This new order for 20 additional CV90 mortar systems for the Swedish Army brings the total fleet to 80 vehicles, planned to be in service by 2025.
BAE Systems has received a contract modification from the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) to build 20 additional CV90 mortar vehicles, bringing the total fleet of these vehicles in the Swedish Army to 80.
The contract, valued at approximately $30 million, has been awarded to the BAE Systems Swedish joint venture, HB Utveckling AB, which integrates BAE Systems’ Hägglunds and Bofors manufacturing capabilities.
Production of the vehicles will be carried out at BAE Systems Hägglunds in Örnsköldsvik, Sweden. The original contract for 40 CV90 Mjölner systems was awarded in 2016 and deliveries started in 2019, with successful completion in 2020.
In February 2022, FMV awarded a follow-on contract for 20 additional systems, as well as an upgrade of the 40 systems already in service, to bring them all to the same standard by integrating the Swedish Army’s new C4I LSS Mark system.
Upon completion of the contract modification deliveries in 2025, the Swedish Army will have 80 CV90 mortar vehicles in its fleet. These vehicles, known as Granatkastarpansarbandvagn 90, provide crucial indirect firepower capabilities in the mechanized brigades.
The CV90 vehicle, with its combat-proven track record and ability to accommodate future growth, is currently in service with several countries, including Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, with Slovakia and the Czech Republic having recently selected it to replace their legacy infantry fighting vehicle fleets.
Nice machine, CV90 variants are proving to be a popular choice. Good price aswell for a follow on order $30m. I love the Swedish names of vehicles😂
Granatkastarpansarbandvagn 90
Hi Mr MS,
Google translates it as: “Grenade launcher armored car”, but I think the literal translation is cooler: “grenadethrowertanktrackedwagon”.
😃
Apt, Mojolner was Thor’s Hammer I recall.
Maybe there will be something named after Odin’s Ravens and Freya’s Boar next! And who doesn’t love a Valkyrie.
Surely that’s price mistake $30 for 20 cv90
They’re modifying existing vehicles.
No they are not modifying existing vehicles, the first order of 40 was stored vehicles, as it was a canceled order with the intend to use the Finnish AMOS.
New kid on the block. “Elbit Systems presented the Crossbow 120 mm turreted mortar at Defence IQ’s International Armoured Vehicles (IAV) 2023 conference being held in London from 23 to 26 January. The weapon can be installed in a mission module with minimal protrusion, can be easily operated by a single crew member, and is fuzed for fully automatic operation, according to Elbit. It can fire the company’s range of mortar rounds, including those with an extended range and precision guidance. It has a range of 10 km and a rate of fire exceeding 12 rds/min, achieving 16 rounds for… Read more »
Hanwha Defense Skyfall 120mm Self-Propelled Mortar
Why don’t we buy them? Why doesn’t the army like 120mm mortars?
Our army would surely very much like to buy tracked vehicle-mounted 120mm mortars – why wouldn’t they? Probably there is no budget for an additional capability.
I think it’s more the case that these weapons would become an Artillery asset and Infantry Commanders want to retain control of Mortars to guarantee some form of OS capability within their Battalions. I firmly believe that the Strike Brigades should be equipped with this or AMOS on the Boxer Platform…
In the UK, mortars are always in the hands of the Infantry, so they would not become an Artillery asset (meaning an asset of the RA).
The 2 x Strike bdes are no longer in the future ORBAT, which now shows a single Deep Strike Recce Bde.
Most, if not all Boxers, need to carry some firepower or they are just a very expensive tin can.
During the Korean War Mortars were an Arty asset controlled by independent Mortar Batteries. They weren’t always an Infantry asset.
Silly Swedes buying tracked vehicles when the UK has decided that wheeled vehicles like Boxer will do fine. It’s not as if the Ukrainians have said that tracked vehicles are essential for warfare on soft ground. Oh, hang on, they did
The British army is going to be at risk of being stuck on a paved road surface network because we’ve gone all in on boxer. Russia was stuck on a single road north of Kyiv. That went well for them didn’t it?
Good for 80% of the time……
I don’t approve of the decision to buy Boxer as a Warrior replacement but we were buying Boxers anyway as a MIV.
Boxer does have a cross-country capability, in fairness.
Sounds a bit like when Helen Clarke overrode the NZ Army advice for a tracked vehicle with amphibious river, lake and swamp crossing capability which could also ideally manage short ship to shore distances in clear weather.
So rather than replace the M113 with something suited to the Asian/Pacific and local NZ terrain, we ended up with Canadian prairie cruisers. The Canadian LAV III, modified and rechristened the NZLAV.
Great on wide open dry terrain, but not so good in our own backyard.
Maybe the next govt will get it right when replacing the NZLAVs.
We aren’t fully going wheeled, we do have Ajax and Aries, that are tracked, should they ever enter service. I think there is still hope for the warrior program, not a lot of hope but a little. The government seems to have woken up to the issues with the kit, the question now is if they release funds to fix it or just talk about vague plans that will happen in 20 years without any funds, long after they are no longer responsible. There was a interview where someone was explaining why we haven’t restocked the NLAW and they said… Read more »
I saw a picture on Twitter, no idea if genuine, that showed the WCSP prototypes being crushed!
Warrior upgrade (WCSP) was cancelled in May 2021, so how is there a little hope? Some Warriors are being converted into a recce vehicle to allow Scimitar to be phased out and until Ajax comes in.
Not sure there is a need yet to look for a NLAW successor- they seem to still be doing a good job.
Why no chance? The design was complete and I can’t image they just deleted the design work (although anything is possible) so no reason they couldn’t reactivate it if the money came available
We are talking about WCSP. When a government cancels a project it is rare for a U-turn to happen – can you name any examples?
Govt decided in May 2021 that we would buy Boxers instead for the ‘armoured infantry’ – they could be on order now – that would be hard to cancel a contract – not impossible but expensive to do, due to cancellation charges.
It is very unlikely that design work and development records would have been disposed of but prototypes and jigs etc would surely have been scrapped.
Yeah I think it’s almost impossible to happen, but it could, if there was a will. I’m pretty sure the army would jump on it if the money was made available.
I think in the end no money is coming. If no money was released when the war started, it’s not going to suddenly come now that things are more stable from a NATO perspective.
I wonder who decided to cancel Warrior upgrade and then that a wheeled Boxer, possibly without a cannon, would be a good substitute?
Everyone usually blames CGS.
This CV90 variant looks like a very good piece of kit – I hope it is on the army’s shopping list.
Boxer armoured taxi should not be a replacement for warrior. Basically it’s been put in the role as nothing else is financed.
Boxer armored taxi can only transport one Brigade it seems. Most versions on order are not for infantry.
Other than the ‘modular trick’ and maybe a few more mm of armour thickness, is Boxer that much more competent than a 1950s Saracen! Of course, I am joking….they cost so much they must be 10x better.
Surely what is financed should be what the army wants and sets out in its Requirements documentation – so has the army said it wants Warrior replaced by Boxer – and which version?
We’ve back the wrong horse going for Ajax when CV90 series vehicles are entering service in ever increasing numbers with our NATO partners and are proving reliable, adaptable designs.
Why we can’t bin warrior, scrap the disaster that is Ajax and just get multiple CV90 versions I don’t know. It’s not because of price as the unit price for an IFV version or scout reconnaissance version is 50% less than the Ajax vehicles.
100% agree
Sunk cost fallacy.
Had you not heard that Ajax has been modified and completed its User Validation Trials and is now embarked on Reliability Growth Trials? So why still call it a disaster?
Bin Warrior? That is happening and was announced in May 2021. But I would prefer CV90 IFV instead rather than wheeled Boxers.
It is a mystery that CV90 (Recce) was not seriously considered to replace Scimitar, except that possibly those in Government had an anti-BAE bias.
Here’s my take. Boxer, Ajax/ Ares will be built in the UK. Taken together with CR3 they constitute an industrial strategy ( I know, sit down, Its a shock ) to rebuild skills and an industrial capability – not based on BAE’.
A question….would it be meaningful to extend the capabilities / role / versions of Ares to a more general APC + +?
We have finally got a (military) Land Industrial strategy, many years after the Navy got theirs, but I can’t say I have read it. I am sure it says a bit more than that we are building those vehicles in the UK. ARES is described as the APC of the Ajax family, but it carries only 4 dismounts – a specialist team and not an Infantry section. Even if you could somehow stretch it (at huge expense and time) to get a 8-man section in, it would be about the most expensive APC in the world – and markedly inferior… Read more »
FV 432 Bulldogs…they are the future…😀
Good one!
You’re forgetting that Budgets are controlled by individuals sitting in the HoC. Senior Military Officers only air their true feelings about Equipment procurement when their very generous pensions are safe
Military budgets are devolved from the Centre (MoD Head Office) to TLB (Top Level Budget holders).
This is the list of TLBs from an old (2010-2011) document:
Royal Navy Command
Land Forces
Air Command
Permanent Joint Headquarters
Defence Equipment & Support
Central
Defence Estates
Science, Innovation & Technology
It will be slightly different now with terminology changes.
There are two turreted 120mm mortar systems for the the CV90, AMOS and Mjolner. One is a breech loader the other is a muzzle loader. AMOS is classed as gun-mortar, as it can do direct fire as well as indirect fire. It is also fully automated. Whereas Mjolner is only indirect fire and is semi-automatically loaded. There are two loaders in the turret, who place mortar shells on a feed tray. They then push the trays up. Which feds the mortar shell up alongside the tube, and then over the muzzle. Where it then drops the shell into the tube… Read more »
I first heard of AMOS about 15 years ago and a similar product from RO plc, I think, even further back. Beats me why we have never ordered mounted 120mm mortars, especially when the RA started to decline in numbers.