German Puma for US Army?

[SteelTiger 177]

I also heard the U.S.Army at one point gave some thought to the Israeli Namer Ifv as a replacement but I can't see why.For one thing it's based on the Merkava tank and its probably as expensive to maintain as a tank plus as far armament it only has in some cases 4 .50cal mg and a couple 7.62 coax's I'm surpised that IMI hasn't tried to put a turret on the Namer with either a 25MM or 30MM cannon similar to what is seen on the Bradley or LAV25 fovs.If i had choice of non-US design to consider I would suggest the Bionx Ifv from Singapore or Sweden's CV90 these would proably do the job as well as the Bradley.Also as for araments for any future US ifv i would suggest in adddition to the 30mm cannon some consideration to adding fire and forget atgms as oppossed to line of sight missles like the TOW.To fire the Tow missle the vehicle has to remain stationary thus becomming a target if the missle missed or malfuctions a fire and forget missle like the javelin would reduce this cocern.

 

[StobieWan]

I doubt it - Namer is the sort of thing you get when you have some spare Merkava chassis lying around that are no longer viable in combat. Same as the Centurion conversions earlier.

It's also so far from airportable it's a fecking joke.

To build Namer, you'd need some scrap Merkava so I think we can easily agree that's not a likely course of discusion.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

To build Namer, you'd need some scrap Merkava so I think we can easily agree that's not a likely course of discusion.

Namers are not built from old Merkavas. They are built on the same production line as the Merkava and are only the same to the vehicle floor. They use a lot of the components as Merkava tanks so share a common logistics chain.

While as big and heavy as the GCV IFV designs the Namer does not have easily removeable modular armour. The GCV IFV can remove its large armour arrays to make it easier to transport by air. Though of dubious actual utility it is a requirement the air force seems to have convinced everyone they need.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

plus as far armament it only has in some cases 4 .50cal mg and a couple 7.62 coax's I'm surpised that IMI hasn't tried to put a turret on the Namer with either a 25MM or 30MM cannon similar to what is seen on the Bradley or LAV25 fovs.

The Namer is armed with a single 12.7mm in a remote control weapon station with (sometimes) a 7.62mm MG on a flex mount for the commander. It has been trialled with a larger RCWS armed with a 30mm cannon, 7.62mm coax and Spike ATGM launcher but lack of funds have left it with just the HMG.

 

[Bonza]

I'm surpised that IMI hasn't tried to put a turret on the Namer with either a 25MM or 30MM cannon similar to what is seen on the Bradley or LAV25 fovs

But they have. As Abe noted, it's been looked at but not funded. I have a very important suggestion for you - read about the topic you're posting on, before you post. These uninformed opinions are becoming hallmarks of your posting style and they don't do anything to elevate the level of discussion. How about you attempt to gain some knowledge of the subject and so therefore produce quality posts, instead of posting from a position of ignorance and leaving it up to other people to correct you.

I'm sure you'll take offence to this but it is what it is. Read before you post - whether it's the thread or five minutes on google, it will only make your posts better and thus elevate the discussion. Quality control is important to the mod team on DT, and I hope you can take this onboard.

 

[StobieWan]

Namers are not built from old Merkavas. They are built on the same production line as the Merkava and are only the same to the vehicle floor. They use a lot of the components as Merkava tanks so share a common logistics chain.

While as big and heavy as the GCV IFV designs the Namer does not have easily removeable modular armour. The GCV IFV can remove its large armour arrays to make it easier to transport by air. Though of dubious actual utility it is a requirement the air force seems to have convinced everyone they need.

I stand corrected!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I stand corrected!

The prototype was a conversion but since then they have been new production versions. Merkava Mk 1s have fuel tanks between the double floors so have been withdraw from tank use as too vulnerable to belly blasts so it wouldn't be a good idea to then convert them to APCs.

 

[swerve]

While as big and heavy as the GCV IFV designs the Namer does not have easily removeable modular armour. The GCV IFV can remove its large armour arrays to make it easier to transport by air. Though of dubious actual utility it is a requirement the air force seems to have convinced everyone they need.

This is similar to the Puma, which has base armour plus about 10 tons of bolt-on armour. A fully armoured Puma is too heavy for an A400M, but four A400Ms can carry three Pumas with all their armour. It'll be interesting to see if anyone uses that capability.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This is similar to the Puma, which has base armour plus about 10 tons of bolt-on armour. A fully armoured Puma is too heavy for an A400M, but four A400Ms can carry three Pumas with all their armour. It'll be interesting to see if anyone uses that capability.

The Namer has modular armour but its designed for ease of battle damage and upgrade replacement. So lots of smaller units. Which would need a lot of spanner work to undo it all and remove it. Interesting the UK FRES SV Scout seems to follow the smaller unit approach. The Puma and GCV IFV have these big armour units that cover an entire flank and can be removed as a whole far quicker for lowering weight. Which while sold as an air mobile thing is mostly going to be used in peacetime training. You run the vehicles without the armour to save on wear and tear and fuel burn.

 

[Waylander]

This is similar to the Puma, which has base armour plus about 10 tons of bolt-on armour. A fully armoured Puma is too heavy for an A400M, but four A400Ms can carry three Pumas with all their armour. It'll be interesting to see if anyone uses that capability.

I hope so with all the fuss they made in order to fit the damn thing into an A400M. From what one hears this is one of the main reasons for it being late and not on budget.

Well, as with every other vehicle the weight growth during it's lifetime due to upgrades will kill this capability anyway I guess...

 

[db2646]

This is similar to the Puma, which has base armour plus about 10 tons of bolt-on armour. A fully armoured Puma is too heavy for an A400M, but four A400Ms can carry three Pumas with all their armour. It'll be interesting to see if anyone uses that capability.

Just curious to know if anyone here know if the German Army had a chance of fielding the Puma in Afghanistan since they are part of the NATO ISAF? Any information the actual fielding and performance of the vehicle will enhance discussion of this IFV here in this forum.

 

[StobieWan]

I hope so with all the fuss they made in order to fit the damn thing into an A400M. From what one hears this is one of the main reasons for it being late and not on budget.

Well, as with every other vehicle the weight growth during it's lifetime due to upgrades will kill this capability anyway I guess...

Seems strange the requirement was there as Germany isn't a name I associate with "rapid overseas deployment" - well, not in the last sixty years, put it that way.

I think the "rapid deployment via air bridge" thing sort of slowly died a death around the first Gulf war when it became fairly obvious that getting a tolerable amount of kit into a country would use up every bit of air transport available, to even get a small amount of armour on the spot. As most of the rest of the stuff would have to come by sea or rail, I suspect the requirement is a bit past the point.

 

[kato]

Just curious to know if anyone here know if the German Army had a chance of fielding the Puma in Afghanistan since they are part of the NATO ISAF?

The Puma isn't introduced in the Bundeswehr yet. Its trial phase was extended until end of September 2013 last year. The German Army has deployed ten Marder 1A5A1 (MLC 42 tons) to Afghanistan for fire support purposes.

 

[Waylander]

The Bundeswehr is constantly transforming into a more deployable force.

Since the 90s the Bundeswehr deployed to Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and several other smaller oversea missions.

Having the ability to bring heavy stuff like a platoon of Pumas into potential hotspots is going to be a boost to every overseas mission.

Nobody is proposing to deploy the 1. Panzerdivision via an airbridge but deploying a platoon of Pumas to a country like the Kongo makes a huge difference. The punch such a platoon of modern IFVs brings to the table in a 3rd world country shouldn't be underestimated.

Nevertheless a couple of C-17 instead of having to suqeeze it into the A400M would have been the solution favoured by me.

 

[db2646]

The Bundeswehr is constantly transforming into a more deployable force.

Since the 90s the Bundeswehr deployed to Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and several other smaller oversea missions.

Having the ability to bring heavy stuff like a platoon of Pumas into potential hotspots is going to be a boost to every overseas mission.

Nobody is proposing to deploy the 1. Panzerdivision via an airbridge but deploying a platoon of Pumas to a country like the Kongo makes a huge difference. The punch such a platoon of modern IFVs brings to the table in a 3rd world country shouldn't be underestimated.

Nevertheless a couple of C-17 instead of having to suqeeze it into the A400M would have been the solution favoured by me.

Air transport amongst other things, is one aspect, the European Union countries must undertake and pool their resources together in the face of US DOD dwindling resources and funding in years to come. I guess what I'm saying is that NATO, although the United States of America is a member, must start to depend on themselves. It is common knowledge that without the assistance of the USA, NATO operations will go nowhere, i.e., Libya, etc.

 

[Gremlin29]

Air transport amongst other things, is one aspect, the European Union countries must undertake and pool their resources together in the face of US DOD dwindling resources and funding in years to come. I guess what I'm saying is that NATO, although the United States of America is a member, must start to depend on themselves. It is common knowledge that without the assistance of the USA, NATO operations will go nowhere, i.e., Libya, etc.

If NATO relies upon itself without the US, it really isn't NATO is it? With the gutting of US forces, our reliance on NATO will be stronger and more necessary than ever. If anything this illustrates the emerging need for greater force integration. By design or by default our ability to project and sustain is rapidly receding and the draw dawn has barely begun.

 

[Waylander]

Whenever this discussion starts I am reminded of the words of Lord Ismay about the main goals of the NATO "to keep the Americans in, keep the Russians out and keep the Germans down.".

There defenitely is a certain ambivalence in the US position regarding europe. On the one hand the US wants the european countries to become less dependent on the US when it comes to oversea missions (as in terms of the defense of europe we don't need the assistance anymore) but the US also doesn't want to looses it's influence. Just remember the unholy discussion about the old and the new europe because of parts of europe not blindly following the US.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I reckon its time for this post to get back on track.

I know some of you are trying and I accept that it's not always easy to stay in the lane, but refocus does need to occur....

not directed at anyone, but an observation ....

 

[db2646]

I reckon its time for this post to get back on track.

I know some of you are trying and I accept that it's not always easy to stay in the lane, but refocus does need to occur....

not directed at anyone, but an observation ....

GF, I appreciate the reminder. I'll try to keep on focus and be on track with the subject of the thread in the future. It is totally unintentional on my part.

 

[gf0012-aust]

GF, I appreciate the reminder. I'll try to keep on focus and be on track with the subject of the thread in the future. It is totally unintentional on my part.

No probs.

There's tons/tonnes of space for any other topic to be created and get legs...