Armed and dangerous: BAE Systems bulks up the CV90

Janes ^ | 15 June 2010 | Christopher F Foss

[sukhoi-30mki]

Armed and dangerous: BAE Systems bulks up the CV90

15 June 2010

By Christopher F Foss

BAE Systems Global Combat Systems has developed a new flexible, up-armoured version of the CV90 in an armoured personnel carrier (APC) variant called the Armadillo.

Earlier 'standard' CV90s are currently deployed on operations in Afghanistan by Denmark, Norway and Sweden, and many of them have been upgraded to meet the threats being encountered there.

The lessons learned from this process - and the fact that production of the CV9035 Mk III for the Royal Netherlands Army is due to come to an end in 2011 - has underpinned the decision to develop the Armadillo concept to a pre-series production standard.

The company is now chasing additional sales to keep the production line running beyond the Dutch programme and has identified potential customers in Canada, Norway and Poland.

Like many other infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs), the standard CV90 is optimised for operations alongside main battle tanks, but BAE Systems believes that there is still a requirement for a full APC with the same high level of protection and mobility, especially in many of the key support roles.

As a result, the Armadillo is essentially a basic CV90 with its heavy two-man turret removed and plated over, leaving a substantial interior and rear deck space that can be optimised for a wide range of

[sukhoi-30mki]

BAE says its new CV90 Armadillo family, unveiled at Eurosatory this week, combines a high level of protection with modular design and excellent mobility. The armored personnel carried variant is seen above. (BAE photo)

[Pecos]

I was going to suggest that this might be the answer for the morning commute, but with the name “Armadillo” it could still turn out to be roadkill.

[ArrogantBustard]

Will it go 75MPH on the highway?

If so ...

[Yo-Yo]

The drawback to the continuous rubber track, from what I've read, is that it is not easily repairable in the field.

[BlueLancer]

Man, I can’t even begin to estimate the number of times that we had to break track in the field for one reason or another ... usually as a result of my driving too fast in rough ground and throwing the track or breaking a track pin.

[C19fan]

Reminds me of the APC from Aliens although that one had wheels, hee hee.

[thackney]

What percentage of typically needed track repairs would be eliminated by using rubber track?

I don’t pretend to know the answer myself, it may have more problems for all I know.

[Yo-Yo]

I only pretend to know. From the article I linked to:

"The CV90 displayed in Paris is one of the largest to run on continuous rubber tracks (actually, rubber with steel cores). With the aid of its supplier, Soucy Track of Canada, BAE Systems has tested rubber track to 28 t on the CV90 and is working on "limp home" solutions for repairing battle damage: operators have been resistant to rubber track because the links can't simply be replaced in the field. Advantages include much lower noise, better grip in snow and higher efficiency."

[thackney]

Thanks, I was wondering in the rubber would be more forgiving to reduce some mechanical damage. Perhaps few breaks with harder repairs. But I suspect they would promote that feature if it existed.

[Pecos]

If it can only go 75 on the highway, it would simply be run over in several cities I have lived near (Atlanta and D.C. come to mind).

[ArrogantBustard]

Good point.

I go 70 - 75 on VA-7 and the Greenway, and get passed all the time ...

I’ll let those other folks have their little conferences with the Loudon Co. Sheriff and the VaStaPo.

[Sarajevo]

Advantages include much lower noise, better grip in snow and higher efficiency."

When my unit first received it's M1's, we went on a winter exercise in Hohenfels Training Area. The tankers quickly found out that the rubber track pads had little traction on frozen tank trails. They turned into 70-ton bobsleds.