Rheinmetall to propose Puma IFV Australian land 400 tender

[Grenny]

yes

[Skybird03]

Well they built the tam tank/IFV for the Argentinians its basically a marder.

Both vehicles would make great additions to the next upgrade. LoL

http://tanknutdave.com/the-german-a-argentinean-tam-tank/

A heavily reinforced Marder-1 chassis with a modified Leopard-1 turret with a 105 cannon.

[Ssnake]

no other western IFV comes even close to that kind of thickness.

...except the Namera and the Achzarit from Israel, but they are MBT hull based heavy APCs, not necessarily IFVs.

[Hedgehog]

Maybe the UK should buy these as a warrior replacement?

Politically its not so bad.

The Squaddies all drive BMWs anyway.

[Marko]

4-5 times thicker side and rear protection, and completely mine resistant.

no other western IFV comes even close to that kind of thickness.

even the heaviest protected CV90 is glass compared to this.

Not saying all that additional armour is wasted but the reality is theirs already ATGM/RPG,s

That are more then capable of defeating it. Give it a few years and they will be as cheap and plentiful as The RPG-7. IMO the future for IFV,s needs to focus of Active defensive systems

No doubt the Puma IFV designers have taken this in to account. its sort of like the Leo-1

The decision was made to make it fast and manoeuvrable rather then make it heavy and cumbersome Like the chieftain.

Again only my opinion I would go for light and fast with something like the Trophy active defence system fitted.

[Ssnake]

Active defense systems still require a substantial amount of passive armor in order to defeat a wide range of attack scenarios (it's no use to destroy the warhead of a missile if the projectile debris still kills you on impact). The reason why ADSs aren't being fitted more often is that they are difficult to handle for the lawyers. You fire a (counter) projectile into the attacking projectile's trajectory in order to damage it enough that it can no longer hurt you. That's the basic idea. Which still means, you are firing an explosive projectile autonomously. Human decisions CANNOT be involved due to reaction times.

So, what happens if you hit friendly soldiers, or non-combatants that happen to be caught in the crossfire? Who will go to jail over such an incident?

Very few armies are willing to make such decisions just yet. Which is why so few of these systems actually get fielded at the moment. The decision can only be made at a point when even lawyers, attorneys of state, and judges can clearly see the trade-off between the guaranteed kill of own vehicles with the associated loss of life and limbs and the chance that such a system might, on some occasions, hurt people who are neither attacker nor the (directly) attacked.

What's an obvious choice for engineers, soldiers, common sense, and utilitarian philosophers is a rather challenging subject to handle for the legal system that should be impartial on one hand, but somehow still supportive of "the national cause" if the politicians are to be believed (yeah, right...).

[dejawolf]

the same argument got proposed for ERA, but it got fitted to both abrams bradley and challenger. besides, an RPG hitting a tank without ERA or APS is not going to do much good for soldiers standing next to the tank either.

[dejawolf]

Not saying all that additional armour is wasted but the reality is theirs already ATGM/RPG,s

That are more then capable of defeating it. Give it a few years and they will be as cheap and plentiful as The RPG-7. IMO the future for IFV,s needs to focus of Active defensive systems

No doubt the Puma IFV designers have taken this in to account. its sort of like the Leo-1

The decision was made to make it fast and manoeuvrable rather then make it heavy and cumbersome Like the chieftain.

Again only my opinion I would go for light and fast with something like the Trophy active defence system fitted.

APS is possible to defeat as well, in fact Metis-M1 announced in 2015 is specifically designed to defeat APS,

and can penetrate 900-950mm of RHAe.

the only problem with these missiles is that they are heavy, so they need to be deployed in stationary positions using vehicles.

and as for puma, the armour is fully modular, in fact side armour has already gone through several iterations:

[Major duck]

Is it just me or is 1 salvo of airburst (ABM) in front of the vehicle and its blind.

or do it got some kind of defense against that

[12Alfa]

Active defense systems still require a substantial amount of passive armor in order to defeat a wide range of attack scenarios (it's no use to destroy the warhead of a missile if the projectile debris still kills you on impact). The reason why ADSs aren't being fitted more often is that they are difficult to handle for the lawyers. You fire a (counter) projectile into the attacking projectile's trajectory in order to damage it enough that it can no longer hurt you. That's the basic idea. Which still means, you are firing an explosive projectile autonomously. Human decisions CANNOT be involved due to reaction times.

So, what happens if you hit friendly soldiers, or non-combatants that happen to be caught in the crossfire? Who will go to jail over such an incident?

Very few armies are willing to make such decisions just yet. Which is why so few of these systems actually get fielded at the moment. The decision can only be made at a point when even lawyers, attorneys of state, and judges can clearly see the trade-off between the guaranteed kill of own vehicles with the associated loss of life and limbs and the chance that such a system might, on some occasions, hurt people who are neither attacker nor the (directly) attacked.

What's an obvious choice for engineers, soldiers, common sense, and utilitarian philosophers is a rather challenging subject to handle for the legal system that should be impartial on one hand, but somehow still supportive of "the national cause" if the politicians are to be believed (yeah, right...).

Well "difficult to handle for the lawyers" is a non issue, and I say this because we see blue on blue a lot. Take the Canadians in Afst'n who were killed by f-16 fighters high on pills to keep them awake.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnak_Farm_incident

This has been reported here in our country with data to back it up by both countries.

Then the A-10 on the warrior in the Gulf conflict, there are many more if one cares to look.http://listverse.com/2012/11/03/8-worst-cases-of-friendly-fire/

So I can't see how the legal system in both countries did not send any one to jail, granted some were released, others promoted and moved on.

No, the facts have been up to this time with such matters of killing ones, or other friendly nation troop is nothing will happen, it's all good in war.

I would think the main reason is the $.

[Marko]

No, the facts have been up to this time with such matters of killing ones, or other friendly nation troop is nothing will happen, it's all good in war.

I would think the main reason is the $.

You may well be right 12 Alfa.

But if that is the case its a false economy with a unit cost in the millions for a modern AFV An additional cost for a defence system would seem like a reasonable amount to spend if

There as capable as the company's that manufacture them maintain.

dejawolf no doubt system will be developed to counter ADS.

But only well equipped modern army's will deploy them in the near future.

I don't see insurgent type forces having the capacity to purchase or use such weapons

Anytime soon unless its supplied to them.

For anybody interested in active defence systems.

https://youtu.be/laqBRa2fwKU

[Ssnake]

Without going too far into the debate, blue on blue incidents still involve (wrong) decisions made by people. An active defense system, maybe even with an intercept range of up to several dozen meters, that is discharging weapons fully autonomously, is a different issue for the lawyer brigade. Here we have, in fact, a combat robot system with an admittedly very narrow window of conditions under which it is allowed to fire, but nevertheless it meets all the criteria of a killbot.

Likewise, the use of ERA has become by far more popular once that the flyer plates could be contained to no longer fly.

That common sense suggests that the employment of an active-defense system is a no-brainer is no reason not to shoot down the idea in committee meetings; after all, lawyers are professional objectionists. At some point decisions makers will get fed up with it and do it anyway, at which point the whole matter will be discussed at least once in court as soon as the first incident becomes public.

Bureacrats do what's only natural in such a situation - avoid making a risky decision until the necessity for an APS is painfully obvious (typically only after troops die). Pursuing the matter actively could save a few lives but surely would bring those who signed off the decision to court, and ironically the lawyers might actually exploit the case that no own troops died as an argument that the APS wasn't actually needed in the first place.

Yep, that's how they think.

[dejawolf]

dejawolf no doubt system will be developed to counter ADS.

But only well equipped modern army's will deploy them in the near future.

I don't see insurgent type forces having the capacity to purchase or use such weapons

Anytime soon unless its supplied to them.

another weapon to defeat APS, called RPG-30

this one was developed in 2008, and put into service in 2012.

it penetrates 650mm AFTER ERA and APS.

[mpow66m]

another weapon to defeat APS, called RPG-30

this one was developed in 2008, and put into service in 2012.

it penetrates 650mm AFTER ERA and APS.

hmmm,thats interesting I wonder how you wouls defeat that w/ APS?

[Grenny]

The APS systems currently fielded or in development have very high resolution Radars coupled with other sensors.

So the "precursor round" will need to have the same dimensions as the "kill round"...at that point the term "man portable" becomes relative.

[dejawolf]

The APS systems currently fielded or in development have very high resolution Radars coupled with other sensors.

So the "precursor round" will need to have the same dimensions as the "kill round"...at that point the term "man portable" becomes relative.

same dimensions, but not neccesarily the same weight.

you could make an inflatable dud that inflates and launches just before the main round.

you could even heat it from the inside to give it a similar heat signature to the real round.

you can also possibly defeat APS with saturation from multiple angles.

[Ssnake]

"Inflatable" doesn't fly well. You need a close match of trajectories over the operational range of the weapon. A "smaller" precursor projectile is probably the most practical compromise, and not a very good one. Most APSs can defeat multiple attacks. There may be certain combinations of synchonized attacks of the same area and certain APSs where saturation is possible but there are other systems like AMAP-ADS which, if the manufacturer is to be believed, each cassette can fire several charges, and within milliseconds. That makes saturation attacks nearly fruitless; it is very unlikely that each independent projectile will hit exactly the same location.

Other ADSs may be more vulnerable of course, but then there are also systems that offer some "umbrella" protection to nearby vehicles (e.g. in a convoy), further complicating the situation.

All in all I think that active defense systems can be a very good addition to the mix of protection elements. In any case they make it less likely that simple pot shot attacks will succeed, and force the attacker to set up ambushes with rather elaborate preparations. That alone will reduce the number of attacks considerably. It's not just about the ratio of attacks that fail, it's also about the attacks that never materialize because the attacker considers his chances of success too low. By definition these "non-incidents" are hard to quantify unless you can make a "before and after" comparative analysis of ambush incidents in a given theater.

[12Alfa]

"Inflatable" doesn't fly well. You need a close match of trajectories over the operational range of the weapon. A "smaller" precursor projectile is probably the most practical compromise, and not a very good one. Most APSs can defeat multiple attacks. There may be certain combinations of synchonized attacks of the same area and certain APSs where saturation is possible but there are other systems like AMAP-ADS which, if the manufacturer is to be believed, each cassette can fire several charges, and within milliseconds. That makes saturation attacks nearly fruitless; it is very unlikely that each independent projectile will hit exactly the same location.

Other ADSs may be more vulnerable of course, but then there are also systems that offer some "umbrella" protection to nearby vehicles (e.g. in a convoy), further complicating the situation.

All in all I think that active defense systems can be a very good addition to the mix of protection elements. In any case they make it less likely that simple pot shot attacks will succeed, and force the attacker to set up ambushes with rather elaborate preparations. That alone will reduce the number of attacks considerably. It's not just about the ratio of attacks that fail, it's also about the attacks that never materialize because the attacker considers his chances of success too low. By definition these "non-incidents" are hard to quantify unless you can make a "before and after" comparative analysis of ambush incidents in a given theater.

As we all know that radar can be "spoofed" by various means today as well as defeated / bypassed, the unit that relies solely on radar for its sensors will be not much good. A projectile/device that is launched/fired before a killing round/s to confuse/defeat the radar is almost a given. The APS will have to have multiply systems so as to overcome any method of spoofing or confusing the unit so that the second, and any follow on rounds do not make to to the base AFV.

We found out that shooting simple lasers at a laser warning device on a turret from different angles will drive the unit into a crazy fit with the turret slewing into different angle as to make the crew sick with moment, and for them to turn the pointing system into just a sound alarm, and taking away the turret moving to the threat angle for the crew saving precious time. I think there is in the very near future simple but effective methods that are going to render theses devices again not that effective in a high tech warfare, granted if your enemy's not all that advance they should give you the advantage.

[Ssnake]

As we all know that radar can be "spoofed" by various means today as well as defeated / bypassed

Do "we all" know that radar can be spoofed? I mean, sure. There's chaff. But firing a chaff grenade on a target first is a surefire way of spoiling surprise, so having the APS still does some good. Plus, chaff clouds aren't of much use if the vehicle is moving, once that it far enough outside of the cloud that the APS can still react to an incoming projectile.

Plus, you'll probably need two teams to fight against an AFV protected by an APS, the team to launch the chaff grenade and the other team to launch the actual anti tank missile.

Spoofing an APSs radar with a precursor projectile isn't quite so easy, as already described.

Maybe creating a "radar gun" that suppresses the vehicle's AP system's radar with such a strong signal that the actual missile is drowned out as noise may be an option. But it'd need to detect the AP system's radar frequency first, then generate its own signal accordingly, and I'm not sure what this will do to portability.

[dejawolf]

another possibility is stealth rpgs. and of course there's just using a large enough IED.

[dejawolf]

data sheet on Puma protection:

http://www.psm-spz.com/fileadmin/data/data_sheet_protection.pdf

protection level A (31.5 tonnes):

frontal vs handheld anti-tank weapons

frontal vs medium calibre

all round vs MK 14.5mm

protection level C (43 tonnes)

frontal same as level A

allround vs handheld anti-tank weapons and medium calibre.

additional roof protection against bomblets.

this is the old protection scheme though.

newer Puma apparently has an infrared jammer to defeat ATGMs.

[Marko]

Question,

Would you rather be inside a IFV/APC or outside and using it for cover if you were patrolling In a urban conflict/combat zone.

You often see troops sitting on the outside of their ride rather then buttoned up

I have heard /read many prefer not to be confined in a bullet magnet.

[Grenny]

Question,

Would you rather be inside a IFV/APC or outside and using it for cover if you were patrolling In a urban conflict/combat zone.

You often see troops sitting on the outside of their ride rather then buttoned up

I have heard /read many prefer not to be confined in a bullet magnet.

The outside sitting stuff was because of dangers from mineblast.

New IFV/APC with mine protection you're more safe inside. Though when dismounting you want to keep a healthy distance from your ride in many (but not all) cases.