Why did the US Army not adopt CV90 as the Bradley replacement after Sweden joined NATO?
Short answerCV90 is judged a good but aging platform that does not fit the American troop and weapon requirements described in this exchange.
NotesCV90 is a mature, adaptable vehicle, but its capabilities must fit the force that would operate it. The comparison places its 1994 introduction beside Puma's later development and 2015 service entry, then argues for a newer Bradley replacement. The American requirements described here include a six-soldier component and a 50 mm automatic weapon. Lynx and Griffin III are offered as candidates suited to those requirements, while CV90's troop capacity and armament are objections to adopting it unchanged. Foreign origin is disputed as a decisive obstacle: Rheinmetall's participation shows how a foreign design can enter through an American industrial organization. Sweden's NATO membership therefore does not by itself settle the vehicle choice.