BAE Systems has confirmed its bid submission, together with the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration, for the CV90 in response to the Ministry of Defence of the Slovak Republic’s acquisition of 152 new Infantry Fighting Vehicles.
“The joint filing by FMV and BAE Systems confirms the Swedish states’ support for Slovakia, further strengthening governmental relations as the country looks to modernize its ground forces by 2030. The bid includes support with training, tactics, and future development and welcomes Slovakia as a member of the CV90 User Club.
BAE Systems Hägglunds, which manufactures the CV90 in Örnsköldsvik, Sweden, has delivered multiple CV90 export programs to European customers. With a history of highly successful industrial cooperation that goes beyond the mechanical assembly of the vehicle, the team will work with several Slovak companies to deliver the CV90s to the Army.”
In June 2021, the CV90 participated in dynamic and static demonstrations to Slovak VIPs, including defense minister Jaroslav Naď, and representatives from the Army at the Military Technical and Testing Institute of Záhorie, Republic of Slovakia.
“BAE Systems’ approach is built on strategic collaboration with local suppliers, enabling them to play a high-value role in the development, production, training, and support of the CV90 MkIV and all its variants,” said Tommy Gustafsson-Rask, managing director of BAE Systems Hägglunds.
“We are committed to exceeding the mandated 40 per cent requirement for direct content as we work closely with Slovak industry to deliver the most capable, combat-proven IFV on the market today.”
We need these for the army, bin Ajax
Fully agree, too much time and money wasted on Ajax already.
Agreed, Ajax is becoming a black hole. The new CV90 MkIV family and the PL-01 combination could give the British Army a major firepower and mobility upgrade. With the limited amount of Ch3s that the Army will have, a highly mobile platform that has the same 120mm gun such as the PL-01 would be a good addition. I suppose this combination would come back to the ideas of heavy and light cavalry. I also think that with the numbers the UK would order then the Ajax production facilities in South Wales could be used to build them here. Not sure… Read more »
Ironically there was a 120mm FS version of Ajax planned. Dropped!
On offer to the US Army as Griffin, I believe.
We would need the recce variant of the CV90 to replace Ajax, of course.
Rewarding the Factory that Built Ajax, shouldn’t be an option, not all faults lie in the Spanish factory.
Yes scrap Ajax – it will just use up more and more money to end up with a product that flawed and troubled.
MoD loves to throw good money after bad just to prove they did not make a mistake in their selection….
When will they have the courage to scrap Ajax?
AJAX isn’t an IFV
The recce variant of course.
It feels like everyone but the MOD can see what you’ve put so succinctly. The idea that the Slovaks will have a better IFV than the British Army is bewildering. Even if it’s a mature platform, CV90 been continuously upgraded, is battle proven with excellent testimonials and even has the option of an active protection system. What’s not to like? It’s the cash wasted on poor decisions like the Ajax that mean we’ll have the smallest MBT fleet (150 units of Challenger 3 divided between 1RTR, QRH and training/maintenance requirements) than any of our local NATO peers. One major engagement… Read more »
How many countries have this platform… in service?!
The Dutch off-loaded a few dozen MK4s to a Baltic State a few years back. And the UK?
Oh UKDJ you tease!
Could have had these in service years ago. I know nothing on the ins and outs but they look the part at least?
It’s available. It works. There are even multiple turret options for different roles whilst maintaining base chassis commonality! It’s not even a foreign import!
Yet the mod ignore it in favour of failing projects at massive expense. Why???
Sweden is a bit foreign.
Still a part of BAE
Like BAe in the US?
The same. A subsidiary of BAE.
BAE is as much British as Land Rover Jaguar. Hence WHY its called BAEs and Not British AEs.
It is British. Heard this nonsense before. Go look up how the business is registered.
The UK Government also still holds the Golden Share
But designed and first produced by Hagglunds in 1993, before the company was acquired by Alvis which then became part of BAE.
Politics?
Appeasing Spain over Gib?
Giving jobs to an poorer area of Wales in an old tractor factory?
Previous govs screwed our own manufacturing capabilities by overseeing their closure as BAE swept up?
Anything but BAES?
Army / MoD addicted to fiddling, over specifying to create bespoke rather than buying OTS?
Or, against all that, and what we won’t be privy to, just maybe the ASCOD design chosen was better?
No brown envelopes no sireeeee
Got any proof of that?
“It’s available, it works” Then comes the UK specific modifications, where one modification, leads to another issue, that needs a fix, that leads to three more problems and on and on, repeat……
We would manage to turn this into another Ajax sized black hole by the time Government tinkering had got through with it.
I tend to think you are right as base products I suspect both are relatively similar with a few mixed advantages or disadvantages over each other. Both operate with various foreign forces. Then you get the redesign and it all goes into a technical and cost black hole.
Others may know but I would be interested to know has Bae made great strides with this platform since the order was made? Seems to get a lot of publicity and PR over enhancements in recent times.
Is it government tinkering on the brass at MOD? Surely if Ajax wasnt the right soecification and needed so much tinkering we shouldnt have bought it.
I think it’s a typical political and MOD situation. We’ve done it for years, just look what we did to our F4 Phantoms, the most expensive and slowest examples built because we ‘had’ to have RR Speys in ours, this meant massive redesign at huge cost to the UK. Same again with our Apache AH64Ds, we ‘had’ to have our engines and local assembly …. Upshot, we paid over double the unit price for ours… It was once calculated you could have bought them off the shelf from the US, closed Westlands and paid everyone at the factory one million… Read more »
It’s a balance for me mate.
I want the sovereign capability, but not for everything. A helicopter is in the latter category.
Morning Daniele,
I agree, sovereign capability to me equates to Warship/submarine and certain air systems.
Helicopter capability (like Elvis) has left the building, Wildcat being the final unsuccessful gasp….
Its now a wholly Italian owned factory making purely Italian designed Helicopters going forward.
I’d add radar, missiles, sonar, and electronics to that list.
Helis, just get on and buy the blasted Blackhawk!!!! 44 please, pronto.
As ever, totally agree….
Something we need to learn!
Leopard 2A7 and K2 Black Panther compete to become Norway’s next MBT02 FEBRUARY 2022
“Norwegian Army chief Major-General Lars Lervik, who along with Defence Minister Odd Roger Enoksen inspected the tanks on 27 January, said Norway planned to replace its Leopard 2A4 with a digital tank, adding, “we will get the best possible tank at the best possible price”.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/defence/latest/leopard-2a7-and-k2-black-panther-compete-to-become-norways-next-mbt
You cant argue with that sensible solution…. Or the UK route of re-inventing the wheel with Chally 3 and absolutely ‘zero’ chance of foreign sales!
What wonderful financial sense that makes….
And it gets even better, see my post at the bottom of this thread!
Bigger Picture, and missing the end Game, CH3 get us to the end of the line of the current MBT. and that is its job before the Future MBT Arrives UK has Partnerships in the Major players. not saying its right. But a MBT wont be much good defending the UK, and mobility is the current key.
The problem Johan is that the bespoke CH3 programme to get us through, will cost ‘massively’ more than a straight buy of the latest Leopard or Abraham’s.
It’s a full on digital tank with a massive engineering effort required…. All for 148 tanks with zero chance of offsetting the costs with exports!
In my opinion, it’s a typical MOD bespoke blow the budget project, like the 9 scrapped Nimrod MR4A’s…
Only 148 tanks, buy off the shelf, with the possibility of obtaining more if expansion is required….
When you take into account the upheaval in supply and logistics to support a new MBT it probably Would be more expensive in the long run for the amount we would order.
Morning Jacko, interesting one there… I personally doubt it, as the Chally3 will have a good deal of new content. The R&D, trials and inevitable fixes required to get a comparative handful of complex MBT’ s into service, will be ‘very’ considerable. If we took the Polish route and took 150 of the very latest Abraham’s, we would have a modern digital tank ready to go, de-risked and Uncle Sam having paid for the R&D. Likewise, we could plug into an enormous US Army spares and support network. We would also have the important capability to expand the fleet at… Read more »
Couldn’t agree more, and I think we would be better off creating a strategic alliance with Israel and sharing everything. we could probably have purchased 200 Merkava 4’s for the cost of the challenger upgrade and mothballed the chally’s for emergency use. Given the Merkava’s can also hold 4 infantry we could order 400 instead of 200 and embed our heavy infantry side the tanks thereby getting even more value out of the order. if you look at a lot of the latest innovations quite a lot are coming out of Israel and they are battle tested out of necessity.… Read more »
Absolutely Pacman, an interesting idea and one we should certainly explore mate….
Tut, tut, the aim of HMG/MOD is to maximise the profits made by those developing & supplying equipment, at the taxpayers expense. Not providing decent kit to the military.
At least that’s how it appears to me over the last 40 years.
Three letters… B A E
I can feel your pain when looking at Ajax and then CV90 but cheer up. If we’d ordered CV90 the Army would have stipulated it to be 50% heavier with a different gun in a different turret and be able to barrel roll under water.
Captain Fox McCloud does like his barrel rolls.
For Fox sake not him again.
What he said…
David…….. if Boris and Carrie are involved it will have Green Electric drive solar panels and no gun…..👍
Well I do wonder if the fitting of the innovative loud speaker system specifically enhanced to bellow out broadcasts of Boris’s meandering blustering speeches as its main armament has caused the noise and vibration problems for the poor unsuspecting crew.
and cake
No bring your own !
To a depth of 1000 feet at least…..😅
Ok I’m just going to say it, what is wrong with our procurement process, why can’t we just buy a load of these and arrange with BAE to get them built in this country under licence.
I don’t know if we have mass but for major items like this I think we should go 50/50 with approaches and give the contract to 2 different companies for “tranche 1” sets of equipment. They are then both working well and we continue with both or one proves better than the other and sweeps up tranche 2/3/4. Having another team in the running will definately focus minds. As well as don’t add XXX requirements to off the shelf component or develop these for later tranches once people know how to make the base model well and have proven it.… Read more »
That’s how the US likes to do it where feasible certainly in the pre production phase to make sure any commitment has already reached the required levels in a competitive environment before final choices are made. And of course pretty much what we used to do when we could afford to. And I guess that’s the crux cost and production numbers. Even the US struggles with doing that now in terms of carrying it through post production.
Wot no backhanders can’t have that even if its Just Cake although an expensive one Johnathan
Army Procurement, = we need a can opener. = design a can opener =award contract = Army Top brass = we need the can opener to fly. ????=WHY.= Because. = 10 years and £50B development and its to heavy to lift to open the can. and gives the user a wrist boobo. = Army Procurement over the past 30 years.
Does anyone know, how we ended up choosing the Ajax platform? I have no problem with designing and developing something new or upgrading an existing platform to obtain an exceptional product. And, I am ok with investing in new production facilities in rundown areas, so long as we have a plan for keep it going in the long term. But I have read nowhere that anyone would describe the proposed Ajax system as exceptional and a huge amount of the work seems to be going to Spain. So given this lack of strong positive drivers for Ajax and the obvious… Read more »
It won the design tender, UK then took it and wanted it to do what the tender design didn’t ask for. much like and added weight which overloaded the design. same as asking For a F1 Car and selecting the design only to say you need it to become a Van
You would assume that Boxer won the trials at Bovington for Fres, where were the new trials and was just Ascod /CV90 considered, why was air portability scrapped as neither really suitable on this count ?
Am I missing something? It’s an article about an IFV which could/should replace Warrior but everyone keeps mentioning Ajax, a recce vehicle.
On the button RobW
Must admit I’m not really informed on these matters but wasn’t Ajax effectively ‘remodelled’ from such a vehicle which some have said has led to the very problems that have plagued it?
AJAX is based on the ASCOD 2 vehicle with enhanced electronic architecture, vastly improved armour and protection as well as an ISTAR suite that the ‘Muricans are jealous of. It’s not an IFV but a dedicated ISTAR platform in AJAX guise with the ability to multitask in ARES/ARGUS/ATHENA versions.
cheers
Hi Ian
Have we ordered the wrong vehicle and then tried to convert this to the right vehicle??
Ian
Thanks for that enlightenment, I am sure you can understand the confusion in this matter however when the original ASCOD was developed as a direct replacement for IFV in service with Austria, over half of Spanish ASCODS are described as IFV and Norway decided to buy the CV90 over the ASCOD offered to them. Not to mention depending upon the exact derivative of course, the term IFV seems to be regularly used in reference to this family of fighting vehicles in addition to the term AFV (Armoured Fighting Vehicle). ASCOD 2 the basis for Ajax and the considerable re-development of… Read more »
I seem to remember someone on another thread telling me that Ajax is basically a shortened modified version of the ASCOD2. Can’t be to certain, but about 1.7m shorter if memory serves.
I think it was 6 feet shorter actually……😉
What’s an inch between comments….🤣
Seems it could be inch either way with Spanish jig’s!
Called recce vehicle but bit big, heavy and loud for this role, nothing like announcing your presence !
Cant we just get some of these vehicles instead of the £4 billion wasted on Ajax? Cv90 series might be a 10 year old design but its a whole family of tracked vehicles that will be able to deliver armed reconaisance, light tank/ tank destroyer and IFV chassis.
Whatever the UK orders can a reasonable proportion of Hulls come with this as an add-on please. Has to be a game changer and global leading add on…and its UK IP
https://youtu.be/hJ4eNDNY1Zc
Brimstone overarching solution.
Predictive text….’overwatch’
Seventy-Six possibly in service before Ajax and at a fraction of the cost!
“Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenković announced at a press conference on 26 January that an agreement had been reached on the acquisition of Bradley infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) from the United States.”
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/land-forces/latest/croatia-to-receive-bradley-ifvs-from-us
Its a different requirement than Ajax Nigel, these are equivalent to Warrior, perhaps we could buy a load to replace those … Is the US still upgrading them, or phasing them out for something new???
If its something new, I suggest we buy that….
Yes, the optionally manned fighting vehicle, or OMFV, might just be a very good option for us too if selected?
I was simply pointing out the amount of money we waste where others save a fortune!
Note the KF41 Lynx.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a36177471/army-m2-bradley-fighting-vehicle-replacement-options/
Hello John,
I came across this article which I thought you might find interesting.
Nexter Develops A Scalable Gun for Future Tanks
https://defense-update.com/20210414_ascalon.html
I’m sure we need a replacement for warrior. This or another suitable design would do nicely. Boxer has its place as does jackal, trucks, minibuses etc. But tracked ifv to deploy with the tanks I would think is a must. Soldiers need armoured boxes to travel in and keep pace with tanks over any terrain. If we are looking a challenger 3 going until 2050 or longer that’s 25-30 years service an ifv will give. Ajax is a different kettle of fish. A recon vehicle should be mobility, speed, not attract attention, deployable and be able to pop smoke and… Read more »
Yes, Ajax is irrelevant when we talk about IFVs. An IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) needs to carry an infantry section of 8, plus crew of 3, and have a good calibre cannon on top to provide suppressing fire for the dismounts. The Warrior cannon is past its sell-by date and it appears it cannot be replaced easily/cost-effectively. So we need to be looking at purchasing CV90 or similar. The Warriors still have a lot of service left in them and should replace the very elderly FV432 Bulldogs in the ABSV (iArmoured Battlefield Support Vehicle) role – mortar carriers, ambulances etc.… Read more »
I simply can’t understand why we don’t buy a ‘Britished’ CV90 instead of the abortion that is Ajax. If it’s good enough for most of European and Asia-Pacific, why not us? There have been some serious back-handlers in the Ajax mess, that’s why we insist on banging our heads on the wall with the bl00dy thing.