A thing not mentioned is it's also very mobile. In terrain where most other IFVs get stuck, the CV90 carries on. It handles deep snow or sand with high reliability.
@ohiomancor16607 жыл бұрын
Beautiful, capable vehicle. Great presentation.
@SheepDawgOscarMike6 жыл бұрын
Hands down way better than Bradley. It is keeping up with the times. Great family of vehicles. Great easily upgradable electronics, power pack , firepower and protection. Lower silhouette than the super tall heavy less maneuverable bradley
@Surv1ve_Thrive7 жыл бұрын
Well presented, thank you.
@SheepDawgOscarMike6 жыл бұрын
Nick Thorp 👍🏻
@davidponce56075 жыл бұрын
I feel this vehicle could replace the Bradley
@nightwing.33783 жыл бұрын
How much does this version cost? today
@ArmoredWarfareReplays7 жыл бұрын
Hopefully we will have this vehicle in Armored Warfare :)
@asiftalpur37584 жыл бұрын
It's already in war thunder
@Thor_Asgard_2 жыл бұрын
how can you not love the CV90. amazing machine, only second to the German Puma.
@bennuredjedi6 жыл бұрын
That turret would be perfect for the Stryker
@ozzy77637 жыл бұрын
Makes our Bradley look like garbage.
@jantjarks79467 жыл бұрын
Sorry to say, but the Bradley was garbage from the beginning and all improvements could only cover up the worst design issues. Maybe with a new generation of MBT/APC/IFV the US will get a decent replacement for the Bradley too. I never understood why the Bradley wasn't thrown out of the window right away. It was ok for a stop gap measure, but nothing else.
@ozzy77637 жыл бұрын
Jan Tjarks true
@Merecir6 жыл бұрын
CV90 mobility, footage from the Norwegian trials. The Bradley is featured about 1:15 into the clip. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fnLWg2qjZtyLg5I enjoy
@connortb12296 жыл бұрын
The Bradley is garbage. Its amphibious has a auto cannon has missles and has a huge silhouette. In the end it only carries a few guys. Its pretty trash. Whats amazing is how effective it was against saddam Husseins forces. In battle the bradley wrecked the enemy. Makes you wonder if the bradley did so amazing what would have happened with a way better vehicle
@justicewarrior91875 жыл бұрын
Pentagon Wars
@christopherwebber38047 жыл бұрын
So it's an infantry fighting vehicle but the infantry can't fight from it, only get out? how many does it carry, or should it really be called a light tank?
@Mattebubben7 жыл бұрын
They can fight from it. There are hatches ontop of the infantry compartment which can open up allowing the infantry to get up and shoot. Number of infantry carried depends on the variant but ranges from 6-8. This is definitely a IFV.
@Merecir6 жыл бұрын
The Swedish CV9040's even have attachment points for two FN MAGs when the top hatches are open.
@bigcahoona79316 жыл бұрын
How many troops can this carry?
@petter57216 жыл бұрын
6 - 8 Soldiers and 3 crew depending on config.
@jasons445 жыл бұрын
It is badass
@Cartoonman1547 жыл бұрын
Is this the vehicle that lost to what became the ajax?
@jonny29547 жыл бұрын
Yes, the ASCOD 2 was choosen over the CV90.
@Cartoonman1547 жыл бұрын
Will the ASCOD 2 have active protectio? because I know the British army will eveloping but wasn't sure if the Ajax came with it on already.
@jonny29547 жыл бұрын
It didn't came with active protection. But the british army is currently working together with Leonardo on the 'icarus' project to affordably fit APS, that are already on the market, onto their combat vehicles. So it won't take very long since they don't have to develop a APS on their own.
@kshamayunkabir14655 жыл бұрын
Supar equetment.
@marioshadjikyriacou33815 жыл бұрын
Polish PL-01 based on this?
@AnonyMous-ql9nj3 жыл бұрын
Yes
@cyclingmaniac63432 жыл бұрын
The Uk should maybe dump Ajax and by the CV90
@averageemo28396 жыл бұрын
will Sweden by this vehicle?
@FXGreggan.6 жыл бұрын
Sweden already has >500 of them...
@petter57216 жыл бұрын
Sweden fielded the first CV90 in 1993
@GlenCychosz7 жыл бұрын
CTA 40 cannon would be better.
@jonny29547 жыл бұрын
The 40mm bofors was required on the CV90 to penetrate the sides of soviet tanks of that time, not for the anti-infantry purpose. The CTA APFSDS has a lower RHAe penetration.
@GlenCychosz7 жыл бұрын
Jonny I think it would be an improvement over the MK44 30 mm.
@jonny29547 жыл бұрын
Oh, sorry i though the CV90 in the video was a 40mm one. But i forgot only sweden uses them. For 30mm, yes and no. 40mm CTA has slightly better penetration and much higher airburst payload, but generally lower 'stored kills'. I recommend: below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.de/2016/04/bigger-guns-are-not-always-better.html
@GlenCychosz7 жыл бұрын
Thank you.
@connormassingham52306 жыл бұрын
40mm is better and what the original country that made this used. 40mm actually lets you go toe to toe with the big boys at least. honestly I think ifv are shitty. light tank with 105mm is better in every way. let the infantry ride in a apc. I don't understand the point of an ifv. the Bradley is supposed to suck but it actually seemed to perform good though I would rather not ride in it.
@luisalizondo49736 жыл бұрын
CV90 fir ever
@IonoTheFanatics7 жыл бұрын
hmmm? Iron Fist... interesting, i'd thought they'd mount AMAP ADS instead...
@jonny29547 жыл бұрын
It's cheaper i suppose.
@TheManfromNibiru6 жыл бұрын
CV 90 should replace that Huge Target called a Bradly .
@jonny29546 жыл бұрын
CV90 is also over 20 years old and outdated already.
@jonny29546 жыл бұрын
In comparison to entirely new platforms, the CV90 is outdated. It's being upgraded constantly, but you can only upgrade certain features, and only to a limited degree. We all agree that a entirely new platform is superior to a 20+ year old upgraded one.
@jonny29546 жыл бұрын
Outdated *in comparison* to new platforms. The CV90 does quite well against the majority of IFVs in service, but if it meets a new vehicle, it shows its age (czech IFV test trials). See, you can upgrade armament, turret, FCS, powerpack and even armor modules, but you can't upgrade the basic features such as hull size/shape, internal volume, layout and the concept in itself. As example, the CV90 was initially designed to have a manned turret, but now, with unmanned turrets gaining popularity, internal volume can be drastically reduced due to the removal of a turret basket. Lower internal volume results in lower external surface that needs to be armored, thus less weight at equivalent protection, or better protection at equivalent weight. There are CV90 versions with unmanned turrets, but the hull size isn't changeable on a existing vehicle, thus the CV90 doesen't profit from unmanned turrets in the extent entirely new vehicles do.
@jonny29546 жыл бұрын
I didn't backpaddle. If you compare the CV90 to a new platform (Puma IFV as example) in the three key characteristics for armored fighting vehicles (Protection, Lethality, Mobility) overall, not just for snowy, desert or wet enviroments, you'll find out the CV90 is performing much worse, thus is outated in comparison. Further, read up about the czech IFV test trials, Lynx KF31, ASCOD 2 and two different CV90 versions (manned and unmanned turret) got trashed by the Puma. It hit more than twice as much targets than the next best contender.
@jonny29546 жыл бұрын
Newer CV90 versions have significantly increased weight (35 tons) over the earlier versions which were tested back then (23 tons), and the track width hasn't increased since then, so no. It's not even good in snow anymore. Puma would perform better nowadays, since it's build for international climate, logically including snowy and muddy terrain (just like the Leopard 2, which is in service in Norway, Sweden and Finland) the power/weight ratio is higher and the tracks are wider.
@sheronell7 жыл бұрын
wow! the best of Israel plus the best of sweden.
@justicewarrior91875 жыл бұрын
Sooooooo It's neither a tank or a crew vehicle.. Nice Bradley.. Kind regards, Pentagon