering an infantry fighting vehicle equipped with advanced capabilities and digital technology to the Slovak Armed Forces. The CV90 is a high-quality and very successful vehicle in the market that has proven itself through the rigours of combat.”
In addition to the benefits expected for the Slovak Armed Forces, the programme is also seen as a long-term boon for the Slovak industry. Ján Michálek, the Business Director of KOVAL SYSTEMS in Beluša, Slovakia, stated: “We believe that this programme will benefit the Slovak Army and be a success for BAE Systems Hägglunds, KOVAL SYSTEMS, and our entire network of Slovak suppliers. These valuable new strategic partnerships will significantly help Slovak industry in the long-term.”
The CV90 industrial cooperation programme in Slovakia continues to advance. The deal with KOVAL SYSTEMS is among several contracts anticipated to be signed as the CV90s’ network of local Slovak industry partners is finalised.
You can read more on this from BAE.
The BAE Systems CV90 is a wonderful machine. It’s fast, quiet, smooth running and can be fitted with all sorts of optics and digital wonderfulness. And it has a nice gun that can fire rapidly on the move. Such a pity that SoS Defence Ben Wallace didn’t take the opportunity to cancel Ajax and buy a few in the light recce role
And still, a way to go yet it seems.
20 Mar 2023
“Full Operating Capability will follow between October 2028 and September 2029, when the Army has trained and converted forces to the Ajax platform to deliver Armoured Cavalry capability to the Deep Reconnaissance Strike Brigade and its two Armoured Brigade Combat Teams.”
LINK
Meanwhile, Germany has increased its order for 50 more Pumas with the possibility of an additional 179 IFVs.
12 MAY 2023
Germany orders 50 more Puma IFVs
“The German MoD said the Bundeswehr would have over 400 Pumas by around 2030. The first batch of 342 Puma IFVs and eight driver training versions has been delivered to the Bundeswehr.
The Puma is replacing the over 50-year-old Marder IFV. German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said after the Bundestag budget committee’s approval of the 50 additional Pumas that the IFV would be a quantum leap in protection and mobility over the Marder.”
The vehicle that when 18 of them were deployed on an exercise all 18 broke down
And that was an exercise in preparation for a NATO deployment! They had to drop them from the subsequent deployment.
Now fixed apparently.
LINK
Can’t say I’m very impressed with Puma. Even if they’ve fixed all of the issues it’s extremely expensive.
And their new tanks on order for Germany too. Hope the C3 is up to scratch and on time!
What new tank is on order?
Leopard 2A8 ☝
Hi Jacko, sorry but I’m still trying to find where I read it. In think it was 120+ of the latest Leopards. Something like that. Quite sizeable. Maybe a bit of catching up on necessary equipment. Hmm, something the UK needs to do for its Army too!
there is this
Thanks Farouk. That’s it! 18+105=123. Almost the same as the C3 quantity give or take.
Another report,
https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2023/04/15/german-army-will-receive-leopard-2a8-tanks-not-the-leopard-2a7/
👍
👍
Rheinmetall seem to be going gang busters on tank orders atm! Wonder if the UK Germany tank ammo development will ever lead to new or extra C3 tanks for the UK? If we can’t build the tanks maybe we can build the ammo! I’m no expert at all but surely the Army can’t just rely on several 100 lightly armed wheeled Boxers when other countries are upgrading their armoured units in quality and quantity?
I’ve often favoured the K2 in the future including the Redback Infantry Fighting Vehicle, a tie-in with SC would generate a great deal of work for us including commonality between parts no doubt. They are keen to work with the British and get their products out in a timely manner. We are currently looking at the K9 Thunder, and the K239 Chunmoo looks very promising too. Nammo to develop 120mm ammunition for K2 Main Battle Tank “Nammo has secured an agreement to develop new and modern 120mm ammunition for Hyundai Rotem Companies’ K2 main battle tank. The first test shots have… Read more »
K239 Chunmoo Each missile container can hold 20 130mm K33 unguided rockets with a range of about 30km, six 227mm unguided rockets with a range of 45km, two 400mm guided rockets with a range exceeding 200km, six 13ft-long 239mm guided rockets with a range of 80km or one 600mm ballistic missile with a range of approximately 290km. The 239mm rockets are guided by global positioning system/inertial navigation system (GPS/INS). In the impact bursting mode, the rocket is used against personnel as the warhead detonates when the rocket hits the target. In the delayed bursting mode of operation, the warhead bursts… Read more »
09 FEBRUARY 2023 Challenger 3 hits milestone ahead of schedule “The CDR means that the design for the tanks has been agreed and that RBSL can now start building the CR3 prototypes. The work was carried out under an £800M contract which was awarded to RBSL in 2021 to deliver 148 upgraded, fully digitalised battle tanks to the British Army from 2027. The supply-chain sub-contracts have now been awarded to UK supply chain companies, contributing to the government’s levelling up agenda. Following two key design reviews, work to modernise and expand RBSL’s production facility in Telford – which will… Read more »
Nigel, now you are talking about IFVs not recce vehicles!
I believe I always was Graham.
Army Technology
Redback Infantry Fighting Vehicle, Australia
AS21 Redback is an advanced infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) being proposed by South Korean firm Hanwha Defense for the Australian Army.
The IFV will provide superior mobility and complete protection against ballistic, mine and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats.
The Redback IFV is an advanced version of the K21 IFV, which is in service with the South Korean Army (ROK Army).
LINK
“The reliability and sophisticated technology of the Redback IFV has been proved during the latest [RoKA] trial run of the vehicle, which is expected to be a strong basis for the Redback’s international sales and marketing,” said Brigadier General Cho Hyun-ki, head of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration’s (DAPA’s) Manoeuvre Programme Department. DAPA also floated the prospects of acquiring a localised version of the Redback, although it would have to be further developed to address the RoKA’s unique operational requirements. “Domestically, we consider acquiring a Korean version of the Redback meeting the [RoKA’s] operational concept and capable of featuring technology… Read more »
Thanks. There are many IFVs on the market, some newer than others and also Puma seems to have some reliabiity issues. But in cancelling the Warrior upgrade programme (WCSP) the MoD has rejected a tracked IFV to replace in-service Warrior and selected some sort of version of Boxer instead. Not a great decision, in fact an inexplicable decision. Who made the decision – and why? It doesn’t even save money as new Boxers (very expensive vehicles anyway) are surely far more than the WCSP programme. Many other disadvantages too – the most obvious ones being that a wheeled vehicle is… Read more »
Yes the decision to effectively pull out of tracked IFV is bizarre. A wheeled armoured personal carrier may have a lot of worthwhile uses….but not as part of a combined arms battle group with MBTs especially not in mud fest of Eastern Europe ( at least no other reference army I can think of used that combo). The army really needed a good off the shelf track infantry fighting vehicle….it’s not like boxer is cheaper….
I have my doubts about Boxer keeping up with super-fast CR3s especially in deep glutinous mud, snow and ice. The army needed to spur on the WCSP programme in my opinion, not to cancel it – or did the politicians cancel it? Who did – and why? Not really been properly explained. We all know development went over-budget and it took longer than originally envisaged – that too happened with the carriers but they wern’t cancelled. The French use wheeled APCs with tanks – but is this combo combat-proven? Last time we used wheeled APCs with tanks was using Saracen… Read more »
I think Gen Carter and the rest of the army board decided they must have wheels and Boxer ASAP, so something had to give as money for CH3/MRAV ( Boxer ) and WCSP was not there.
So they chose Boxer in their Strike fantasy.
It needs to be remembered that MRAV was originally to be from 2027 on and for a mere 3 Battalions, which until A2020R were Protected Mobility Bns with Mastiff, 1 per AI Bde.
Daniele, as you have said before, Gen Carter has a lot to answer for. Strike always seemed to be about a medium-weight armoured force which could punch above its weight (apologies for the cliche) by having a reasonable amount of firepower – and to move fast and deep. Not a bad notion but the execution was so flawed. Boxer was perhaps not the right vehicle – very expensive and with modest firepower (so solution was to team it with Ajax in the strike brigades) – thats not a great way to proceed. It was said that an inf platoon in… Read more »
Nicely summed up mate. It is pretty depressing.
I find the headline amsing
“Ajax vehicles on course for new delivery times”
Surely all vehicles will always be on course for new delivery times…its the old delivery times that are the problem. 🙂
It fills me with hope!
“Full Operating Capability will follow between October 2028 and September 2029, when the Army has trained and converted forces to the Ajax platform to deliver Armoured Cavalry capability to the Deep Reconnaissance Strike Brigade and its two Armoured Brigade Combat Teams.”
LINK
Does that make it about 10 years late?
In total yes, they have already delivered some.
“The German MoD said the Bundeswehr would have over 400 Pumas by around 2030. The first batch of 342 Puma IFVs and eight driver training versions has been delivered to the Bundeswehr.”
I think this IFV request has now been cut back by 2/3rds to around 140-150 units. Might be pending. Aus Army not too happy.
I have always been a bit puzzled by Australia procuring Abrams, supported by Redback IFV).
For homeland defence or expeditionary ops (if so, where?).
Maybe our 🇦🇺 contributors, John, Oz, and any others can reply to this way better than I. My 5c, probably more to do with a contingency and interoperability with US forces wherever 🇦🇺 forces may end up in the future. I don’t think the Abrams force us too large, 70?+/-. Big issue is having the logistics and shipping to take it where needed. I’m not sure if they’ve resolved the issues with the Canberra landing crafts carrying the Abrams. There is the Bay HMAS Choules which I believe will get to replace by two new Albion type landing ships.
Ajax is a total shed the British army should have bought cv90 straight off the shelf
They still could buy the IFV CV90 if they wanted too. Or the Lynx, Redback or whatever the US has or does next.
We were talking about recce vehicles not IFVs.
Hi Graham, yes, understood, Ajax for recce. The Army is stuck with it. I was just making a comment that with any future IFV/APCs, if they wanted to, they can still buy CV90s or something different. And It is a big if.
The army is buying Boxers to replace Warrior. Those Boxers would not be replaced by IFVs/APCs until 30 years time.
Can’t believe they’re going all in with just the wheeled Boxers. If they’re not armed or armoured properly they’ll be coffins on wheels. Surely some 100s of tracked APC /IFVs would be sensible and necessary in the mix to operate with C3 and Ajax? Seems like a lot of our allies are doing just that. No more stupid decisions please! Days of cavalry have gone haven’t they?
Boxers are very well armoured. Many Kongsberg RWS (RS4) were ordered for the Boxer programme about Dec 2020 for the MIV programme (not the Warrior successor programme as that was not announced until March 2021). Not sure what weapon will be in the RS4 – not a 40mm CTAS cannon, that’s for sure. Probably just a 7.62 or 12.7 mm MG. Maybe a follow-on order will be for a different RWS/weapon system? Cavalry days have not gone – they will be in Ajax with a chunky 40mm cannon – but doing both recce and something weird called ‘Strike’ with the… Read more »
If they had brought Ajax straight off the shelf, it would of been Ok as it Beat CV90 in its Procurement challenge. it was the Top Brass Who they wanted it to Fly
Different type of vehicle.. the army could get CV90 MkIV but it would replace warrior not Ajax…Ajax when it enters service is more for finding people not carrying people…CV90 is for carrying people.
BAE make a recce variant of CV90 MkIV – the Norwegians have it. It looks good and has mast mounted sensors, unlike Ajax.
A few! Army requirement was for 1,000 – whittled down by bean counters to 589.
I agree though – CV90 recce would have been better than GD’s Ajax.
It’s not a light recce vehicle though!! Mk IV is 37t.
Pretty sure there’s a CV-90 recce vehicle variant
Yes, there is – but so many people get confused between an IFV and a recce vehicle. In 2010, MoD reviewed a proposal from BAE for a CV-90 recce variant against the Ajax vehicle proposed by GDUK. The actual productionised CV-90 recce variant was ordered by Norway in 2012! – its pretty good and has a mast mounted sensor suite (unlike Ajax). https://twitter.com/ninja998998/status/1113371124740423680 Wikipedia: “In June 2012, a deal was signed with BAE Systems Hägglunds and Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace for the acquisition of 144 new/upgraded vehicles, including 74 infantry fighting, 21 reconnaissance, 15 command, 16 engineering, 16 multi-role and two driver… Read more »
AND YET FAILED IN THE PROCUREMENT CHALLENGE. maybe just maybe blame the people who took the winning Platform and made it into what it wasn’t. But FFS change the outdated Whinny voice.
It’s always been beyond me how we can have a British company making all the kit we need that’s way better that the shit we have and some how we buy everything off US defence contractors.
Army procurement is such a joke, vehicle procurement should not be in the hands of the army at all they are clearly incapable of dealing with it, the navy and the aircraft can’t get the majority of their platforms from local suppliers it should be even easier for the army.
Perhaps the navy have the simplest choice – they have to buy warships from a British yard under the national naval shipbuilding strategy remit.
Correct and they have a fixed design, Army all want there case of Whiskey and add tartan camouflage paint to make them feel important
its A shame we lost the ability to build decent export AFVs it was looking good at one point in the 50s and 60s….
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CsLx1pPAIs8/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
Totally off topic. Sorry. Just thought I’d share. If the real Tempest looks like this. I’ll be a happy boy. 😊
Not sure about those tail planes though, Seems clear NGAD will go tailless, I’m concerned just as with typhoon that it ends up being the default feature between 5th and 6th gen.
Remember in the 90’s Typhoon was being refereed to as 5th gen then the marketing gurus a Lockheed Martin came up with 4.5 gen.
No tails planes will give immunity to low band radars as well as side on reduced RCS.
If it does not have this then why is it not just a gen 5 + aircraft?
Stealth and generational capabilities are much more than just airframe shaping. And we also don’t know what the performance requirements are yet for Tempest. The real thing could be tailless. We’ll get a better understanding when the technology demonstrator starts to take shape. 👍
True, however airframe shaping is till incredibly important and can only be done on day one. We can stick all the advanced sensors, weapons and engines on a typhoon and it will never be 5th gen, the new term is now 4.75 Gen to describe aircraft like tranche 4 or F15 EX. I get the impression that tempest will put kinetic performance at the heart of it while NGAD will favour range and all aspect stealth. That is fine however there will then be an ongoing assumption pushed by Lockheed Martin that Tempest is not 6 Gen but rather 5.5… Read more »
It’s the combination of many capabilities that warrants the 5th gen tag or 6th gen. The F35 doesn’t have thrust vectoring or high-end supercruise performance like the F22, but it’s very much a 5th gen capability. It’s avionics and situational awareness are a generation ahead of the F22. I’m sure Tempest and NGAD will offer different capabilities to each other. But both will warrant the 6th gen label. For many nations, upgraded F35 will offer many 6th gen capabilities. It all depends on how the cost works out. And that is still a massive question mark for Tempest.
It all depends on the manoeuvrability requirements. A design with no fins will generate less drag, so could make the aircraft more fuel efficient or faster. However, it will requires more thought on how to control slipping during banked turns, which a fin normally counteracts. Yaw must be controlled otherwise the aircraft will continuously Dutch Roll. Which means it oscillates around the fore and aft axis. Best way to think about it is much like a kayak, floating down a river without a paddle for steerage. There is no keel, so the kayak skids all over the place and is… Read more »
My first thoughts, those lines and saw tooth edges remind me of the B2 and those twin tails remind me of YF23.
Stealth always looks the same these days.
It’s does pal. All the current 5th gen and future 6th gen designs all have a very similar look. It’s what’s under the skin that really counts.
Looks bloody fantastic!!
Looks like the design BAE have been touting for awhile now – been a huge advertising poster of it at Westminster tube station for the last 18 months.
Even longer. I’d say it’s been there nearly 3 years if not longer.
Certainly looks better than that rather ugly plastic mockup that was unveiled back in 2018.
Who the hell cares what it looks like FFS!? It’s supposed to do a job, that’s it. What is this weird obsession with appearances?
Grown men (apparently) salivating over which tank, rifle, aircraft carrier looks prettiest LMAO
Nothing wrong with a good looking jet.
Isn’t this the vehicle that the government didn’t buy, just to spite BAe?
From the country that has been churning out VW Golf’s since 1991 as well as Porsche Cayenne, VW Toureg, Audi A7(?)
Just up the road is the Koval plant which looks like an (old?) part of the Devinska Nova Ves plant, famous for the Dana and Zuzana SPGs, and a factory built underground employing 30k at its peak.
Interesting.
Think how many jobs we could have created and economic benefits we could have got from going with the CV90 rather than the pile of crap that Ajax is. Definitely not seething with rage right now.
Know that some problems Ajax has been iron out but still some way to go ,so how much longer is it going to take ? .Week in week out costing money .Think Ben Wallace wished the Army pick CV90 before is role as Defence Secretary may of save him the odd head ache .However looks like he’s in for the long hall for the project to be put right .🙄
Read multiple threads on this site about Ajax and your questions will be answered!
Multiple threads
Multiple misconceptions
Multiple answers
Multiple beers to keep my sanity
👍😂
It is a losing battle, mate. Once an idea is in the masses heads, even if much of it is no longer justifiable, removing it is an impossible job.
Spot on Daniele👍
However with all due respect it could be said the reverse (no pun intended) is also true.
I very much doubt that the army favoured GDUK’s Ajax over BAE’s CV90 Recce variant, when CV90 was a proven and in-service vehicle with other countries and our army needed a CVR(T) family replacement fast.
All I have ever heard is that BAE were deselected for political reasons by the politicos.
It still puzzles me that there were only 2 contenders – fine for a short list but not for the initial long list. I was involved in the FBRV project – think we had 10 or 11 bidders to start with.
BAEs and there actions over MR4A, and what actions they did in a pissing contest. they were removed as a prime contractor. they had to piggy back as a partner. yet BAEs just allowed cables to be cut in its yards… BAEs is no longer British.
Ajax is not costing MoD extra money, week in, week out – it is a firm price contract. The project is put right – the other stuff normal to all projects now needs to happen such as RGT etc.
Would have expected to see AJAX video of it firing on the move over rough ground by now, don’t see how they iron out hull of varying dimensions ?
Next year maybe 🙄
The video proof exists.
Nice pun there too:”iron out hull”, well done!
What could have been. Beautiful machine the CV90- it actually works.
but it lost out in the procurement rounds, what is it about trying to keep going back to the loser. and the need for a recount/.