gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3370
    MEMBERS
  • 192362
    MESSAGES
  • 9
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Lynx as a platform   General Army topics

Started 4/4/22 by graylion; 12954 views.
SiverSurfeR

From: SiverSurfeR

12-Aug

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

In reply toRe: msg 59
Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

18-Dec

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

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

18-Dec

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.

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

18-Dec

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

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

18-Dec

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.

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

19-Dec

So why not replace the whole electronics set with stuff from Boxer, Lynx or XYZ in new build Pumas?

It looks like funding for the second tranche of Puma is now in question. 

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

19-Dec

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

So why not replace the whole electronics set with stuff from Boxer, Lynx or XYZ in new build Pumas?

Because the electronics are specific. Its not plug it out in vehicle type A and plug it into vehicle type B. Besides the technical imposibility things are simply not done this way.
The Puma is specified in a certain way. Its defined what goes into it. Precisely defined. So even IF a Boxer part would fit and work it can not be done because its the wrong part. They would have to create a new Puma version with different specifications. Which is expensive and time consuming by itself.
Also a lot of the stuff put into Puma is simply not present in a Boxer or Lynx.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

It looks like funding for the second tranche of Puma is now in question. 

Personally I think this is a great chance for an exit strategy and get a new more sensible IFV. But experience tells us this will not happen. Worst case the new tranche is not build and the mech inf units simply stay understrength while the Marder stays in service unti it really falls appart. Realistic best case its the usual smokescreen and after the manufacturer promisses to fix everything they but additional Pumas anyways.

graylion

From: graylion

19-Dec

Just buy Lynx?

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

19-Dec

graylion said:

Just buy Lynx?

This would be one possible solution.

graylion

From: graylion

20-Dec

Hmm, I have been at the Elbonian Military again ...

MBT: K2

SPG: K9

IFV: Lynx with RWS (the kind the commander can stick his head out of) for 40mm CTA and 2x2 ATGM (Akeron MP)

SPAAG: Ditto, same turret, only AA FCS and radar and StarStreak in the missile cavities - 4 each.

Mortar: AMOS on Lynx chassis without crew accommodation

MG: 6.8mm Fury

APC: Boxer Tracked with RWS with 30x113 and 6.8mm

Rocket Arty: K239

Wheeled APC: VMBR

TOP