A thread about the best infantry fighting vehicle: the Swedish CV90.
Nine European countries (๐ธ๐ช๐ณ๐ด๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ซ๐ฎ๐ณ๐ฑ๐ช๐ช๐จ๐ญ๐จ๐ฟ๐ธ๐ฐ) have bought the CV90 and others are now eyeing it as their future IFV (๐บ๐ธ๐ฌ๐ง๐ซ๐ท๐ฎ๐น).
1/25
The reason NATO's big four military powers are eyeing/assessing/trialing the CV90 is that it is a mature design with every imaginable variant already existing.
The CV90 isn't the best armored IFV - the best armored is the German KF41 Lynx in this photo. And the CV90 isn't 2/n
the cheapest IFV - that would be the South Korean Redback in this photo.
The CV90 is, due to its many users, the most versatile armored vehicle in production now. Similar to the Leopard 2 tank and the F-16 fighter many users means that there is constant development and 3/n
improvement of the base system, with new and better variants entering service with one of the users every few years.
Let's have a look at some of the CV90 variants, prototypes, and many turret variants. The basic vehicle is the Swedish CV9040, which was introduced in 1994. 4/n
Sweden improved its basic model three times (Versions A, B, C) and is currently upgrading 262 of its A, B, C versions to the D1/D2 and E standard.
The photo shows a D1 (former A) that just came off the production line. This Swedish upgrade isn't changing the armor or gun, or 5/n
the tracks or gun stabilization; this upgrade is about bringing the electronics and optics up to the CV90 Mk IV standard, which is the fourth generation of the non-Swedish CV90s.
Yes, there were two parallel development streams for the CV90 - the Swedish one and the export 6/n
one. The British Warrior never had an upgrade, the Italian Dardo never had an upgrade, while the CV90 was improved every few years either by Sweden or @BAESHagglunds for an export customer:
โข CV90 ๐ธ๐ช
โข CV90 Mk I ๐ณ๐ด
โข CV90 Mk II ๐ซ๐ฎ๐จ๐ญ
โข CV90 Mk III ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฑ๐ช๐ช
โข CV90 Mk IV ๐จ๐ฟ๐ธ๐ฐ 7/n
Every time a country showed interest in the CV90 an improved variant was developed. As each new variant was based on a model already in service the development was less risky and could be done much faster than a complete new development.
This meant that no customer had to 8/n
wait for years while trials and testing had to be undertaken, and yet all customers received CV90 that worked as promised from the start.
And not only that customers can get every imaginable type of CV90 based armored vehicle. By my last count at least 17 different types of 9/n
CV90 armored vehicles besides the many IFV variants exist.
I.e. do you want a light tank with a 105mm cannon? or with a 120mm canon? with manned turret? or an unmanned turret? All of these already exist as prototypes. 10/n
If you want a CV90 based armored recovery vehicle to tow damaged CV90 IFVs off the battlefield you can get the Swedish Bรคrgningsbandvagn 90 (Bgbv 90), which has been upgraded to D standard, or the brand new Driftstรถdspansarbandvagn 90D (Spbv 90D) based on the CV90 Mk IV. 11/n
Need a V90 based Command Vehicle?
Well, you're in luck and can choose between a Swedish D version with a fake gun, a MK III Dutch version with a gun, and a brand new MK IIIb Norwegian version.
12/n
CV90 based Forward Artillery Observer? Of course you can have that. Self-propelled Anti-aircraft Gun (SPAAG) with a radar - of course there is a version you can order.
But you don't need a dedicated SPAAG - if your CV90 is armed with a 35mm Bushmaster III or 40mm Bofors 13/n
w/70Bc autocannon, you can use airburst ammo to shoot down drones and helicopters.
Airburst ammo is also excellent to clean infantry in trenches (AFAIK Ukraine will get CV90 with this capability). Speaking of guns - no IFV has a powerful cannon as the Swedish CV90. 14/n
The Swedish w/70Bb or w/70B guns with their 40mm APFSDS rounds can penetrate all russian armored vehicles except the frontal armor of upgraded tanks... but even a T-80 is vulnerable if a Swedish CV90 can get fire at it from the side. 15/n
And the CV90 will not have any problems with mud or snow - Sweden designed it specifically for used during the Scandinavian winter, which is even colder than winters in Ukraine. And with Mk IV you get a more powerful engine and Composite Rubber Tracks, which means the CV90 16/n
is now even more agile.
Speaking of Mk IV: if 40mm is too small, now you can have a 50mm autocannon that will pierce russian tanks even on the front and shoot down drones up to 3 km in the air.
If you want anti-tank guided missiles - you can have Spike LR or Akeron MP. 17/n
You need a CV90 Armored Engineer Vehicle? Of course there is one based on Mk IIIb and one based on Mk IV. Reconnaissance variant with extendable sensor mast?
Norway just received such a vehicle. And also a 81mm mortar carrier. Speaking of mortar carriers - 18/n
you can have that as classic mortar carrier with open roof and manual operation, or in a manual dual mortar turret version (Granatkastarpansarbandvagn 90), or as a dual mortar semi-automatic AMOS version, or with the semi-automatic NEMO mortar. 19/n
All these existing variants and versions, and the proven flexibility of the CV90 design make the CV90 the best IFV on the market.
Only version that I miss are self-propelled 155mm artillery and armored ambulance, but for the later 20/n
there is a actually a variant ready to go, if a country should want it: That variant could also serve as Armored personnel carrier, or electronic warfare vehicle, or armored bridge layer. 21/n
Naturally the Mk IV comes with an integrated active protection system (Elbit's Iron Fist) and the newest optics, electronics, and networking capabilities.
All this, and the now almost 30 years of user experience make the CV90 the best IFV a nation can buy. 22/n
As said earlier the KF41 Lynx is even better armored than the CV90 Mk IV, but it exists only as IFV.
Tracked Boxer might even be more flexible than the CV90 Mk IV... but tracked Boxer only exists as prototype and Powerpoints. 23/n
So if your army needs a renewal of its tracked armored fleet - you can risk a new development and end up with a costly, unworkable disaster that threatens your army's existence as a credible fighting force (Ajax). 24/n
Or you get the best of all the IFVs currently in production: the CV90 Mk IV, which comes with all the variants you ever dreamed off.
It's just the best there is.
25/end
โข โข โข
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In February 2022 putin declared war on Europe & his army marched on Kyiv.
Since then European EU/NATO nations have added and/or are forming these active (!) battalions to their armies:
(Worst 2 countries are of course the two loudmouths)
Europe has to realize that there are two global military powers that it will have to find an arrangements with to safeguard its future security:
๐บ๐ธ the US
๐บ๐ฆ Ukraine
These two have the highest defence materiel production output, and troops from these two are present in the 1/9
highest number of nations around the globe (Ukrainian troops are fighting russians in every nation, where russia has allied with the regime; a will to fight our enemies that is sorely lacking in the rest of Europe).
Minor powers like the UK or middling powers like France,
2/9
can't provide as much security (troops, defence equipment, tech innovation, will to fight, etc.) as Ukraine or the US.
While Ukrainians fight, innovate and produce vast amounts of war materiel, Europe continues to fiddle as the fire of war spreads across the continent.
3/9
Fellow Europeans on here claiming that Europe doesn't need the US to fight off russia are delusional:
Does Europe have enough cruise missiles? No.
Is Europe investing to fix this? Also no.
Does Europe have enough tanker aircraft? No.
Is Europe investing to fix this? Also no.
1/6
Does Europe have enough maritime patrol aircraft? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
Does Europe have any ballistic missiles? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
Does Europe have enough SEAD/DEAD aircraft? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
2/6
Does Europe have enough logistic units aircraft? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
Does Europe have enough air defence? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
Does Europe have enough recon satellites? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? A bit.
3/6
On 2 April 1982 Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands.
3 days (!) later a ๐ฌ๐ง Royal Navy task force left the UK to retake the islands.
That task force included: 2ร aircraft carriers, 8ร destroyers, 16ร frigates, 6ร attack submarines... a fleet bigger than today's Royal Navy. 1/8
22 Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships provided logistic support... in total 127 ships sailed, and the Royal Navy still (!!) had enough destroyers, frigates, submarines to fulfil its NATO obligations.
It was an awesome display of military power, professionalism, courage and grit. 2/n
On 28 February 2026, after weeks of tension, the Iran War began... and even though the UK had been asked by the US for bases weeks earlier, the Royal Navy was caught wholly unprepared... and then it took the Royal Navy 10 days (!) to get 1ร destroyer out of port, which after
3/n
To give you an idea, why European militaries prefer US-made weapons to European-made weapons:
Europe militaries urgently need a ground launched cruise missile capability... the US already had such a (nuclear) capability in 1983, then dismantled all of its BGM-109G Gryphon
1/10
ground launched cruise missiles after signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
russia of course broke this treaty after putin came to power and after 15 years of ignoring russia lying about it Trump finally ordered to withdraw from the treaty in August 2019.
2/n
Just 16 days after withdrawing from the treaty the US Army began to test launch Tomahawk cruise missiles form land (pic) and in June 2023 (less than 4 years later) the US Army formed the first battery equipped with the Typhon missile system.
And as Raytheon has a production 3/n
These are the ๐ฌ๐ง UK's HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carriers.
First, as you can see in this picture, only one actually carries aircraft. The UK barely had enough money to buy the F-35B for one. For the other the Blairites expected the US Marine Corps 1/9
to provide the required aircraft, because the two carriers were bought so the Royal Navy could fight alongside the US Navy against China in the Pacific.
But the US does NOT want the British carriers anywhere near its carrier strike groups, because the UK carriers would slow
2/9
down a US carrier strike groups, as the UK did not have the money for nuclear propulsion.
And as the UK doesn't have the money for the ships that make up a carrier strike group (destroyers, frigates, submarines) the UK expected the US Navy to detach some of its destroyers and 3/9