DSEI 2021 – BAE Systems is showcasing its latest CV90 with the new D-series turret.

This is the first time the upgraded digital turret has been unveiled and represents a leap forward in design and functionality. Recently selected by the Royal Netherlands Army as part of an extensive $500 million mid-life upgrade program for the CV9035NL, the new turret configuration is also included in the CV90 MkIV offer for the Czech Republic.

According to the firm:

“Developed by BAE Systems Hägglunds in Örnsköldsvik, Sweden, the turret on display at DSEI is a 50mm gun. 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.”

“We are extremely proud to display the new D-series turret at DSEI to demonstrate the latest technology on the combat-proven CV90 platform,” said Tommy Gustafsson-Rask, managing director of BAE Systems Hägglunds.

“The new turret configuration provides CV90 crews with improved protection and increased combat efficiency. It represents our continued commitment to delivering the most modern, advanced Infantry Fighting Vehicle that meets our customers’ requirements now and in the future.”

The CV90 is also equipped with Elbit Systems’ Iron Fist Active Protection System solution and an integrated, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems’ SPIKE-LR long-range anti-tank guided missile. Other significant improvements include the latest generation of sensors, Artificial Intelligence and Augmented Reality software to increase the CV90s multi-domain capabilities on the battlefield.

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

99 COMMENTS

  4. The situation with AJAX looks grim I have to admit.
    We either solve the problems quickly or scrap them
    We would be stupid to ignore the potential of CV90

  5. Judging from Afghanistan reports the cannon is very effective. Looks to have withstood a few IED detonations too (not all of course) which is encouraging

  7. Ah the timing … just as news is being widely broadcast about the failure of Ajax. The CV90 shown here looks like the AFV we need to buy.

  8. The Netherlands & Czech Republic, lacking economies of scale, buy off the shelf and end up with this.

    The UK, believing we are an economy of scale, go for bespoke options and end up with AJAX.

    When will we learn….

  10. I know it’s a very minor point but the headlights in cv90 are still very 90s. You’d think they would upgrade with some led’s and get ride of the plastic orange indicator spot light.

  14. Does look the part, we done a u turn with Boxer! The CV90 appears to be a better candidate for AFV (six dismounts instead of four Ares-Ajax).
    The rationale regarding the CR2 upgrade was because of ammo (Cost). The CV90 uses the tried and trusted Bofors 40 mm gun (From WWII). The rationale of the Ajax was mainly recce. But our requirements have sine changed. But I do wonder if all the money spent on the caseless system for Ajax was wasted (higher ammo cost?). The Americans seem to be going large with the trusted Bushmaster series (MK III 50mm). I just wish the British Army could set their requirements right and be able to stick to them. Warrior got scrapped I think because of insufficient viable hulls, surely they could of fathomed that from the start?

    It seems we are too reliant on big industry when we should have some of the design skills internally. Politicians I guess to blame and ex top brass lobbying for these companies.

    Army procurement It’s a total mess! The boxer, Archer and HX3 10×10 all look interesting for the As90 replacement.

    • Hi Gary, CT40 isn’t caseless, it’s a “telescoped” round where the projectile is inside the propellant case. Makes it much shorter than an equivalent 40mm round meaning more can be stored and fitted into an AHS.
      cheers

      • Sorry Ian my bad. I should have said Cased Telescoped. Was rushing and was just thinking no brass in my minds eye.

        £70million were procured for the warrior effort which was cancelled. Hopefully it can be retro fitted into the Boxer. Though I read they were to be ‘disposed’ of.

        The point I was trying to make.. i’ve heard its had problems in testing. In hindsight it might be a headache like the CR2 rifled ammo turned out long term. Especially if the trend is to now go bigger (harder to retro fit than bushmaster).

        I just passionately want the best for are troops, they deserve it. A point I tried to make yesterday but failed. The CR3 mated to the 130mm by Rheinmetall could of been a chance for us to get ahead and maybe export in future. France & Germany are looking at it for their next tank. We have requested some form of involvement. A slim chance of catch up/expertise.

        The ballistics on the 130 & 140 look immense compared to 120mm. If are going to do the CR2 proud again. Lets show what can be done with limited risks.

    • Rationale for CR2 upgrade was mounting obsolescene of nearly everything (it had not been properly upgraded since fielding in 1996) – and diminished lethality of gun/ammo.

      Warrior upgrade (WCSP) scrapped to save money – but surely just as much would be spent on buying additional Boxers to replace them.

      Should we replace a tracked SP gun with a truck mounted one? I think we need boyj a tracked and a wheeled SP Gun.

      • Agree, ideally we have both tracked & wheeled. But for the strike concept, I think wheeled gives us the mobility to get to the fight early and we can get some capability now with an off the shelf cost (No nasty surprises). In some conflicts tracked won’t be needed or take weeks to mobilize.

        Boxer is well suited to Strike, however I fear the army doesn’t have the funds in place to go beyond the baseline and really get the firepower needed.

        CR2 still shows its pedigree. Which is a miracle because other countries have upgraded multiple times whilst CR2 got nothing.

        Warrior? Just don’t know enough tbh. If it’s viable to upgrade a no brainer. But it had been dropped as being more risky than Ajax 🙁

    • Looks that way Coll. But if the MOD bought the CV90 as an Ajax replacement, the usual meddling would take place, they would find a way of making it twice as heavy, so obese it would be unable to navigate a speed bump and rattle the crew to death at a sedate 20mph…..

    • Lol. Yes, timing was impeccable. Obviously this development has been going on in the background for a while. I wonder how the Ajax’s CT40mm rates against the CV 50mm? Anyone here know?

      • Ct40 rounds are more compact in size, therefore more can be carried in an AHS and as stored rounds in the turret. Ballistically, the 40mm CT round has performance similar to larger calibre rounds.
        From CTAi:

        ARMOUR PIERCING FIN STABILISED DISCARDING SABOT TRACERThe Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot – Tracer (APFSDS-T) is able to penetrate more than 140 mm of RHA (Rolled Homogeneous Armour) at 1500 m.
        This sub-calibre dart can defeat all light armoured vehicles, infantry fighting vehicles, including those heavily protected with advanced add-on armour.
        APFSDS-T Product qualified in 2014
        CHARACTERISTICS
        DIMENSIONS 65 x 255 mm
        AMMUNITION MASS 1900 g
        PROJECTILE MASS 550 g
        INITIAL VELOCITY >1500 m/s
        ACCURACY 0,3 mil
        PERFORATION 140 mm RHA at 1500 m
        EFFECTIVE RANGE >2500 m

  21. We are still using CVRT. Almost anything would be better right now, and any replacement is still years away. The future for armoured reconnaissance needs investment badly.

  22. Given our current doctrine seems to be to up armour, increase defensive suites etc and let the poor squaddies / matelots sit back and soak up damage to give the mandarins time to issue a stiffly worded letter, god forbid providing them with kit that might be able to manoeuvre and fire back effectively

  23. Let’s buy this then….Oh wait we have Ajax…No we don’t….Yes we do…Seriously let’s just buy something that bloody well works.

  24. OK looks great in photos and in the Sales Brochure, but don’t forget BAEs had there chance and missed it.

    HINDSIGHT
    there trying to sell it to the Czech and what other front line country has them.

    BAEs was not that interested in winning, just screwing the MOD

    they are all as bad as each other

  26. Interesting seeing CV90, Ajax and Challenger all under one roof…the difference in size was stark.

    Ajax is such a massive lump, it makes the Challenger look svelte. It’s certainly a different approach to the recce role from Scimitar, and given what’s been bolted on, it’s not surprising it’s had troubles.

    CV90’s reduced silhouette, on the other hand, seems more appropriate for a reconnaissance vehicle; but then, would it have fared any better than Ajax once all the extra kit has been added?

      • I always thought that the TRACER programme enabled the Yanks to persuade our chaps that you need a big Bradley CFV size vehicle to do recce.

  28. So fire rounds like AHEAD that explode and send out 152 tungsten projectiles per round and all those sensors are ruined, rendering the vehicle completely blind and defenceless.

    Hell, even paintball rounds would probably blind the sensors too, especially if they contained superglue and small chaff-like metal strips.

    Plus when in use, these sensors are going to get covered in mud, dust, sand and dead insects. Surely they need windscreen wipers to keep them clean?

        • Mr Jarce,
          Conceivably, either a radius type, like on a car or possibly a vertical sweep (as on the Thales sights used on AJAX), in which case the wiper arm is likely hidden at the bottom of the sight window. Some sights don’t have physical wiper arms, relying on high pressure water jets to provide the cleaning function.

          cheers

  29. Can we see the MoD growing a pair, admitting Ajax is garbage and bailing on the contract? That would mean admitting they made a mistake… If they have the minerals, CV90 is a great option & has a lot of variants already developed.

    2nd point – Forgive me if I misremember but – didn’t the MoD use the Australian Land 400 phase 2 testing to justify the choice of Boxer with minimal “tender process”? The Boxer that can be fitted and has been tested with the Lance 2.0 turret? The same turret used on the Lynx? The Lynx that’s in final stage testing for the Australian L400 Phase 3? Could the MoD use the same trick of “if it’s good enough for the Austrlians….”? Would the use of that turret lead to common training/ maintainance/ costs saved/ future upgrades etc…?

    Bit left field but; does anyone want to wager a pint that IF they pull the plug on Ajax, we get Lynx?

        • What can I say? You asked the question, I replied.

          However, to be constructive, I will say that the MOD is so heavily invested in the entire AJAX programme, not just the platforms themselves but the training aids, support contracts and building works that to drop the system now, then invest further hard won cash into another completely different programme would be political suicide. It’s not as simple as just popping down to Evans Halshaw and part-exing your motor because you don’t like the old one anymore. The training aids associated with the AJAX system of vehicles are radical and unprecedented in the British Army, full motion driver sims, turret sims, weapons sims etc etc. In my opinion, the UK MOD is wedded to the programme, wants the platform to work as advertised and get it to the Squaddie so he can make use of the protection, mobility and ISTAR assets that it provides. How the Army intend to use AJAX is a moot point at this time. It’s undoubtedly large size and weight is a direct result of MOD requirements regarding survivability and to Joe public make it seem obese, but, I’m told by Army contacts that they welcome a bit of lard if it means that they can get home.
          So, no, I don’t want to wager a beer, cheers.

          • Ian, the MoD invested a lot in the Nimrod AEW programme, the Nimrod MRA4 programme, (and further back – SP70, P1154, TSR-2, CVA-01, MBT-80 etc – and cancelled.

            They will pull the plug if its the only way – and say farewell to £billions and years worth of work.

            BTW, I hope the army would know how to use Ajax – they have used armoured recce vehicles before.
            Ian, the MoD invested a lot in the Nimrod AEW programme, the Nimrod MRA4 programme, (and further back – SP70, P1154, TSR-2, CVA-01, MBT-80 etc – and cancelled.

            They will pull the plug if its the only way – and say farewell to £billions and years worth of work.

            BTW, I hope the army would know how to use Ajax – they have used armoured recce vehicles before.

          • Hi Graham,
            You are of course correct in mentioning those other past programmes that were canned. Nothing is guaranteed with politicians, I accept. My reference as to how the Army will use AJAX is based around the “Strike” fiasco and some contacts with the MOD who STILL think that AJAX is a medium tank, very worrying!
            cheers
            Ian

          • Your contacts in MoD who think the Ajax is a medium tank scare me – they should not be allowed near policy making or decision making. Reminds me of the media types who insisted on calling Scimitar and Scorpion ‘light tanks’ – infuriating.
            Ajax is a medium (weight) AFV. It is not a tank.

            Another commentator to these pages thought that Strike as a concept was passe. Unbelievable – it was only just getting started. Although I have not seen even a definition of ‘Strike’ from MoD.

            I think the CVR(T) family was excellent – a full family of low-cost, transportable and effective vehicles of which Scorpion and Scimitar were the recce vehicles and Striker (clever and appropriate name) was the Strike variant. Striker could pack a punch – 5 Swingfires ready to fire and 5 more inside. It was retired far too early, and inexplicably, given there is no replacement.

            I think Strike should mean ‘defeat of light and medium armour and strong-points’ – perhaps the policy wonks could dress up the words. Then we procure a vehicle that can do that – a CVR(T) Striker replacement with medium/long range ATGW.

            Our armoured recce vehicle should stick to recce and not do strike as well – and several options are available if it absolutely must be medium weight (tweaked Bradley CFV, CV90, modified Warrior etc), but light weight options should at least be considered. It must be available now, and of a proven design.

          • Hi Graham, I’m intimately aware of the CVRT family of vehicles. I was a CET in the REME for 24 years and worked on Striker to component level (as we did in those days) and taught Scimitar sighting systems for years too. Luckily, my MOD contact has been promoted (sideways probably) onto a submarine programme, lord help us. GD UK have demonstrated a Striker like ARES with a Brimstone fit, I don’t know if the MOD will go for it but it would definitely fill that long range gap we have. As far as lightweight platforms go, I watched the Scimitars deployed in the sand boxes go from 8 tonnes to 12 ish in order to improve survivability and that is what, by and large, drives the increasing heft of AFVs plus all of the MOD required gubbins inside.
            cheers

          • Hi Ian, I was in REME too but I apparently didn’t work for a living as I was an officer. My first civvy job after leaving was at Abbey Wood so I know how procurement is done. Why was Striker canned without replacement? Are there Sabres still at BATUS as OPFOR? Will Ajax be canned? What would we buy instead? Why is it taking Industry to 2030 to convert CR2s to CR3 when a Base workshop could do it quicker? Its good to chat. Arte et mate.

          • Hi Graham,
            Isn’t procurement at Abbey Wood one of those oxymorons? Just joking! I think Striker was canned because the Swingfire missiles had come to end of life and couldn’t be upgraded or refurbished. The Infantry would supply the ATGW with MILAN (which I also worked on). Wiki has the SABRE withdrawn from service in 2004. AJAX is now in the hands of the SRO, Mr. Marsh, Swampy to his friends, so there’s no way of knowing anytime soon. CV90 is a good platform but the time to add on and integrate all of the MODs requirements, sights, electronic architecture, protection, weapons (CT40 and L94) etc etc would add years to the life of the programme. As for CR2/3, well that’s purely down to cash flow. The MOD doesn’t really have any to flow anywhere despite the £16 billion extra.
            Happy birthday R.E.M.E.
            cheers

  30. It looks the part – and is ready now. Anyone know the latest on the Ajax story. I thought GDLUK had passed the deadline to put a ‘get well’ plan forward to DE&S.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here