PUMA - Ultimate IFV presented

[Waylander]

You get for sure no problems with me by saying this.
I totally agree with you.
Converting old tank hulls into HAPCs is for people who have run out of money and have too many old hulls rusting away.

The Israelis did not do this because they think it is the best solution but because it is cheap.
And they should think about their style of armored warfare after they were not able to support their tanks with infantry during the Lebanon campaign.

 

[eckherl]

You get for sure no problems with me by saying this.
I totally agree with you.
Converting old tank hulls into HAPCs is for people who have run out of money and have too many old hulls rusting away.

The Israelis did not do this because they think it is the best solution but because it is cheap.
And they should think about their style of armored warfare after they were not able to support their tanks with infantry during the Lebanon campaign.

They are supposed to be picking up close to 500 strykers from the U.S, I would think that this will help them out.

 

[Waylander]

Are Strykers able to follow the Merks in the small and fast advancing tank packs like seen during the Lebanon campaign?

I would like to see at least a Piranha version with a better weapon configuration like the Stryker.
A 30-35mm gun would give it much more punch especially against targets which are far away.
For example if you spot an enemy ATGM position or IFV some 1500m away I think you would be happy to hit it while moving with the 12,7mm not to talk of destroying the target.
There are enough interesting tracked and wheeled IFVs out there which are better suited to work together with tanks than the Stryker which should be better used as the battle taxi and patrole vehicle it is designed for.

But maybe the american military aid has something to do with the purchase.

For what price do the Israelis get the Stryker?

 

[swerve]

...
But maybe the american military aid has something to do with the purchase.

For what price do the Israelis get the Stryker?

A very large part of Israels military procurement is paid for by US aid. Israel chooses what to buy, but most (AFAIK it used to be all) of the US aid money must be spent in the USA (IIRC some may now be spent in Israel). This has led to Israel investigating the possibility of setting up factories in the USA to licence-build Israeli & foreign equipment, so it can be bought with US aid money, though so far nothing has come of that.

When considering why Israel buys anything, remember this fact. If there is a choice between a US & non-US weapon or component, Israel will buy the non-US item only if they believe it to be so much better than the US option that it's better to pay for it than have the US choice for nothing.

I think Israel pays the same for a Stryker, or F-16, as anyone else. What differs is where they get the money.

 

[turin]

And if you want to put the engine to the front and get a new unmanned turret as well as the whole conversion to an IFV you could also design a totally new IFV like the Puma with all the new materials and knowledge and without all the compromises you get when converting a MBT hull.

Well the only economic way to have the engine at the front in a MBT hull would be what the Israelis did: just turn around the hull (or take a Merkava-style hull to begin with).
But I do agree that it was an improvisation, not necessarily an improvement.

@Puma-exports: The concept behind the Puma was air-deployment by A400M. Right now that AC is still not available and there are not many countries out there having a C-17 or two. So I guess when A) the Airbus is available and B) the Puma is visibly in action, this might also affect future orders.

 

[swerve]

@Puma-exports: The concept behind the Puma was air-deployment by A400M. Right now that AC is still not available and there are not many countries out there having a C-17 or two. So I guess when A) the Airbus is available and B) the Puma is visibly in action, this might also affect future orders.

Most countries never air-deploy their IFVs, & don't have transports to carry them, so I don't see that as decisive. Anyway, an Il-76 can take it, with the full armour package.

 

[eckherl]

Are Strykers able to follow the Merks in the small and fast advancing tank packs like seen during the Lebanon campaign?

I would like to see at least a Piranha version with a better weapon configuration like the Stryker.
A 30-35mm gun would give it much more punch especially against targets which are far away.
For example if you spot an enemy ATGM position or IFV some 1500m away I think you would be happy to hit it while moving with the 12,7mm not to talk of destroying the target.
There are enough interesting tracked and wheeled IFVs out there which are better suited to work together with tanks than the Stryker which should be better used as the battle taxi and patrole vehicle it is designed for.

But maybe the american military aid has something to do with the purchase.

For what price do the Israelis get the Stryker?

Swerve hit on the head as far as procurement goes, there are different weapons systems that you can place on the Stryker, and Israel will be looking at those options that are currently available, including the 105mm versions. We are actually implementing the 105mm at the present time.

 

[Waylander]

Because of this I talked of the current Piranha versions with 30-35mm turrets. The Stryker is also just a Piranha version.
But the original Stryker would in my opinion not fit into the role of an IFV.
Maybe just a misunderstanding. I have nothing against the Stryker itself but I think another Piranha version would better fullfill the IDF needs.

And the 105mm verson is good for giving fast deployable stryker brigades a huge amount of mobile firepower. But you loose the ability to transport the infantry and if Israel wants to use it together with the Merks and not for fast airlift deployment you already have this heavy firepower with the 120mm of the Merks.

What the IDF needs in my opinion is an IFV which is able to follow the Merks at all times, good protection (Trophy comes into mind) and a gun from 30mm to 35mm.

 

[Distiller]

Are Strykers able to follow the Merks in the small and fast advancing tank packs like seen during the Lebanon campaign?

I would like to see at least a Piranha version with a better weapon configuration like the Stryker.
A 30-35mm gun would give it much more punch especially against targets which are far away.
For example if you spot an enemy ATGM position or IFV some 1500m away I think you would be happy to hit it while moving with the 12,7mm not to talk of destroying the target.
There are enough interesting tracked and wheeled IFVs out there which are better suited to work together with tanks than the Stryker which should be better used as the battle taxi and patrole vehicle it is designed for.

But maybe the american military aid has something to do with the purchase.

For what price do the Israelis get the Stryker?

Not sure you want to operate a wheeled IFV along with a tracked MBT. The heavy groups have to be completely tracked. Ever seen a wheeled IFV on a hillside with wet grass?

Those modular tracked IFV like the CV-90 (as infantry taxi, indirect fire support, anti-air, ATGM carrier, ...) are good for medium groups, and quite useful for fast air mobile operations.

And all those wheeled vehicles are mostly good for colonial warfare and COIN operations.

Since the proliferation of the man-portable ATGMs neither type is safe in a fight against dispersed (irregular) infantry. And operations rely ever more on combined weapons and integrated C4ISR. And I guess as long as you have CBU-97/105 carrier overhead you are fine with just medium tracked modular vehicles like the CV90. But against an enemy with full-spectrum battlefield capability you have to have MBTs.


Btw, it is correct that the Puma IFV and the Airbus A400M were designed as operational twins. However the A400M can only transport the Puma without the modular armor, which has to be airlifted in a second A400M and takes considerable time and heavy equipment to bolt on.

 

[eckherl]

Because of this I talked of the current Piranha versions with 30-35mm turrets. The Stryker is also just a Piranha version.
But the original Stryker would in my opinion not fit into the role of an IFV.
Maybe just a misunderstanding. I have nothing against the Stryker itself but I think another Piranha version would better fullfill the IDF needs.

And the 105mm verson is good for giving fast deployable stryker brigades a huge amount of mobile firepower. But you loose the ability to transport the infantry and if Israel wants to use it together with the Merks and not for fast airlift deployment you already have this heavy firepower with the 120mm of the Merks.

What the IDF needs in my opinion is an IFV which is able to follow the Merks at all times, good protection (Trophy comes into mind) and a gun from 30mm to 35mm.

I have always wondered why the IDF did not design a dedicated IFV that had good firepower and armor protection, I am in agreement that wheeled vehicles have drawbacks versus tracked vehicles in the meeting engagement.
I would use them for recon and security missions only.

 

[DoC_FouALieR]

Why the german prefered to mount a 30mm gun rather than something more powerful and compact, like 40 mmCTA?

 

[psyclops]

The French army seems to think its VBCI can keep up with Leclerc just fine, despite its 8x8 configuration. I don't know how much they intend to go careening over rough terrain over long distances with the pair, but I imagine they took that into consideration. Still, something like Puma makes more sense to me.

Any thoughts regarding Boxer's interchangeable rear module? Will it actually be changed out in the field for different roles, or is a given module likely to just sit on the same Boxer its whole life? I know the module is supposed to be a quick-change design, which I like in theory, but I suspect it may end up more like the MEKO frigates: easy to change out modules in theory, but in practice rarely done because it's not needed. Also, would it ever be worth building a rear module that would be common between APC and IFV? Command modules, say, or FAC.

Not to move off the Puma topic, but didn't Israel put the Stryker order on hold while they evaluated their needs in light of the Lebanon conflict?

 

[Waylander]

I agree that a tracked vehicle would be a better solution. Because of this I was sceptical if a Stryker is able to follow the Merks.
Also in my opinion a CV90, Puma, etc would be a better solution.

What I wanted to say is that if it has to be a Piranha Chassis like the Stryker than the minimum should be a version with a 30-35mm turret.

And I always loved to have little mud races against our wheeled comrades in Luchs und Fuchs.

 

[psyclops]

Why the german prefered to mount a 30mm gun rather than something more powerful and compact, like 40 mmCTA?

I'd guess they went with the 30mm instead of CTA because the 30mm is a domestic product, while the CTA is not. And they probably figured 30mm is big enough for now, especially with programmable-fuse ammunition. They never did upgrade their Marders beyond 20mm.

 

[eckherl]

The French army seems to think its VBCI can keep up with Leclerc just fine, despite its 8x8 configuration. I don't know how much they intend to go careening over rough terrain over long distances with the pair, but I imagine they took that into consideration. Still, something like Puma makes more sense to me.

Any thoughts regarding Boxer's interchangeable rear module? Will it actually be changed out in the field for different roles, or is a given module likely to just sit on the same Boxer its whole life? I know the module is supposed to be a quick-change design, which I like in theory, but I suspect it may end up more like the MEKO frigates: easy to change out modules in theory, but in practice rarely done because it's not needed. Also, would it ever be worth building a rear module that would be common between APC and IFV? Command modules, say, or FAC.

Not to move off the Puma topic, but didn't Israel put the Stryker order on hold while they evaluated their needs in light of the Lebanon conflict?

Yes - they were re evaluating it but I have been told that they have decided to go with it. Hmm I wonder how much politics went into play on this deal. This is only what I have been told, if someone who specializes with dealing with the IDF knows anything different, please let me know.

 

[Manfred]

Not so long ago there was a very interesting project that mounted the OTO Meleria 76mm compact gun in an enclosed turret on an Leo 1 chassis. I forgot the name of this weapon system, and so I cannot Google it... does anyone know what became of this?

I wonder, how large and heavy an unmanned turret for that gun would have to be?

 

[Gladius]

Manfred IIRC, the model of the leopard mentioned by you was the OTOMATIC prototype.

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/9316/leoom76mmgp6.jpg

Characteristics: (System fitted on Leopard 1 Chassis)

· Crew: 4 (Commander, gunner, driver & loader)
· Main weapon: 76mm Compact (Modified)
· Ammunition Options: High Explosive, High Explosive/Fragmentation, Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot ammunition...
· Engine: MB 838 CA M 500 (830hp).
· Gearbox: Electro-Hydraulic (Model 4 HP-250).
· Lenght: 9.81 mts.
· Width: 3.25 mts.
· Height: 3.07 mts.
· Combat Weight: 47.0 Tm.
· Fuel capacity: 955 liters.
· Maximum speed: 60 Km/h.
· Autonomy: 500 Km.
· Step: 1.2 mts.
· Trench Max: 3.0 mts
· Slope: 30%.
· Gradient: 60%.
· Fording: 1,2 mts.
· Main weapon Max. Elevation: +60°.
· Main weapon Max. Depression: -5°.
· Main weapon Traverse: 360°.
· Effective weapon range: 1.0-5.0 Km.
· Rate of Fire: 120 rounds per minute.

 

[turin]

Most countries never air-deploy their IFVs, & don't have transports to carry them, so I don't see that as decisive. Anyway, an Il-76 can take it, with the full armour package.

The trend says clearly otherwise. More and more countries are beginning to deploy heavy assets, something which was done almost exclusively by the US. See the Canadians with their Leo-1s, the Netherlands with SPHs and now the Germans, who actually are deploying IFVs to Afghanistan. As long as a country is interested in taking part in such operations, they will increasingly consider aspects of air-deployment in choosing their platforms.

The Il-76 is not really an issue, since it has no perspective except with the Chinese. As of yet its not clear what becomes of C-17-production beyond 2010 and it remains to be seen what is happening with the An-124. Thats why I was bringing in the A-400M.

Btw, it is correct that the Puma IFV and the Airbus A400M were designed as operational twins. However the A400M can only transport the Puma without the modular armor, which has to be airlifted in a second A400M and takes considerable time and heavy equipment to bolt on.

Well, it takes one A-400M to carry the modular equipment for three Level C-Pumas, IIRC. So the ratio is not too bad. The An-124 has more of an edge here compared to, say, the C-17.
And what does "considerable time" exactly mean? I dont have a number on the time to attach Level-C-protection on the Puma, but we are talking about strategic deployment here, so its not really like Combat-readiness within one hour should be an issue here.

 

[Distiller]

...

Well, it takes one A-400M to carry the modular equipment for three Level C-Pumas, IIRC. So the ratio is not too bad. The An-124 has more of an edge here compared to, say, the C-17.
And what does "considerable time" exactly mean? I dont have a number on the time to attach Level-C-protection on the Puma, but we are talking about strategic deployment here, so its not really like Combat-readiness within one hour should be an issue here.

The rate is three or four to one, whereas I also view three to one as realistic.
Can't give a source, but I remember from a past presentation that it takes about 30min with heavy eqipment to uparmor to C-level protection.

I however question your assumption that only strategic deployments are within the possible scope. An airlift into an airstrip with the need for rapid armored perimeter protection is a possibility. Otherwise (in most cases at least), if you are not in a hurry, you could sealift the stuff.

 

[Manfred]

Thanks for the Info., Gladius!

Yes, that was the one I was thinking of. So... it never went past prototype? Thats a shame.