The CV90 Fan Page
- Thread starter Infanteer
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
ArmyRick said:
Sorry Rick. I know it has track. But I guess I am going from today's doctrine that we are not going to have track anytime soon, if ever.
Kirkhill said:
Very true as well. Which makes it even more attractive even as a wheeled vehicle. I am just going from the idea that 8 wheels beat 6 as far as any cross country is concerned. The pivot ability is the best feature though.
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
The SEV in the illustration is just a proof of concept item, there is no reason a production SEV can't have 8 wheels, or even 16 for that matter.
Given the possibility that the SEV can be a lot lighter than a current LAV with the use of hybrid drive, plastic armour and possibilities like electromagnetic armour and electrical weaponry, the ground pressure of a 6X6 SEV might actually be lower than an 8X8 LAV. Given the possibility that the CF as a whole needs about 8000 vehicles of all sorts, the Swedes would be well advised to get to work....now to find some Liberal friendly sub contractors in Canada and add a 100% mark up
Given the possibility that the SEV can be a lot lighter than a current LAV with the use of hybrid drive, plastic armour and possibilities like electromagnetic armour and electrical weaponry, the ground pressure of a 6X6 SEV might actually be lower than an 8X8 LAV. Given the possibility that the CF as a whole needs about 8000 vehicles of all sorts, the Swedes would be well advised to get to work....now to find some Liberal friendly sub contractors in Canada and add a 100% mark up
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
A bit of cross threading with the Light Cavalry page, but here is a piece on uparmoured utility vehicles, which would tend to support my idea of an SEV-utility.
http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTATRIT.HTM
http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTATRIT.HTM
- Reaction score
- 1,300
- Points
- 1,040
The CV-90 seems to be a pretty good platform. Now, I realise that we don't have a bazillion bucks to scrap the LAV fleet, MGS, TLAV (formerly known affectionately as the "track" or "APC"), but, just imagine. Common chassis (a la AVGP), fairly good protection, fairly light, powerful punch, flexible, etc etc. I believe that A_Majoor has been going on about these, but they seem to be a fairly good family of vehicle, so.....
Light 'em up, boys! (and girls, of course)
:evil:
Light 'em up, boys! (and girls, of course)
:evil:
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
I was able to talk to some people at AUSA and see the product literature, and the CV-90 family really is "all that". In the current time frame only the German PUMA could spin off any real competition, as it is the same idea in a newer bottle. The FCS is an altogether different package, and won't be in service for many years to come (if ever).
The PUMA is ahead in protection, with uparmour packages bringing the weight to 45 tonnes (@ 50 tonnes all bombed up), and a low profile remote control turret to keep everyone head down and out of harms way. Future derivatives would share the protection and perhaps the remote turret or some variation, a PUMA-120 would be quite the piece of kit.
On the other hand, the CV-90 family is 10-20 tonnes lighter, depending on the version, and this gives the logistical advantage to the Swedes. Strategic and operational mobility will be a huge factor in future force planning, and lighter vehicles have a certain tactical advantage in areas with poorly developed infrastructure ("Cancel the left flanking, all the bridges are MCL-20").
The critical factor will be the "Grand Strategy" of the purchasers; do they want a fast moving expeditionary force which can arrive quickly and presumably before an enemy can prepare, or a heavier force which is less mobile but harder hitting? I have my reservations about AFVs in the 70 tonne range, but the 30-50 tonne AFV family is a good sandbox to play in.
The PUMA is ahead in protection, with uparmour packages bringing the weight to 45 tonnes (@ 50 tonnes all bombed up), and a low profile remote control turret to keep everyone head down and out of harms way. Future derivatives would share the protection and perhaps the remote turret or some variation, a PUMA-120 would be quite the piece of kit.
On the other hand, the CV-90 family is 10-20 tonnes lighter, depending on the version, and this gives the logistical advantage to the Swedes. Strategic and operational mobility will be a huge factor in future force planning, and lighter vehicles have a certain tactical advantage in areas with poorly developed infrastructure ("Cancel the left flanking, all the bridges are MCL-20").
The critical factor will be the "Grand Strategy" of the purchasers; do they want a fast moving expeditionary force which can arrive quickly and presumably before an enemy can prepare, or a heavier force which is less mobile but harder hitting? I have my reservations about AFVs in the 70 tonne range, but the 30-50 tonne AFV family is a good sandbox to play in.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
As a bit of an expansion on a_majoor's discussion on the CV90, it should be noted that Hagglunds/BAE system's SEV program is being developed to complement rather than replace the CV90 and Leopard 2 in Swedish service.
My view on things.
Cv90 is great, and all. But you really need the 9040 Ceasar (charlie version) that has addon armor. 9040 is the 40 mm version gun. We refer to them as 9040, 9035 (export nato 35mm). See you use alittle bit diffrent names. (Then its not so light weight anymore).
The cv90 was made with one goal in my
Anyway, if you can wait little you really should buy the SEP/SEV.
Works like this, you build a number of ambulance, troopcarrier, mortar whatever need you have.
Then you have like a few tracks and a few wheels ones, switching between tracks and wheels takes roughly 30 min, with the use of a crane.
So basicly you could have a driver, taking the SEP and driving supplies to a village in kosovo with wheels then goes back to base, switch to tracks and head out again but thru the forest to a checkpoint somewhere. Ofcourse the mechanics wont be too happy to switch between tracks or wheels but thats another problem.
How is the general view on this in sweden?
Well, officialy its a new APC, IFV whatever you want but it will have pretty bad protection, again i think there will come a "charlie" version just for real duty, but probaly it will be used on peace keeping and replacing stuff today is more or less "soft skin".
Cv90 is great, and all. But you really need the 9040 Ceasar (charlie version) that has addon armor. 9040 is the 40 mm version gun. We refer to them as 9040, 9035 (export nato 35mm). See you use alittle bit diffrent names. (Then its not so light weight anymore).
The cv90 was made with one goal in my
Anyway, if you can wait little you really should buy the SEP/SEV.
Works like this, you build a number of ambulance, troopcarrier, mortar whatever need you have.
Then you have like a few tracks and a few wheels ones, switching between tracks and wheels takes roughly 30 min, with the use of a crane.
So basicly you could have a driver, taking the SEP and driving supplies to a village in kosovo with wheels then goes back to base, switch to tracks and head out again but thru the forest to a checkpoint somewhere. Ofcourse the mechanics wont be too happy to switch between tracks or wheels but thats another problem.
How is the general view on this in sweden?
Well, officialy its a new APC, IFV whatever you want but it will have pretty bad protection, again i think there will come a "charlie" version just for real duty, but probaly it will be used on peace keeping and replacing stuff today is more or less "soft skin".
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,230
- Points
- 1,160
I am a unrepentant fan of this family of vehicles, the APC, IFV, support, engineer (if made) and Mortar versions should all be purchased right now as a addition to our fleet of LAV’s, you can then retire the various M113 versions. Since people are always screaming “keep the supply chain simple” they will find this approach hard to argue.
I am all for Canada replacing it’s Leo’s with newer MBT and Leo 2’s and versions of the M1 are there for the asking, all we have to do is make the decision. But if we aren’t going to replace the Leo C2’s or upgrade them, then we might as well consider the CV90/120 as an addition or replacement as the Leo’s become to difficult to reapair. They are supposed to be out of service in less than 10 years and even if we signed the cheque today we would not likely see a CV90/120 for at least 3 years. How much armour protection are you going to lose between the current Leo (I heard that only a fraction got the upgrade) and the CV90/120? I doubt either could stand up against a modern 125mm round, although as pointed out the likely threat will be an older 100mm, threat level will depend on which ammo they are using, as I think the Chinese and others are marketing new ammo for the 100mm.
Frankly I am tired of us always waiting for the next greatest design coming down the pipe, we have a chance right now to equip our forces with some of the best MBT and IFV’s in the world and the MBT’s are at bargain prices. Plus if we tag onto the Dutch order for the CV’s likely we can get a good price.
I am all for Canada replacing it’s Leo’s with newer MBT and Leo 2’s and versions of the M1 are there for the asking, all we have to do is make the decision. But if we aren’t going to replace the Leo C2’s or upgrade them, then we might as well consider the CV90/120 as an addition or replacement as the Leo’s become to difficult to reapair. They are supposed to be out of service in less than 10 years and even if we signed the cheque today we would not likely see a CV90/120 for at least 3 years. How much armour protection are you going to lose between the current Leo (I heard that only a fraction got the upgrade) and the CV90/120? I doubt either could stand up against a modern 125mm round, although as pointed out the likely threat will be an older 100mm, threat level will depend on which ammo they are using, as I think the Chinese and others are marketing new ammo for the 100mm.
Frankly I am tired of us always waiting for the next greatest design coming down the pipe, we have a chance right now to equip our forces with some of the best MBT and IFV’s in the world and the MBT’s are at bargain prices. Plus if we tag onto the Dutch order for the CV’s likely we can get a good price.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
CTC Gagetown has a fair number of the T-LAV's............... Couldn't speculate on exact number, but there is a fair number down there.
Regards
Regards
Hey guys sry if i post that as my first post here but maybe its good to start whit that anyway here what i ave think
Ps:sry if my english is a little crappy im a frenchy canuck
Well lots of talking about MGS MMEV...some say its crap other say it gonna be cool i ave read last week that most of the CF want leo back and leave the MGS MMEV and put the money in better thing..i even read about CF buying M1A1 like the aussie.. anyway what about CV90 and all the variant?Uh im dumb you will say but look at that
Ok let take the LAV for compare some of the spec LAV weight is 18 000 and max speed 100kph
CF was looking for some kind of wheeled artillery system right?
You guys ever heard about
CV90 AMOS (Advanced MOrtar System)
Spec:
AMOS is a high firepower twin-barrel 120mm smooth bore mortar jointly developed by Hagglunds and Patria. The CV90 AMOS provides high rate indirect fire at battalion level, while retains significant direct fire capability.
The AMOS mortar system can engage targets at more than 10 km with conventional unguided ammunition or smart ammunition such as the STRIX projectile. It also provides a multiple round simultaneous impact capability of up to 14 impacts simultaneously and provides high rates of fire.
Crew 4
Main Gun Caliber 120mm 4.72-in
Height 2.8 m 9-ft
Length 6.6 m 22-ft
Max Range 600 km 324 nm
Rate of Fire 26 rounds/min
Max Speed 70 kph 44 mph
Max Weight 28,000 kg 61,728-lb
Weight (Empty) 24,000 kg 52,910-lb
Number of Weapons 90
Power 600 shp
SetUp Time 1 min
Span 3.2 m 10-ft
For the MGS looking of discution about its gonna be easy to transport oversea and easy to drive in little road but they should thing about our guys im not the only one knowing how easy to destroy a striker is by a IED or RPG (just look at USA in irak) and knowing the LAV look to ave problem whit stability just try to think whit a 105mm turret on how its gonna be...So what about CV90105 and CV90120
CV90105 Anti-Tank Vehicle (TML).
Spec:
The CV90105 combines GIAT's TML 105 turret and the proven CV90 chassis achieving an anti-tank vehicle. The TML 105 turret has day and night sights for both commander and gunner providing a hunter-killer capability.
Crew 4
Main Gun Caliber 105mm 4.13-in
Height 2.8 m 9-ft
Length 8.9 m 29-ft
Max Range 600 km 324 nm
Max Speed 70 kph 44 mph
Max Weight 28,000 kg 61,728-lb
Weight (Empty) 26,000 kg 57,319-lb
Power 600 shp
Span 3.2 m 10-ft
120mm
Spec:
The CV90120 is armed with the high-pressure, low recoil CTG 120/L50 smooth bore gun enabled to fire all 120mm standard NATO ammunition. Secondary armament consists of a 7.62mm and a 12.7mm machine guns. In addition of the gunner's UTAAS sight, the CV90120 also mounts a Commander's Panoramic low signature sight providing a hunter-killer capability.
Crew 4
Main Gun Caliber 120mm 4.72-in
Height 2.8 m 9-ft
Length 8.9 m 29-ft
Max Range 600 km 324 nm
Rate of Fire 14 rounds/min
Max Speed 70 kph 44 mph
Max Weight 28,000 kg 61,728-lb
Weight (Empty) 26,000 kg 57,319-lb
Number of Weapons 45
Power 600 shp
Span 3.2 m 10-ft
Rate of Fire (Sustained) 12 rounds/min
For the MMEV
CV9040 Anti-Aircraft Vehicle (AAV).
Spec:
The CV9040 AAV combines the CV90 chassis with the proven Bofors Defence TriAD turret. This vehicle is intended to provide short range air defense supporting mechanized military units even in the front-line of the battlefield. The CV9040 AAV is armed with a Bofors L70 40mm cannon and is also suitable against surface targets.
Crew 3
Main Gun Caliber 40mm 1.57-in
Height 2.5 m 8-ft
Length 6.6 m 22-ft
Max Range 600 km 324 nm
Rate of Fire 330 rounds/min
Max Speed 70 kph 44 mph
Max Weight 28,000 kg 61,728-lb
Weight (Empty) 24,000 kg 52,910-lb
Power 600 shp
Span 3.2 m 10-ft
Put in team whit The old ADATS turret mounted on a CV90 chassis
Here some other variants
CV90 Armoured Recovery Vehicle (ARV).
CV9025 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV).
CV9030 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV).
CV9040 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV).
The CV9035 MkIII
CV90 Forward Observation Vehicle (FOV).
CV90 Forward Command Vehicle (FCV).
What you guys think about this idea?i'd like to ave some feedback plz thank
Ps:sry if my english is a little crappy im a frenchy canuck
Well lots of talking about MGS MMEV...some say its crap other say it gonna be cool i ave read last week that most of the CF want leo back and leave the MGS MMEV and put the money in better thing..i even read about CF buying M1A1 like the aussie.. anyway what about CV90 and all the variant?Uh im dumb you will say but look at that
Ok let take the LAV for compare some of the spec LAV weight is 18 000 and max speed 100kph
CF was looking for some kind of wheeled artillery system right?
You guys ever heard about
CV90 AMOS (Advanced MOrtar System)
Spec:
AMOS is a high firepower twin-barrel 120mm smooth bore mortar jointly developed by Hagglunds and Patria. The CV90 AMOS provides high rate indirect fire at battalion level, while retains significant direct fire capability.
The AMOS mortar system can engage targets at more than 10 km with conventional unguided ammunition or smart ammunition such as the STRIX projectile. It also provides a multiple round simultaneous impact capability of up to 14 impacts simultaneously and provides high rates of fire.
Crew 4
Main Gun Caliber 120mm 4.72-in
Height 2.8 m 9-ft
Length 6.6 m 22-ft
Max Range 600 km 324 nm
Rate of Fire 26 rounds/min
Max Speed 70 kph 44 mph
Max Weight 28,000 kg 61,728-lb
Weight (Empty) 24,000 kg 52,910-lb
Number of Weapons 90
Power 600 shp
SetUp Time 1 min
Span 3.2 m 10-ft
For the MGS looking of discution about its gonna be easy to transport oversea and easy to drive in little road but they should thing about our guys im not the only one knowing how easy to destroy a striker is by a IED or RPG (just look at USA in irak) and knowing the LAV look to ave problem whit stability just try to think whit a 105mm turret on how its gonna be...So what about CV90105 and CV90120
CV90105 Anti-Tank Vehicle (TML).
Spec:
The CV90105 combines GIAT's TML 105 turret and the proven CV90 chassis achieving an anti-tank vehicle. The TML 105 turret has day and night sights for both commander and gunner providing a hunter-killer capability.
Crew 4
Main Gun Caliber 105mm 4.13-in
Height 2.8 m 9-ft
Length 8.9 m 29-ft
Max Range 600 km 324 nm
Max Speed 70 kph 44 mph
Max Weight 28,000 kg 61,728-lb
Weight (Empty) 26,000 kg 57,319-lb
Power 600 shp
Span 3.2 m 10-ft
120mm
Spec:
The CV90120 is armed with the high-pressure, low recoil CTG 120/L50 smooth bore gun enabled to fire all 120mm standard NATO ammunition. Secondary armament consists of a 7.62mm and a 12.7mm machine guns. In addition of the gunner's UTAAS sight, the CV90120 also mounts a Commander's Panoramic low signature sight providing a hunter-killer capability.
Crew 4
Main Gun Caliber 120mm 4.72-in
Height 2.8 m 9-ft
Length 8.9 m 29-ft
Max Range 600 km 324 nm
Rate of Fire 14 rounds/min
Max Speed 70 kph 44 mph
Max Weight 28,000 kg 61,728-lb
Weight (Empty) 26,000 kg 57,319-lb
Number of Weapons 45
Power 600 shp
Span 3.2 m 10-ft
Rate of Fire (Sustained) 12 rounds/min
For the MMEV
CV9040 Anti-Aircraft Vehicle (AAV).
Spec:
The CV9040 AAV combines the CV90 chassis with the proven Bofors Defence TriAD turret. This vehicle is intended to provide short range air defense supporting mechanized military units even in the front-line of the battlefield. The CV9040 AAV is armed with a Bofors L70 40mm cannon and is also suitable against surface targets.
Crew 3
Main Gun Caliber 40mm 1.57-in
Height 2.5 m 8-ft
Length 6.6 m 22-ft
Max Range 600 km 324 nm
Rate of Fire 330 rounds/min
Max Speed 70 kph 44 mph
Max Weight 28,000 kg 61,728-lb
Weight (Empty) 24,000 kg 52,910-lb
Power 600 shp
Span 3.2 m 10-ft
Put in team whit The old ADATS turret mounted on a CV90 chassis
Here some other variants
CV90 Armoured Recovery Vehicle (ARV).
CV9025 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV).
CV9030 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV).
CV9040 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV).
The CV9035 MkIII
CV90 Forward Observation Vehicle (FOV).
CV90 Forward Command Vehicle (FCV).
What you guys think about this idea?i'd like to ave some feedback plz thank
Hi everybody, new poster here.
Due to the latest cuts in our armed forces about 100 CV9040A and 100 Strv 121 (Leopard 2A4) might come up for sale in the next year. Prices should be around 10-15 M swedish crowns or 1,5-2 M$ CAN for each. Maybe something for Canada? The CV90:s should be easily regunned to 25mm for commonality with the LAV-III.
I can't really understand how you guys can work with all wheeled units in a terrain which from what I've heard is quite similar to ours. Forests, marshes, snow etc. Our equivelent of the LAV, the Patria XA-203, is well known for it's poor mobility and almost exclusively used solely on roads.
Way to go in Kandahar by the way. Makes a lot of us over here want to can our non-combat capable conscript army and go professional. With our current setup we could never do those kinds of operations.
Cheers from Sweden.
Due to the latest cuts in our armed forces about 100 CV9040A and 100 Strv 121 (Leopard 2A4) might come up for sale in the next year. Prices should be around 10-15 M swedish crowns or 1,5-2 M$ CAN for each. Maybe something for Canada? The CV90:s should be easily regunned to 25mm for commonality with the LAV-III.
I can't really understand how you guys can work with all wheeled units in a terrain which from what I've heard is quite similar to ours. Forests, marshes, snow etc. Our equivelent of the LAV, the Patria XA-203, is well known for it's poor mobility and almost exclusively used solely on roads.
Way to go in Kandahar by the way. Makes a lot of us over here want to can our non-combat capable conscript army and go professional. With our current setup we could never do those kinds of operations.
Cheers from Sweden.
Would be great to see Canada get some tracked IFV, and new tanks. We don't need 1000, but 100 Leo2's would be nice. Give the Leo c2's to the reserves perhaps. Would be nice to have 1 heavy mech brigade, tracks, tanks and M109A6, or maybe Pz2000. This whole notion that heavry mech warfare is over just doesn't add up. Russia, China, France, UK, USA even Holland are still in the Tank business. Even the Assuies just bought 60 M1s. The whole "we never deploy them" argument is crap too, if the USA can deploy 3 armoured DIVISIONS to Iraq, we can send a single REgt, use a big boat!! 
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Peaches
You may want to do a little more research into what your proposal really should be. What you just proposed is unworkable. 100 tanks, would not even fill the requirements of one Regiment, let alone three or more. As well, it would not provide enough for the School, Wainwright, and War Reserves. As for cascading the Leo 1 C 2 fleet down to the Reserves, you are really stretching your credibility. We had enough of a problem with 128 tanks filling the requirements of one Regiment, the School, and War Reserve. There was no Combat Training Center in Wainwright at that time. Nope. You proposal doesn't cut it.
You may want to do a little more research into what your proposal really should be. What you just proposed is unworkable. 100 tanks, would not even fill the requirements of one Regiment, let alone three or more. As well, it would not provide enough for the School, Wainwright, and War Reserves. As for cascading the Leo 1 C 2 fleet down to the Reserves, you are really stretching your credibility. We had enough of a problem with 128 tanks filling the requirements of one Regiment, the School, and War Reserve. There was no Combat Training Center in Wainwright at that time. Nope. You proposal doesn't cut it.
Sorry, just throwing ideas out there. I am an Air Force guy, but after the last few years I am hooked on joint ops. I just think we should have at least 1 mech brigade. I have heard alot of talk about tanks being old news, but I just don't buy it. Like I said our allies and advesaires are not "doing away" with them, down sizing there numbers, yes, scrapping no. Perhaps I used the wrong term, Regt, should have been battalion.
About the reserves, and I do not know alot about them, or what they could support. I just came back from an exchange tour with USAF, saw how the US reserve units operate, guess I'm comparing apples & oranges.
About the reserves, and I do not know alot about them, or what they could support. I just came back from an exchange tour with USAF, saw how the US reserve units operate, guess I'm comparing apples & oranges.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
when you get down to it... ignore the matter of the US deploying 3 divisions to the Gulf...peaches said:Would be great to see Canada get some tracked IFV, and new tanks. We don't need 1000, but 100 Leo2's would be nice. Give the Leo c2's to the reserves perhaps. Would be nice to have 1 heavy mech brigade, tracks, tanks and M109A6, or maybe Pz2000. This whole notion that heavry mech warfare is over just doesn't add up. Russia, China, France, UK, USA even Holland are still in the Tank business. Even the Assuies just bought 60 M1s. The whole "we never deploy them" argument is crap too, if the USA can deploy 3 armoured DIVISIONS to Iraq, we can send a single REgt, use a big boat!!
Consider the rolling stock that the US has deployed to Afghanistan. You will find that they are a little bit like the DDay dodgers of WW2 fame.... forgotten.
The US servicemen see our LAVs and wonder why they don't have, at the very least, the Strykers.....
Go figure.
