rump Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Hi all,If this article is to be believed, Estonia payed just 25,2 million Euro for 44 CV9035NLs.That looks ridiculously low given the young age of the system and the fact that the Netherlands payed 1.1 billion for 192 vehicles (everything included).Misplaced comma, sloppy reporting or a very good deal for the Estonians?Regards,Rump 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Retro Posted October 1, 2015 Members Share Posted October 1, 2015 Not a car owner here, but isn't there a saying that as soon as you turn the key on your newly bought car its value plummets by 50%? Anyway I guess it's the old thing about system cost vs unit cost (fex if training material - including (HW) simulators, spares, maintenance, ammo, sometimes even buildings are included), possibly with a healthy dollop of political 'intent', that makes 'defense' contracts so intransparent, ripe for shenanigans and suitable to endlessly argue over - so without any more details it's hard to say what's going on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jartsev Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Misplaced comma, sloppy reporting or a very good deal for the Estonians?Everything is right, thats a very good deal.:clin: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejawolf Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 it's a pretty crappy vehicle, so i'd say the price is right. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuri Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Strange, our own newspapers have mentioned a cost of 138 million euros for the entire deal (http://riigikaitse.postimees.ee/3034533/jalavae-lahingumasin-cv9035nl-mkiii). The vehicles aren't going to a "reconnaisance" battalion either, while Scouts battalion might have a misleading name, it is still an infantry battalion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jartsev Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 it's a pretty crappy vehicle, so i'd say the price is right.Still better than PASIs and BTR-80s without KPVTs 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted October 1, 2015 Moderators Share Posted October 1, 2015 It will kill any Russian IFV with ease (except maybe their latest Warhammer 40k IFV). People rate it as a bad IFV in SB because they want to use it against tanks. Of course the very small ready ammo capacity does not help though. The CV90 isn't so bad as long as the infantry inside are given, in abundance, a descent ATGM to utilize when they dismount. Strange that often the CV90-borne infantry are usually only equipped with RPGs, or do not have ATGMs in large numbers when the vehicle itself doesn't have an effective antitank weapon. :confused: The US Mech infantry are good in this regard because they have a wide array of anti-armor weaponry at their disposal: first the TOW at long range, then Javelin at medium range, then AT-4 at short range. Fingers are crossed that the Estonians will be smart in how they equip their new CV9035 mechanized infantry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rump Posted October 1, 2015 Author Share Posted October 1, 2015 The CV90 isn't so bad as long as the infantry inside are given, in abundance, a descent ATGM to utilize when they dismount. Strange that often the CV90-borne infantry are usually only equipped with RPGs, or do not have ATGMs in large numbers when the vehicle itself doesn't have an effective antitank weapon. :confused:Where would you store that abundance of ATGMs? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rump Posted October 1, 2015 Author Share Posted October 1, 2015 Strange, our own newspapers have mentioned a cost of 138 million euros for the entire deal (http://riigikaitse.postimees.ee/3034533/jalavae-lahingumasin-cv9035nl-mkiii). The vehicles aren't going to a "reconnaisance" battalion either, while Scouts battalion might have a misleading name, it is still an infantry battalion.Ah, so I guess the article I linked is indeed 'sloppy reporting'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted October 1, 2015 Moderators Share Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) Where would you store that abundance of ATGMs? In the soldier's hands. Abundance meaning: one ATGM per vehicle, essentially 1 ATGM per squad (and a carried reload). I didn't mean 5-10 ATGMs per vehicle. Currently there are 0 in most CV90 equipped armies, except for a special AT section or platoon of vehicles at company or battalion level. Anyway, just throwing that out there for discussion... Edited October 2, 2015 by Volcano typos 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rump Posted October 1, 2015 Author Share Posted October 1, 2015 When they were planning for the CV90, the Leopards still existed in the Dutch inventory.Now, the anti tank role falls to the D-Company, a heavy weapons company in each mechanized battalion armed with Gills, PzF and .50 machine guns. (Fennek MRAT and Mercedes G280 CDI).The CV90 on it's own indeed is screwed when it would encounter a tank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted October 2, 2015 Members Share Posted October 2, 2015 Well, that applies to pretty much ANY combat vehicle that can't sustain a 100mm+ projectile impact. As far as firepower is concerned, it's more than sufficient at the moment against anything BUT tanks (and even then an ambush fronm the flanks is possible though certainly not the preferred option).The question always is how you embed a system into the array of other tools in the bag. It's called combined arms for a reason. I suppose pretty much any player of Steel Beasts has by now learned that MBTs are vulnerable too, depending on the conditions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macieksoft Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Right.When you want to fight enemy tanks you take a tank.When you want to transport infantry and give them support you should use APC or IFV.Infantry's primary role is not defeating enemy tanks, its also not a primary role of APC and IFV. Those vehicles are there to transport troops and help them fighting with enemy they may encounter. Sometimes you may find a tank but its some kind of emergency situation as usually you would be fighting enemy infantry and probably light vehicles.Using infantry to defeat tanks is not the best idea i think, at least unless you give them have heavy antitank systems such as TOW that allows for some kind of standoff engagements without too big risk of being ducky killed.Infantry is generally used when you have to clear buildings and fight in urban area when tanks cannot be used as the only weapon (you cannot really clear the rooms with tanks, or maybe you can if you want to kill all civilians inside) so there is a need for infantry here. Its good to have IFV outside defending them from enemy attack when they are securing building. Also you can protect them when they are making their way into building.IFV is there to be with infantry, transport them and provide fire cover. IFV should stick to infantry and make sure they are safe. Engagement of vehicles is usually an IFV role, but some things cannot be done by IFV itself and they require to unmount troops. Also you can dismount them when IFV needs some cover (in example inside town or wood).Anyway, giving ATGM to CV-90 series would be a good idea (i mean giving it to vehicle), Bradley has double TOW, Russian ones also has ATGM in almost every true IFV like BMP or BMD series.I sometimes wonder why CV-90 series do not have ATGM. They are good for last chance self defence.I am from Poland and i heard that they are planning to mount SPIKE-LR on Rosomak APC, its not even true IFV but it will get a missiles. I think its a good way. Not extremally expensive to implement but it may be a true life saver.The CV90 on it's own indeed is screwed when it would encounter a tank.Especially when it gets hit in a..... RUMP ;-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Integrating a ATGM into a vehicle can include all kind of interesting challenges esp. if the vehicle was not designed for it from the start. In short...its not that always that easy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueSnake79 Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Well the Netherlands took a loss. That's far better than what the US took with our MRAP fleet. The door prize for sending troops to Afghanistain, or the buy one doughnut get an MRAP for US law enforcement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejawolf Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Integrating a ATGM into a vehicle can include all kind of interesting challenges esp. if the vehicle was not designed for it from the start. In short...its not that always that easy. meh. swedes just chose to not adopt it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 meh. swedes just chose to not adopt it. Yeah, because there still was a shitload of issues with that "design" ;-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejawolf Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Yeah, because there still was a shitload of issues with that "design" ;-) video of testfiring. so what issues were there with the design? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 video of testfiring. so what issues were there with the design? This is hear-say, but the alinement of FCS/laucher after rough terrain driving and the sensitivety of the steering system never got solved to full satisfaction. Also the was talk about issues with engine vibration during aiming/ missle flight etc etc As I sais...hear say. But as these issue are also popping up with other IFV I know of, it seems plausible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I have long held the view an IFV without a ATGM mounted or something like the 9M117 Bastion. as used by the BMP-3. is a foolish cost saving mistake. even the new updated warrior with its state of the art fire control/ ammunition. will be in real trouble if it meets Any of the newer type T tanks on the battlefield if it does not have tank support.Even if the troops have ATGM's the IFV's still have to stop dismount the troops fire and hope The enemy hasn't spotted them and engaged them first with MBT rounds say what you like about soviet /Russian designs but they would be at an advantage over most western IFV's In such a situation. I know its not the job of IFV's to engage tanks but realistically combat doesn't have any rules, in operation desert storm/Iraqi freedom, Bradleys used there Tows To good effect. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj.Hans Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 I have to agree with Marko here.Even if the ATGM setup is going to be just a single missile it's still better than nothing. Ideally IFVs would never have to stand toe to toe against a tank. Ideally they would work in tandem with friendly MBTs and avoid fighting tanks at all costs.But sometimes they can't. And when a T-72 rolls over the hill 1000 meters right in front of you with nowhere for you to run, maybe shooting him in the face with your one and only ATGM will make a better impression than trying to see if your 25/30/35/40mm auto cannon can knock him out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeKiloPapa Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 it's a pretty crappy vehicleCompared to what ? and based on what exactly ?I agree the lack of a ATGW capability is stupid , but thats down to the users being a bunch of cheap-skates and not an inherent flaw in the vehicle itself.Other than that though , i,d say you would be hard pressed to find a better in service and proven IFV out there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj.Hans Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 I kinda share Dejawolf's opinion on it...It seems like it spends more time reloading than shooting, for one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 (edited) I kinda share Dejawolf's opinion on it...It seems like it spends more time reloading than shooting, for one. I like the CV/90/40. but I agree the auto cannon although powerful and would be very useful against Helicopters and fixed defences. its low capacity magazine is its Achilles heel. I prefer the auto cannons on the CV 90/30-FI/ CV 90/35-DK are far more effective. But the vehicle its self is sound it has good speed off road mobility very low ground pressure I believe when it was designed they used a lot of off the shelf parts to reduce costs. And increase availability of spares. so it does have a lot going for it. My favourite version only reached prototype its not an IFV but its cool as hell. LoL I also like the mortar carrier version. Air defence variant Edited October 6, 2015 by Marko 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeKiloPapa Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 It seems like it spends more time reloading than shooting, for one.In SB yes, but i'm talking about the real life vehicle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.