It is annoying to try to explain to people, "No, the civilian version isn't as good as the military version".  They don't grasp that they don't know what truly bad roads are like, that you just can't call up a wrecker in most of the world, and parts have different longevity under different conditions.

It seems we will again be along for the ride , bought the same config as the Lithuanians, Previous generations of Israeli turrets couldn't hit the broad side of the barn on our Patria AMVs so had to be replaced with much more expenisve  Kongsberg and puff gone were the 30mm cannons instead replacement turrets had 12.7mm or 40mm grenade launcher.

What's really going on with Boxer: We bought Wolves and got the cat in the bag and we can do it again

https://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/lithuania/kas-is-tikruju-vyksta-su-boxer-pirkome-vilkus-o-gavome-kate-maise-ir-galime-tai-dar-karta-pakartoti.d?id=90844035&fbclid=IwAR1_MUubU2EM-xwkUETDWy2GuTxpbJCG1B_K8Qe5D1yGai2MU-uYxeSxXa8

"The platform itself is proven and of high quality, we have a legacy contract, when an Israeli-made turret is added to the German platform, the integration work is a bit stuck or delayed. It works: anti-tank Spike systems, machine gun, 30-millimeter cannon shoot well," said the deputy minister.

"I wouldn't call it a bug, it's a development problem. (...) I would not like to reveal the details, but these are also software improvements, we have now installed another version, and challenges related to the integration of the tower into the roadway," added V. Semeška.

It is still very popular to use the word "challenges" - it is said that everything is solved and will be solved. KMW's sales director for Eastern Europe, Thomas Fritzsch, also half-jokingly slyly suggested the word "challenges" when asked by Delphi about the Boxer's problems.

However, the details were not hidden. The essence of the problems is clear: the previously non-existent "Vilko" variant - the Samson II turret and its integration into the "Boxer" were unknown to the Germans at that time. And the contents of the problems began to creep in little by little, and there were three main ones: ammunition feeding, gun misalignment and autofocus. The "Wolf" would have the ability to fire a full set of 30 mm ammunition - 200 pieces. without jamming or redoing after the commander got out, but at the 150 ammo mark trouble started.

Then the software problems were revealed. The deviation of the gun horizontally to one side means additional calibration, and if the autofocus is not focused on the target, but on the gas from the barrel, the commander again faces aiming problems.

All of this requires testing, testing, and some more testing and tuning. And not in a stationary, factory, where everything can be theoretically calibrated, but in a real combat firing range that meets the conditions of battle. The more the better, as some problems only become apparent after a while. Apparently, it's not a problem - in Germany there are excellent ranges for testing, shooting, pressing everything possible. But as soon as the first problems of "Wolves" appeared, the COVID-19 pandemic hit and, of course, everything stopped: Israel closed down, introduced perhaps the strictest isolation rules, which meant that Rafael's representatives could not go to Germany to explain the problems and find a solution .

But placing all the blame on the pandemic would be unfair. "If the ammunition doesn't work, it's not a covid problem, it's a solution problem." You can't solve it, that is, fix the supply of ammunition during the Zoom meeting," said Th. Fritzsch. The fact that the Israeli turret does not work together with the Boxer as it should is not a big surprise in itself - Lithuania itself chose a cheaper, but untested module, although Artec offered the RCT-30 remote-controlled turret.

Countries with more modest financial possibilities, such as Lithuania, try to avoid such R&D costs. It doesn't always work out. For example, the Piranha 5 armored personnel carrier with the Israeli ELBIT turret purchased by Romania is also delayed - similar problems to the Lithuanian ones.

That reads like there is a classical system integrations problem. Which doesn't seem to be Boxer specific.

In Germany we have a saying that translates to: "if you buy cheap, you buy twice". There is also a tounge in cheek joke in "corporate Germany" which goes: "We need to save money! At any cost!"
It seems from the information presented both fully apply to this case as well.

Yes its same here , but its also a point when politicians buy stuff countries really can't afford, then its just the race to the bottom cutting costs .so when you want to buy a 8x8 with a 30mm canon and ATGMs in the turret , is it better to buy a boxer with no turret at all or an AMV fully kited out? Plans on paper always called for heavily armed 8x8 and budget reality delivers basic 8x8 with 12.7mm , that is why boxer choice was such a surprise over here. Only other posibilty is a broad industrial cooperation offer inclusive with a Boxer outweighed the cost, as we are already seeing our local companies like Valhalla turrets working on German projects.  In the past the high 'offset' percentages turned out as absolute duds in procurment, manufacturers incorporated the costs of offsets into the pricing and offsets often failed to materialize in full .

Our military has been buying Israeli stuff for past 30 years and aside from the boats that seem to be working well, we had all sorts of problems with the Israeli gear, they are always the cheap offer in the mix,out but often take years to work out kinks , while Israelis use the opportunity to develop their products on our dime.

By the way, anyone in the know why french VBCI is practically absent on the market, i haven't seen them in any recent tenders.?

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

By the way, anyone in the know why french VBCI is practically absent on the market, i haven't seen them in any recent tenders.?

Two main reasons. As far as I can tell.
The VBCI was tailored to meet the specific needs of the French Army. Its the 8x8 counterpart to the German Puma IFV in this regard.

Second: The French industry is notoriously difficult to work with. Or at the very least they can be.

Which one is more important I can't tell. But the combination certainly does not help.

Case in point the Qatari $2b contract fiasco. The Rafale purchase went somehow better.

Puma IFV seems to have bunch of teething issues

0% combat readines

The new infantry fighting vehicles "Puma" meant for NATO Rapid Reaction Force next year. But there are doubts about the reliability. After a shooting exercise with 18 Puma IFVs , a commander of the Bundeswehr reports a total failure.

In a confidential incendiary e-mail to the army inspector, the commander of the 10th Armored Division reported this week that not a single one of 18 high tech IFV Puma that took part in the excercises is ready for action . According to information from the "Spiegel", they are meant to be used for the NATO Rapid Reaction Force in the coming year. The last two still operational "Puma" had also failed "on yesterday's shooting day after an hour and a half with turret defects", writes Major General Ruprecht von Butler.

The type of defects were already known to the troops, the mail says, they have "however, never occurred at this frequency". This was not to be expected, because the systems were only moved on shooting ranges in the North German plains and were "not excessively stressed" there. According to the Schirrmeister of the company concerned, who he considers very credible, the general writes, "we have to assume that the full operational readiness of the company can only be restored in three to four months".

https://twitter.com/AlexLuck9/status/1604270839028817920

https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Kommandeur-Totalausfall-von-Schuetzenpanzer-Puma-article23791627.html

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Puma IFV seems to have bunch of teething issues

Teething issues doesn't cut it.
Massive mistakes have been made. Its basically the wrong concept, that has been realised in a very long and streched out development cycle while being strangled by budget constraines. What we see now, and in the past month, is just the product of these mistakes.
IMHO it is highly questionable if the Puma can be fixed to a fully statifying degree. Really trying would take conciderable more effort and money. Its properly better to spend them for a replacement that actually does work. Even if its less fancy and doesn't fit into the A400M.

How does that reflect on the troubled unmanned turret from Puma that seems to be also used in Boxer and Lynx

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

How does that reflect on the troubled unmanned turret from Puma that seems to be also used in Boxer and Lynx

The problems are not related to the turret being unmanned.
Its rather the fact that the Puma is so stuffed full of electronics that the complexity of the system as a whole is extremly high to the point of being out of controll. Its a common joke that the Puma is mostly made from copper with some steel around to it together. Its also somtimes refered to as a self propelled LAN party.
This in combenation with the vehicle being stuffed so full, its a wonder it doesn't burst stand spews cables and wiring all around, means that even if problems are identified they are very difficult to fix.
On top of that is the software layer. The Puma uses a mostly integated electronics structure. Think Tesla compared to a more traditional designed car. There are few dedicated system left. Basically there is a large server which runns all the programs. Which is of course more space efficient and cheaper but only if you can pull it or so it actually works. Which it doesn't on Puma. This in turn is partially linked to the extreme long design and development time. There are parts and systems used that by current standards are simply outdated. This interacts with the Defense companies not being Software companies with lack of expertise in this field. If they hire external expertise these often run into the problem of "what the fuck is this?". Age and compatibility problems. I have heard at one point a software/electronics guy suggested ripping all the "outdated garbage" out and trash the old software and instead run everything on a couple of Arduinos. This would be cheaper and work. It also would be possible to find people who actually know how this works and that can write software for it. Its pretty clear that this advise has not been accepted.

BTW the 30 mm armed Boxers that are actually purchased do not use the same turret as the Puma. These are equiped with the Rheinmetall Lance. The German Army will purchase the cannon armed Boxer in a similar configuration as the Australian CRV with a manned version of the Lance turret. The Lynx being a Rheinmetall project is also usually combined with a Lance turret and not a Puma turret.
The Puma turret actually is of of the outdated parts. There are more advanced unmanned options available nowadays that do the same but for less weight and volume.