Denmark is buying 115 CV9035 MK IIIC and are upgrading the 43 or 44 CV9035DKs to the same standard as the NL MLU standard which is the mk IIIc vehicle and have the same turret as the mk IVD where the mark 4 has a bigger engine/transmission and therefor better load capacity (35 to 37 tons) for future upgrade. Denmark will arm them with Spike ER whereas the 50 Swedish ones will be armed with Akeron MP. The Swedish ones are being bought as replacement for the 50 CV9040Cs that vent to Ukraine. The CV9035 Mk IIIC ordered are too use the assembly line already in place for the upgrade of the CV9035NL, and therefore speed up the procurement process. A future order of a variant of the CV90 Mk IV will be placed on a later date to expand the Swedish numbers of CV90's in use. The Danish and Swedish government are also financing another 40 for the Ukraine army. The advantage of using the Bushmaster III 35/50mm autocannon is that change the barrel and a few parts in the feed and gun assembly and it can fire the 50mm rounds instead. In Afghanistan the Danish gunners engaged man size targets at up to 4000 m BAE have made the new turrets modular as in you can pick which type of main gun you want 30 / 35 / 40 / 120mm and any number of coax MG and at the moment 2 types of ATGM Missile Spike and Akeron and any of the defensive suites like adaptive camo, electronic warfare, APS (Active Protection system), smoke, It features a new augmented reality system named iFighting (AI) ,see through armour, Mast mounted sights , with passive AI drone/Aircraft detection in both daylight and IR channels which together with the SAAB UTAAS sight it makes it a formidable anti aircraft gun on top of everything else: It has Integration of UAV, Improvement of the heat, radar and visual signature management of the vehicle, The C4ISR system is to be fully digitalized, it can handover target information to other vehicles that can then engage it first in class that can do that.
-The 40mm boffors gun fires from 8 round clips that have to be loaded manually, which is a bit of a pain. The 35mm chain gun fires from duel feed belts. Apart from the Bushmaster III 35/50 made by Alliant Technologies (now Northrop Grumman) There is a 35/50 chain gun made by Rhinemetall the Rh 503 Maschinenkanone 35/50 going back to 2004 intended for the Marder II. Germany went down the route of the smaller Puma instead as it could be flown to Afghanistan etc. Seems a mistake now. -The anti aircraft and anti drone capability of the 35mm/50mm gun would be formidable due to the air burst munition and the potential for guided munitions such as MADFIRES -I personally strongly oppose the use of the Spike missile on any European Army or IFV. It is an Israeli weapon and Israel naturally has its own interests and dictates its use (for instance it blocks reexport to Ukraine). Akeron is French and does not come with these restrictions for an EU interest. -The contrast scanner image locking technology has been working on missiles such as Walleye-II and Maverick since the 1960s and is easy to implement in this day of signal processing chips and GPU. Even I understand it. Europe should be its own or standardize on akeron.
@@williamzk9083 -I personally strongly oppose the use of the Spike missile on any European Army or IFV. It is an Israeli weapon and Israel naturally has its own interests and dictates its use (for instance it blocks reexport to Ukraine). Akeron is French and does not come with these restrictions for an EU interest. ;-) Every country have that more or less just look at how Germany Blocked the Leopard going to Ukraine or the swiss blokked the 35mm Ahead Ammo for the Gepards etc... the Ukraine war have been one long argument over bullshit like that (F16s as well). We also still aint able to produce enough Ammo for Ukraine and we have just had the 3rd year of winters in that war, so the argument that it takes time to make factories is just not valid anymore we still have bottlenecks stopping production in certain areas thats mindblowing.
@@williamzk9083 The German Army never had a requirement for the 50 mm for the Marder 2. They only had the 35 mm as a requirement, the 50 mm upgrade was a proposal by the industry at the time. The German Army would've operated the 35 mm version only. The reason the Puma uses 30 mm also isn't because it's smaller than the Marder 2, it's actually larger, heavier and better protected. The reason for 30 mm is the unmanned turret and the requirement for ammunition to be completely isolated from the crew. Unmanned turrets than don't penetrate the hull don't have as much space for ammunition. The Puma turret holds 200 ready to fire rounds, with 35 mm stowage count goes down 50%. That would be only 100 rounds ready to fire. Wouldn't be an issue if 35 mm was twice as lethal as 30 mm to offset the volume increase, but it isn't. It's close, but it isn't. Also 100 rounds are not much if you consider they also have to be split up in KE and HE/ABM. Currently the Puma has a 116/84 split of ammunition types, a similar setup with 35 mm would be 58/42, which is pretty low. On a manned turret CV90 that isn't much of a problem. Of course secondary survivability goes down drastically aswell.
@ The bottlenecks to munitions production are political, ideological and moral. All European politicians in power for the last 30 years have shown themselves as inept, intellectually and morally weak and ideologically delusional.
It's great news. Wheeled IFVs are bad in off-road scenarios in bad weather conditions, especially when Lithuania has somewhat swampy terrain. Having a mixed fleet of wheeled and tracked IFVs will have advantages.
Great that more European countries are getting the same systems no matter if it's the CV90 or any other system. It will be easier to corporate and prices will go down. Also manufacturing spread around Europe will make it harder for an enemy to stop the production.
for fighting Russians, CV90s may be more useful than tanks. They’re more affordable, more mobile, lighter, and they have long range anti-tank capabilities with their 2 Spike missiles.
@@jonny2954 The US is so powerful that they can afford to make equipment that is tailored for one specific enemy or climate. They do however have such a large population/military while being in a reasonably safe place, that they can send enormous amounts of shitty equipment that few countries would have a chance to defend against the amount of hostiles coming from all directions. Sweden and most other countries have to prioritize defense over attack since we can't rely on overwhelming numbers. Simplified: the US has more powerful guns but less protection for the guys handling the guns because they can afford to lose 1M soliders (Lithuania or Sweden can't). One highly notable difference between the Swedish STRV 122 (the Swedish version of the Leopard 2A5) and all American equaliant tanks, is that it prioritize the survival of the crew over the possibility to take out a hostile enemy. If we lose the fight we have gained experience and will live to fight another day. The US doesn't learn but simply send more units. Sweden has only had one enemy the last 70 years. We know our enemy to a level that the US can't imagine. Don't send everything when one specialist can do the job!
@@boek2777 That assessment is interesting, but completely false. Sweden has a variety of vehicles in their inventory that have worse protection than their US counterpart. Initial version of Strv 90 is significantly worse protected than a Bradley IFV. The Archer truck mounted artillery system also does not meet the counter-batter fire protection of a proper self propelled howitzer like the M109A7. Strv 122, like all Leopard 2 variants, also has worse secondary survivability than the M1A2 Abrams since the hull ammunition does not have blopwout panels. Germany by now has cook-off proof ammunition with SCDB-based TIPS propellant do combat that issue, Sweden so far does not. So German and American tanks are more survivable than Swedish (Germany having much more modern Leopard 2 variants anyways). Just to name a few examples.
@@jonny2954 You already understand that I'm no expert on this topic BUT.. Equipment is made to fullfil a specific task. You might have the best helmet that ever existed but it only protect your head and a toddler with a toothpick might give you a limp. I'm not complaining on American equipment but simply state that it's tailored for a specific task. If you know your enemies capabilities, it's a good thing but it doesn't work when/if you're outsmarted or outgunned. Sweden has always prepared for interaction with overwhelming forces and has hence valued survival over anything else. When defending you are closer to a friendly hospital, MacDonalds, gas station.. and is therefore more likely to get the assistance you need at that moment. The US has so many units that support the fighting troops (barbers, actual cooks..) that it somewhat level the playing field when attacking. A country like Sweden can't compete on the support we give to any person and hence have to help our troops help themselves in a way that no American could imagine. By the way: nighter the 122 or CV90 can get a blow out (it is impossible). If the ammunition is severely damaged, the crew will die but not in a explosion :) Have a look at the ideology behind 'Stridsvagn 103'. It was mediocre at attacking but had the best protection for the crew that existed at that time. That tank is a good symbol of the Swedish strategy (don't die).
@@boek2777 Total BS. The Abrams and Leo2 uses basically exactly the same gun. And the Swedish CV90 IFVs have a 40mm gun, while the American Bradley IFV have a tiny 25mm peashooter.
Normally speaking the Dutch army doesn't really do a lot of R&D. They prefer buying completed systems with minor modifications at best. But for the CV90 they decided to fund an extensive overhaul, carried out by a unit of the Dutch army, Dutch industry and BAE Sweden. The result where large modifications to the hull, a new turret, modernised weapon systems, and most importantly a complexly overhauled electronics infrastructure that accommodates much better sensors and allows the (modular) installation of additional systems like APS. The Dutch army is receiving these vehicles (CV9035NL MLU) and that overhaul is the basis for all these CV90 orders of the last two years. No wonder, because this is one of the best IFVs in the world right now. The ball is now rolling on the CV90. With every order, the per unit costs of these vehicles will drop. Same for the sourcing of spare parts because the higher overall demand, makes larger production volumes possible. And that is something that is often desperately needed. You can have the best vehicles, but if you keep buying them in batches of a few dozen at most, the unit costs will remain prohibitively high. Now we are reaching the point where not only the very rich countries like the Netherlands, Denmark or Sweden can afford these vehicles. Now they are becoming affordable for most European countries. With the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Czechia, Slovakia and even Ukraine getting these vehicles, this vehicle is heading towards becoming a standard in Europe. On top of the operators of older CV90 variants that could be upgraded to the same standard. Finally the big question now is, will the Italian army, one of the largest armies in Europe, pick the CV90 and produce some 1000 of them domestically in Italy at Leonardo and Iveco? Because that would solidify CV90 its position as a sort of "Euro IFV" like the Leopard 1 and 2 are sort of "Euro tanks".
CV 90s are great. They're modular, mobile, modern, but I kinda wish we would go for a puma. Either way we're getting a great ifv and i'm happy to see our military advance, modernise and completely wash itself from any soviet stuff.
Same here. O perhaps Lynx IFV. I think, however, there is a sound reason for that which basically comes down to not putting all eggs into a single basket. Lithuania has already committed to buying more Boxer IFVs ontop of the ones it already has, Boxer APCs, PzH2000 artillery as well as Leopard 2 tanks which are all produced by the same German companies. Having tracked IFVs made by the same company might be a bit too much, so perhaps this is a good decision, especially since CV90 is a very mature and reputable platform.
The CV90 has far more actual combat experience than the Puma which is crazy expensive and being produced very slowly. Also, using the same 30mm gun as the Boxer is a better rider than introducing another 35mm gun into the supply chain for a small country.
@@cm275 Combat experience doesen't make a better vehicle. The Bradley has seen even more combat and even the US Army said they would suffer 28% fewer casualties in combat if equipped with the Puma.
Sounds good, it’s a good idea that the 3 Baltic states don’t try to get an Air Force and focus on their land and navy, when you are so close and small it’s inefficient to have an air force thy would risk getting destroyed very fast probably on the ground in a war, it’s better other NATO countries patrol the air space.
Considering the size of the populations and economies any air forces would not exactly be large ones. So, I fully agree. Having like 6 jets each? with a dedicated administration and logistics etc? No, better to put the budget towards ground forces and for us across the Baltic Sea to make sure we're keeping our air force large (which Sweden has been mostly doing since WW2). Now that we're all in NATO together we will start being part of the rotation of air forces stationing units in the Baltic states iirc.
I’d say they can skip navy too. The sea is on the wrong side anyway. The focus goes to the East. Sweden together with the other Nordic countries will deal with the baltic sea.
@@turtle-balloon I slightly disagree. To build large ships would be stupid but having the ability to harass an potential enemy shouldn't be understated, even in peace times. If you hypothetically show your gun but know that you would be in trubbel if using it against people throwing stones at you, the enemy might overwhelm you by haveing many stones and impressive aim. Small/cheap, fast boats can sometimes discourage an overwhelming force because they risk losing something they base their strategy on. Something of everything isn't a bad base for defense.
Actually it's interesting to see difference between Lithuania and Latvia in military equipment. Lithuania have Javelin, but Latvia SPIKE (Anti-tank missiles), Lithuania choose CV90 but Latvia ASCOD-2, Lithuania choose NASAMS as air-defense systems, but Latvia Iris-T. and many more other weapons.
WHY the UK can't just dump Lynx and get the CV90 ,bite the bullet in the long run, when can the UK BECOME Scandinavian ? get out the horned helmets, back in the day i think there was a lot of inter mixing ,even if it wasn't wanted, so maybe it's time to unleash the Viking !
The UK's AJAX is based on the ASCOD, not Lynx. CV90 was rejected in the evaluation because it doesen't have sufficient internal volume to carry the specialised equipment of the AJAX. Then again, ASCOD is a solid vehicle used by several nations already, UK's requirements and feature creep made AJAX what it is today. Likely wouldn't be any different with a CV90.
The CV 90s are doing very well in Ukraine. It makes an excellent IFV., and it's a platform for many other things. Good deal for Lithuania. Happy New Year. PS. Many thanks to Lithuania and her people for supporting Ukraine. Slava Ukraini!
Any ideas why no interest to continuation of Boxer's (Vilkas)? Of course, it is not tracked, maybe more expensive? I think it's an disadvantage to have different types of vehicles in matter of support, training and repair. What do you think?
Boxer is much bigger in profile, is slightly more expensive, and doesn't have the same level of mobility in rough terrain. However, you do point to the issue of logistics. Given Lithuania's force organization of four brigades, a mechanised, a motorized, and two light brigades, it makes sense to upgrade one to a heavy/armoury brigade. If they can make one heavy brigade of three heavy infantry battalions, a tank battalion, and an artillery, then the CV90 would form a core of that formation. But of course it makes for a more complicated force. So I don't think Boxer is being discontinued, not at all; it might simply be a matter of forming a heavy unit and a fast reaction unit with some punch and staying power. But I am guessing.
They ordered more boxer vehicles as well. I think having both makes them more flexible tho, germany is also going to use boxers in an IFV configuration while also having tracked IFVs. Given lithuania ordered leopard 2 battletanks they probably want tracked IFVs that can follow them into rough terrain for combined arms warfare.
@@giedriuskaveckis4514Boxers can also Just travel 100km by Road within 2 hours and essentially jump and Help Out in different Locations. So they have a better Response time and can Serve as reinforcment Units/mobile Reserve, while the CV 90 and Leos need Trucks to Transport them, which means that they Most likely will have to already be in the area where the fogthhing is gonna be.
Not to be picky, but Ukraine is currently operating the chad 40mm Bofors (swedish) version of the CV90, this is thus the version that is combat-proven in Ukraine, not the 30mm version. Which is best is obviously up for debate, but the CV90 with anything but a 40mm cannon on top looks pretty silly, imo.
If Lithuania is joining in a joint acquisition the mk3C is more plausible as this is what Netherland Denmark Sweden and Ukraine are currently cooperating on procuring. Though if Lithuania gives itself more time it might focus on a mk4 variant.
Mk3c kommer inte tillverkas mer än till Sverige, Danmark och Ukraina. Den modellen kommer inte komma tillverkas eftersom växellådorna i mk3c kommer sluta tillverkas. Så nu är det mk4 som gäller.
Those who say in the comments here that it is a waste of money and that it is only necessary to invest in drones and electronic warfare, the war in Ukraine proves that without heavy equipment it is practically impossible to go on an attack or to carry out serious tactical or strategic actions. Currently, there are many good weapons and technologies against drones, but the problem is that there are not enough of them to fully protect Ukrainian soldiers and cities.
hägglunds have already shown some small anti drone laser thingy for the CV90 mk4. But you cant change half the interior space for generator cooling etc, so its prob only around 10 Kilowatt.
Service + maintenance and upgrades and ammunition are probably included in the price. You have to think outside the box if you want to understand prices.
The thing is that there is a 'more than 10 years' time to get a newly ordered CV90 deliver. Speedy deliverance means that someone else have to wait even longer for their deliverance (cutting in line).
@@boek2777So! it's nothing new and besides they are building a new Factory in Sweden. For obvious reasons, no details have been mentioned regarding order volume and delivery, but the choice of the CV9035 MkIIIC should mean smooth, scaled-up production and significantly reduced delivery times.
Disgusting. Damn Swedes making excellent vehicles without thinking about Norways feelings. On a serious note, how on earth is Sweden going to complete all the deals they are making? I think we (Norway) are buying, Denmark is, obviously loads are going to Ukraine and several other nations. Its a huge uptick in orders. Are they expanding production facilities?
@@GnosticAtheist I would have to assume that the “industrial cooperation” I mentioned in the video is part of plan to meet demand. But my knowledge on how military production works is limited.
Hearing how a single drone can easily put tanks out of order, I wonderif a more useful thing would be just to order thousands of drones instead... I mean, a tank can cost some 30 000 000 and a drone can cost some 500. A swarm of 50 000 drones sounds much more dangerous than one tank. Of course, what do I know. But just an idea :)
And a swarm of 50 000 drones can be put out of action by a jammer and a CV90 with a 35MM AA auto-cannon. If armchair generals were in charge of military procurement, all of worlds armies would be armed with sticks and stones due to their "reliability, ruggedness and price"
Fair concerns. But already now the jammers are getting more and more effective, dual action APS system is tried, autotrack vs drones have seen huge improvements and less costly multi purpose low caliber ammo(25,30,35,40) in large quantities is produced. Drones alone will not work. But drones is here to stay and I do think a healthy mix is the way forward.
Drones only increase the cost of taking land. But they can not themselves take land. Drones are just another way of taking out tanks. Anti-tank weapons like the AT4, NLAW or Javelin didn’t make tanks obsolete and neither will drones. But perhaps they will make AT-weapons obsolete. Since what they are saying in Ukraine is that tanks are still good but they would rather have $200k worth of drones than one Javelin.
IFV procurement takes long time, so if we decide drones are fundamentally threat we will eventually be able to counter then no reason to sit on our hands. I suspect we are going to see some type of anti-drone APS mounted on all armored vehicles. something like "Trophy"
2030 Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm What will drone technology be in 2030? These cost $9 million with spares, ammo, support stuff. How many drones will that buy? On top of this we are buying Leopards 2A8 too at $28 million..
Kvailas požiūris. Dronai ir IFVs yra visiškai skirtingos sistemos. Dronas nenuveš kareivio į poziciją, dronas padengs tam tikros teritorijos pastovia 30mm ugnimi. Jei nori turėti galmybę judėti mūšio lauke, tam reikalinga technika. Dronai užima tik siaurą spektrą tarp oro paramos ir artilerijos. Šios sistemos turi skirtingus tikslus ir galimybes. Todė jas priešina tik klavietūrų riteriai, kurie apie karybą nusimano iš redito arba COD žaidimų
Who cares "how many drones". How many rifles can you buy for that? What about helmets and uniforms? What's up with the obsession to compare everything to drones? :D
In media you only hear about the American IFV doing well but in FACT most of the pathetic few number of American tanks and IFV are alread destroyed or damaged and not in use. The tank and IFV that have performed by far best is the Swedish cv90 and also the Swedish version of the German tank Leopard 2.
It’s Lithuania. Lithuania consist of Aukštaitija, Žemaitija, Suvalkija, Dzūkija, Mažoji Lietuva. These are ethnocultural regions. Samogitia( žemaitija) is only one region. The things you say is belarussian nationalist propaganda, since you belarussians did not play a major role in the ruling of Lithuania or Lithuania-Poland commonwealth, so you want to steal others history. Pathetic
Welcome to the CV90 family! Simply the best :)
The CV 90 is a beast! Happy New Year from the Republic of Ireland! Keep up the interesting work on your channel....🇮🇪👍🍻🇱🇹
What a coincidence I live in Lithuianian I was born in Ireland
Good choice! We will soon also support you with Forward Land Forces. Greetings from Sweden.
Denmark is buying 115 CV9035 MK IIIC and are upgrading the 43 or 44 CV9035DKs to the same standard as the NL MLU standard which is the mk IIIc vehicle and have the same turret as the mk IVD where the mark 4 has a bigger engine/transmission and therefor better load capacity (35 to 37 tons) for future upgrade. Denmark will arm them with Spike ER whereas the 50 Swedish ones will be armed with Akeron MP. The Swedish ones are being bought as replacement for the 50 CV9040Cs that vent to Ukraine. The CV9035 Mk IIIC ordered are too use the assembly line already in place for the upgrade of the CV9035NL, and therefore speed up the procurement process. A future order of a variant of the CV90 Mk IV will be placed on a later date to expand the Swedish numbers of CV90's in use. The Danish and Swedish government are also financing another 40 for the Ukraine army.
The advantage of using the Bushmaster III 35/50mm autocannon is that change the barrel and a few parts in the feed and gun assembly and it can fire the 50mm rounds instead. In Afghanistan the Danish gunners engaged man size targets at up to 4000 m
BAE have made the new turrets modular as in you can pick which type of main gun you want 30 / 35 / 40 / 120mm and any number of coax MG and at the moment 2 types of ATGM Missile Spike and Akeron and any of the defensive suites like adaptive camo, electronic warfare, APS (Active Protection system), smoke, It features a new augmented reality system named iFighting (AI) ,see through armour, Mast mounted sights , with passive AI drone/Aircraft detection in both daylight and IR channels which together with the SAAB UTAAS sight it makes it a formidable anti aircraft gun on top of everything else:
It has Integration of UAV, Improvement of the heat, radar and visual signature management of the vehicle, The C4ISR system is to be fully digitalized, it can handover target information to other vehicles that can then engage it first in class that can do that.
-The 40mm boffors gun fires from 8 round clips that have to be loaded manually, which is a bit of a pain. The 35mm chain gun fires from duel feed belts. Apart from the Bushmaster III 35/50 made by Alliant Technologies (now Northrop Grumman) There is a 35/50 chain gun made by Rhinemetall the Rh 503 Maschinenkanone 35/50 going back to 2004 intended for the Marder II. Germany went down the route of the smaller Puma instead as it could be flown to Afghanistan etc. Seems a mistake now.
-The anti aircraft and anti drone capability of the 35mm/50mm gun would be formidable due to the air burst munition and the potential for guided munitions such as MADFIRES
-I personally strongly oppose the use of the Spike missile on any European Army or IFV. It is an Israeli weapon and Israel naturally has its own interests and dictates its use (for instance it blocks reexport to Ukraine). Akeron is French and does not come with these restrictions for an EU interest.
-The contrast scanner image locking technology has been working on missiles such as Walleye-II and Maverick since the 1960s and is easy to implement in this day of signal processing chips and GPU. Even I understand it. Europe should be its own or standardize on akeron.
@@williamzk9083 -I personally strongly oppose the use of the Spike missile on any European Army or IFV. It is an Israeli weapon and Israel naturally has its own interests and dictates its use (for instance it blocks reexport to Ukraine). Akeron is French and does not come with these restrictions for an EU interest. ;-)
Every country have that more or less just look at how Germany Blocked the Leopard going to Ukraine or the swiss blokked the 35mm Ahead Ammo for the Gepards etc... the Ukraine war have been one long argument over bullshit like that (F16s as well).
We also still aint able to produce enough Ammo for Ukraine and we have just had the 3rd year of winters in that war, so the argument that it takes time to make factories is just not valid anymore we still have bottlenecks stopping production in certain areas thats mindblowing.
@@williamzk9083 The German Army never had a requirement for the 50 mm for the Marder 2. They only had the 35 mm as a requirement, the 50 mm upgrade was a proposal by the industry at the time. The German Army would've operated the 35 mm version only.
The reason the Puma uses 30 mm also isn't because it's smaller than the Marder 2, it's actually larger, heavier and better protected. The reason for 30 mm is the unmanned turret and the requirement for ammunition to be completely isolated from the crew. Unmanned turrets than don't penetrate the hull don't have as much space for ammunition. The Puma turret holds 200 ready to fire rounds, with 35 mm stowage count goes down 50%. That would be only 100 rounds ready to fire.
Wouldn't be an issue if 35 mm was twice as lethal as 30 mm to offset the volume increase, but it isn't. It's close, but it isn't. Also 100 rounds are not much if you consider they also have to be split up in KE and HE/ABM. Currently the Puma has a 116/84 split of ammunition types, a similar setup with 35 mm would be 58/42, which is pretty low.
On a manned turret CV90 that isn't much of a problem. Of course secondary survivability goes down drastically aswell.
@ The bottlenecks to munitions production are political, ideological and moral. All European politicians in power for the last 30 years have shown themselves as inept, intellectually and morally weak and ideologically delusional.
The best IFV in the world!
The best? Or did you try to spell beast?
Welcome to the CV90 family
Its proven, its modern, its modular, its built close by and your neighborhood gots them. Smart choice ✌️
It's great news. Wheeled IFVs are bad in off-road scenarios in bad weather conditions, especially when Lithuania has somewhat swampy terrain. Having a mixed fleet of wheeled and tracked IFVs will have advantages.
we have Shrek to defend our swamps, no need for shitty ifv
@cactuslietuva You're goddamn right!
@@cactuslietuva kaip su Kryžiuočiais Saulės mūšyje tvarkysimes.
@Lithuanian_NAFO_lad peskes visi musu pelkesi :D
Great that more European countries are getting the same systems no matter if it's the CV90 or any other system. It will be easier to corporate and prices will go down. Also manufacturing spread around Europe will make it harder for an enemy to stop the production.
Dope. Slava Lithuania
They give you new plastic legs and one rubber egg in Poland hospital !
@@Doradoo-h1qIn russia 50k are still waiting for DNA test, shredded so bad no one can recognize them without one.
*Šlovė
Thank you. Nice summary of available information and NO bullshit! Cheers from NZ🇳🇿.
for fighting Russians, CV90s may be more useful than tanks. They’re more affordable, more mobile, lighter, and they have long range anti-tank capabilities with their 2 Spike missiles.
Adopting a vehicle that was specifically made to combat the Russian threat seems like a very wise idea.
Like... any IFV NATO member states developed in the recent 60 years? What else are they supposed to fight?
@@jonny2954
The US is so powerful that they can afford to make equipment that is tailored for one specific enemy or climate.
They do however have such a large population/military while being in a reasonably safe place, that they can send enormous amounts of shitty equipment that few countries would have a chance to defend against the amount of hostiles coming from all directions.
Sweden and most other countries have to prioritize defense over attack since we can't rely on overwhelming numbers.
Simplified: the US has more powerful guns but less protection for the guys handling the guns because they can afford to lose 1M soliders (Lithuania or Sweden can't).
One highly notable difference between the Swedish STRV 122 (the Swedish version of the Leopard 2A5) and all American equaliant tanks, is that it prioritize the survival of the crew over the possibility to take out a hostile enemy. If we lose the fight we have gained experience and will live to fight another day. The US doesn't learn but simply send more units.
Sweden has only had one enemy the last 70 years. We know our enemy to a level that the US can't imagine.
Don't send everything when one specialist can do the job!
@@boek2777 That assessment is interesting, but completely false.
Sweden has a variety of vehicles in their inventory that have worse protection than their US counterpart. Initial version of Strv 90 is significantly worse protected than a Bradley IFV. The Archer truck mounted artillery system also does not meet the counter-batter fire protection of a proper self propelled howitzer like the M109A7.
Strv 122, like all Leopard 2 variants, also has worse secondary survivability than the M1A2 Abrams since the hull ammunition does not have blopwout panels. Germany by now has cook-off proof ammunition with SCDB-based TIPS propellant do combat that issue, Sweden so far does not. So German and American tanks are more survivable than Swedish (Germany having much more modern Leopard 2 variants anyways).
Just to name a few examples.
@@jonny2954
You already understand that I'm no expert on this topic BUT..
Equipment is made to fullfil a specific task. You might have the best helmet that ever existed but it only protect your head and a toddler with a toothpick might give you a limp.
I'm not complaining on American equipment but simply state that it's tailored for a specific task. If you know your enemies capabilities, it's a good thing but it doesn't work when/if you're outsmarted or outgunned.
Sweden has always prepared for interaction with overwhelming forces and has hence valued survival over anything else. When defending you are closer to a friendly hospital, MacDonalds, gas station.. and is therefore more likely to get the assistance you need at that moment.
The US has so many units that support the fighting troops (barbers, actual cooks..) that it somewhat level the playing field when attacking. A country like Sweden can't compete on the support we give to any person and hence have to help our troops help themselves in a way that no American could imagine.
By the way: nighter the 122 or CV90 can get a blow out (it is impossible). If the ammunition is severely damaged, the crew will die but not in a explosion :)
Have a look at the ideology behind 'Stridsvagn 103'. It was mediocre at attacking but had the best protection for the crew that existed at that time. That tank is a good symbol of the Swedish strategy (don't die).
@@boek2777 Total BS. The Abrams and Leo2 uses basically exactly the same gun.
And the Swedish CV90 IFVs have a 40mm gun, while the American Bradley IFV have a tiny 25mm peashooter.
Good choice 🎉
Yep who buys this scrap with first shots sit in jet and fly away to villa in Greece :) Like we see it now in Ukraine :)
🇩🇰Denmark has ordered 115 CV90 from Sweden. Denmark will donate some to Ukraine.
Denmark and Sweden ordered together, about 40 of the CV90 will be sent to Ukraine as gift from both countries :)
Normally speaking the Dutch army doesn't really do a lot of R&D. They prefer buying completed systems with minor modifications at best.
But for the CV90 they decided to fund an extensive overhaul, carried out by a unit of the Dutch army, Dutch industry and BAE Sweden. The result where large modifications to the hull, a new turret, modernised weapon systems, and most importantly a complexly overhauled electronics infrastructure that accommodates much better sensors and allows the (modular) installation of additional systems like APS. The Dutch army is receiving these vehicles (CV9035NL MLU) and that overhaul is the basis for all these CV90 orders of the last two years. No wonder, because this is one of the best IFVs in the world right now.
The ball is now rolling on the CV90. With every order, the per unit costs of these vehicles will drop. Same for the sourcing of spare parts because the higher overall demand, makes larger production volumes possible. And that is something that is often desperately needed. You can have the best vehicles, but if you keep buying them in batches of a few dozen at most, the unit costs will remain prohibitively high. Now we are reaching the point where not only the very rich countries like the Netherlands, Denmark or Sweden can afford these vehicles. Now they are becoming affordable for most European countries. With the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Czechia, Slovakia and even Ukraine getting these vehicles, this vehicle is heading towards becoming a standard in Europe. On top of the operators of older CV90 variants that could be upgraded to the same standard.
Finally the big question now is, will the Italian army, one of the largest armies in Europe, pick the CV90 and produce some 1000 of them domestically in Italy at Leonardo and Iveco?
Because that would solidify CV90 its position as a sort of "Euro IFV" like the Leopard 1 and 2 are sort of "Euro tanks".
CV 90s are great. They're modular, mobile, modern, but I kinda wish we would go for a puma. Either way we're getting a great ifv and i'm happy to see our military advance, modernise and completely wash itself from any soviet stuff.
Same here. O perhaps Lynx IFV. I think, however, there is a sound reason for that which basically comes down to not putting all eggs into a single basket. Lithuania has already committed to buying more Boxer IFVs ontop of the ones it already has, Boxer APCs, PzH2000 artillery as well as Leopard 2 tanks which are all produced by the same German companies. Having tracked IFVs made by the same company might be a bit too much, so perhaps this is a good decision, especially since CV90 is a very mature and reputable platform.
The CV90 has far more actual combat experience than the Puma which is crazy expensive and being produced very slowly. Also, using the same 30mm gun as the Boxer is a better rider than introducing another 35mm gun into the supply chain for a small country.
CV90 plaukia, todėl ir pasirinko
@@edwardvalivonis23 CV90 is not amphibious.
@@cm275 Combat experience doesen't make a better vehicle. The Bradley has seen even more combat and even the US Army said they would suffer 28% fewer casualties in combat if equipped with the Puma.
Sounds good, it’s a good idea that the 3 Baltic states don’t try to get an Air Force and focus on their land and navy, when you are so close and small it’s inefficient to have an air force thy would risk getting destroyed very fast probably on the ground in a war, it’s better other NATO countries patrol the air space.
Considering the size of the populations and economies any air forces would not exactly be large ones. So, I fully agree. Having like 6 jets each? with a dedicated administration and logistics etc? No, better to put the budget towards ground forces and for us across the Baltic Sea to make sure we're keeping our air force large (which Sweden has been mostly doing since WW2). Now that we're all in NATO together we will start being part of the rotation of air forces stationing units in the Baltic states iirc.
I’d say they can skip navy too. The sea is on the wrong side anyway. The focus goes to the East. Sweden together with the other Nordic countries will deal with the baltic sea.
@@turtle-balloon I slightly disagree.
To build large ships would be stupid but having the ability to harass an potential enemy shouldn't be understated, even in peace times. If you hypothetically show your gun but know that you would be in trubbel if using it against people throwing stones at you, the enemy might overwhelm you by haveing many stones and impressive aim.
Small/cheap, fast boats can sometimes discourage an overwhelming force because they risk losing something they base their strategy on.
Something of everything isn't a bad base for defense.
Actually it's interesting to see difference between Lithuania and Latvia in military equipment. Lithuania have Javelin, but Latvia SPIKE (Anti-tank missiles), Lithuania choose CV90 but Latvia ASCOD-2, Lithuania choose NASAMS as air-defense systems, but Latvia Iris-T. and many more other weapons.
A really great modern one, wow this is the best of the best... cost??
WHY the UK can't just dump Lynx and get the CV90 ,bite the bullet in the long run, when can the UK BECOME Scandinavian ? get out the horned helmets, back in the day i think there was a lot of inter mixing ,even if it wasn't wanted, so maybe it's time to unleash the Viking !
The UK's AJAX is based on the ASCOD, not Lynx.
CV90 was rejected in the evaluation because it doesen't have sufficient internal volume to carry the specialised equipment of the AJAX. Then again, ASCOD is a solid vehicle used by several nations already, UK's requirements and feature creep made AJAX what it is today. Likely wouldn't be any different with a CV90.
I know! BAE is even a British company!
Sweden is probably buying more. But it is higly likely that it will be the same model as Sweden bough this time, so 35 mm not 30 mm
What is the round thing on the Vilkas front?
Which cannon will it use? Would make sense to use 30mm to have better logistics with Boxer/Vilkas
The CV 90s are doing very well in Ukraine. It makes an excellent IFV., and it's a platform for many other things. Good deal for Lithuania. Happy New Year. PS. Many thanks to Lithuania and her people for supporting Ukraine. Slava Ukraini!
It is also used in Ukraine.
Any ideas why no interest to continuation of Boxer's (Vilkas)? Of course, it is not tracked, maybe more expensive? I think it's an disadvantage to have different types of vehicles in matter of support, training and repair. What do you think?
Boxer is much bigger in profile, is slightly more expensive, and doesn't have the same level of mobility in rough terrain. However, you do point to the issue of logistics.
Given Lithuania's force organization of four brigades, a mechanised, a motorized, and two light brigades, it makes sense to upgrade one to a heavy/armoury brigade. If they can make one heavy brigade of three heavy infantry battalions, a tank battalion, and an artillery, then the CV90 would form a core of that formation. But of course it makes for a more complicated force.
So I don't think Boxer is being discontinued, not at all; it might simply be a matter of forming a heavy unit and a fast reaction unit with some punch and staying power.
But I am guessing.
They ordered more boxer vehicles as well. I think having both makes them more flexible tho, germany is also going to use boxers in an IFV configuration while also having tracked IFVs.
Given lithuania ordered leopard 2 battletanks they probably want tracked IFVs that can follow them into rough terrain for combined arms warfare.
@@MrBandholm that makes sense. Boxers for fast, hit and run + recon, medevac, while CV90 supports heavier brigades and act as counter attack force.
@@warlordwossman5722 thanks for info, it's logical, boxers would suit fast force, while leos would be supported by CV90's
@@giedriuskaveckis4514Boxers can also Just travel 100km by Road within 2 hours and essentially jump and Help Out in different Locations. So they have a better Response time and can Serve as reinforcment Units/mobile Reserve, while the CV 90 and Leos need Trucks to Transport them, which means that they Most likely will have to already be in the area where the fogthhing is gonna be.
Not to be picky, but Ukraine is currently operating the chad 40mm Bofors (swedish) version of the CV90, this is thus the version that is combat-proven in Ukraine, not the 30mm version. Which is best is obviously up for debate, but the CV90 with anything but a 40mm cannon on top looks pretty silly, imo.
But is it the current CV90, or the new CV90 30, which is planned to come new version/generation for 2030 onwards?
CV90120 does everything an MBT can do, just significantly cheaper and lighter.
Nothing is decided unless the contract is signed. Let's wait and see.
glad they are buying european made military equipment
If Lithuania is joining in a joint acquisition the mk3C is more plausible as this is what Netherland Denmark Sweden and Ukraine are currently cooperating on procuring.
Though if Lithuania gives itself more time it might focus on a mk4 variant.
Mk3c kommer inte tillverkas mer än till Sverige, Danmark och Ukraina. Den modellen kommer inte komma tillverkas eftersom växellådorna i mk3c kommer sluta tillverkas. Så nu är det mk4 som gäller.
👍👍
Those who say in the comments here that it is a waste of money and that it is only necessary to invest in drones and electronic warfare, the war in Ukraine proves that without heavy equipment it is practically impossible to go on an attack or to carry out serious tactical or strategic actions. Currently, there are many good weapons and technologies against drones, but the problem is that there are not enough of them to fully protect Ukrainian soldiers and cities.
👍
Wait, ±100 would mean that Lithuania could be considering selling 100 instead of buying 100.
Lithuania, Estonia buy cv90. Latvia cvrt.
LV agreed to buy GDELS Ascod IFVs.
@avigdonable untested machinery
Estonia planing to buy 480 MBT abrams 26 F-35 20 ships 4 submarine and 1 nuclear aircraft carrier !
@@Doradoo-h1q what would you know? You live here?
@@Doradoo-h1q what 😂
i wish our country Lithuania could borrow 10 billions and invest in the military security thats needed to defend
The Swedish and Danish purchase is for Ukraïni
No, 40 of the 200 are, rest is for each nation, Denmark ordered 110
Make a CV 90 to combat drones. Making drones sitting ducks evens the playing field.
Customisation ?
hägglunds have already shown some small anti drone laser thingy for the CV90 mk4. But you cant change half the interior space for generator cooling etc, so its prob only around 10 Kilowatt.
2.5 Billion$? that puts those 205 units at just under 12.2 Miliion $ a piece... that's either way off or they have been marked up 3-4 x
Service + maintenance and upgrades and ammunition are probably included in the price. You have to think outside the box if you want to understand prices.
The thing is that there is a 'more than 10 years' time to get a newly ordered CV90 deliver.
Speedy deliverance means that someone else have to wait even longer for their deliverance (cutting in line).
@@boek2777So! it's nothing new and besides they are building a new Factory in Sweden.
For obvious reasons, no details have been mentioned regarding order volume and delivery, but the choice of the CV9035 MkIIIC should mean smooth, scaled-up production and significantly reduced delivery times.
Należy zadbać o obronę przeciwko dronom jeszcze!
Disgusting. Damn Swedes making excellent vehicles without thinking about Norways feelings.
On a serious note, how on earth is Sweden going to complete all the deals they are making? I think we (Norway) are buying, Denmark is, obviously loads are going to Ukraine and several other nations. Its a huge uptick in orders. Are they expanding production facilities?
@@GnosticAtheist I would have to assume that the “industrial cooperation” I mentioned in the video is part of plan to meet demand. But my knowledge on how military production works is limited.
They are produced in Örnsköldsvik on BAE Hägglunds. They are doubling their workforce
How? We`re Swedish, that`s how.
Some of these contracts are for delivery far into the future. So that Hägglunds wont be scared to build out their factory
@danhubert-hx4ss
Sometimes you have to do something that was seen as impossible 24 hours earlier.
Mjølner is the name of Thor's Hammer
💙💙💙🌈🌈🌈💙💙💙
Hearing how a single drone can easily put tanks out of order, I wonderif a more useful thing would be just to order thousands of drones instead... I mean, a tank can cost some 30 000 000 and a drone can cost some 500. A swarm of 50 000 drones sounds much more dangerous than one tank. Of course, what do I know. But just an idea :)
And a swarm of 50 000 drones can be put out of action by a jammer and a CV90 with a 35MM AA auto-cannon. If armchair generals were in charge of military procurement, all of worlds armies would be armed with sticks and stones due to their "reliability, ruggedness and price"
Fair concerns. But already now the jammers are getting more and more effective, dual action APS system is tried, autotrack vs drones have seen huge improvements and less costly multi purpose low caliber ammo(25,30,35,40) in large quantities is produced. Drones alone will not work. But drones is here to stay and I do think a healthy mix is the way forward.
You can't hold ground with a drone. For that you need soldiers and tanks and CV90s.
Drones only increase the cost of taking land. But they can not themselves take land. Drones are just another way of taking out tanks. Anti-tank weapons like the AT4, NLAW or Javelin didn’t make tanks obsolete and neither will drones. But perhaps they will make AT-weapons obsolete. Since what they are saying in Ukraine is that tanks are still good but they would rather have $200k worth of drones than one Javelin.
IFV procurement takes long time, so if we decide drones are fundamentally threat we will eventually be able to counter then no reason to sit on our hands. I suspect we are going to see some type of anti-drone APS mounted on all armored vehicles. something like "Trophy"
Pirmas!
An $50 drone makes all armament vulnerable. Sad fact
No.
@@eddievonpapen6306 a WW2 flak gun makes that drone vulnerable. Your move.
@Lithuanian_NAFO_lad in hollywood
Ivan go away
@@Doradoo-h1q last I checked, flying thing does not enjoy shrapnel flying through it.
2030 Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm What will drone technology be in 2030? These cost $9 million with spares, ammo, support stuff. How many drones will that buy? On top of this we are buying Leopards 2A8 too at $28 million..
Kvailas požiūris. Dronai ir IFVs yra visiškai skirtingos sistemos. Dronas nenuveš kareivio į poziciją, dronas padengs tam tikros teritorijos pastovia 30mm ugnimi. Jei nori turėti galmybę judėti mūšio lauke, tam reikalinga technika. Dronai užima tik siaurą spektrą tarp oro paramos ir artilerijos. Šios sistemos turi skirtingus tikslus ir galimybes. Todė jas priešina tik klavietūrų riteriai, kurie apie karybą nusimano iš redito arba COD žaidimų
Will drones carry soldiers to battle? Will drones capture and hold the positions?
What about anti-drone technology in 2030? You can't rely only on drones.
@@aleksandraslisauskas2871 Exactly!
Who cares "how many drones". How many rifles can you buy for that? What about helmets and uniforms? What's up with the obsession to compare everything to drones? :D
🐔🐔🐔🤣🤣
.|.. ..|.
😂
another pointless purchase. Drones controls modern battlefield not outdated light tanks that will fall from single dji drone
Sure...
😂😂🤡🤡
@@jaro551 go to Ukraine, scrub and ask
@@NoName-md5zb Uh oh look how my wunderwaffe Abrahams and Leopardus is wining in Avdeevka and Bakhmut nafo strong !
sure lol
More metal junk and waste of tax payer money
If we lived in a better neighborhood, I would agree. Sadly, we don't.
Drones will not carry soldiers and stuff around. Or you want soldiers carry their stuff on their backs?
bro will taxi them with his own car.
NU DA...KAK CHOROSO CTO CTO NA RASKE I BULBONII NA ETOT ,,MUSOR ''NE TRATIAT...😀😃😄😁😁😁
What is your alternative? Reducing military spending, or using that money in other military material?
Има Руси све да вам поломе!😂
A NEOBKAKAIETES...PROTIV NATO 😁😁😁
šitas jau Ukrainoj sėkmingai taško kacapus į gabalus xD
And there are lithuanians to send you home with a folded flag. And a 3rd degree burn, too.
@@MrCoconut212rusai, ko tikies. Daugeliui jiem geriausia reformacija - molotovas.
@@MrCoconut212kada Ukraina laimės?
In media you only hear about the American IFV doing well but in FACT most of the pathetic few number of American tanks and IFV are alread destroyed or damaged and not in use. The tank and IFV that have performed by far best is the Swedish cv90 and also the Swedish version of the German tank Leopard 2.
Investing in drones and electronics warfare would be more effective, imho.
... we are investing into drones?? and recently sold/donated 5000 of them to Ukraine?
You can do two things at the same time
evrything is ok excep word litunia , coz its samomogotija
It’s Lithuania. Lithuania consist of Aukštaitija, Žemaitija, Suvalkija, Dzūkija, Mažoji Lietuva. These are ethnocultural regions. Samogitia( žemaitija) is only one region. The things you say is belarussian nationalist propaganda, since you belarussians did not play a major role in the ruling of Lithuania or Lithuania-Poland commonwealth, so you want to steal others history. Pathetic
ėsk savo bulves, tik tyliai!
Inferior belonazi
👍