PUMA - Ultimate IFV presented

[eckherl]

Is there any photos floating out there anywhere on what the Spike weapons platform whould look like configured to the Puma.

 

[Waylander]

I expect them to look like the couble starter which has been integrated into a Patria AMV version. Haven't there been fotos floating around here of it?
I am going to search for it.

It is going to be on the right side of the turret.

Edit:
Ok, I found the picture. The double launcher is already realized by Rafael. This picture is not from an AMV but at least I found a picture of the launcher.
http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/area.aspx?FolderID=280&docID=994

 

[ForexGuides]

It would be the first bilateral military accord between South Korea and Japan.
South Korean Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung and Yoshinori Ono, director general of the Japan Defense Agency, will meet here Wednesday to discuss a wide range of issues involving military cooperation, according to the source.

The bilateral agreement was initially scheduled to be signed next week during Mr. Yoon's visit, but the actual signing may be postponed due to concerns that it might hinder the progress of the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear arms programs, which had been scheduled to resume next week in Beijing.

The defense meeting comes after years of expectations that such an agreement would be signed. In 2003, President Roh Moo-hyun and Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi agreed in principle to reinforce Seoul and Tokyo's military cooperation. A similar promise was made when South Korea and Japan announced a partnership declaration in 1998.

So far, according to military sources, Seoul and Tokyo have been cooperating in areas of intelligence sharing over Pyongyang's nuclear arms programs and missile systems and in joint search and rescue operations carried out by the South Korean Navy and Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Force.

The two countries have also held 13 working-level meetings to coordinate their defense policies. The latest meeting on military cooperation measures took place last month.

Military experts say the agreement is expected to heat up the security climate in Northeast Asia, especially since it follows China and Russia's large-scale joint military exercise, the first ever between the two nations.

"Except the United States, which has a security alliance with Japan, South Korea will be the first country that Tokyo will sign a military exchange accord with," said a Japanese defense official. "To cope with changes in Northeast Asia, such as China's growing military presence and North Korea's nuclear issues, closer ties between Seoul and Tokyo are vital."

 

[Firn]

So far the Puma will be delivered in the IFV version only, I'm I right? A great version that is, of course. The Spike LR makes perfect sense too.

Are there any plans to use the "highly modular design" for other versions?

 

[kato]

Well, there was also a JFST version planned (joint fire support team), pretty much with the same stuff on it - probably lacking the Spike though i'd bet.

 

[Palnatoke]

Before we critize LAVs for being LAVs, we should remember what they are good at: Taxi and long patrolling to a reasonable price. An important part of the fighting in f.ex. Afghanistan are long patrolling. Tracked vehicles like Puma or CW90 or MBTs for that matter are not optimal for this, since f.ex they get weared down by driving mile after mile (the LAVs also get wear, but they are less mechanically complex, easier to repair and (more) expendable).
There is also a cost-benefit issue; overall it might be better to have enough LAVs with their limitations, than too few IFVs. I would say that if you loose mobillity (due to low number of vehicles or maintenance issues) the added protection of the IFVs are easely undone by the fact that the enemy will have an easier time ambushing you, placing mines etc.

When that's said, the modern IFV will bring a heavy stabilized gun to the fight, which will make a difference, and it will have the armour, that will allow you to use the vehicle much more offensively when in a fight.

What you need is a mix of LAVs and IFVs (and perhaps MBTs), and that's probably why you see/have seen canadien, dutch and danes scrample for the IFVs, that they lack (have the dutch deployed their CW9035 yet? The danish ones are in deployment with units, though it takes time to build up the operational understanding and tactics to such a new weapon system, I believe they will be deployed to Afgh. this fall or next spring ).

Wrt to the callibre of the gun on the Puma, as I understand it the 30mm will fire AHEAD airbusting ammo, this will do very well in a "modern war", in a traditional war you might want a heavier one, but traditional wars are rarely fought. Also the 30mm round is substancially smaller than a, say, 40mm so everything equal, you carry substancially more rounds when going for the smaller cal. And in a "modern war" we are not trying to punch through modern armour plates, but just need to deliver a few high speed grams of lead/tungsten to an insurgent armed with a RPG7, and you, for sure, do not need an ATGM in a "modern war"

All there is left to say is that the PUMA is probably the finest IFVs in the world, and that the germans should be critizied for developing it, when, our friends the swedes, allready has an IFV (CW90s), that would have served the german army almost just as well.

------------------------
By "modern war" I mean the type of war, that our millitaries doesn't prepare for, but are the wars they will fight and because they don't prepare, loose. Namely the subversive war against rag-tag locals that doesn't agree with our policies brought to them by a strange mixture of benevolent aid and high tech destruction from a distance.

 

[Waylander]

The AHEAD ammounition for the 30mm is defenitely good but I especially when one wants to shred infantry in the open at long ranges as well as blinding an enemy MBT when one tries to get out of the LOS of it.
But compared to other programmable rounds like the 40mm 3P it lacks the ability to threat infantry behind cover because the fragments spread more frontally.

But as you said there is some doubt about the ability of the 30mm APFSDS to penetrate also future threats. And these threats we should have in mind because the Puma is going to serve for a long time.

We evaluated the CV90 but deemed it not up to what we wanted.
That the not in house syndrome played a key role is not a secret...
In industries where we are world class we are as bad as one can be regarding the NIH syndrome.

 

[Firn]

Perhaps I will answer later. Here are some good links about the use of tanks - and the issues with them - in Afghanistan as well as comments on them.


THE LAV III IN COUNTER-INSURGENCY WARFARE—TACTICAL LESSONS LEARNED

Stryker Crews in Iraq Rally to Defend Their Rides: Field Report

 

[Falstaff]

But as you said there is some doubt about the ability of the 30mm APFSDS to penetrate also future threats. And these threats we should have in mind because the Puma is going to serve for a long time.

Isn't that what the Spikes are for? If I'm informed correctly the 30mm is a very powerful weapon compared to the other ones on the market and on other IFVs.

...and that the germans should be critizied for developing it, when, our friends the swedes, allready has an IFV (CW90s), that would have served the german army almost just as well.

Uhm, I disagree. Why would one of the biggest automotive industries in the world (and certainly the finest) with a decade long history of fine armoured vehicles want to buy a OTS or customized vehicle from Sweden? Esp. since we want to keep the ability to design and manufacture high tech armoured vehicles, that's been identified as one of the core competencies of the German defense industry.
So the development of the PUMA (and the BOXER as well) was exactly the right thing to do... If it is the right piece of kit at the right time, well that's another matter. And I'm not competent enough to tell.
A word about the Swedes: yes, we are friends, but militarywise we're not as close as we're with other EU countries.

In industries where we are world class we are as bad as one can be regarding the NIH syndrome.

And that's not a bad thing don't you think? We're world class in overengineering also, yes, but still...

 

[Firn]

The AHEAD ammounition for the 30mm is defenitely good but I especially when one wants to shred infantry in the open at long ranges as well as blinding an enemy MBT when one tries to get out of the LOS of it.
But compared to other programmable rounds like the 40mm 3P it lacks the ability to threat infantry behind cover because the fragments spread more frontally.

Isn't a 40mm GMG an ideal partner for a 25-30mm MK? It has more strongly curved trajectory and packs a large HE payload, as far as I know. The rounds are also far more compact, allowing a larger number to be carried ready and stored. It seems that 40mm automatic grenade launcher have won great favor in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are so many different and usually cheap rounds available that there should be something for every taste and need. It might be used by AFVs nearby or fitted on a stabilized RWS - the latter creates of course a subset of problems beside the many advantages.

But as you said there is some doubt about the ability of the 30mm APFSDS to penetrate also future threats. And these threats we should have in mind because the Puma is going to serve for a long time.

As Falstaff said the Spikes should be there in case something bigger is needed, and it does makes sense. However given the recent development in hard and soft kill defense systems the best MK might be the one which is able to reliably penetrate the frontal arc of almost all AFVs bar MBTs and has a ROF enough to overwhelm the active defensive suites. Additionally the MK should be able to airburst infantry with great effect. So perhaps the 35mm and the 40mm might be better future choices, but nobody knows for sure....

What you need is a mix of LAVs and IFVs (and perhaps MBTs), and that's probably why you see/have seen canadien, dutch and danes scrample for the IFVs, that they lack (have the dutch deployed their CW9035 yet? The danish ones are in deployment with units, though it takes time to build up the operational understanding and tactics to such a new weapon system, I believe they will be deployed to Afgh. this fall or next spring ).

To me it seems that the CV90 is an excellent, well ironed and tested vehicle which was available at the right time. Looking around I frankly don't see anything similar to buy with the same combination of qualities. Good for them that they have not gone the way of the wheel. I guess they must thank their climate

By "modern war" I mean the type of war, that our millitaries doesn't prepare for, but are the wars they will fight and because they don't prepare, loose. Namely the subversive war against rag-tag locals that doesn't agree with our policies brought to them by a strange mixture of benevolent aid and high tech destruction from a distance.

The Belgiums seem to have taking this type of war very earnestly from the beginning. But given the great success of heavy MBT in Afghanistan I think they overshot, aeh, undershot their targets by giving this pesky heavy buggers up. But this is another topic.

 

[kato]

All there is left to say is that the PUMA is probably the finest IFVs in the world, and that the germans should be critizied for developing it, when, our friends the swedes, allready has an IFV (CW90s), that would have served the german army almost just as well.

The CV90 is barely armored in comparison to the Puma - even somewhat less than Puma's "Level A" basic protection. At "Level C", the Puma is more comparable to the Israeli and Russian T55-derived APCs, protection-wise (and even better protected against mines and top-attack), all of which the CV90 chassis just can't offer.
Regarding armour, the CV90 is roughly comparable with the Boxer.

Why would one of the biggest automotive industries in the world (and certainly the finest) with a decade long history of fine armoured vehicles want to buy a OTS or customized vehicle from Sweden?

Well, Switzerland bought them, and they have pretty much the best-selling armoured vehicle line in the world...

Isn't a 40mm GMG an ideal partner for a 25-30mm MK? It has more strongly curved trajectory and packs a large HE payload, as far as I know.

No, not really a big payload in comparison to the ammo of the MK. The projectile of the 30mm is 50% larger.

 

[swerve]

... Also the 30mm round is substancially smaller than a, say, 40mm so everything equal, you carry substancially more rounds when going for the smaller cal. ....

Unless you get the 40mm CTWS, with its very compact ammunition. The "beer can" style rounds allow packing more into a given volume than equivalent conventional ammunition, & the gun is also more compact, especially in its turret intrusion. Tony Williams has written about it on his site. The pictures of the ammunition side by side with others are particularly interesting -
Light AFV guns and the WLIP project

 

[Firn]

The CV90 is barely armored in comparison to the Puma - even somewhat less than Puma's "Level A" basic protection. At "Level C", the Puma is more comparable to the Israeli and Russian T55-derived APCs, protection-wise (and even better protected against mines and top-attack), all of which the CV90 chassis just can't offer.

Regarding armour, the CV90 is roughly comparable with the Boxer.

I broadly agree, but isn't the Boxer clearly far better protected against mines, especially considering the whole package than the CV90? This is without considering the higher seating position of the crew and section. It was designed after the experience in ex-Jugoslavia and takes into account the high sensibility of the German public against casualities. The CV90 is an Cold War warrior obviously built to defend the home turf. Even if it has been uparmored quite considerably the basic design deficiencies are very hard to overcome

No, not really a big payload in comparison to the ammo of the MK. The projectile of the 30mm is 50% larger.

I meant a higher payload per ammunition pound - I will check the absolute numbers later. The projectile of the MK is of course longer with a thicker mantle/case and has a far larger propellant case, to fulfill the goals set out by the designers. The 40mm HV is a far more efficient when it comes down to HE per pound.

 

[kato]

I meant a higher payload per ammunition pound - I will check the absolute numbers later.

To some extent, yes. Plus modern ABM projectiles have a somewhat higher ratio there. But it's not really a wide distance between the two standard German rounds:

40x53 ABM HETF : 245 g projectile from 350 g round (70%)
40x53 Diehl DM11 HE-PFF-T : 245 g projectile from 370 g round (66%)*
30x173 KETF ABM : 423 g projectile from 728 g round (58%)**
30x173 PGU-13 HEI : 378 g projectile from 681 g round (56%)***
35x228 AHEAD : 750 g projectile from 1770 g round (42%)
35x228 HEI : 550 g projectile from 1580 g round (35%)

* - standard German 40mm HV HE round
**- as fired by MK-30/2-ABM from Puma
***- as used by MK-30/1 and MK-30/2

Of course with the lower ratio, the speed also rises. And the probability to hit moving targets.

 

[Firn]

To some extent, yes. Plus modern ABM projectiles have a somewhat higher ratio there. But it's not really a wide distance between the two standard German rounds:

40x53 ABM HETF : 245 g projectile from 350 g round (70%)
40x53 Diehl DM11 HE-PFF-T : 245 g projectile from 370 g round (66%)*
30x173 KETF ABM : 423 g projectile from 728 g round (58%)**
30x173 PGU-13 HEI : 378 g projectile from 681 g round (56%)***
35x228 AHEAD : 750 g projectile from 1770 g round (42%)
35x228 HEI : 550 g projectile from 1580 g round (35%)

* - standard German 40mm HV HE round
**- as fired by MK-30/2-ABM from Puma
***- as used by MK-30/1 and MK-30/2

Of course with the lower ratio, the speed also rises. And the probability to hit moving targets.

Thanks, it is always a pleasure to discuss with somebody who has the facts at hand.

Is it also possible to determine the relations between the HE payload of the projectile and the weight of the whole round. The gap should then widen considerably.

Anyway the point about the slower velocity is of course valid.

P.S: Thanks for the link, swerve

 

[kato]

Is it also possible to determine the relations between the HE payload of the projectile and the weight of the whole round. The gap should then widen considerably.

40x53 : typically 35-40 gramms HE (avg 10.1% of round weight)
30x173 : typically 55-60 gramms HE (avg 8.5% of round weight)

However:

In 40x53, this accounts for 14.3 to 16.3% of projectile weight (avg 15.3%).
In 30x173, this accounts for 14.6 to 15.9% of projectile weight (avg 15.3%).

Therefore, it's effectively merely a factor of projectile weight ratio. Which is of course reasonable, since that 15.3% average there is a sort of "optimal ratio" between fragments and explosive, which is realized in both calibers.

 

[Firn]

40x53 : typically 35-40 gramms HE (avg 10.1% of round weight)
30x173 : typically 55-60 gramms HE (avg 8.5% of round weight)

However:

In 40x53, this accounts for 14.3 to 16.3% of projectile weight (avg 15.3%).
In 30x173, this accounts for 14.6 to 15.9% of projectile weight (avg 15.3%).

Therefore, it's effectively merely a factor of projectile weight ratio. Which is of course reasonable, since that 15.3% average there is a sort of "optimal ratio" between fragments and explosive, which is realized in both calibers.

Thanks, there is nothing like having a view clearly countered. So it would be possible to create a 40mm with a far higher relative HE payload compared to the 30x173 but the need for efficient fragmentation does counteract this tendency. A HESH 40mm round for example would be thus a far more efficient choice than a 30mm HESH one. But in the "standard" 40mm HV 10,1% are HE, while in the 30x173 mm 0,078% are, both with the corresponding amount of fragmentating material.

 

[Waylander]

Isn't that what the Spikes are for? If I'm informed correctly the 30mm is a very powerful weapon compared to the other ones on the market and on other IFVs.

No, the Spikes are there to give the Puma the ability to attack enemy MBTs from all directions be it because in support of the accompanying MBTs, in a defensive operation, an ambush or as a self protection against suddenly appearing enemy MBTs.
And for the occasional strike against a fortified enemy position or bunker.

The MK is the main weapon against any other vehicle and it should be able to reliably penetrate enemy IFVs.
But protection against 30mm frontally becomes very popular these days and while the very capable 30mm APFSDS might be sufficient against current IFVs this might change soon.
I would bot be pleased if my accompanying IFVs can't take care of the enemy IFVs with their MKs. They have not enough rounds to spare to attack enemy IFVs with a Spike

And that's not a bad thing don't you think? We're world class in overengineering also, yes, but still...

It is not a bad thing. I also think we should maintain our economic skills. Especially when it comes to land vehicles.
There are not that many countries out there which can offer the full scale of Land vehicles while nearly all of them are at or near the top of the range, be it patrol vehicles, scouts, APCs, IFVs, MBTs...

I just wanted to point out that for a foreign design it is much harder to get a contract in areas where our industry excells.
An IFV defenitely falls into the category.

And don't get me wrong. I also think that the Puma is worth the developing costs and is better in nearly all aspects compared to the CV90 maybe except price and calibre (but just when we speak about the CV9035).

 

[Falstaff]

Well, Switzerland bought them, and they have pretty much the best-selling armoured vehicle line in the world.

Well, wheeled vehicles, or not? Apart from that: who cares what Switzerland does? One of those countries you drive through to get somewhere else

No, the Spikes are there to give the Puma the ability to attack enemy MBTs from all directions be it because in support of the accompanying MBTs, in a defensive operation, an ambush or as a self protection against suddenly appearing enemy MBTs.
And for the occasional strike against a fortified enemy position or bunker.

The MK is the main weapon against any other vehicle and it should be able to reliably penetrate enemy IFVs.
But protection against 30mm frontally becomes very popular these days and while the very capable 30mm APFSDS might be sufficient against current IFVs this might change soon.
I would bot be pleased if my accompanying IFVs can't take care of the enemy IFVs with their MKs. They have not enough rounds to spare to attack enemy IFVs with a Spike

Well, thanks for the clarification. We'll see, equipping the PUMA turret with a bigger gun later shouldn't be too much of a problem, and certainlynot too costly. I don't know about it, but I would be very surprised if the PUMA wasn't offered to potential export customers with a choice of different calibre guns anyway.

So perhaps the 35mm and the 40mm might be better future choices, but nobody knows for sure....

Hmm, larger diameter isn't equal to greater penetration power... a more powerful 30mm might as well be a suitable choice.

 

[Firn]

Well, thanks for the clarification. We'll see, equipping the PUMA turret with a bigger gun later shouldn't be too much of a problem, and certainlynot too costly. I don't know about it, but I would be very surprised if the PUMA wasn't offered to potential export customers with a choice of different calibre guns anyway.

Hmm, larger diameter isn't equal to greater penetration power... a more powerful 30mm might as well be a suitable choice.

The projecticle of an 40x53mm GMG penetrates certainly worse than a 30x173mm of the Mauser MK. A larger diameter offers a gun though a relative greater penetration potential. Why do you think that the 120mm replaced the 105mm as the NATO standard MBT caliber

As I wrote before:

However given the recent development in hard and soft kill defense systems the best MK might be the one which is able to reliably penetrate the frontal arc of almost all AFVs bar MBTs and has a ROF enough to overwhelm the active defensive suites. Additionally the MK should be able to airburst infantry with great effect. So perhaps the 35mm and the 40mm might be better future choices, but nobody knows for sure....

All in all IIRC I read the RWS of the Puma can be easily upgunned. All in all one of the few details which seem to lack on the Puma for the environments like Afghanistan seems to be a secundary MG/RWS, coaxial to the periscope.