BAE Systems has signed an extensive mid-life upgrade contract worth more than $500 million with the Dutch Defence Materiel Organization (DMO) for the Royal Netherlands Army’s fleet of 122 CV90s, with an option for an additional 19 vehicles.

BAE say that the upgrade program with a new turret will vastly improve the vehicle’s capabilities while providing crews with improved protection and ergonomics for increased combat efficiency.

“The new CV90 turret, developed by BAE Systems Hägglunds in Örnsköldsvik, Sweden, represents a leap forward in design and functionality. The main weapon position is changed to provide even better vehicle balance and enable new ways to introduce a variety of weaponry for increased lethality. It also offers significant ergonomic improvements to benefit the vehicle’s crew.

The enhanced turret design is built on years of combat-proven experience, continuous vehicle improvements, and data analysis from the CV90 User Club – the seven nations currently operating CV90 fleets. The improvements are also based on a recent study conducted by the Royal Netherlands Army, and a BAE Systems’ analysis of cognitive load on Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) crews to address man-machine interaction. The result gives crews increased advantages, such as the ability to choose intuitive and effective modes of operation as well as shorten the time to detection, identification, decision-making, and engagement.”

You can read more here.

4 3 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
19 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

John Hampson
John Hampson
3 months ago

Still think the contract should have gone to BAE to build 600 CV90’s in Newcastle rather than Gen Dynamics to build 600 Ajax in Spain. ( And before I get corrected the 1st 100 units are being built entirely in Spain. The following 489, the hulls are all being built in Spain then shipped to Wales where the German engine/gears/drive and French gun are married up.)

Ian M.
Ian M.
3 months ago
Reply to  John Hampson

The first 100 Hulls were intended to be built as rolling chassis in Spain, so almost correct. The hulls were due to undertake AIT at Merthyr Tydfil, i.e. the fitting and testing of all the UK specialist equipment inside the platform. The complete assembly and AIT was brought forward to accommodate an increased production rate. Merthyr now receives bare hulls only from Spain. The CT40 cannon is a 50 / 50 collaboration between BAe and Nexter so is not “French”. The powerpack is largely German although MTU (engine) is owned by RR. Renk arguably produce the best heavy duty tracked… Read more »

Ian M.
Ian M.
3 months ago
Reply to  Ian M.

I correct myself: The AS90 gearbox is actually ZF, another German company.

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
3 months ago
Reply to  Ian M.

Only the Divinity is infallible Ian.

John Hampson asked a question and it is good one. The facility on Scotswood Raod that built Chieftains and Challengers is still there. Why can’t we build somethng like a hull in this country? Further down the Tyne there’s a modest company that bashes out complex looking HP valves the size of a bus. Even these are dwarfed by a neighbour building what look lke replecement parts for the Eiffel Tower.

Ian M.
Ian M.
3 months ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

To the best of my knowledge the old BAe site is now owned by Pearson Engineering, well know for producing “bolt on” mine clearance and disposal equipment as well as dozer blades for AFV’s and other vehicles. I suspect that they only use a small fraction of that huge building. There is absolutely no reason, other than political and financial to prevent the UK from building hulls. The reason the Ajax family of hulls is produced in Spain is purely commercial, the facilities in Spain are up and running and owned by GD.

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
3 months ago
Reply to  Ian M.

Many thank Ian. I imagine it’s ‘horse trading’ behind the scenes. But as Albert points out below, I think we need in-house design and some production though I am not against work sharing and so forth if it means employment here. We lso our way thrity or forty years ago and today few people realise what we can do.

Darren
Darren
2 months ago
Reply to  Ian M.

So more tax clawback lost, along with jobs and investment.

AlbertStarburst
AlbertStarburst
3 months ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

For goodness sake, post Brexit, Trump, Covid, we are going to be be in a dangerous unpredictable world. We must re-gain a National strategic capability to design and build MBTs in the UK. It’s also the intellectual and practical skills of the workforce that must also be nurtured as well as suitable facilities. Where is the “strategic vison” and industrial strategy Borris (and the rest of them)?

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
3 months ago

I agree Albert. We above all peoples should know there ae no free rides. Alan Clark– yes that Alan Clark – wrote in his notorious (but very readable) Diaries that our defence industries should be encouraged to prototype even if the money isn’t there for full production. I think he was thinking that we need to keep our options flexible.

AlbertStarburst
AlbertStarburst
3 months ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

Yes. I love the Alan Clark Diaries. OK, his personal life was questionable, but his heart was in the right place as far as the defence of the realm went and the need for British products.

AlbertStarburst
AlbertStarburst
3 months ago

…and the ineptitude of many of our political class.

John Hampson
John Hampson
3 months ago
Reply to  Ian M.

So the hulls are built in Spain, the drive train is Germany and the gun is manufactured in France. I cannot see that you have corrected my post just confirmed it. I said the HULLS were being built in Spain and shipped to Wales! For decades the importance of maintaining a manufacturing base has not been included in the calaculations. Blair’s rejection of the LDV’s tender to build 8000 NATO spec trucks in Birmingham, providing work for 300 British companies, because Blair wanted to be seen as a “Good European”, is typical for the lack of support. A item of… Read more »

peter wait
3 months ago
Reply to  John Hampson

Think Blair was wanting the EU president job

peter wait
3 months ago
Reply to  John Hampson

CV 90 would have been delivered on time and numbers in use mean the supply chain for spares is cheaper. foolish going for CTA40 a gun still in development with problems!

Ryan Brewis
Ryan Brewis
3 months ago
Reply to  John Hampson

I agree, but that’s solved a different problem. CV90 is more like a replacement for Warrior, you’re still left needing a replacement for CVR(T).

David Barry
David Barry
3 months ago

For those in the know wrt CV90, would this have been a better buy for the Latvian military rather 60y/o CVR(T) ?

peter wait
3 months ago
Reply to  David Barry

Cvrt are lightly armoured and transmission life not great, maybe they will get them for free as parts supply would make money for UK?

4th watch
4th watch
3 months ago

Of course it has a proven track record its not got wheels has it? Dugh.

Peter S
Peter S
3 months ago

4 million dollars per turret makes the Warrior programme seem almost reasonable!