# The CV90 Fan Page



## Infanteer

Since this vehicle seems to be:

- A multi-purpose chassis for combined operations

- A light and flexible (ie: expeditionary) chassis

- A fan-favorite amongst a good amount of the membership here

I thought I'd leave a little thread for discussion on it.

Seems that the Dutch have chosen to bring the system on board:

http://www.alvishagglunds.se/default.asp

_Major order for Land Systems Hägglunds
10 Dec 2004 

 BAE Systems Land Systems Hägglunds has won a 749 million euro ( £520m) order from the Netherlands for its CV90 armoured vehicle. The Netherlands Army and Land Systems Hägglunds will sign a contract for the delivery of 184 infantry fighting vehicles on 13 December. Deliveries will be made during the years 2007 to 2010.
Product Data

Land Systems Hägglunds' CV9035 was selected for the Dutch infantry fighting vehicle programme after an extensive competitive evaluation. State secretary for Defence Cees van der Knaap stated in a letter to the Dutch parliament on 29 October: "The outcome of the evaluation is that the CV90 fulfils the requirements, has the lowest risk, the lowest price and the fastest delivery time.â ? 
The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs also had a preference for CV90, based on strong involvement of Dutch industry and the high levels of firm commitments. 
Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and Finland have all selected the CV90 and the new Dutch contract brings the total ordered to 1125. "The large fleet gives existing and new customers considerable advantages such as a broader base for cost-sharing of future upgrades and spare parts and international interoperability. Already today the CV90 is used internationally by Sweden and Norway,â ? said Land Systems Hägglunds managing director Sven KÃƒÂ¥gevall. 

The CV9035 is a further development of the CV90 IFV. It features enhanced firepower, survivability, mobility, ergonomics and advanced electronic architecture with implemented C4I systems. The main armament is a Bushmaster III 35/50 cannon with a computerised fire control system, incorporating ammunition programmer. The commander has a rotating cupola for maximum visibility and both the commander and gunner have fully stabilised day and night sights with third-generation thermal cameras.

The vehicle will be delivered in two configurations, infantry fighting vehicle and command vehicle. Both have three-man crews. The IFV can carry a squad of seven and the command version has a staff group of four.

Sven KÃƒÂ¥gevall added: â ?It is most encouraging that we have been given the confidence to carry through such an important contract after substantial competition. It strengthens the CV90 position as the infantry fighting vehicle for Europe and Land Systems Hägglunds' position in future procurement programmes.â ?_


----------



## big bad john

The British Army is looking at the CV90 family also, but I don't think anything will come of it.  Buy British you know with Labour in power.


----------



## Infanteer

http://www.baesystems.se/default.asp

It seems that Alvis Hagglunds is moving to a "Modular Chassis" design for the Army of the Future - probably something similar to the American FCS.

Are we getting on this bandwagon, or are we going to continue to by land systems piecemeal, thereby ensuring that we field 4 or 5 different chassis with the requisite increased logistical footprint, O&M, training costs, etc.

---
_SEP
 SEP (Swedish abbreviation for "Splitterskyddad EnhetsPlattformâ ?, Modular Armoured Tactical System) is a modular multi-role vehicle system. SEP combines the high valued parameters:
- Low systemcost
- Low signature
- High mobility
- High flexibility
- High reliability
- Extremely high load capacity (weight/volume)in relation to vehicle weight/volume into a system for the future armed forces.

SEP Modular concept 
Background 
The modular design allows the vehicle to be configured for more than twenty different roles including armoured personnel carrier, command post, ambulance, medical vehicle, anti-tank missile system, anti aircraft missile system, mortar vehicle, reconnaissance, forward observation vehicle, nuclear, biological and chemical warfare decontamination centre, mine clearing and mine scattering, recovery and repair, communication post, radar, electronic warfare.


The mission or role specific modules can be fitted on both the SEP-track and SEP wheel vehicle base units. Plug in building blocks will be used allowing fast adaptation to different tasks and quick upgrades as new technologies become available.

The electric transmission system (i.e. the drive shafts have been replaced by cable and the power from the engines is transferred by cable) gives a number of advantages including volume efficiency, fuel efficiency, reduced life cycle costs, reduced environmental impact and increased stealth characteristics. The engine is decoupled from the final drives allowing flexibility in the placing of systems in the vehicle and also easily allows two engines to be installed instead of one. Batteries are integrated into the electric drive system which allows the vehicle to be driven silently with the engines shut down. 

The useable internal volume of 10 cubic metres in the role module is substantially increased over a conventionally powered vehicle of a similar length. The SEP fully laden weight is 16,6 tonnes and the load capacity is up to 6 tonnes. The top speed for the wheeled and tracked variants are 100 kilometres per hour and for the wheeled variant 85 kilometres per hour. The dimensions of the vehicle 5.9 metres, width 2.7 metres and height 1.9 metres for the tracked version and 2.0 metres for the wheeled version give the vehicle a low profile and signature.

DEVELOPMENT
Studies on the SEP began in 1995 and the first SEP-track demonstrator was delivered to the Swedish Defence Materiel administration Forsvarets materialverk (FMV) in November 2000 for trials and evaluation. By 2003 the vehicle had covered over 2,000 kilometres in various trials. In September 2001, FMV placed a contract on Hägglunds for the development of the wheeled version of SEP and a wheeled variant prototype demonstrator, SEP-wheel, was delivered to FMV in 2003. In 2003 FMV placed a risk reduction contract on Hägglunds involving the construction of a second tracked SEP testbed vehicle among a lot of different risk reduction activities. 

In a parallel program, Hägglunds was also co-ordinating the industrial effort in a six nation, All Electric Vehicle project with the participation of Finland, Holland, Italy, Greece, Sweden and Turkey. 


WHEELED SEP
The SEP-Wheeled vehicle has 3 axles and is driven through all six wheels. The propulsion system is based on two engines with electric transmission and with integrated 100 kW maximum power, permanent magnet type, electric motors in the wheel hubs. The motors are fitted with a two speed reduction gear.

The wheels are mounted with double cast-steel wishbones with short torsion bar spring. The front wheels are steered normally, the centre wheels are not steered and the rear wheels are steered to provide steering at low to medium speeds and to cut out the rear wheel steering at high road speeds to maintain high speed stability. The wheels are fitted with 405/70 type R24 tires.




SEP Winter 
Background TRACKED SEP
The tracked vehicles are fitted with rubber bandtracks rather than conventional steel link tracks. The band tracks are lighter, quieter and have a longer operational life. The noise developed by the running gear is reduced. The operational life is about twice that of an equivalent steel linked track, contributing to lower life-cycle costs. Bandtracks also have a lower rolling resistance. The lower rolling resistance and the efficiency of the engines and electric transmission systems give the vehicle higher fuel efficiency.


Band track technology has been used previously by Hägglunds on the Bv206 articulated carriers which use short track length bandtracks. The longer life of the bandtracks gives advantages in lower maintenance requirements and in lower costs. The logistical requirements of judging wear, carrying spare tracks and replacing band tracks in the field will be confirmed during development trials. 

In the SEP-tracked vehicle the suspension is mounted to the underframe and not on the side frames, so the suspension is separated from the hull. A result of using a decoupled suspension and bandtracks is that the internal noise level is as low as 85dB which is sufficiently low to meet civilian vehicle noise requirements. 

The suspension being mounted on the underframe also provides a spaced outer layer which gives improved protection against mines. The SEP vehicle can withstand a 7 kilogram TNT explosion under a track. 

The vehicles are capable of operation in a many different types of terrain
and in a wide range of climatic conditions. 

ELECTRONICS
The vehicle uses a new electronic architecture developed by Hägglunds, based on an open scalable, fault tolerant databus which manages all the on-board systems and the crew interfaces including the weapons systems, battlefield management, defensive aids suite, built in test, digital radio communications and other mission or role specific systems. 

CREW STATIONS
The SEP design incorporates built in component redundancy, for example there are duplicate crew stations and the vehicle is able to continue operations with only one of the two diesel engines running. 

The crew stations and the SEP man-machine interface is subject to detailed studies in the ongoing Risk reduction contract. Much effort will be learnt from the collaborative project VETEC by Hägglunds of Sweden and Diehl Geräte of Germany and which was sponsored by the Swedish Defence Materiel administration FÃƒÂ¶rsvarets materialverk (FMV) and the German Federal Office for Defence Technology and Procurement 

STEALTH

The new electric drive vehicle SEP has greatly improved stealth characteristics in terms of thermal and acoustic signatures as well as low visual and radar signatures. The continuous rubber band tracks are very much quieter and lighter than conventional steel tracks.

ENGINES
The SEP uses two commercially available diesel engines placed in the sponsons of the vehicle. This gives the advantage of a totally clear central volume of the vehicle compared with traditional build with a large engine compartment interfering. 


PROTECTION
The different zones of the vehicle have different levels of ballistic protection. With the highest level of protection for the personnel compartment. The hull is of high hardness steel armour construction rated to protect against shell fragments and rifle rounds. The 1.5 tonnes add on armour includes ceramic tiles and provides protection against 14.5 mm armour piercing rounds. Heavier armour provides protection against 30 mm armour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot (30 mm APPFSDS) rounds.


SPECIFICATION
Empty weight 10.1 tonnes
Maximum fully laden weight 16.6 tonnes

Crew 2
Length 5.9 metres
Height tracked SEP 1.9 metres
Height wheeled SEP 2.0 metres
Width 2.7 metres 
Air transportable within C-130 envelope

Power
Diesel engines 2


Performance
Forward speed tracked SEP 85 kilometres per hour
Forward speed wheeled SEP 100 kilometres per hour
Operational life 30 years

Payload, universal load carrier 6 tonnes
Payload, personnel transport 4.5 tonnes
Number soldiers, APC role 12 soldiers
Internal volume 13 cubic metres
Role volume 10 cubic metres _


----------



## Kirkhill

The neat thing about the SEP wheeled with independent motors on each wheel is that it does away with one of the arguments used to favour track in confined spaces.  It allows pivot steering as the left side wheels can be reversed while the other side continues forwards. It might also be possible to just wrap a track directly over the wheels to give an expedient improved cross-country capability.

And it's lovely and quiet with lots of spare electricity to recharge batteries and run electric chain saws etc.

I'm a big fan of Hagglunds generally.


----------



## a_majoor

I liked the "pickup truck" concept: one chassis and bolt on the modular systems you need. Other possibilities include battlefield repair (pop off the damaged module and bolt on a new one); and training, put the modules on the armoury floor and hook up the electronics to the DWAN for use as training simulators.

BBJ; if you noticed the tag on the origional article, the company is BAE Systems Land Systems Hägglunds ( BAE = British Aerospace Engineering). While this doesn't preclude political shenanigans derailing an honest assesment by the British Army (i.e. if Vickers is to Labour what Bombardier is to the Liberals), at least they have an "in".


----------



## Zipper

Wow. As much as I love the CV-90, thanks to Majoor. The SEP looks like it has the best of most worlds. That is impressive.


----------



## Spr.Earl

I still like KISS.
Keep It Simple Stupid!!!

That's why China is going to beat us.


----------



## big bad john

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I liked the "pickup truck" concept: one chassis and bolt on the modular systems you need. Other possibilities include battlefield repair (pop off the damaged module and bolt on a new one); and training, put the modules on the armoury floor and hook up the electronics to the DWAN for use as training simulators.
> 
> BBJ; if you noticed the tag on the origional article, the company is BAE Systems Land Systems Hägglunds ( BAE = British Aerospace Engineering). While this doesn't preclude political shenanigans derailing an honest assesment by the British Army (i.e. if Vickers is to Labour what Bombardier is to the Liberals), at least they have an "in".



The way it works is that BAE has the licence to sell in certain countries.  But the parts are still made in Sweden and assembled in the UK or where ever.  Labour would never let that happen.  Alvis Vickers will have to come up with something better than the Warrior and soon.


----------



## a_majoor

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> I still like KISS.
> Keep It Simple Stupid!!!
> 
> That's why China is going to beat us.



A simple "human wave" attack pitted about one Infantry Regiment against 2 PPCLI at a place called Kapyong;  and history tells us WE were the winners........


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

A little while ago I worked in a little HQ that included a wide variety of nationalities including a Norwegian force that had brought a platoon of CV9030s.  I had just had a tour of the vehicles with one of the crews and was doing my shift on the radios.  I guess I was looking a little quiet and withdrawn (not my normal state).  The Kiwi asked me what was wrong.  The Norwegian armoured officer present noted astutely, "He misses his tank." 

The CV9030 certainly is a nice piece of kit.  Tracks, quiet, low slung, chain gun.  Bear in mind that they still have panzers to send out with it for warfighting tasks.  Add on the various other models and you have a great family of vehicles.  I think that that ship has sailed for us.  I still like the Coyote and LAV III, but I can always look around...

Cheers,

2B


----------



## Infanteer

Do you feel the CV90-120 tank is a good trade off between a 70-ton behemoth and a LAV (MGS or otherwise)?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

To be perfectly honest I do not know enough about the 120mm version.  Is it the same 120mm as found on the Leo 2 and Abrams?  I imagine that its weight would tip the scales over 30 tons (I think that the 30mm armed version is around 25 tons).  Tracks and hitting power but deployable by Antonov would be a good compromise, although it would most likely still not be able to stand up to the punishment that the latest heavy armour can.  At least it would have tactical mobility and my gut tells me that it would be superior to the MGS.  It could work nicely in my conceptual Cavalry!  If we put the Coyote gear on some of them and "scouts" in the rest we'd be away to the races.  I feel that a CV90 force would be superior to a LAV force in warfighting scenarios due mainly to the tracks vs wheels issue and the lower silouettes.  Still, both the LAVs and CV90s would have protection issues.

I always liked the idea of the Scorpian.  This is heavier, of course, but there are some similarities.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## a_majoor

Break down the wheeled SEP a bit, and have the electric hub motor and wheel assembly as the basic element:

4 X 4 chassis: Utility vehicle and chassis for light recce

6 X 6 chassis: Medium TPT vehicle and chassis for light armoured veh

8 X 8 chassis: LAV vehicle family replacement

8 X 8 chassis, extended: HLVW family replacement

The motor generator assemblies would be upgraded as the chassis size increases.


----------



## Kirkhill

Neat concept a_majoor.


----------



## LordOsborne

2Bravo said:
			
		

> To be perfectly honest I do not know enough about the 120mm version. Is it the same 120mm as found on the Leo 2 and Abrams? I imagine that its weight would tip the scales over 30 tons (I think that the 30mm armed version is around 25 tons). Tracks and hitting power but deployable by Antonov would be a good compromise, although it would most likely still not be able to stand up to the punishment that the latest heavy armour can. At least it would have tactical mobility and my gut tells me that it would be superior to the MGS. It could work nicely in my conceptual Cavalry! If we put the Coyote gear on some of them and "scouts" in the rest we'd be away to the races. I feel that a CV90 force would be superior to a LAV force in warfighting scenarios due mainly to the tracks vs wheels issue and the lower silouettes. Still, both the LAVs and CV90s would have protection issues.
> 
> I always liked the idea of the Scorpian. This is heavier, of course, but there are some similarities.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 2B



Please don't attack me for speaking out of turn, but i do know some things about the CV90-120, based on what i've read in Jane's and AFV encyclopedias. the 120mm smoothbore is made by Swiss Ordnance Enterprises, and is designed to be lighter and have less recoil than other 120mm systems so that it would fit and operate properly in the confines of the CV-90. it's a high-pressure gun system and fires all NATO standard tank ammo. Weight is pinned around 26 Tonnes, but I can't find any info on armour composition or thickness. 

Hope that helps. 
pat


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Pat,

No worries.  From what I can glean from open source it is indeed a Swiss 120mm smoothbore gun that will go on the CV90120-T.  I cannot find a specific list of ammunition types but it should be able to fire both HEAT and APFSDS.  That is still a lot of gun for a vehicle of that size and the gun appears to have a muzzlebrake to help out.  I imagine that the consequences of fire will be impressive.  I suppose that the tracks will help as well.  The only weight that I can find is for the CV9030 at 26 tons.  I assume that the weight will go up with the 120mm, but again I am a tanker and not a designer!  With a 120mm this AFV will certainly "punch above its weight."

Ammunition capacity and storage might be an issue.  The space in the rear-hull normally used for infantry would presumably be available for ammunition, however, and this might alleviate that problem.  I am assuming an auto-loader with all the vices and virtues that go with that.

The CV90120-T looks like it should have excellent firepower and mobility.  Protection would be my main concern, and this would be the trade-off to have a light tank that can be rapidly deployed.  Defensive aid suites are all well and good but I would rather put my faith in armour.

That being said it should be a good fit with a rapid deployment force and would certainly give teeth to a peacekeeping or stability force.  I'd like to see one in the field and one the range.  I was very impressed by the CV9030 and the CV90120-T looks like an excellent "light tank."

Cheers,

2B


----------



## Infanteer

Do you see the 70 ton behemoth still dominating the tank world for some time to come?


----------



## Lance Wiebe

I can't see anything replacing the Leo2A5, M1A2SEP, Challenger II et al for at least the next twenty years.  Not in any numbers anyway.

At the risk of over simplifying matters, and not directed at the more knowledgable members of the board, I would like to remind some of the basics.  As we are all aware, one countries ideal tank is not the next countries ideal tank.  As well, tanks cannot be bought in isolation.  They are just one piece of the combined arms mosaic.  Without air support and compatable combined arms, the tanks will be just as dead whether or not they are 70 ton or 30 ton tanks.

Having said that, if we are to buy in to the CDS's vision, we still need a direct fire vehicle.  The MGS is certainly not the answer to that need, but I doubt that we will ever buy another tracked combat vehicle.  Instead, we will keep buying different versions of wheeled chassis, none compatable with the others, and keep steaming full speed ahead.  Too bad we don't know what direction to steam in.......


----------



## LordOsborne

2bravo,

Based on one of my sources, the Encyclopedia of AFVs, rear hull space is still quite plentiful, even with a turret basket in the way. 
from page 317:

"The 120mm/50 cal. gun is fitted with a vertical sliding breech magazine...thermal sleeve and fume extractor. In the hull rear is the same door as the CV90. Four infantry can be carried if necessary."

sounds like ammo storage won't be much of a problem  ;D . i read some more and i found that the hull and turret are apparently welded steel, but thickness is unknown.

"Hagglunds vehicle is responsible for the development of the hull, turret and systems integration. The tank has an all-welded steel hull .... [and] an all-welded steel turret"


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Infanteer,

I still see the 70 ton tank dominating the battlefield until lighter tanks can take the same level of punishment.  70 tons is probably the upward practical limit.  The M1A2 is not invulnerable, but it has proven the ability to take a hit and stay in the fight.  As a tanker I will err on the side of protection!   

Lance,

I was hoping that you were reading.  What are your thoughts on having a 120mm cannon on a 26 - 30 ton vehicle?

Pat,

Does your source mention the turret crew size and/or whether it has an auto-loader?

Cheers,

2B


----------



## TCBF

If the MGS does not go into production, I would not be surprised if the US goes with the XM8 AGS. If they do, do we follow, or look at the competition, including Hagglunds?

Well, not really my cup of tea, that question.

But, since we don't seem to be kicking the roadwheels of any 70 tom behemoths lately..two points.

1. Spring 78, D Sqn 8CH(PL) leaves their Lynx to do an exchange with   3/10 Cav in Ft. Hood on M60A1.   In a few short weeks, the Lynx crewmen, using the skills of their officer and NCO CCs who had Centurian time, were firing tank table VIII.   Similar exchanges also took place.   A lot of Cdn crewmen had their first tank times on an M60A1.

2. Fall 1990.   While 4CMBG gets ready to get ready in case they have to take the long tank train (a boat) to Saudi Arabia , plans are made to send the LdSH(RC) from Calgary to the USA, to train as an M1A1 bn, using their Cougar, Lynx, and Centurian/Leopard C1 trained officer and NCO CCs.   This did not happen, as the govt anounced a "No Go" just before the training plan was OK'd.

So, even if we don't buy them, that doesn't mean we can't crew them. ;D

Tom


----------



## Lance Wiebe

I would love to be part of a trials group on the CV-90/120.  Alas, that time is behind me.

It is certainly feasable to mount a 120 on a thirty tonne chassis, as long as a long recoil system is incorporated, and an effective muzzle brake.

I saw the effectiveness of a good muzzle brake in action, and it is simply awesome.  Cut recoil energy by 30%, with no loss in performance of the round.  It did, however, have some side effects, like sending the muzzle blast at a rear-ward direction at an angle of 60 degrees from the barrel.  Pity the poor infanteer standing twenty meters to one side, ten meters behind the trunnions.

I don't quite follow the argument of retaining the 105 over the 120 for the future direct fire vehicle.  How many of our NATO allies use 105?  Our Leopard C2's can be upgunned to 120 quite easily, in fact we could have done that during the C2 project.  That was deemed to be "out of scope" however,...too bad.  We never got the 120, or the turret electric drive, although both were available.  Short sightedness prevailed, as always.......


----------



## LordOsborne

2Bravo, the book does indeed talk about crew size. it's a conventional layout, with a 3 man turret crew (gunner/cmdr on the right, loader on the left). the commander and the gunner have their own roof hatches too. I found a diagram showing ammo stowage too:







As far as the loading system is concerned, it mentions

"The tank has an antiaircraft  sighting system and a semi-automatic loading system."

cheers,
pat


----------



## LordOsborne

oh, just to add on to that, the Ruag Land systems website gives the following figures for ammo storage:

12 in the bustle, 33 in the chassis.

www.ruaglandsystems.com/.../ aw01/ctg/default.htm


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Lance,

I had heard that the modified 105mm that was tested for the Leopard required the crew to be hatches down due to the muzzle brake.   Is this the muzzle brake that you are referring to?

Pat,

Good diagram.  I like the rather conventional turret layout.

2B


----------



## TCBF

"as long as a long recoil system is incorporated,"

Yeah, it's called a TRAILER.   Heh-heh.

 ;D

Man, I love those smileys.   Think I'll pop another one.

 ;D

Tom

 ;D

Oooops.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

TCBG,

Lol.  A trailer would also help with carrying crew kit!  As an aside I was in a Leopard Sqn that went to Ft Hood on a SUE and trained on the M1A1s.  The Leo to M1 shift is certainly do-able.

All,

It looks like the CV90120-T will be able to move and hit like a heavy MBT.  Its 120mm should be able to easily handle the standard threat armour that we worry about (T55s, T62s and T72s).  I can't see it taking a 100m hit and surviving, however, and RPGs will also be a threat.  What would the role of the CV90120-T be?  Perhaps as a "Cavalry tank" but why not just go with M1A2s or Leo IIs?  The cost will probably be the same.  I guess this concept has been beaten to death on other threads but I wanted to raise it here.  It would certainly fit the bill for a rapid deployment force where certain risks are taken in the name of getting there fast.

I'd certainly be interested in the CV90120-T (we need a new name) but we would need to have a close look at where it would fit into our force (which we probably should have done with the Leopard C2).

Cheers,

2B


----------



## LordOsborne

yeah, i think the standard armour package leaves out a lot, but it's definately better than LAV-III armour in terms of thickness and slope. (Casr says LAV-III hull armour is 1/2" steel) I know there's an up-armoured model of the CV-90-40 the Swedish army uses, designed to protect against landmines and such. i'm pretty sure there will be an aftermarket ERA applique kit or two in the near future. modern ERA can do quite a bit.. the Casr article on lightweight armour had a link to a page talking about Russian heavy ERA (Kontakt-5) which apparently can defeat APFSDS ammunition  

http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/index.html

(you have to scroll down to the bottom)


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Perhaps we need a separate thread for Russian arms and armour claims.  

Going back to the CV90, I don't think that ERA is going to make a CV90 (or any other light vehicle) able to take a hit from a tank gun in the near future.  

2B


----------



## a_majoor

In the early 1980s, the DOD, rattled by qualitative improvements in Russian military systems began a program to create the "Block III" tank. Fortunately, it was a paper vehicle, with the armoured envelope and 140mm cannon estimated to push the weight into the 80,000kg mark, far beyond what most roads and bridges could handle. This is hardly a new conceit, at the end of WW II all armies were rushing very massive vehicles into production (JS III, T-10, Conquerer), and the Germans had the Maus and E-100, both of which weighed an astonishing 100 tonnes! 

Cooler heads prevailed, and the mainstream of tank development from Generation One onwards has been to balance mobility protection and firepower as much as possible.

The CV 90 family strikes me as an excellent compromise between the tactical factors and the need for operational and strategic mobility. Just as an 80,000kg "Block III" is of marginal utility if it can't be shipped from Ft Hood, TX, nations with limited strategic transport (i.e. us) can't afford to max out the transport carrying one type of vehicle. The first wave of tanks will look impressive, but without the supporting Infantry, Artillery, Air, electronics etc. they won't last too long. Similarly, if the Tanks cannot be transported, then the rest of the force  will not be very happy.

The CV 90 is really part of the bigger picture. Even our LAV III force is pretty ineffective sitting in warehouses in Montreal or Wainwright...perhaps we need to pay more attention to the force projection side of the equation, and remember lighter vehicles such as the CV 90 or LAV III are easier to transport both to a theater of operation, as well as around inside the theater of operation. Until we get that far (or are expecting the Chinese to invade Wainwright), then arguments about levels of protection are somewhat moot.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

My concern about armour protection is aimed at the CV90120-T since it appears to have been designed with fighting tanks in mind.  I agree that the weight of the M1A1/2 is about as heavy as we can practically get, but I also think that it needs to be that heavy if it is to be used for "heavy duty."  I truly believe that the armour protection offered by the M1A2, Leopard II (any mark) and Challenger II is the West's key technological advantage over potential adversaries.  Without that armour protection we would probably still win but our casualties would be much higher.  Perhaps the weight of the M1A2 is just the "cost of doing business."  You are right, however, that our tanks are not much good if we can't get them to the fight and this must be remembered in these discusions.

I do like the look of the CV90120-T on paper and I think that it could be a good fit for our Army.  It might still have some of the strategic mobility limitations of the Leopard C2 (both in terms of weight and image) but it would bring some "manouevre" to the force (a blend of firepower and mobility).  It could try to act as a "Cavalry tank."  I'm interested to see how the CV90120-T will be employed.  It would be a good vehicle to have in ISAF or any theatre were air is the only practical way to get armour in.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Having just gotten back from Battle Griffin '05 in Norway, I must say that I was extremely impressed with the Norwegians CV9030.

Once again, the wheeled LAV force was shown how much superior mobility tracks have over wheels.

We had extreme problems anytime we went off-road in terms of getting stuck in the snow, whereas the Norgie CVs blazed past us with no difficulty.

I do think that a balance of wheeled and tracked forces would be most optimum, with Canada having one brigade of tracked MBTs and IFVs.  With the SEV project underway as well as FCS, I do think that a buy of CV-90s would be somewhat short sighted for the CFs though.

For an interim/stopgap tracked APC/IFV I've always thought that a decent solution is somewhat in hand through using the MTLV/M-113 'Stretch' and incorporating a Rafael remote 25mm or 30mm turret system, throwing on Soucy band tracks and some sort of applique armor package.


----------



## a_majoor

2Bravo said:
			
		

> My concern about armour protection is aimed at the CV90120-T since it appears to have been designed with fighting tanks in mind. I agree that the weight of the M1A1/2 is about as heavy as we can practically get, but I also think that it needs to be that heavy if it is to be used for "heavy duty." I truly believe that the armour protection offered by the M1A2, Leopard II (any mark) and Challenger II is the West's key technological advantage over potential adversaries. Without that armour protection we would probably still win but our casualties would be much higher. Perhaps the weight of the M1A2 is just the "cost of doing business." You are right, however, that our tanks are not much good if we can't get them to the fight and this must be remembered in these discusions.
> 
> I do like the look of the CV90120-T on paper and I think that it could be a good fit for our Army. It might still have some of the strategic mobility limitations of the Leopard C2 (both in terms of weight and image) but it would bring some "manouevre" to the force (a blend of firepower and mobility). It could try to act as a "Cavalry tank." I'm interested to see how the CV90120-T will be employed. It would be a good vehicle to have in ISAF or any theatre were air is the only practical way to get armour in.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 2B



I would think that the CV90129-T could work as is when combined with the sensor inputs of the Coyote, UAV or Infantry scouts. Add Through Tube Missiles like the LAHAT and doctrinal changes such as the use of Armour as cut offs in Urban Ops and the lack of armour will not be _as_ critical (although an RPG cage is probably a must). If we add these factors, the CV 90 in a defensive position should be able to pick off many of the attaclers with missile shots and moving into rolling ambush positions before they finally get to grips with the enemy in a toe to toe slugging match. In the offense, it will be similar, the advancing forces could engage targets (with a LAHAT and some sort of forward observation capability) from 13 km, allowing the commander to shape the battlespace by fire before getting into close contact (or refusing close contact, screening the enemy by fire and bypassing the position).

Obviously, there is still a place for heavy forces, assaulting a dense defensive position or a well developed urban area would probably require Merkavas and Achzarits to make the initial lodgement and do the breakthrough, while the CV90 or LAV force waits to do the breakout and exploitation.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Matt,

Welcome back!  Tracks do give a certain advantage.  I was also suprised how quiet the CV9030 was.

AMajoor,

I guess I'm still skeptical about our ability to pick the enemy apart at extreme range with precision fires.  I'm sure it would work against an MRR attacking us, but perhaps not quite as well if we are the ones on the advance.  Still, I'd be interested to try a Cav Sqn with CV9030s, CV90120-Ts and the CV90 mortar carrier.  Perhaps a remote surveillance suite could be added to the CV9030 at the expense of two dismounts (leaving room for "scouts.")

Cheers,

2B


----------



## Zipper

All this is great. But what are the chances of them accepting the fact that track is needed? Even though we all know it is?

And I think it would great if we either upgunned the LAV's to 30mm (my preference) or downgraded the CV's to 25mm to streamline the supply system. Otherwise, it all sounds like a pleasent dream.


----------



## LordOsborne

i'm just throwing an idea out there, and it won't catch, but since there's a 40mm AA version of the CV90, could there be a redesign of that concept using our Oerlikon 35mm guns? and it wouldn't be simply an AA version, since 35mm is pretty potent stuff compared to 25mm...

but that's just my brainstorming. what do you guys think?


----------



## ArmyRick

Interesting for CV series
CV9030 (30mm gun)
CV9040 (40mm Gun)
120mm Gun version
recovery version
Mortar system
we have already seen the many advantages of the system.

However, there is no way we will replace the LAVIII after pumping all the money we have into it. Maybe getting on board and joining sweden in developing the SEP would a good idea? A modular vehicle in both flavors (track and wheel)? Certainly reduce Log foot print....


----------



## a_majoor

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Interesting for CV series
> CV9030 (30mm gun)
> CV9040 (40mm Gun)
> 120mm Gun version
> recovery version
> Mortar system
> we have already seen the many advantages of the system.
> 
> However, there is no way we will replace the LAVIII after pumping all the money we have into it. Maybe getting on board and joining Sweden in developing the SEP would a good idea? A modular vehicle in both flavors (track and wheel)? Certainly reduce Log foot print....



Given that the CF is around 1000 vehicles "short" of LAV III variants (there seems to be some discrepancies with the figures, I have seen a requirement for 1400 LAVIII variants but other posters have quoted higher figures, perhaps including old AVGP and M-113s to be replaced as well (?)), I would see no reason not to join forces with Sweden in developing the SEV. Adding a fleet of modern "F ech" vehicles for the Reserves would bump up the numbers quite a bit more.

The common logistics factor can be increased by using the electric wheel/motor assembly as the basis for light utility vehicles, Medium logistics vehicles, "F ech" vehicles and HLVWs. Since almost all these fleets need replacing or supplementing in the near to medium term, we are looking at a program which will be building perhaps 8000 vehicles...

In one of the equipment threads, an experimental electromagnetic armour has been trialled using the on board power supply that a hybrid vehicle like the SEV brings to the table. In another thread, the utility of having a portable electric supply running off the hybrid truck was pointed out (plugging in everything from emergency lights to toasters) Farther in the future, electric power might be used for the main armament, such as electromagnetic rail guns or electro thermal cannons.

In the shorter term:
SEV-Basic:       Infantry carrier armed with an OWS, also Surveillance carrier (mast replaces section)

SEV-Support:  Wide turret ring for various armament packages such as a gun armed DFS, Recce with a 25mm + turret, Mortar carrier, Missile carrier, AA or AAA platform

SEV-Modular:   "Pickup truck" version, logistics carrier, Engineer/Pioneer versions, "Camper tops" for CP, ambulance, EW and other uses

SEV-Utility: SEV wheel/motor units and power supply applied to create various sizes of utility vehicles, ranging from 5/4 tonne "HMMVW" analogues to MLVW and HLVW replacements. If the lower hull unit is also carried over, the vehicles will be somewhat mine resistant.

Even if we only go for fairly simple SEV variants armed only with an OWS as Infantry carriers, we will still be increasing our ability to move and fight on the modern battlefield, heck, even if we build "plastic" SEVs with virtually no armour, at least we can use them to train a generation of soldiers in the use of mechanized forces.

The only "down side" = $


----------



## Zipper

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The only "down side" = $



And possibly the fact that it has even less wheels and thus less ability to go over any rough terrain. But as a support vehicle that would not matter as much.


----------



## ArmyRick

"And possibly the fact that it has even less wheels and thus less ability to go over any rough terrain. But as a support vehicle that would not matter as much."

??? 

The SEV has tracked and wheeled variants...


----------



## Kirkhill

And in both variants all road wheels are driven, (so it can still run on roads if it throws a track) and both variants are capable of pivot turns.


----------



## Zipper

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> The SEV has tracked and wheeled variants...



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:
			
		

> And in both variants all road wheels are driven, (so it can still run on roads if it throws a track) and both variants are capable of pivot turns.



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.


----------



## a_majoor

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


----------



## Zipper

Then I'm all for that. 

Not that that matters Sh!t anyway. ;D


----------



## a_majoor

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



> March 21, 2005: The U.S. Army in Iraq is faced with a dramatic growth in the number of deaths from accidents involving Humvees (â Å“hummersâ ?). Last year, some 39 soldiers died in such accidents. But the rate of accidental deaths from these accidents has doubled in the last four months. That's about five percent of all deaths. Most of the accidents involve new hummers, the ones with armor installed at the factory. The hummer was always considered a safe vehicle, because it had a low center of gravity, and it's width made is less prone to rollovers. But now there are more rollovers, and they appear to be caused by the increased weight of the armor, and the higher speeds troops use to avoid, or get away from, ambushes. Combat casualties have been falling sharply over the past three months, and part of that has to do with the high speed driving tactics adopted by troops using hummers. Such tactics have evolved over the last two years. But all that hot roding comes at the cost of more fatal accidents. The army is studying the situation, and will probably come up with new driving techniques to minimize the dangers.


----------



## vonGarvin

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:


----------



## a_majoor

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.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

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.


----------



## vonGarvin

a_majoor said:
			
		

> 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").



"Cancel that, deploy the AVLB, left flanking"


----------



## granQ

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".


----------



## Colin Parkinson

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.


----------



## HDE

What's the status of the M113s the CF had upgraded?  Are they in use or in storage somewhere?


----------



## reccecrewman

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


----------



## Sidka

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


----------



## Erki

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.


----------



## peaches

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!!


----------



## George Wallace

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.


----------



## peaches

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.


----------



## geo

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!!


when you get down to it... ignore the matter of the US deploying 3 divisions to the Gulf...
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.


----------



## TCBF

They have Strykers.  Most of the whole family except for the MGS.


----------



## a_majoor

Grass is greener syndrome:

US pers in mech or cavalry see the LAV 25 and think it's cool because it is fast. SBCT units would like the LAV because of the Delco turret and 25mm cannon. Light units want something with some protection and punch to suppliment the HMMVW's.

We, on the other hand.................


----------



## Eland

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 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've got a pretty good point there, George. Just the other day, as a thought exercise I wondered how many troops we'd need to support a fleet of 300 - 400 tanks (a country of Canada's wealth should be able to acquire that many). This is a minimal number which would allow for basic combat stocks and training, but not war reserve.

What I came up with was:

Hive off 100 tanks for a training establishment - 100 recruits just entering their trade plus a minimum of 200 training officers and NCO's (allowing roughly two pers per candidate, one to deliver the training, the other to assist with monitoring the training and handling the admin work associated with developing and managing the training syllabus). That's 300 personnel. Now add on another 100 - 200 other support people (adm clerks & supply techs, etc.) to assist with running the entire training establishment overall. Add about 150 technical types - your mechanics, electro-optical techs and other vehicle maintainers, and your total training establishment, candidates included, runs to 650 people.

Now take the combat fleet on top of all that. That's 1200 personnel to actually operate the tanks (assuming four-man crews). Now, using the general rule of thumb that you need a minimum of 3 - 4 personnel to support one soldier in the field, you need a support establishment of 4800 all ranks/trades. 

Your total establishment is 4800 + 1200 + 650 = 6650 personnel. With these kinds of numbers needed to run even a _de minimis_ armoured division, it's a wonder how we managed to run 128 Leopards with as few people as we did for as long as we did. 

In fact, with a fleet of just 128 tanks being, as you point out, insufficient to handle training, combat and war reserves, I'm left with the impression that the few tanks we had in Germany up until 1990 would have only been able to play a very minimal role if the Soviets had attacked NATO. To put it more bluntly, the 36 - 54 effective tanks we had in Lahr would have had very short shelf-lives in battle if Soviet forces had penetrated the US VIII Corps FEBA in any significant numbers. It would have been like Hong Kong all over again. In saying so, I don't wish to diminish the work of the Canadian soldiers posted in Lahr at the time. They did extraordinarily well, despite being chronically underequipped and undermanned. The quality of the work they were doing was so high that they were actually training US soldiers, rather than the other way around, and they were held in very high esteem by German troops as well.

Let's face it, the 128 Leopards Trudeau bought in 1977 were just a form of tokenism intended to keep trade links with Germany open, and prevent Canada from being kicked out of NATO entirely. It was a pretty cynical move, knowing that at the time Canada had the wealth to be able to do much more.

The numbers I've generated in my scenario may be off base (hell, I might even be totally out of my lane here) but the idea of the exercise was not get absolutely accurate numbers, but to get an idea of just how many people you really need to run and operate several properly-sized  tank regiments.


----------



## vonGarvin

To go with numbers, assumptions must be made:  (these are all assumptions)
First: a "tank" regiment has 59 tanks, based on three squadrons of 19 and RHQ's tanks (2, right?)
Second: we wish to equip 3 regiments, therefore, 177 tanks for the field force alone
Third: the Armd Shool would require tanks to train, assume a minimum of a squadron's worth, so another 19 (Total so far is 196)
Reserves: I don't know: 10% or so?  19?  A squadron's worth of "war stocks/whole fleet management?" (215 so far)
Tech's Training: Borden will need some to train the techs.  How many?  10 is a nice round number (225)

So, can we afford 225 tanks?  Is my math right?  Do we need 3 regiments?  Now, I know we would not field 3 regiments simultaneously, but the idea is 1 "over there", 1 getting ready to go, and the third in the the reconstitution cylce.

Now, what about the recce?  Leave a recce squadron in each regiment?  I don't think that's enough.  Maybe a recce regiment?  8 CH?  FGH?


----------



## Eland

von Garvin said:
			
		

> To go with numbers, assumptions must be made:  (these are all assumptions)
> First: a "tank" regiment has 59 tanks, based on three squadrons of 19 and RHQ's tanks (2, right?)
> Second: we wish to equip 3 regiments, therefore, 177 tanks for the field force alone
> Third: the Armd Shool would require tanks to train, assume a minimum of a squadron's worth, so another 19 (Total so far is 196)
> Reserves: I don't know: 10% or so?  19?  A squadron's worth of "war stocks/whole fleet management?" (215 so far)
> Tech's Training: Borden will need some to train the techs.  How many?  10 is a nice round number (225)
> 
> So, can we afford 225 tanks?  Is my math right?  Do we need 3 regiments?  Now, I know we would not field 3 regiments simultaneously, but the idea is 1 "over there", 1 getting ready to go, and the third in the the reconstitution cylce.
> 
> Now, what about the recce?  Leave a recce squadron in each regiment?  I don't think that's enough.  Maybe a recce regiment?  8 CH?  FGH?



Von Garvin,

Your math seems about right to me. You ask, "Can we afford 225 tanks?" To which I would reply, "Can we afford $1 billion dollars to spend on new kit?" I base that $1bn on 225 new-build Leopard 2A6's, which seem to be selling for around $5 - 7 million each when German Euros are converted to CDN $. The MGS buy would have provided only 66 units for $800 million CAD. Admittedly the price I'm factoring for the Leo 2A6 buy does not account for parts, spares and training.

Money is not the issue here, we're spending what, 2.8 billion to buy 4 new C-17's? It's political will.

As for attaching a recce squadron to each regiment - yes, you would definitely need to do that.


----------



## vonGarvin

Eland said:
			
		

> As for attaching a recce squadron to each regiment - yes, you would definitely need to do that.



What I mean is, that in today's battlegroups, there seems to be a recce squadron in it.  So, are three recce squadrons enough?  If so, should they be "penny-packeted" out to the armoured (tank) regiments?  Or, do we equip the three existing regular force regiments with tanks (a la my model) and then stand up 8 CH as a recce regiment?  Three squadrons (two anglo, one franco, naturally)?  If so, would Gagetown be the place to do it?  Shilo?  Suffield?  If it's a bilingual formation, then, as far as quality of life, at least NB is officially bilingual, and Gagetown has a fairly healthy french population for the families, the troopers, etc.
As for my earlier post re: numbers: are ten in Borden enough?  I mean, there are Vehicle Techs to be trained, FCS techs, Weapons techs...did I miss any?
I guess a "billion" dollars initially, followed by spare parts, etc, might be do-able, but I am not a financial/business whiz (If I were, would I still drive a 2000 Ford Explorer?)


----------



## Eland

von Grognard said:
			
		

> What I mean is, that in today's battlegroups, there seems to be a recce squadron in it.  So, are three recce squadrons enough?  If so, should they be "penny-packeted" out to the armoured (tank) regiments?  Or, do we equip the three existing regular force regiments with tanks (a la my model) and then stand up 8 CH as a recce regiment?  Three squadrons (two anglo, one franco, naturally)?  If so, would Gagetown be the place to do it?  Shilo?  Suffield?  If it's a bilingual formation, then, as far as quality of life, at least NB is officially bilingual, and Gagetown has a fairly healthy french population for the families, the troopers, etc.
> As for my earlier post re: numbers: are ten in Borden enough?  I mean, there are Vehicle Techs to be trained, FCS techs, Weapons techs...did I miss any?
> I guess a "billion" dollars initially, followed by spare parts, etc, might be do-able, but I am not a financial/business whiz (If I were, would I still drive a 2000 Ford Explorer?)



I favour the idea of having three (or four) Regular Force tank regiments with their own (that is to say, organic) recce squadrons.
Since we seem to be moving gradually towards a model based on fighting for information (as the Germans and the US are known for),
I would tend to think one recce squadron per regiment might be too small in size to be useful.  

As far as organization of these recce squadrons goes, what I would lpropose is a heavier force structure - say, a six-vehicle troop comprised of two Centauro wheeled tank-destroyers (instead of the MGS) accompanied by three 'mud-recce' variants of the Coyote (lacking a full-bore sensor suite). The Coyotes would go out on a trace, make and maintain contact, then call up the Centauros for fire support if things get hairy and exfiltration is needed. Attached to the troop you would have one LAVIII with a seven-man assault troop for additional counter-infantry and counter-armour assistance. You could also use the Coyotes to initially identify targets and if the enemy force they detect is small and relatively weak/isolated, bring up the Centauros and the LAVIII to take it out or cut it up a bit.

Once a trace is cleared, you could then bring up Coyote OP vehicles to set up semi-static OP's. Once they are in place, follow-on forces can proceed to meet them while the heavy recce troops go forward to the next tactical bound. If your recce forces are functioning as they should, then they ought to be 'pulling' the main body into its advance to contact.

As for stationing of recce units, placing the Francophone unit in Valcartier, one Anglo unit in Gagetown for initial training serials (consider this unit forward deployed as part of a rapid-reaction force), and the other Anglo unit in Wainwright for manoeuvre training seems to make sense - to me, anyway.

It's interesting to see that you favour standing up 8CH as a primary recce regiment, because when I was serving in 'C' Squadron 1st Hussars ('79 - '81) we had a sergeant from 8CH attached to my unit as RSS. If I recall correctly, 8CH were equipped mostly with Lynx C&R back then, so they were the real recce experts and were in a position to impart their knowledge to our regiment.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Warning!  Brief history lesson!

Umpteen years ago, when Canada really had tanks, we had somewhere around 330 Centurions.  The four Armour Regiments (RCD, 8CH, FGH, LdSH) all had them, of course.  They were based in Germany (4CMBG), Gagetown (3 CBG), Calgary (1CBG) and Petawawa (2CBG).  There was a reserve, plus tanks at the Armour School and at the RCEME School.  Each Unit had a Recce Tp, which consisted of 13 ferrets.

Brigade Recce, believe it or not, was the prime function of the Armour Reserves, although the Unit that was in 4 CMBG (all the Regiments rotated through Germany) had a unique Brigade Recce Sqn.  The Squadron had three troops of Ferrets, plus a LOH troop.  The LOH's that I remember were Hillyers.  Armour Officers flew the LOH, and were not only trained pilots, they could also call in Artillery and fast air.  The Artillery also had a "air" troop, consisting of FOO's flying around in L19's.  That's one reason why our training areas are covered with abandoned air fields.

But, I digress.  In a conventional battlefield scenario, Brigade Recce has always been conducted by one squadron.  A Brigade does not have that big a frontage that it needs any more than that.  We presently have three Brigades, the Recce Squadrons would do just fine, assuming conventional warfare.

If, somehow, we managed to recruit enough people in to the Army, we may be able to have two tank squadrons per Regiment, plus Brigade Recce Sqn.  Two tank squadrons times three Units, plus tanks for the two Schools, plus reserves, would require us to buy somewhere around 170 - 180 tanks.  That's a lot of tanks, and a lot of soldiers, that would only be really worthwhile if we are going to be involved in conventional warfare.  Food for thought.

But, IF the improbable (and my dream) comes true, then I think that the ideal tank for us to buy would be the Leopard 2A5.  I say that, because, for one thing, they are almost all rebuilt 2A4's, and the price is reasonable compared to the new built 2A6.  For another, the FCS is nigh-identacle to the C2, shortening conversion training for both crewman and FCS Techs.  And the FCS in our tank is pretty darn good.  

OK, so my dream is that we buy a couple hundred Leo 2A5's plus, to sweeten the pot, we buy a bunch of Wiesel to give the the Armour Reserve, so that they have a proper recce vehicle to train on.  Then we buy a few hundred CV9030, so the Infantry have a tracked vehicle to play with.  (So they can keep up to the tanks and support us properly...)  And maybe a few PZH2000 for the Artillery, so they have something besides 105 to play with.....

Welcome to Lance's dream world........


----------



## vonGarvin

I like Lance's Dream World


----------



## Colin Parkinson

What does Lance do to replace the M548 in his dream world? Reading about the thunder run in Iraq, resupplying was a real bit*h and cost a number of lives. I wonder if a cutdown LAV carry pallets would work?


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Well, if I was going to have a tracked Battle Group, or Brigade even, I would like to keep it tracks as much as possible.  How many times have we seen tanks leaving a hide to get resupplied, because the resupply couldn't get to them?  For the short term, becasue I really don't see anything a whole heck of a lot better out there, I would stay with the MTVC.  (Mobile tactical vehicle light, cargo)

Yes, it's just a rebuilt and modified 113, but we do have a few of them around......


----------



## Kirkhill

Some interesting videos for you CV90 Fans



> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAsR7m1wXM0
> CV90s outstanding off-road capabilities. Notice the Bradley that doesn't get anywhere in the snow and that it takes alot to get stuck with a CV90, luckely they had a two Bv206 to pull the CV90 out of the mess.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKyzLAAfS2s
> An overview of the CV9030. I didn't know it could engage air targets.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUsgZZeJqhE
> A CV9040 weapons demonstration video. Displaying accuracy and various munition types on multiple targets.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTP_vyAybrc
> CV9040/56. CV9040 fitted with BILL 2 ATGW.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_VrWUKXpdA
> CV90120 Tank display/commercial.



http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=80450#post80450


----------



## Bzzliteyr

I remember seeing a variant of the MTVL with a pickup truck type flatbed on the back that looked like it was destined to be the new M548.  Maybe 2-3 years ago in the K-lines at the Armour School.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Um, did lose a whole week or two on this topic?? 

Anyhow, here's a cool CV90 vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okly05HmKEA&eurl=


----------



## geo

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Um, did lose a whole week or two on this topic??
> 
> Anyhow, here's a cool CV90 vid
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okly05HmKEA&eurl=



Nice - noticed that it sorta skidded to a halt -  probably didn't have it's winter tracks installed 

but............here is one on the BV90's mobility
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAsR7m1wXM0&NR


----------



## geo

My only beef with the vehicle is the rear door for the troops to bail from.
Wider than what we had with the Cougar/Grizzly but, when you compare to the ramp we have on the M113 AND the LAVIII, I think it's going in the wrong direction.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Those must be infanteers in the turret.. I can see their kneecaps..


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Brad seems to have a taller troop compartment, anyone here crawled through both the Brad and the CV90 who can give a comparison on troop comfort and space?


----------



## Bzzliteyr

From watching the videos.. I can seriously say I'd compare the CV90 to a BMP when it come to size..they seem to have the same low profile troop areas.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Agreed, at least it doesn't have the fuel tank doors!! The Bradley strikes me as more "liviable".


----------



## F.I.R.S.T.

geo said:
			
		

> My only beef with the vehicle is the rear door for the troops to bail from.
> Wider than what we had with the Cougar/Grizzly but, when you compare to the ramp we have on the M113 AND the LAVIII, I think it's going in the wrong direction.



The Swiss version has a power-operated ramp instead of the door This model is known as the CV9030CH and also has the troop compartment roof raised 140mm, and a squad leader cupola with 7 periscopes fitted at the rear of the troop compartment.

Information copied from Jane's Armour And Artillery 2006-2007, Page 406.


----------



## tomahawk6

Swedish platoon at NTC.


----------



## tomahawk6




----------



## Edward Campbell

How come the guys in that _Swedish_ platoon have Canadian flags on their uniforms?

is that how the NTC designates the *OPFOR* these days?  ;D


----------



## tomahawk6

I hadnt noticed. I know the CV-90 isnt Canadian though. There were a number of allied units at the NTC to practice FF avoidance. The ex was Bold Quest


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hopefully one day you will see Canadian Flags on CV-90's for real!!!


----------



## ArmyRick

Don't think it will happen anytime soon.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Don't think it will happen anytime soon.



I bet that a year ago you would said the same about the Leo 2, wars do strange things to government purchasing plans, although I admit with the long list of things to fix, a new IFV is likely a long way down. But a good showing in a war zone may get peoples attention.


----------



## COBRA-6

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Don't think it will happen anytime soon.



That all depends on how you define "soon". I have seen the requirement for a tracked IFV mentioned in a few documents... now whether that ever amounts to anything is another matter. I don't think it would be a UOR item however, so were are probably talking the usual multi-year procurement process...


----------



## ironduke57

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> That all depends on how you define "soon". I have seen the requirement for a tracked IFV mentioned in a few documents... now whether that ever amounts to anything is another matter. I don't think it would be a UOR item however, so were are probably talking the usual multi-year procurement process...



After what I have read so far about the speed of procurement´s in Canada, maybe we will have started phasing out our PUMA IFV when you are have come to an conclusion.  ;D

SCNR,
ironduke57


----------



## a_majoor

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> After what I have read so far about the speed of procurement´s in Canada, maybe we will have started phasing out our PUMA IFV when you are have come to an conclusion.  ;D
> 
> SCNR,
> ironduke57



Well, that worked for the Leopard 2's...............................................


----------



## Rayman

Looks like a nice piece of kit. Since the export versions use varriants of the Bushmaster gun we could probably even use the same one as on the current LAV III's. Those plus some of the 120 light tanks, some armoured recovery vehicles, maybe even some command vehicles et voila. Now just convincing the tax payers who still think we just bought some submarines from the UK, new helicopters (the Cyclones), and new C-17s that this would a beneficial purchase. Its a snowballs chance in Haedes. Though after reading all the threads on all the boards about it im inclined to jump on the band wagon with this piece too. As long as the 120s arent scheduled to phase out Leos (as the MGS was) as these are supposedly only light tanks.


----------



## Panzer Grenadier

In common sense world, the CV90 could never replace a Leo. Now in political lala land though...


----------



## wegwerpaansteker

I saw the CV 9040 AAV this week as a static and I was wondering a few things:

1. Is it fire on the move capable? I tried to view some footage, and everytime the vehicle is shooting, it is standing still. 

2. What is the reaction time from detection of a potential target until engaging (pressing the button to fire)? And what are the exact procedures to this?


----------



## Matt_Fisher

wegwerpaansteker said:
			
		

> I saw the CV 9040 AAV this week as a static and I was wondering a few things:
> 
> 1. Is it fire on the move capable? I tried to view some footage, and everytime the vehicle is shooting, it is standing still.



Depends on the configuration.  I think that the CV9040 in its original form didn't have a stabilised turret, but I think that the upgraded CV9040C is.  This footage on YouTube certainly shows it firing accurately on the move:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUsgZZeJqhE

The CV9030 for the Norwegian and Swiss Army and CV9035 for the Danish and Dutch Army are stabilised with a respective 30mm and 35mm weapon system.


----------



## wegwerpaansteker

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Depends on the configuration.  I think that the CV9040 in its original form didn't have a stabilised turret, but I think that the upgraded CV9040C is.  This footage on YouTube certainly shows it firing accurately on the move:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUsgZZeJqhE
> 
> The CV9030 for the Norwegian and Swiss Army and CV9035 for the Danish and Dutch Army are stabilised with a respective 30mm and 35mm weapon system.



Yeah, but the CV 90's you mentioned are the IFV's. How about firing on the move and reaction time from detection to engaging with the CV 9040 AAV / Lvkv 90?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

wegwerpaansteker said:
			
		

> Yeah, but the CV 90's you mentioned are the IFV's. How about firing on the move and reaction time from detection to engaging with the CV 9040 AAV / Lvkv 90?



Did you challenge one to a duel?


----------



## wegwerpaansteker

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Did you challenge one to a duel?



No, i was just wondering if the Anti-Air version of the CV-90 is capable like the CV-90 IFV's.


----------



## SwedishRaven

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Depends on the configuration.  I think that the CV9040 in its original form didn't have a stabilised turret, but I think that the upgraded CV9040C is.  This footage on YouTube certainly shows it firing accurately on the move:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUsgZZeJqhE
> 
> The CV9030 for the Norwegian and Swiss Army and CV9035 for the Danish and Dutch Army are stabilised with a respective 30mm and 35mm weapon system.



The CV9040A,B and C in original form have a stabilised turret. 

The CV90 have the most advansed hightech in the world. 

many of all this i have read here have get me a good laugh. I have been working with this CV90 series and know the chassie and guns very well. 
the chassie is maked by the BAE Systems Hägglunds and the tower/main gun Bofors. All of this hichtech US. using, have they got help from Swedish 
hightech enginering.  

I am making the first and largest RC controlled CV9040 able to change to CV90120 tower in 1/4 scale
and got access to to all prints CV90 series have.

SwedishRaven


----------



## ironduke57

> *CANADIAN FORCES LOOKS AT CV90 FOR NEW CLOSE COMBAT VEHICLE *
> 
> The Defence Department and the Canadian Army are looking at the CV90 as a possible candidate for a new close combat vehicle (aka infantry fighting vehicle).
> 
> The close combat vehicle program, which has yet to receive approval, would see the acquisition of new vehicles to accompany Leopard 2 tanks into the field.
> 
> Defence sources say the current LAV-3 does not have the mobility needed for the job in off-road conditions. The likely preferred option is to go for a tracked vehicle. The equipment program is one of three new projects that will be presented to Defence Minister Peter MacKay.
> 
> The CV90 had been previously looked at by the Army when it was first in development but there were concerns about its cost. But now the vehicle has proven itself and is in service with a number of armies, making it more attractive to the Canadian Forces, according to several sources.
> 
> The CV90 family has been developed to meet the requirements in six different countries; Sweden, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Holland and Denmark, according to officials with BAE, the firm that builds the vehicles. The latest version is called 9035 MkIII and is sold to Holland and Denmark.
> 
> There are a number of variants in the CV90 family. CV9030 was originally developed to meet the requirements of the Norwegian army and is outfitted with the Bushmaster II cannon in the 30 mm two man turret. It also carries an add on armour kit.
> 
> The CV9030 MkII is a further development of the CV9030 design to meet the Swiss and Finnish armies requirements. It is equipped with the digitized Vehicle Information System (VIS) and also a fully stabilized 30/40 mm Bushmaster II/Mk44 cannon, according to BAE
> 
> CV9040 is in service with the Swedish Army; it carries an eight men section and is fitted with a Bofors 40 mm cannon. The CV9040 is primarily deployed with the Main Battle Tank in the Swedish Mechanized Brigades.
> 
> The CV90 has been used overseas in Liberia and in Afghanistan. Norwegian troops in Mazar-e-Sharif used the vehicles in a counterattack against insurgents in late 2007. It was also used this May against Taliban in Badghis Province. The Norwegian news media reported as many as 65 insurgents were killed in that battle.
> 
> According to globalsecurity.org the 40 mm Bofors auto cannon assures lethality to all other light armored vehicles and even offers a chance to kill enemy tanks from flanking positions with its APFSDS-T ammo.
> 
> Courtesy of the CV90 manufacturer BAE here is a  photo of a CV90 in Afghanistan can be seen here:
> - http://davidpugliesemilitaryphotos.blogspot.com/2008/11/cv90-photo-1-posted-by-david-********.html


- http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2008/11/17/canadian-forces-looks-at-cv90-for-new-close-combat-vehicle.aspx

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## -dikweed-

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> - http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2008/11/17/canadian-forces-looks-at-cv90-for-new-close-combat-vehicle.aspx
> 
> Regards,
> ironduke57



Huh, not totally unexpected.  I wonder what the numbers would, I would imagine only enough for a battle group.


----------



## ArmyRick

That would be cool, CV90 with a black maple leaf. However I would suspect this would be an interim thing because CV90 technology is already 12-14 years old. Maybe the south korean K21 with its 40mm or even the US FCS MGV series would be more ideal for a more permament solution?


----------



## ironduke57

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> That would be cool, CV90 with a black maple leaf. However I would suspect this would be an interim thing because CV90 technology is already 12-14 years old. Maybe the south korean K21 with its 40mm or even the US FCS MGV series would be more ideal for a more permament solution?


PUMA FTW!






SCNR,
ironduke57 ;D


----------



## ringo

Has Canada examined the German Puma IFV?


----------



## a_majoor

No one is complaining the Leopard II is 80's technology, the design of the CV90 is actually newer!

The PUMA IFV is much heavier and about 3X more expensive per unit than a CV90, and to my knowledge isn't available in the many sub varients that the CV90 offers. Think of the LAV on tracks (CV90 CP, CV90 Amb, CV90 FIST, CV90 SPAAG.....). The PUMA is much better protected (the "C" uparmour package provides as much protection as a Leopard 1 tank), but with the "C" package it weighs as much as a tank as well, with the logistical issues that go along with that.


----------



## Schafer

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1123989.html 

Hopefully there will be more then just 20 if the DND decides to go along with them.


----------



## wannabe SF member

> In terms of size and firepower, the BAE Systems vehicle falls in between the LAV III and the 64-tonne Leopard tank.



I like the way they leave a huge margin in capabilities to guess. :


----------



## MarkOttawa

Schafer: Much fuller version of the CP story at this _Torch_ post:

New tracked Infantry Fighting Vehicles for Army, plus LAV-Hs? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/05/new-tracked-infantry-fighting-vehicles.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oh No a Canadian

So what exactly would these be used for? "vehicle meant to accompany MBTs into combat" Would these be used by the armour and accompany the Leos in Tank Squadrons as "anti-infantry" per say.


----------



## F.I.R.S.T.

Oh No a Canadian said:
			
		

> So what exactly would these be used for? "vehicle meant to accompany MBTs into combat" Would these be used by the armour and accompany the Leos in Tank Squadrons as "anti-infantry" per say.



I'd suggest infantry in tracked IFV's would be used as a company-sized unit attached to a Tank squadron or vice-versa. There are many tasks such a pairing could be used for.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Except for one thing - the CV 90 only has 4 dismounts.  It is a the ultimate white elephant, brought to you by the Dinosaurocracy - CEO: Dan Ross.


----------



## F.I.R.S.T.

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Except for one thing - the CV 90 only has 4 dismounts.  It is a the ultimate white elephant, brought to you by the Dinosaurocracy - CEO: Dan Ross.



That's not what Janes Armour and Artillery say. I'll find the exact page number, but I'm pretty sure it gives figures as 3 crew and 7 troops. How much extra gear are these 4 taking?

Maybe Jane's is incorrect. [Shock]   :-\


----------



## PPCLI Guy

F.I.R.S.T. said:
			
		

> That's not what Janes Armour and Artillery say. I'll find the exact page number, but I'm pretty sure it gives figures as 3 crew and 7 troops. How much extra gear are these 4 taking?
> 
> Maybe Jane's is incorrect. [Shock]   :-\



3 crew and 7 total....


----------



## Oh No a Canadian

Well the infamous Wikipedia says 3 crew and 8 combat ready troops.


----------



## F.I.R.S.T.

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> 3 crew and 7 total....



http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/groups/public/documents/bae_publication/landa_pdf_hagg_cv9030mkii.pdf

The manufacturer's blurb says 10-11 personnel total. PPCLI, can you show where you got your figures from please?


----------



## blacktriangle

If these aren't likely going to arrive in time for service in Afghanistan, what is the long term plan for them? With only 20, that doesn't give us much more then a coy to work with, especially when we factor in training needs and future losses. Anyone?


----------



## Oh No a Canadian

popnfresh said:
			
		

> If these aren't likely going to arrive in time for service in Afghanistan, what is the long term plan for them? With only 20, that doesn't give us much more then a coy to work with, especially when we factor in training needs and future losses. Anyone?



20 is just the initial order to asses and test the system and see if it what Canada needs and how well it works, the full order will probably be in the low hundreds


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Oh No a Canadian said:
			
		

> 20 is just the initial order to asses and test the system and see if it what Canada needs and how well it works, the full order will probably be in the low hundreds



Wrong.

Analysis has been completed on the needs (okay, the numbers were crunched to fiit within the envelope of available funds) and the final numbers purchased will be within a set range.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

F.I.R.S.T. said:
			
		

> PPCLI, can you show where you got your figures from please?



From the project staff


----------



## Oh No a Canadian

The internet fails me, but 20 seems a little small. I guess these will be going out with the Leos only.


----------



## Kirkhill

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> From the project staff



Is that capability or intention?

The Bradley has the capability of carrying 6 IIRC but the "section" was reduced to 4 dismounts as well.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

I'm wondering why the reduction of an infantry section in the back of a LAV-III to a half section in the back of the CCV?  CV90 and Puma (both likely candidates) have the capability for 7 troops in the back.


----------



## Jammer

The amount of extra kit you have on Exercise as opposed to operations makes for a signifigant reduction in space.


----------



## George Wallace

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> I'm wondering why the reduction of an infantry section in the back of a LAV-III to a half section in the back of the CCV?  CV90 and Puma (both likely candidates) have the capability for 7 troops in the back.



AMMO load perhaps?


----------



## vonGarvin

Naw, that's not it.  They just have to make room for the CASW ;D


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Jammer said:
			
		

> The amount of extra kit you have on Exercise as opposed to operations makes for a signifigant reduction in space.



I've seen the Norwegian CV90s and they're able to fit 7 guys in the back with winter kit, along with pyro and ammo.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Yeah, but they don't have Timmies coffee and donuts to fit in!!


----------



## F.I.R.S.T.

AFAIK there aren't any Tim Horton's in Norway yet!



			
				Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Yeah, but they don't have Timmies coffee and donuts to fit in!!


----------



## Matt_Fisher

F.I.R.S.T. said:
			
		

> AFAIK there aren't any Tim Horton's in Norway yet!



No, but they do have gas stations that make fresh waffle thingies...  ;D


----------



## thunderchild

how much is a CV9035 anyway?  I thought we had one for evaluation.


----------



## Kirkhill

thunderchild said:
			
		

> how much is a CV9035 anyway?  I thought we had one for evaluation.



Would that be with or without crews, trainers, training ranges and simulators? Mechanics, garages and tools? What bells and whistles are on the turret?  RWS on top of the turret? Active Anti-Tank Missile defenses?  Coffee, tea, Brown sauce or Hot sauce?

You can find contractual prices ranging from 2 or 3 million a piece to over 10 million each.


----------

