CV90
-
Hi,
I saw a video on the web showcasing the CV90. In the video, the vehicle is armed with a Bofors 40mm L70 gun. The same gun that is used in many AA platforms. Carry a crew of 3 plus 8 riflemen.
The 40mm gun looked awesome! and if an increaase of 25mm to 30mm of the BX2 resulted in a 50% increase in firepower, think of the firepower of a 40mm gun.
How many variants of CV90 is there? because i seemed to read somewhre on the web that it is armed with a 25mm gun. Is there a version armed with maybe a 105mm Low-recoil gun?
Also on the web, there new Korean IFV is supposedly armed with a 40mm gun also and can carry 12 men! i presume including the crew of 3 still can carry 9 men.
There seems to be a trend for bigger caliber for IFVs?? am i right?? instead of 25mm. now going for 30mm or even 40mm.
for the BX2, is the turret completely redesigned to accomodate the 30mm gun? or is basically the same turret but put a bigger gun. -
THis have been discussed in the tank thread.
there are various versions of the sweddish IFV.
* CV9040 - The original model with a 40mm Bofors autocannon
* CV9030 - Export version with a 30 mm Bushmaster II autocannon. (Adopted by Norway, Switzerland and Finland)
* CV9035 - Armed with a Bushmaster III 35/50 cannon. (Adopted by the Netherlands and Denmark)
* CV90105 - 105 mm smoothbore tank turret/gun.
* CV90120-T - Has a tank turret armed with a smoothbore 120 mm gun.
* CV9040 AAV - Anti-Air Vehicle, fitted with radar and 40 mm AA gun.
* CV90 Forward Command Vehicle
* CV90 Forward Observation Vehicle
* CV90 Armored Recovery Vehicle
* CV9040C Made for UN peace keeping forces with add on armour.
* CV9056 Trial version equipped with the Bofors RB56 anti-tank missile. Not able to carry any infantry. Project cancelled.
Since we share info on the subs, there is no telling if we can get info on the leopards and maybe IFV to fit the gun onto the BX..
CV90120-T - Has a tank turret armed with a smoothbore 120 mm gun -
CV90105 - 105 mm smoothbore tank turret/gun.
Hopefully, our new light tank will be similar to this version of CV90.
Assuming that our new light tank is based on an exisisting IFV hull(most probably BX), is it still necessary to retain its troop carrying capability like in the variants of CV90? After all our light tank is to support the AI troopers in their Ultras and BXs.
A pic
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/cv905.html -
Actually, I'm surprised to learn that the 105mm gun is giving problems to the BX chassis.
I don't think it's economical(not a smart way to go) to re-design or heavily modify existing BX design just to accomodate a particular gun.
Why must it be 105mm? There are some low recoil designs available(IMI has one). I wonder if these too are giving trouble?
Is it for Lahat? Practical to see engagement up to 4km here abouts? -
I think 105 mm is the optimum calibre because it is still in widespread use and is / was a NATO standard,. That means there are a lot of rounds ( with very wide range of specialized & versatile ammo ) out there available. Also, the latest ( although developed many years back ) 105 mm APFSDS rounds are still very potent against MBTs.
If our future LTs are primarily for fire support, recon etc 105 will be ideal as it delivers a lot of firepower for these roles and also retains an anti MBT capability. Also there is some development of new 105 ammo types ( eg those developed by Israel recently ) which expands the capability of the 105 further.
Putting a full capability 105 on a small & light Bionix chassis will be tough. Probably need to change & strengthen the chassis design somewhat to accomodate a 105. No point stressing the existing design if it means stretching design limits - remember the Sheridian LT with the 155 gun ? -
I think the APFSDS from a low recoil 105mm is overrated. Can it really kill a full MBT? Not without a HEAT round since the low recoil gun has a lower muzzle velocity. An APFSDS may not even kill light armored vehicle in such a case. Penetrate, in and out yes, but may not kill unless it knocks out something vital.
So why kill ourselves to try n squeeze a long and potentially cumbersome 105mm on the BX or BX2? If the chassis is not meant for a LT role, then ST should just leave it as it is and redesign a new chassis for that.
The new rapid fire 30mm with HE rounds is more than adequate to take care of urban and jungle threats. We don't need 105mms for that. Soon, we'll have 120mms to take care of heavily armored targets, and fortifications. Don't forget, there are still Hellfires from the Longbows and the big ol demolition guns from our CEVs. -
I will say again.
The sweddish used to develop a number of light tanks for themselves to fight in the forest.
Hoever, in recent times it looks like they have shifted to focus on a 1 MBT which is the leopard 2A4/5/6. Backing the leopards are the CV90 IFVs.
So, is a LT needed? Or we would end up like the sweddish? -
We are Singaporean ie more kiasu - we need Bionix with 30 mm AND LT with 105 mm AND Leopard with 120 mm AND Apache with Hellfire AND F16 with LGB AND Spike.
There are " 50 Ways to Leave Your Lover " and there are 50 ways to kill an MBT..... we have not hit 50 yet.
I must agree that we shud drop the 105 mm on a Bionix. If you need a 105, build a new chassis to handle it, otherwise stick to the 30 mm. -
If 105mm is needed, why not go for Marder/TAM or M8(though I don't think it's cheap). Both will definitely take less time to IOC than building one over. My 2 cents.
Salivating over pictures in ancient Kama Sutra -> It's not the size of the tool that matters, but how you use it.
-
The answer is cost. Marder and M8 cost a bomb, probably almost as much as an M1A1.
-
CV 90 -
The M8 project got canned and replaced by the stryker.
The stryker itself also have a 105mm MGS version. however it looks very weird to me.
The marder itself is slated for replacement by the Puma IFV and to my knowledge has no LT variant.
The TAM which is highly based on the marder body is classified as a medium tank though..
The argentines themselves operate the SK-105 Kurassier, the AMX 13 also which is being replaced by their own project, Patagon
Looks familiar?
However, United Defense "Thunderbolt" Armored Gun System (Block II) which is revived from the M8 project looks very attractive. 3 men crew with auto loader with C130 transport capability. It has no buyers yet and they are looking for someone now.. with no buyers.. maybe a good deal can be achieved with a llittle bargain?
We better have a dang good reason not to get one. Such as there is no need for one.