BAE Systems say it has successfully fired an integrated, long-range anti-tank guided missile from the CV90 Infantry Fighting Vehicle in a recent series of tests.
“This advancement further diversifies the CV90’s operational capabilities on the battlefield by enabling indirect fire at long distances or at air targets, boosting the vehicle’s lethality while increasing crew safety. The testing, which took place in difficult arctic conditions, used a Rafael Advanced Defense Systems’ Spike-LR (long range) missile mounted on a BAE Systems Hägglunds’ CV90 to defeat a target at more than 2,000 metres.
The exercise marks the first time an integrated version of an anti-tank guided missile has been launched from the CV90. It also demonstrates the platform’s versatility to perform a wide range of missions, and shows the CV90 can easily adapt to new technologies for meeting current and future customer needs.”
“This integrated anti-tank capability confirms that the CV90 is a true benchmark when it comes to expanding a family of multi-mission armoured fighting vehicles,” said Dan Lindell, CV90 platform director at BAE Systems Hägglunds.
“This new capability can alter the battlefield dynamic and is yet another example of how the CV90’s already superior mobility and survivability allows the warfighter to pack an even heavier punch in any terrain or weather conditions, and at any time on any battlefield.”
The December testing took place in northern Sweden in below freezing temperatures with heavy snowfall and low visibility.
“We fully appreciate Rafael and their Spike team for working with us to demonstrate this important capability and look forward to continuing our collaboration to provide present and future customers with this powerful addition to the CV90’s lethality suite,” Lindell said.
BAE Systems is currently executing a Swedish government contract to provide a mortar variant of the CV90 called Mjölner that adds greater mobility to close indirect fire support.
More than 1,200 CV90s of numerous variants are in service with Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the Netherlands. The vehicle has a combat-proven track record and is designed to accommodate future growth to meet evolving missions.
The headline reads …ON CV90… should that be FROM instead?
I’m confused why would ‘from’ be better than ‘on’? 99% of the time the missile will be on or attached to the CV90 and the rest of the kit supporting it on it 100% of the time. Clearly I am missing something.
Headline change… it read … tested on… as in, launched at and not mounted on which would hBe been more accurate.
Ps I’m having a bad year.
Always wondered why our Warriors never had a ATGM fitted to the turret like the US Bradleys. Even now with the turret and gun upgrade, there’s still no ATGM fitted, is this purely down to costs?
If you ever question why, in relation to the lack of an obvious fit, a particular piece of equipment isn’t integrated when the UK MOD (read HM Treasury) is involved, then I’m afraid it is entirely down to budget. We are well down the road of the Treasury dictating to the MOD what they can & can’t have… The MOD is partly to blame for trying to maintain a broad range of capabilities with too few teeth as opposed to narrowing the field and properly arming what is then available. While ever the Treasury looks and see’s the bare bones… Read more »
To be fair warrior was designed at a time when budget wasn’t as big a concern. The reason in never got ATGM is because, of doctrine. The vehicle was never expected to go up against tanks. That was the job of MBT, milan and lyinx attack helicopters. The warrior was designed to support the infantry whos objectives would be such things as building and trenchs, with the most likely enemy vehicle they face being other ifv. Therefore a 30mm auto Canon was demed good enough for infantry fire support.
Warrior and Bradley were designed and produced about the same time. You would have thought our requirements officers would have looked at Bradley and noticed that they were fitting TOW. The Bradley was going to do the same job as Warrior, so how did our lot come to the decision that an ATGM wasn’t needed. It’s great with hindsight to say it should have been fitted. Having the option of using a ATGM in an emergency scenario when you see a MBT approaching, could be life saving for the crew and passengers of an IFV. But as Afghan/Iraq proved ATGMs… Read more »
Could this be a suitable option for Warrior/Ajax/Boxer?
“MMP offers unparalleled precision over its 4,000+ metre range allowing the operator to defeat the target beyond counter fire ranges.
https://www.mbda-systems.com/2016/08/31/mbdas-mmp-anti-tank-guided-weapon-next-generation-capability-today/
Once again different doctrine. British IFV where designed to deploy troops safely and provide some fire support. American and soviet doctrine was for the IFV to act as the infantry itself during an armoured push in which they where likely to go toe to toe with enemy tanks. Only dismounting at the last minute. Hence why both vehicles had firing ports while warrior doesn’t.
About time doctrine got up to date with modern technology I can understand no ATGM whilst they were wire guided now they’re fire and forget. Surely better to have than not if you meet either an MBT or another highly protected IFV? Rather than slugging it out with cannons hoping that they also stupidly opted not to have ATGM. When do plans/doctrine always match reality?
Curiously the export variant of Warrior sold to Kuwait does have a Tow missile launcher.
It’s a great idea but needs a longer range. It would be better if it was fired from long range from a place of concealment that didn’t give away it’s position to it’s target and then guided to target by a third party. Also for the UK given the small amount of equipment we have, the ability to fire multiple missiles and reload quickly would be required. Obviously this will not happen and instead of properly equipping our troops, the money will carry on being spent on £1m ambulances for obese people and benefits for people that have no intention… Read more »
Would be nice to have this capability on at least some Ajax, maybe 1 in 4 or something. Particularly as we use Spike anyway, nice bit of commonality. Would give Strike in its current form some teeth and protection at the same time.
If we’re going for this in the strike brigades shouldn’t it really be on Boxer?
Haha, well that is a subject for discussion…! That’s why I said ”Strike in its current form”, by which I meant a mix of Boxer and Ajax. If Ajax is providing the “heavy” punch of the Strike brigade, then it should be capable of killing MBTs- something which I don’t believe it can with the CTA40. Giving it Spike would provide that, as well as some kind of counter battery and even area air defence capability, if I understand what Spike does correctly. Sure, it’d be nice to get it on Boxer too. But my understanding is that it’s the… Read more »
Always fun is fantasy fleets despite what people say :).
Reading the below article by Nicholas Drummond I think we are stuck with Ajax as part of Strike, so yes, that should have Spike. If we want the Strike brigade concept to provide a true “medium weight capability” the we really do need to consider CTA40, the 120mm mortar and probably the 155mm gun to provide that punch at a variety of ranges, in my opinion as well as widespread equipping of Spike et. al.
https://wavellroom.com/2020/01/07/strike-brigades-more-than-just-a-medium-weight-capability/
As a sidenote to this, we could also look at the air defence variant as the Army suffers from a chronic lack of air defence at the moment.
They are bound to be in the pipeline to replace and swing fire and starstrek versions of fv430.
Doesn’t the mix of Ajax and Boxer miss the point of the quick reaction and mobility ethos of the Strike concept? Should not the concept require 155mm howitzers on wheels? Indeed the whole thing should be on wheels? Indeed are the army not currently in a Jekyll and Hyde mess with working out how the army should be configured? In short, are they not in a total tactical/strategic mess of their own making and is it not surprising that the Treasury wonders where all the money floods out through the cracks?
Sums it up nicely Trevor!
Reading between the lines it seems as though the army wants to maintain some of the ubiquity of a tracked vehicle within strike brigades and more controversially needs to justify its purchase. Ajax also fills a firepower gap (unless the before mentioned variants are chosen, at additional cost).
I’m not arguing it’s a good thing to mix the vehicles, I just think we’re stuck with it .
Yes. But assuming so, then we should abolish this concept of “Strike”. We just have mobile infantry that can move as best it can. With not all that mobile artillery!
It would be nice to see all the Boxer used by teeth arms armed with something that can take out apc’s at least, if not mbt’s. Is Spike a better fit or would a version of Javelin be better, as it would have commonality with the dismounted troops?
Obviously it’s on a wish list but given as Boxer is supposed to be for a strike brigade and the idea behind a strike brigade is to take on a much larger force, doesn’t it make sense?
I couldn’t agree more, but unfortunately that would be too expensive- we can only afford to upgrade the Warrior turrets on a limited number of vehicles as it is… I think a 1-in-4 ratio might be possible, fitted with the CT40 turret that we’re using on Ajax. But that would probably necessitate a fairly significant rethink of the Strike Brigade plan, something that a lot of people think is a good idea anyway. My understanding regarding Strike and Javelin is that Strike is a touch bigger and was originally intended for counter battery fire, while Javelin is a pure ATGM.… Read more »
Using Javelin instead of Strike would I imagine be more affordable, both for the fire unit and the missiles, therefore more likely to happen? With drones becoming more prevalent some anti air capability would be good though but I feel the cost would be too great for IFF capability etc and then there is the issue of extra aircraft recognition qualifications for the operators, loads of additional briefings on the air defended area and current air defence state for your location given the vehicles would be moving a lot. Your average soldiers brain would have to hold a lot of… Read more »
Likely done in the light of the upcoming MLU for the Dutch CV90, which will include integration of Spike ATGM, Iron Fist APS, rubber tracks and other bits and pieces.
You have to wonder if the UK would have been better off to have selected CV90 rather than Ajax.
I was reading some numbers and they seem very similar added to which would have been an immense saving in development costs.
Ajax is based off the ascod so most of the development had been spent on digitisation and the cta turret. Im curious though in terms of how much more advance the cta 40mm over the boffers 40mm as the cta costs twice as much.
I think the main reason cv90 lost though was bae being out of favour at the time and they wanted to build it in Sweden
If you can find a picture of the turret’s interior of a Warrior fitted with the old Rarden, you’ll see how cramped it is. The CV90 with the Super 40 Bofors gun takes up even more space as the breech by comparison is huge. Now compare it with the CTA40, the breech length is shorter than the Rarden by quite a bit. There’s now acres of space for the two crew in the new turret. Also the rotating breech is contained with the gun’s housing. So the recoil of the breech does not intrude into the turret. I think this… Read more »
I seem to remember that the MoD require the CTA40 for the Scout competition. I do know that Bae spent a lot of their own money to develop a turret for that gun that would fit the Warrior and were very disappointed to lose that competition to Lockheed who said they could use the existing turret and just run the guns ammunition line outside the turret! I kid you not. A modified version of that Bae turret would have been used on the CV90.
As for Bae building CV90’s in Sweden, the MoD said they would award the contract to the lowest cost conforming bidder, to build there would be Bae’s lowest cost. In the end the MoD gave the work to GD/Lockheed higher bid because they had better salesmen that promised the earth. No, I have no connection with Bae. I’m American, I know yankee salesmen and how they work. They’ve had problem after problem with both the scout and warrior programs since day one. Both late and over budget.
I know that both the Danes and Norwegians used CV90s in Afghans and they performed well. The Norwegians even had a pair equipped with the Soucy rubber band tracks. These have a dramatic effect on the tank as they reduce the weight by one tonne compared with conventional steel tracks. They also cut noise by a massive 10dB and vibration levels by 65 percent. But more importantly for the crew and passengers are less fatiguing on the body. If you have ever had the pleasure of riding in a Warrior, the first thing that gets you is claustrophobia due to… Read more »
Interesting stuff, thanks DaveyB for sharing. I think Soucy have gotten the limit of their rubber tracks up to 37 or 38 tons and have trial fitted to a Warrior but still short of a full laden Ajax. No doubt that will come in time.
Out of interest, what are the advantages of CV90 over Ajax? I don’t know enough about armoured vehicles to be honest..!
Slightly off topic, this tweet has just been released:
https://twitter.com/TXTSystems/status/1215367615918551040?s=20
Looks like a Sherman!
Love the Ripsaw. Saw a demonstration of it at Bragg when it was a purely a Howe&Howe product. It was the optionally manned version which also starred in GI Joe. The first thing you noticed besides the noise, was the acceleration. It was bloody quick. I always thought Warrior was quick, it has nothing on this wee beastie.
It’s good to see the Howe brothers after years of knock backs by the US Army, finally winning a competition and hopefully getting it into production.
Is Ajax going to have something similar?