I used to be a part of an infantry squad in the back of one of these vehicles (older version). It was a great vehicle, I really liked the ability to view the outside from the 'troop cargo hold'. Made it so much easier when leaving the hold because you could see the outline of the surrounding area.
@@Weisior While it will sink, they have plugs in the chassis that they will "engage" that will keep the crew safe. Though you gotta remember to use them, as a Norwegian crew actually drowned during an exercise because they went through the ice and hadn't remembered to use the plugs.
@@carpetclimber4027 In practice, it's just so much faster to have a vehicle that can swim than take the time to make sure the ice holds which at least in manual requires drilling holes into the ice all the way maybe a one kilometer strip and ten meters between the holes let alone that in a combat situation artillery or even mortar fire could screw the whole operation up. As much as I like to belittle our technologically outdated main rival inside and outside my country, the BMP gang wins this one hands down.
There's a "based on true story" movie about how the Bradley came to production - Pentagon Wars - quiet scary and shows both the incompetence and corruption at the higher lvls of the US military.
@@lordemarsh6804 If you want a more expensive, heavier, less powerful IFV with only 6 men, you choose the PUMA. If you want a cheaper choice that carry 8 men and has a more powerful gun, you go with a CV90. In big numbers to actually transport infantry, the choice is easy. PUMA might be better, but it's only maybe better as a tank. Not as a IFV and the number you need to buy.
I hope you win for Army of the Czech republic! Your IFV is the most utilitarian, practical, deadly and wise solution for our Czech needs and for our not so rich state. Great performance, deadliest fire power, low-cost maintnance, high survivability, very high reliability, long life span. Thor wills it! I wish to have this machine, I always wished for so many years!
Couldn't get into Warthunder on Xbox, no comparison to WOT, Mercenaries is almost over now looking forward to the next stage of WOT next year, of course we get a lot more than the PC gets ie Chieftain, we kept the WT E100, the list just goes on.
The U.S. Army should consider the CV 90 MK IV platform. The U.S. Navy should consider the Damen shipyard’s Sigma Class Frigate too. The ‘Buy American’ requirement and politics can blind us to proven and workable platforms that have been designed by our allies and are Perfectly usable for our needs. These platforms are very impressive. But what does common sense and cost-effectiveness have to do with Our DOD acquisitions?
Not sure if this is what US needs. These light and fast units are more fit for run and hide guerilla warfare in wast areas of scandinavian forests against a more powerfull and numerous enemy. Which is not quite a case for US
Yeah, and a lot of the US army can be expected to fight on large open plains where something with an ATGM, like Bradley or Puma, would be a more effective choice I think.
@@Paveway-chan The CV90 won over the Bradley in the Norwgian rfp. It is modular and can easily be outfitted with ATGM's and 25mm to 120mm turrets. It's faster, significantly better off road capability and can carry 2 more troops in the back. Not sure how a Bradley or Puma would do the job better.
The US war conglomerate would never allow a foreign producer to steal their money. It doesn't matter if it's better. That is never important. The profits are important.
Scania v8 is the the way. Absolutely loved my tuned workhorse truck with straight pipe, loads of fuel going in, and loads of boost whinging out loud every time the manual gear was changed. It is the best sound.
Utterly impressive. Its a pity the British Army chose ASCOD over this vehicle. The MKIV looks to be the high standard for IFV with future proof technologies. Instead the MOD spend many many GBP on upgrading 1980's technology (i.e. WSCP). I would have gone for a clean slate and buy as many of these to kit out the Armoured Infantry Regiments. Pair it with upgraded Challengers (interim) but eventually Leopard 3, and AS90 Bravehearts and MLRS you have a very powerful "heavy" force capability.
annybear932 I think potential purchasers of Leopard 3 will be looking at Turkish losses against ISIS. Yes, they are mainly L@ A4’s and a small number of A7’s. Turkey is keeping quiet about which variants were ‘breached’. But an awe full lot of Leopard 2’s are still in service with many NATO Countries. If you want a tank that hasn’t lost a crew member to enemy fire, then the Challenger 2 is the only one you should be looking at.
HI Clive thank you for the update on the Leopard tanks used by the Turks. I agree with you on the Challenger in respect of loses. My thinking was however that everything has a shelf life and technology advances will eventually render it obsolete, and I think it would be good (if the UK are to retain "heavy" armoured forces) to get on the Leopard 3 program. It would allow them to impart UK expertise whilst spreading development costs. The 3 main European countries could potentially end up with a common AFV. I can't see the UK with all the budgetary issues going down the route of singular development. Even with the advent of drones tanks still have a place on the battlefield in my opinion. In the meantime retain an upgraded Challenger but prepare for its replacement.
For a new procurement, neither the ASCOD 2 nor the CV90 would have been a good choice. Both are 90s designs. Turkey only got Leopard 2A4, they do not have A7. Also potential purchasers of the MGCS (Leopard 3) won't look at turkish losses. The Leopard 2A4 used in syria are from a time when the Challenger 2 wasn't even in development. A symmetric cold war combat configuration. If you compare contemmporary versions of the Leopard 2 and the Challenger 2, "you'll shit bricks". For the MGCS (Leopard 3), the british necessarily have to join i think. They missed one opportunity of a excellent cooperation with the Boxer AFV (left the program in 2003, now they want to go back in), and seeing the ASCOD 2 (and all other contenders) being absolutely declassed by the Puma in the czech test trials, they should try to get in every AFV related project with the germans. But, BAE lobbyism, you know.
Jonny I would be very wary of joining with the Krauts on military equipment purchasing. They have totally f@#€ed up the navy with over engineered ships with limited fighting ability. Also the Germans want everything done their way. Negotiation and discussions about the product are not things they do well.
"AFV related" (Armored Fighting Vehicle) does definitely not mean navy. I can't say anything politics related, but their new ground vehicles are considered to be the best of their respective class, Boxer and especially the Puma.
If you put the independent panoramic sight where the old sight was in front of the hatch you can put an rws on at a later date. If you use the rheinmetall muzzle airburst controller for the 30mm the same type as used on the cv9035 you will have a winner. We could call it the CV90 MK4 A Model :-) All the best from Australia ;-)
BAE systems is a British company and so it stands if you want to work with IFV's you should keep an eye for work in the UK, Canada and a few subsidiary companies like the one in Sweden.
BAE Systems AB is a Swedish defence company and a subsidiary of BAE Systems Land and Armaments, whose ultimate parent is the British defence contractor BAE Systems. The company is a holding company for Land Systems Hägglunds AB and BAE Systems Bofors AB, and has no products of its own.
Insanely high quality vehicle, but one thing i wanna note out, THIS IS NEARLY A 40 tons IFV, which is nearly as heavy as russian MBTs. but anyway i like the CV series. they will always impress anybody who checks them out! cheers
The CV90 is better than both the Warrior of the UK and the Bradley of the US, I reckon its only match is the German Lynx IFV, although thus is a much better proven weapons platform and although the Lynx is a newer vehicle, the CV90 is and can be upgraded and Future proofed again emerging threats, because it has very good growth potential, both in it ability fir new variants to be created but also in terms of its technology, using open architecture for integrating out if house technologies, plus growth potential in add-ons, larger payloads, bigger gun's, additional armour packages, and so on, and it can use the BAE systems adaptive skin tiles, well anything can really, but it was First shown on this particular vehicle type, I'm sure. Scandinavian countries need to get Britain onside to buy this amazing vehicle. A British company designs and builds a brilliant military vehicle and we don't even buy it, go figure?
maz ditzo Nope. The Marawi crisis highlighted the requirement for heavier armored vehicles and the lack thereof. On top of that, that engagement alone took out at least 10 AFP APC's. I think it's high time to purchase a newer platform.
The Battle of Marawi was undoubtedly MOUT. The increasing trend in the Philippine threat matrix has been that the fighting has been spilling over from guerilla fighting in the mountains to pitched battles in populated urban areas. See: the 2000 Mindanao Campaign, 2013 Zamboanga Siege, Battle of Marawi. Worthy of note, in the latter battle the Philippine joint task force operating within Marawi had their progress severely hampered by sniper fire turning narrow streets into killzones. Moving to contact under armor would be invaluable in that situation; a PGM drop isn't exactly the right tool for the job when the terrorists are mixed in with hostages.
Am norwegian x-military and i was so lucky to be one of the storm-soldiers that test operated 5 different IFV's, and that was in 1992. We tested a Spanish/Austrian vehicle"Ascod", USA's"M2- Bradley", UK"Warrior", Germany"Puma"and Sweden"CV 90" . And they tested stress factor on each stormer (IFV's mounting team's/ fighting soldiers) every day two times a day, and we was tested physical and mental state and blood sample was taken many many times. We tested this vehicle's to break it's limits and that was something i can tell,4 of them broke but CV 90 didn't, a special welder came from USA so this M2 could be welded a jump many meter's high and long,it cracked, and the driver,shooter and IFV's commander,was pretty wounded,big cutts and broken bones here and there, even a tailbone. I have not tried this in battle, but i tried BMP 2 in battle and BTR 80. when i fought with russian soldiers as contractnik some year's ago and i must say BMP 2 and up is better than this vehicle's,but no armed vehicle or tank would or could survive in this hellish battlefield. It's a noicey transportation but gunfire, artillery shell's, rocket's in a large scale combat operation is hell lot of noicy'r than combat vehicle's. It much more to say but,be to long.
Say..,this Mr.Lindell gentleman, can certainly pass for TV sci-fi hit series STNG's Capt.Jean Luc Picard with absolute flying colors. Shuud..some movie mogul decides to depict the iconic Capt in some exciting (fig.nail-biting) new 1 , 2, maybe evn 3 or 4 off "silver-screen" remake version(s) (depending on reception) of the popular aforementioned.
I don't know about that, but it's pretty funny when suddenly a paperclip pops up saying "I see you are trying to waste some hajis, may I recommend using 3P time function / controlled dispersion?"
Every model is little different. CV9030FIN is great piece of equipment for this day. Beats old russian IFV's 100-0. Still Finnish CV needs upgrade in 10 years.
Thing is with IFVs/APCs/AFVs/FVs/Light tanks and whatever else you would like to name them, the only nation that has true combat experience is Britain. Britain fought a war against a conventional enemy, Argentina in 1982. Fighting against the Iraqis, Taliban was shooting ducks. Brits had to use Scorpions and Scinitars to support infantry in open ground in the Falklands. Against threats like Argie air forces, anti tank teams and mines, also enemy AAVPs. The point is you can have all the tech you want, only Britain has the experience in how to use these vehicles in actual war. Where they were used to support infantry at night, like the Battle of Wireless Ridge.
Definitely superior to the current US ifv, but I don't think it will be selected. I think something similar to the M2 Bradley will be selected instead of just an upgraded Bradley will be selected instead.
I think 40mm was the first one. Then came the 30mm for export, then NL wanted 35mm. Then you have all the other variants like dual 120mm mortar, 120mm cannon etc. I never heard about 50mm until now. I think the 57mm is only mounted on ships.
Why doesn't BAE systems lobby the UK's MOD and government far more to get them to buy the CV90 and all its variants, maybe creating even more under UK requirements. And now Ajax is showing some faults, vibration problems, crew sickness, and after all the propaganda about its potential, costing around £3b so far, we need to recover that money or as much as possible considering that General Dynamics-UK hasn't met it's contractual obligations delivering an amazing combat vehicle, it should be ploughed in to the acquisition of the CV90 go go with our new Boxer 8x8s, something that should've been considered a long time ago, with atleast 100 to begin with integrating them in with the Warrior AFV, giving us options, unlike right now where we have nothing in its place replace either Warrior or Ajax if Ajax continues to have problems.
Had the UK gone with this vehicle instead of the Scout/Ajax. They would have been produced in Newcastle upon Tyne, old Vickers,Armstrong works, tank manufacturing facility. Now it has been closed down with the loss of jobs and more importantly, decades of AFV know how. A real shame because BAE systems is a far better British multi-national concern. The CV90 mk IV is a superb vehicle but so is Ajax.
Ajac has a major problem, it only has a door for midgets to get in and out of ? The troops who have tested said vehicle have raised this serious concern ! Tommy cooker mk 2 ?
@@carpetclimber4027 Agreed but I'm sure there were many other things on the table when the decision was made. It's just a shame we lost another UK arms factory. The Vickers factory was a state of the art tank production line. Generations of skilled workers many of whom deployed in 1991 to help the army with Challenger 1.
We know from Iraq that armored vehicles by them selves can not win the battle, but what is needed is an seamless integrated force sharing intelligent unit. The question is what kind of networking and security of that network does this have with the ground solder along with supporting air power.
@@KingKong-os7iv No mass produced item is really defined by nationality anymore. i know that makes me sound hypocritical but Globalisation has removed the unique national identity from most things.
I wanna pull a John Browning and make patent but for tanks lol , I've been working on a tank called the kpz a8 , also happily named "leviathan tiger " it's main gun is a 183 with a secondary 75mm long barrel , both fire apfsds and heat fs , most likely a modified dm43 , it's 3 manned and mostly computer controlled , even had an urban combat package with a 20mm minigun with a box mag of 3000 rounds (to decrease necessity to reload) and it will also have a browning 50 cal in the turret as a coaxial , there is a lot of armour , roughly 1300mm in the front wide ass tracks to support the weight , it's got 600mm composition screening, 140 mm front plate (angled as hell to increase volumetric capabilities) with a bolted 200 mm plate outside the composition screening, and a thicc layer of era on the top of the front plate (as it looks like a combo of an abrams body with a mbt/kpz 70 styled turret Wich also has similar armour as the front plate ) and the two main guns (183, and 75mm* move separately to increase the ability to aim both guns accurately) it has a built in thermals cams on all sides for increased visibility even during night time ops , it has 50 smoke dispensers , and a 40mm grenade launcher at the back similar to the bmp 2ms , and it also has a ircm and other countermeasures like the black knights for atgms , last main thing is just like the merkavas the tank has explosive reactive armor on the top to help with shape charged rockets or anti tank mines and even heli rockets , the main problem of seeing you with this is affected most of the math is done by my own hand , and it is incredibly expensive project that is very hard to mass produce , the main point of the vehicle is to be an incredibly long range sniper with capability of doing close-range combat if it's necessary, it's supposed to have a lot of armor to be able to ricochet even at cqc , hopefully one day I can actually start putting this that is hand drawn into a cad or I can 3D model the leviathan tiger , hope everybody reading this comment as a good day good luck to all and to pay you will find peace in your domains thank you for reading (sorry in advance for quotation and grammatical errors lol I'm dyslexic and slightly blind)
