GERMANY - ARMY AUTHORIZES PUMA FIGHTING VEHICLE FOR OPERATIONS (APR 21/PSM)

[Gibsonm]

PSM -- The German defense procurement agency, BAAINBw, has authorized the Puma infantry fighting vehicle for operational service following testing, reports PSM.

PSM is a joint venture between Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Rheinmetall that builds the vehicle.

Initial operations are scheduled to begin this week with the training of instructors on the first seven Puma vehicles. The training in Munster is expected to run through the end of the year, according to a PSM release last Friday.

The trials included hot and cold weather and field evaluations, according to the release. The Army Inspectorate formally declared the Puma ready to enter service on April 13.

Mechanized infantry companies will receive three months of initial training at the Munster center before returning to their bases for additional drills, said the release.

[Brun]

Russia introduces one of the most potent MBT's in the world for production in large numbers. Germany introduces a light IFV.

IMO Europe does not need equipment for a Light Air mobile task force designed for peace keeping missions. They need lot's of heavy defense oriented equipment that does not need to move farther than their Borders. The cold war is Hot again and the light mobile attitude has to change.

All that aside it is a nice piece of kit.

[Grenny]

The PUMA isn't exactly a "light"-IFV.

Also MoD procurement processes here work more in geological time scales. Don't expect equipment purchases that fit the current threat level.

About PUMA, I had a lengthy discussion with a guy from Munster.

The vehicle will have a huge impact on training and doctrin. Many things that have been special to Panzergrenadier training and tactics will be a thing of the past and new methods will be established.

Hope it will be for the better :-/

[Marko]

I watched a pretty good documentary about the Puma

It has some really excellent quality's, especially for training

But I still do not understand why no ATGM.

Some will say Its not the job of a IFV to take on tanks, and the vehicles troop Compliment Have ATGM when dismounted for that role.

IMO, And from what I have read the ATGM on the Bradley proved very effective in combat.

Against older MBT's.

[Grenny]

Who said that it 'll have no ATGM?

[Marko]

Who said that it 'll have no ATGM?

I thought the German army did.

But I must of got it wrong.

I Havant seen any pics with a ATGM mounted on a puma

All the better if It has then the puma will have tank killing capability

[MAJ_Fubar]

I thought the German army did.

But I must of got it wrong.

I Havant seen any pics with a ATGM mounted on a puma

All the better if It has then the puma will have tank killing capability

From what I understand, it's supposed to carry a pair of SPIKE LRs on the turret, but I too have yet to see such an installation; perhaps something for the future?

[Marko]

From what I understand, it's supposed to carry a pair of SPIKE LRs on the turret, but I too have yet to see such an installation; perhaps something for the future?

I wonder how the puma will compare with the New Russian Amarta IFV

Both seem to be capable IFV's

[DarkLabor]

From what I understand, it's supposed to carry a pair of SPIKE LRs on the turret, but I too have yet to see such an installation; perhaps something for the future?

Actually, the constructor planned the integration of the ATGM pod.

Here : http://www.psm-spz.de/index.php?id=bewaffnung

You can see a model of what it should be like (if adopted by the BW).

[MAJ_Fubar]

Actually, the constructor planned the integration of the ATGM pod.

Here : http://www.psm-spz.de/index.php?id=bewaffnung

You can see a model of what it should be like (if adopted by the BW).

Ahhh; learn something new everyday. Now we'll see if it gets picked up...

[Ssnake]

But I still do not understand why no ATGM.

Money.

In order to get the funds approved, the design was amended to be "fitted for, but not with" an ATGM system. Of course everybody knew that it was basically a scam to get it past the parliamentary approval (back when the majority was in the hands of the Greens and the social democrats). Unlike Britain however, where pretty much everything seems to be fitted for but not with, the missiles will actually materialize; the additional funds have since been approved.

[Grenny]

Ahhh; learn something new everyday. Now we'll see if it gets picked up...

It's already paid for...

[Hedgehog]

Mmm, Spike, Nice.

And it's nice to see someone taking a certain eastern threat seriously.

(I guess have a third of your country under the soviet heel incurs a more robust attitude towards defence.

Over here the politicians seem to consider thinking happy, happy thoughts will make bad nasty Vlad disappear a serious option.

[Retro]

Seems some more images starting to pop up..

[Skybird03]

I read the Puma is the most expensive IFV in the world. Also, its weight issues mean that it needs more airlifting logistics (of which Germany has so much...:luxhello:) than the Marder (with which to shuttle around the Germans already struggle and depend on Russian Antonovs...). The vehicle will find it extremely difficult to find new customers, and this will help to keep its costs as high as they are. The Puma already has lost competitions for getting acquired by potential military customers looking for new IFVs. Too demanding in logistics, too heavy, and top on all: too expensive. And then there is this light MG it uses in the turret as secondary armament...

Thank God we get the A400M one day. LOL :bigsmile:

I read yesterday that the Danish army has acquired the Swiss Mogwa Piranha-V. So far over 200 vehicles. Could become more. Biggest tank deal in Europe currently.

[Marko]

I read the Puma is the most expensive IFV in the world. Also, its weight issues mean that it needs more airlifting logistics (of which Germany has so much...:luxhello:) than the Marder (with which to shuttle around the Germans already struggle and depend on Russian Antonovs...). The vehicle will find it extremely difficult to find new customers, and this will help to keep its costs as high as they are. The Puma already has lost competitions for getting acquired by potential military customers looking for new IFVs. Too demanding in logistics, too heavy, and top on all: too expensive. And then there is this light MG it uses in the turret as secondary armament...

Thank God we get the A400M one day. LOL :bigsmile:

I read yesterday that the Danish army has acquired the Swiss Mogwa Piranha-V. So far over 200 vehicles. Could become more. Biggest tank deal in Europe currently.

I don't know all the in and outs of the project.

But I think the German army/MOD has the correct approach to building a new IFV put the Best you can afford in Now and save in the long run.

Unlike the UK MOD who are penny wise And pound stupid.

Just look at the warrior refit costs.

[Ssnake]

Also, its weight issues mean that it needs more airlifting logistics (of which Germany has so much...:luxhello:) than the Marder (with which to shuttle around the Germans already struggle and depend on Russian Antonovs...). ...

Thank God we get the A400M one day.

That's quite the point. The Bundeswehr is "already struggling" to move the (lighter) Marder because the A400M isn't ready yet. If we HAD the A400M, moving either the Puma or the Marder wouldn't be an issue at all. So, this part of the deal relies totally on something for which the Puma and Puma project management cannot possibly be held responsible. Also, a solution is already in sight, so I'm not sure what's causing all your high blood pressure.

[Skybird03]

Also, a solution is already in sight,

Since how long was it now...?

Anyhow, An A400M has fallen out of the sky over Sevilla today.

And as far as I know the weight issues of the Puma still are valid with the Airbus, not just the old Transalls. The configuration-C armour skirts must be shuttled in by an additional airlifter, no matter whether it is a Transall or Airbus. The Airbus alone carries only one Puma in configuration A, which is designed to be the airliftable version with much less protection.

At least that is what they write everywhere.

[Ssnake]

Yes, but that was deemed acceptable from the get go. The Bundeswehr wanted really heavy protection for the Puma, and not a totally huge air lifter. So you got to compromise somewhere.

The A400M delays are certainly painful but again, hardly the fault of the Puma project managers. Many mistakes were made with the A400M acquisition and there's enough blame to hand out to pretty much all involved decision makers. And before that, it were the European governments that made themselves hostages of Airbus Industries by excluding the Antonov from the bid competition.

[Grenny]

One big problem with these projects:

On the military side there are many people who have experience in technical aspects, but less with contract-interpretation, law and judicial process.

On the industrial side you witness a trend that companies are not lead by engineers, but by lawyers.

=>Mil. specifications in the "a plane" contract said: Paratroopers must be able to exit via the back-ramp.

So the company made back-ramp an integral part of cell-structure to the effect that it can't be opended in flight. Brushing away complaints by the military side with the smug remark: you only said that Paratroopers must be able to exit...not exit in flight.

It is hard do develop a constructive working atmosphere is such conditions :-(

Edited May 10, 2015 by Grenny

[Skybird03]

No, I think a much bigger problem is that huge diversities of ever changing demands and design wishes. Airbus was told to deliver this and that feature. A bit later, The Germans wanted another feature as well, and the other customers wanted some others. Then came the demand to change this for that. And then a demand that feature X should be changed again. No, better skip it alltogether, and do somethign totally different: feature Y. And when feature Y was set, the government had changed meanwhile, and the new rulers said: why doing Y, if you can have Z? And so it changed and changed and changed. The A400M is infamous for having been plagued by an ever growing list of design changes desired by the various national ministries. As a result the whole plane had to be adapted time and again to new design demands, and it became hilariously more expensive and more expensive, and then more. Of course, Airbus also fished the constratc out of the sea by making idiotically exaggerated promises on what miracles could be done for just so little money: the usual over-optimism displayed in order to get a contract agreed to. Too many people want too many different things - and they cannot even stick to their wish list, but change it until the very last second all the time, thinking in all seriousness that this does not feed back on the general design at all. Airbus has its share of respoinsibility in the A400M debacle, but the major share has to be accepted by the defence ministries and their uncoordinated procurement procedures. They all wanted too much, for too little money, and took exaggerated advertising promises for real.

However, companies led by lawyers and business-foreigners having no clue of the company'S business branch, and just seeinhg short-time contracts as their personal career catalysators before they move on to the next career step at somebody else, are a big problem - but not just in this case, but in modern business world in general.

[Grenny]

No, I think a much bigger problem is that huge diversities of ever changing demands and design wishes. Airbus was told to deliver this and that feature. A bit later, ...

Well, realy, it was not much about new features.

It was more about what feature X as written in the contract, actually means in real life.

[Skybird03]

Sometime during last year, around autumn, I read somewhere that the required features list for the German A400M by then was almost three times as long as the same list 7 years earlier. And its not as if the plane seven years earlier were just at the beginning of its construction.

And that is just the German machine. Other nations may have had other lists.

[Ssnake]

In my experience most armies aren't very good at defining what they want when you write a contract. But the problems mostly arise if the company doesn't immediately speak up and tries to clarify it. This leads to protracted negotiations which can be somewhat frustrating as well, but it will save a lot of headache later. With high profile procurement it can also make it very difficult to secure the funding, however, so there's a substantial risk for the industry representative to actually lose a multi-billion dollar contract. Not good for your career, that.

So, the alternative is to lawyer up. If you sign and seal the contract quickly then then use any attempt of the customer to clarify what he meant to say as leverage to cry "Ooo! New requirement! Ka-ching!" you get exactly what happened here.

[Grenny]

You end up in a situation where you are forced to write specs/contract in a way that "non experts"(=people who studied law or economics, and politicians) are able to "understand" it.

At which point the paper becomes near unreadable for an engineer.

This describes the setting pretty well: