PUMA - Ultimate IFV presented

[eckherl]

That's not rubber btw.

Pretty sure it ain't solid steel either though. Probably some steel/carbon fibre/plastic amalgam armour, Rheinmetall does plenty of research and applications (civilian too) in that direction.

What ever it is it does look like that is very flexible.

 

[Chino]

Ammunition is normally kept in a box underneath your coax and along side of your primary weapon system, you would reload it while inside of the vehicle.

Of course you're right.

But I was referring to the PUMA.

It looks suspiciously like you have to reload outside the vehicle. With most of the weapon sitting outside the turret in that housing, I don't see how you can thread a new belt into the feed tray while inside the vehicle.

I think this could be why they picked a 5.56mm. If it can take only 1,000 rds of 5.56, the capacity would be halved if they use a 7.62.

 

[eckherl]

Of course you're right.

But I was referring to the PUMA.

It looks suspiciously like you have to reload outside the vehicle. With most of the weapon sitting outside the turret in that housing, I don't see how you can thread a new belt into the feed tray while inside the vehicle.

I think this could be why they picked a 5.56mm. If it can take only 1,000 rds of 5.56, the capacity would be halved if they use a 7.62.

That is pretty much the conclusion we came up with also, if you look at the turret configuration you can actually see the access latches on the right side of the armament housing. Does anyone know how reliable the MG4 is, is it prone for jams.

 

[DavidDCM]

Never seen the MG4 live, but there is this famous picture of an HK employee sitting on a pile of 102,000 spent cartridges being shot from a MG43 (the prototype version of the MG4) without a single jam (in desert environment).

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/2205/mg43pileoj7.jpg
"102,000 round torture test at the Yuma Proving Grounds, Yuma, Arizona"

Of course that doesn't say that it wont jam ever, but I think it can nevertheless be regarded to as "quite reliable".

 

[eckherl]

Well if it can shoot out that kind of lead without a jam or misfeed then you could call that a top performer. Kinda like a M240 that we use as a coax, out of all my times firing it I had maybe two misfires, one for a broken electrical connection that was a quick fix and one for a broken spring that is wrapped around the recoil rod, (Buffer spring).

 

[AGRA]

Never seen the MG4 live, but there is this famous picture of an HK employee sitting on a pile of 102,000 spent cartridges being shot from a MG43 (the prototype version of the MG4) without a single jam (in desert environment).

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/2205/mg43pileoj7.jpg
"102,000 round torture test at the Yuma Proving Grounds, Yuma, Arizona"

Of course that doesn't say that it wont jam ever, but I think it can nevertheless be regarded to as "quite reliable".

And this means nothing for a co-axial AFV mounted weapon. The problem with machineguns mounted in co-axial or in the turrets is the shock and vibration caused by the firing of the main gun, and in particular rapid firing guns like a 30mm cannon, cause all sorts of problems with the action of the co-ax MG.

Which is why the only fully effective option for a co-ax weapon is an externally powered MG. Only the British pay the extra dollars to equip their WR and CR2 with 7.62mm chainguns in co-ax.

 

[eckherl]

And this means nothing for a co-axial AFV mounted weapon. The problem with machineguns mounted in co-axial or in the turrets is the shock and vibration caused by the firing of the main gun, and in particular rapid firing guns like a 30mm cannon, cause all sorts of problems with the action of the co-ax MG.

Which is why the only fully effective option for a co-ax weapon is an externally powered MG. Only the British pay the extra dollars to equip their WR and CR2 with 7.62mm chainguns in co-ax.

Which IFVs have had reliability issues due to their turret coax mounts, this has not been the case on the Bradley series, I can see that they have to with stand alot of shock due to recoil of the main armament but why would this be a issue, it is a weapons system that you zero for area suppression so they can take a minimal amount of a beating. This could be in large part due to the actual coax machine gun that is used, we used the M219 prior to the M240 and that bugger was a complete dog.

 

[Rossiman]

Could you see America buying these? Also, if they did plan on buying some, how many do you think they would be interested in?

 

[Waylander]

One word.

Zero.

Why should they buy them?
They already have the upgraded Brads and they are pumping billions into the FCS program.

The US is probably the last country which needs a new IFV.

 

[eckherl]

Could you see America buying these? Also, if they did plan on buying some, how many do you think they would be interested in?

Also let me add the reasoning of Nationalistic pride as a reason why we would not purchase them even though it seems to be a good vehicle. We have worked with other countries in the past on future joint vehicle projects and we always seem to go our seperate ways due to different projected needs and abilities by each country, this is the vehicle itself seeings how we tend to use each others armament designs in mainguns and munitions.

 

[Waylander]

Nevermind.
Most big western countries are as bad as the US when it comes to "when we can build it we don't buy it...".

 

[eckherl]

So the PUMA deal was government approved for 405 of them being built and start the process of replacing the Marders by the year 2010. Also it looks like the German government approved 440 Euro Spike systems also for vehicle mounts and a additional 90 units one must assume are ground mounts for the infantry. The year 2010 is way to dam long for a person to have to waite to see this baby perform with some real units.

 

[DavidDCM]

Canada: First Export Customer of Germany's Puma IFV?
Posted by Joris Janssen Lok at 1/28/2008 4:49 AM

Canada may become the first export customer for Germany's brand-new Puma tracked infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) -- at least that is what the Puma's manufacturers believe.

"We are seeing high-level interest within the Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) in a possible future acquisition of Puma," says a senior executive in Rheinmetall Defence.

Together with Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW), Rheinmetall has developed the Puma and is currently ramping up series production of 405 Pumas, worth around 3 billion euros ($4.5 billion) for the German armed forces.

"Canada almost went to an all-wheeled armored vehicle force. But operational experience in Afghanistan has shown that tracked combat vehicles are indispensable," says Duncan Hills, director government relations and industrial benefits for Rheinmetall Canada.

According to Hills, wheeled vehicles such as Canada's LAV III (an 8x8 armored wheeled vehicle) have experienced mobility problems in Afghanistan, particularly when having to deal with difficult off-road terrain or when having to negotiate irrigation ditches.

Protection has also proven to be an issue, with several roadside bomb attacks against LAVs resulting in high casualties.

The Puma, with its shaped hull and modular add-on armor, would provide enhanced protection for its up to nine occupants, Hills says.

The Puma is just one of several land systems products that Rheinmetall is promoting in Canada. Others are the PzH 2000 self-propelled 155-mm./52-cal. howitzer, the Gefas modular protected wheeled vehicle, the Buffalo and Kodiak armored engineer vehicles, and the C-RAM army air defense system.

Canada already has leased 20 KMW-built Leopard 2A6M main battle tanks from the German government for deployment to Afghanistan, and is taking over 100 surplus Leopard 2s from the Netherlands.

However, this last project is suffering from delays associated with the installation of Canadian army radios into the former Dutch tanks, sources close to the program tell Ares.

Source Aviation Week, 1/28/2008

 

[Waylander]

If they would really start buying all this equipment (Even when it is not going to be german stuff) this is one of the amazing examples of how reality smashes nice plans of light wheeled peacekeeping forces.
This would be a total 180° turnaround, beginning with the Leo deal, from the previous plans.

 

[eckherl]

I wonder how many Pumas that the Canadians would go for, I do have to agree with the reality check on a wheeled vehicles capabilities.

 

[kato]

hahahah how
We've already got paper thin armoured LAVs that roll over at the drop of a hat
Why would we suddenly go and invest in IFVs?

Instant reaction from a Canadian I know.

Canada has over 800 LAVs. There's not really much need for a Puma. And even if they bought any - look at the numbers in their Leo deal. Maximum 60-80. But not at these prices.

 

[eckherl]

Instant reaction from a Canadian I know.

Canada has over 800 LAVs. There's not really much need for a Puma. And even if they bought any - look at the numbers in their Leo deal. Maximum 60-80. But not at these prices.

Yes - it is kind of a surprising article posted by DavidDCM though, interesting comments from your Canadian friend also.

 

[Waylander]

One cannot compare a canadian LAV with a full size modern IFV like the Puma.

The Puma has better cross country performance, more firepower, a much better armor protection and is better suited to withstand mines and IEDs.

It is not the first time I read that Canada encountered problems with their LAVs in A-stan when it comes to cross country mobility. And some IED casualties may not be casualties if they would have used a Puma instead of a LAV.
The recent incident with the Leo IIA6M which drove over an IED shows what a modern mine protection kit can do.

And with some Pumas in country the Leos wouldn't be the only vehicles which could go into harms way and face RPGs.
Right now LAVs have to be carefully to avoid even older RPGs.
A Puma would be near to imune against the older warheads floating around in A-stan.

But I agree that the price of the Puma might be too big.
Nevertheless a CV9035 Mk.III might be also a good option. Still not that cheap but cheaper than a Puma with a good package for a modern IFV.

 

[eckherl]

One cannot compare a canadian LAV with a full size modern IFV like the Puma.

The Puma has better cross country performance, more firepower, a much better armor protection and is better suited to withstand mines and IEDs.

It is not the first time I read that Canada encountered problems with their LAVs in A-stan when it comes to cross country mobility. And some IED casualties may not be casualties if they would have used a Puma instead of a LAV.
The recent incident with the Leo IIA6M which drove over an IED shows what a modern mine protection kit can do.

And with some Pumas in country the Leos wouldn't be the only vehicles which could go into harms way and face RPGs.
Right now LAVs have to be carefully to avoid even older RPGs.
A Puma would be near to imune against the older warheads floating around in A-stan.

But I agree that the price of the Puma might be too big.
Nevertheless a CV9035 Mk.III might be also a good option. Still not that cheap but cheaper than a Puma with a good package for a modern IFV.

Its not just the LAV, we have issues with the Stryker also when it comes to cross country mobility.

The Puma will be the ultimate test to offer that find of firepower with electronics and sensors with a crew stashed in the hull. I will be most interested in seeing the response and performance of the crews operating them.

 

[Waylander]

Defenitely and I am going to promise that the first crews are going to miss the ability to use their eyes.
And on the other hand the crew is going to love the new fire control and observation systems as well as the integration of the squad in the back and the mobility.

Its not just the LAV, we have issues with the Stryker also when it comes to cross country mobility.

Not very surprising as all of them are some kind of Piranha version.