BAE Systems has finalised contracts worth approximately $2.5 billion with Denmark and Sweden for the procurement of CV90 combat vehicles.
The agreements mark a significant milestone in modernising the defence capabilities of both nations while also supporting Ukraine through additional vehicles financed by Denmark and Sweden.
The contracts were signed under a three-party framework agreement involving BAE Systems, the Danish Ministry of Defence Acquisition and Logistics Organisation (DALO), and the Swedish Defense Materiel Administration (FMV). This framework builds upon an initial agreement signed with Sweden in May 2024, further expanding the reach of the CV90 programme.
Denmark has ordered 115 CV9035MkIIIC vehicles, complementing its existing fleet of 44, which Major General Peter Boysen, Chief of the Royal Danish Army, said would significantly enhance Denmark’s role in collective security and international operations. Speaking on the importance of the acquisition, Boysen noted:
“The infantry fighting vehicle is an essential component of the heavy brigade we are currently building. The 115 new vehicles will significantly enhance Denmark’s contribution to collective security and international operations. With the 44 existing vehicles, we will have a total of 159 vehicles, providing us with substantial strength – also from an international perspective.”
Sweden, for its part, has agreed to purchase 50 CV9035MkIIIC vehicles as part of its continuing investment in advanced military technology. The agreements also include further vehicles destined for Ukraine, underscoring the regional commitment to supporting the country amidst ongoing conflict.
Tommy Gustafsson-Rask, managing director of BAE Systems Hägglunds, which designs and produces the CV90, highlighted the vehicle’s advanced capabilities:
“These new CV9035MkIIICs will extend the capabilities of the armed forces of Sweden and Denmark. They will also provide their crews with improved situational awareness and increased mobility, protection, and lethality.”
The CV9035MkIIIC is built to the same standard as the CV90 mid-life upgrade programme for the Netherlands, reflecting years of combat-proven experience and continuous innovation. Equipped with a new turret and incorporating feedback from the CV90 User Club—a consortium of 10 nations that operate CV90 fleets—the vehicle offers enhanced functionality and interoperability, say BAE.
Looks good. I wonder if we could have had some,say ten years ago !
Geoff, CV90 first fielded with Swedish Army in 1994. Currently the Mk5 is being developed.
This should of been our Warrior replacement much better than Boxer but to late now 🙄
Just say “Ajax” and have a laugh with yourself.
If only the UK had done the same 14 years ago. They’d have had a vehicle in service for the last 6 years, unlike now with Ajax!
He prioritised jobs in a poor area of the country for political reasons, and wanted Ajax built in an old tractor factory ( I think ) to build the vehicle. and ex army brass were I believe on the board of GDUK!
What a surprise.
He was also at the helm when our then Armoured Division of 3 Brigades, all with CS CSS, 3 AS90 Regiments, 3 Tanks Regiments, 6 Warrior Bns and 3 other Battalions was dismembered so Boxer could be prioritised.
I still think Ajax and Boxer will be excellent vehicles, but at great cost and delay.
Boxer needs to be bloody excellent at everything it does….and it still wouldnt warrant the choice.
Hi Grizzler, Boxer is a perfectly competent MIV for the Mechanised Infantry, albeit horrendously expensive.
It is not a suitable replacement for an IFV in the armoured brigades – it cannot and will not do the job required of it there. It will be destroyed by enemy IFVs.
There is a rule that prohibits senior public employees from joining contractors within seven years, I think it is, of leaving service. Unfortunately, it can be waved in ‘special circumstances’ and it seems there are always ‘special circumstances’… it is corruption pure and simple. The special circumstances loop hole should closed, period.
It affects the whole of public procurement not just the MOD…
I still think the army needs a tracked heavier IFV to trundle around with the Challengers and do the heavy lifting. Boxer looks like a good vehicle for the Mech Inf Bns but as it is a wheeled vehicle I worry that its cross country capabilities do not match the tanks’. Mixing capabilities like that means that the formation will end up with the worst of both world if they need to keep the infantry and tanks coordinated, i.e. the strategically mobile Boxer will be held back by the tanks if a big fast move is needed on roads and the tanks will be held up if the Boxers cannot negotiate muddy ground in a tactical situation, for example.
I do like the look of the CV90, but that ship has sailed. The private venture tracked Boxer capable of using the same modules as the wheeled version might be a reasonable and cost effective solution, but probably not as good as CV90 given the latter’s user community.
Cheers CR
That 7 year rule may be in place now CR but its not always been there. Plenty of guys with lots of gold on their shoulders have been tapped up while still serving and not because they were good on the tools. I took a submarine out of build in Barrow that the captain was leaving the navy shortly after to get a job with…..
Lets just say there was potential for a conflict of interest.
CV90 would have been our IFV, not a recc vehicle, which Ajax is.
I do not know if there are any recc variants of CV90.
There is a recc variant of the CV90 which just rubs it all in.
Still hope Ajax and Boxer (as an APC) work well and hoping to see an Ascod 3 made out of Ares.
Hi Daniele, The Norwegians have a recce CV90. Back in the day, BAE offered a recce CV90 concept for the CVR(T) replacement competition but MoD went with the GDUK bid, as we know.
All Ajax is a development of the ASCOD. It is nothing special. Far from it a very much middle of the pack vehicle.
There is nothing special about it. Nothing that a CV90 could be made to do.
In fact several armies already field a reconnaissance variant.
What a silly pompous thing for you to say.
What about the uk military when do we get the kit our troops need or am I being delusional thinking our troops will get the best and latest equipment
How good is it really? It’s certainly hardly a bargain at $10m+ and it is a 30 year old design. Nor is it certain that BAEs offer to manufacture/ assemble in the UK would have avoided the GDUK problems in reconstituting lost skills.
The British Army struggled to decide what it needed throughout the tortuous FRES process. Opted for Boxer then changed their mind, then changed back again.
If Warrior upgrade had been handled better, we would now have 3 up to date platforms. As it is, we need to decide whether an IFV is necessary after all. Up-arming Boxer looks to be the obvious and most affordable option. Fits with the decision to acquire wheeled SPGs on Boxer chassis.
Peter, CV90 was first fielded with the Swedish Army in 1994. Unlike our AFVs it has been progressively updated and the Mk5 is in development right now.
$10m = ÂŁ7.76m. I think that is a fair price for a very good, modern IFV.
I don’t believe the army is deciding whether an IFV is necessary – they know an IFV is necessary – that is why they put out a Staff Requirment to modernise Warrior for the AI.
Boxer, the MIV, was for the Mech Inf, totally different role.
Politicians however cancelled Warrior upgrade and forced the army to accept Boxer into the armd brigades. Politics and money reared their ugly heads.
Thus the army is forced to have an unsuitable vehicle in its armoured brigades.
Some sort of fudging is now happening, and apparently ARES is being considered for some sort of conversion to an IFV.
The wheeled SPG was also forced on the army by a politician, Rishi Sunak. The army was set to hold a competitive evaluation between a number of wheeled and tracked SPGs, but Sunak’s decision cancelled the usual process..
That is like saying todays Porsche 911 is a 60 year old vehicle.
The headline should read “Denmark and Sweden take defence seriously”! Both understand the threats, and proportionally Denmark has quadrupled its CV90 fleet! Let’s hope our European friends slow the Russkies down enough for us to deploy some harsh words and 70s outdated platforms to enhance the defence! Thank fuck Poland knows the threats and is spending and training to counter it! Poland is currently the tip of the NATO spear and the main stumbling block to any (stupid) Russkie Putin lead incursion! But the main threat for the next 1-2 years will be Russian asymmetric and grey zone actions, which leaves our retarded and absolutely inept new Government a very short time to get its defence shit together!
There should have a criminal investigation into Army Inc given the complete FU it is at moment. It’s beyond bad.
OS, don’t just blame the army staff. Politicians, the Treasury and Industry have all played a part in this ‘criminal’ endeavour!
We should have bought this kit as cvrt and 432 replacement years ago
FV430 was always originally going to be replaced by MIV ie Boxers.
CVR(T) STRIKER could have been replaced by CV90 recce variant (BAE offered this).
Warriors should have been upgraded (WCSP) but a good alternative (although more expensive) would have been CV90 IFV.
The Army should have purchased Stormer to replace CVR(T).
And CV90x0 for cavalry tasks.
We all know FV432 Bulldog will still be pootling along after we are dead and gone.
They haven’t even decided on a replacement yet.
This is how procurement should be done. Can’t we send UK personnel to other countries to learn ?