Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


SH_MM last won the day on September 9

SH_MM had the most liked content!

About SH_MM

Recent Profile Visitors

499 profile views
  1. Interessting that they still work on anti-KE performance, given that the ADS managed to defeat certain types of (simulated) APFSDS during tests already in 2007 according to German and Swedish sources.
  2. CV-90, why so much love ?

    The CV9030Cz is based on the latest Norwegian configuration, which utilizes AMAP armor. The skirts might therefore consist of a ceramic/aramad mix confined in steel or another metal. On the previous CV9030 models the MEXAS armor had a maximum thickness of 70 mm.
  3. That's ugly... Btw. latest Boxer is available with 800 hp engine and 38.5 metric tons maximum gross vehicle weight.
  4. According to German defence newspaper Europäische Sicherheit und Technik (ESUT), a version of the MELLS will be adopted onto the Marder - this would imply the same dual-missile launcher as used on the Puma. However I am not sure if the author doesn't use MELLS as synonym for Spike-LR in this case... I haven't been following the Marder upgrade project in the past, but as far as I know the German government has not awarded any contracts yet. T. Wiegold from the blog Augengeradeaus.net compiled a list of all projects planned to be be awarded/funded before the German elections (24.09.2017), the Marder upgrade wasn't mentioned there. It is possible that the final layout of the future Spike-LR launcher has yet to be decided. Well, first of all the main problem was the lack of a contract. The government had not awarded a contract for the MELLS launcher before 2017, because there was not enough money within the Bundeswehr's budget to deal with all projects at the same time. Before that, there also were some issues with the Spike missile itself. I remember having read a report (IIRC from 2011), which mentioned that during the first series of tests the Spike-LR ATGM failed to meet the performance requirements in regards to accuracy, therefore EuroSpike and Rafael had to touch up some aspects of the missile (or the quality control at the manufacturing plant). There also were rumors about the electronic interfaces of the Puma and the Spike-LR being somewhat incompatible and requiring some work-arounds, but I cannot say if these rumors are correct. The Puma uses a very different turret than the Lynx. The Puma is fitted with an unmanned turret made by KMW, which has been marketed as Remote Controlled Turret 30 (RCT-30). It is not available in a manned version. The Lynx and the Boxer CRV are fitted with the Lance modular turret system from Rheinmetall. This turret is manned (though an unmanned variant called Lance-RC exists). The Lynx is fitted with a missile launcher made by Rheinmetall, were both missiles are arranged in the vertical plane: one missile is located above the other. The Puma's MELLS on the other hand will have both missiles arranged int he same horizontal plane, i.e. one missile located at the left of the other one. To be fair Rheinmetall is also responsible for developing the Puma's launcher. There is also a version with vertically arranged missiles for the Lynx turret. According to the Australian Defence Technology Review magazine, this might be a simplified/downgraded version of the MELLS launcher for the Puma. Another Boxer CRV prototype has the same missile launcher as the Lynx prototype(s). I don't know all differences, but I understand that the MELLS launcher has additional capabilities over the simpler design fielded on the Lynx prototype. One could be the different protectiton level, as the Puma's launcher seems to be a lot thicker. There also might be different supported software functionalities (maybe) or other aspects.
  5. Hello and welcome to Sturgeon's House. The second batch of Puma IFVs for the German Army is planned since at least 2015. The German Federal Audit Office however wants to postpone any further Puma to after 2022. Until 2025 the Marder IFV will remain in service, about 200 of these will be upgraded with new night vision sights for the driver, third generation thermal sights replacing the old WBG-X and Spike-LR replacing the Milan ATGM. The other Puma variants for the German Army are to my knowledge limited to driver training vehicles and command vehicles (i.e. normal IFVs with better radios, like the Marder 1A4).
  6. This exact info was released in a news article on the Puma IFV, but there are numerous other sources containing small snippets of information. First of all, the Czech Ministry of Defence invited nine companies to participate in the tender, but only seven reacted: GDELS with the ASCOD 2 BAE Systems with the CV90 PSM with the Puma Rheinmetall with the Lynx FFG with the G5 FNSS with the Kaplan 20 Otokar with the Tulpar The Italian Dardo was also requested, but the Italians did not react before the deadline was over. The same happened with Isreal, which did not offer the Namer despite the official request from the Czech MoD to participate in the tender. (Btw. the Merkava 1 or 2 was offered to Switzerland, but rejected; do you know more about that?) Out of these seven vehicles, only four (the first four in the list) were tested at the Libava facility. This might mean that only four vehicles were shortlisted, or the other vehicles will be tested on a later stage (maybe they need to design a proper variant for the Czech Army or are testing the vehicle at other places to avoid high transport costs). Based on a news report from General Dynamics European Land Systems, the ASCOD 2 was on of the "down-selected" vehicles, making it appear that the three not tested vehicles (G5, Kaplan-20 and Tulpar) were rejected. At the time of the testing, the Czech Army didn't know how the exact requirements will look. They will decide on a balance between costs, weight, height, wading depth, interior volume, transportability, payload and more (i.e. mobility, protection, firepower, reliability, etc.). It was planned that a suggestions for requirements made by the Army should be submitted to the MoD end of August (so last month, don't know if that happened due to the source being older). Overall 210 new vehicles in nine versions will be bought (with an option for 100 more vehicles) for a total contract cost of up to 50 billions koruna. Half the money will be spend on vehicle, the other half will be used for the infrastructure - they need facilities to manufacture and repair the vehicles, training facilities with new simulators, but maybe also new transport and recovery vehicles for the new IFV. Some of the money might come from the new EU defence fonds, which is only possible when a European manufacturer is chosen (but I guess since GDELS has its headquarter in Europe despite being owned by the American General Dynamics, it is also European, so all of them count as European). The contract will be made with the manufacturer of the winning bid at the end of 2018, deliveries will start 2020 and last to 2024. According to a news report on the Czech Army website, the (first set of the?) firing trials against moving targets were done at the ranges 700 m, 1,200 m and 1,800 m - nothing special given that all tested vehicles claim to have a range of 2-3 km. The vehicles were required to transport at least nine men (crew of three + six dismounts), have a high level of protection (incl. mine protection) and a 30 mm gun. Crew ergonomics, infrastructure and growth potential are also important factors. The Czech defence news blog Armádní Noviny has a few articles on the BMP-2 replacement program. Apparently the Puma might be the favorite vehicle of the Czech MoD, but they also consider a vehicle with rubber band tracks (I don't speak Czech, so I don't know if they are looking for a lighter Puma variant or are considering a ASCOD 2/CV90/Lynx as alternative). The Puma apparently was the best vehicle in the test (it "showcased technological dominance" according to Google translator), but is very expensive. The fact that the Puma is currently in production and by 2020, the Bundeswehr's order would be nearly finished, is seen as an advantage by the author. The Czech Puma would be cheaper than the German version (due to local assembly and possible design changes), but the Czech MoD still looks at cheaper options - they might consider buying the Puma for the IFV role only and a second, cheaper vehicle for all other tasks (such as armored ambulance, mortar carrier, etc.); interesstingly Czech website E15.cz mentions only the ASCOD 2 and the Lynx as vehicles suited for the cheaper secondary vehicles, not the CV90 (apparently based on the price of the CV90 being too high compared to the previously mentioned vehicles). The T-72M4Cz is also meant to be replaced in the timeframe from 2020 to 2025, thus the Czech military is interested in the Leopard 2 (making Germany a more attractive partner), but they also consider buying a medium tank on the new IFV chassis. CV90 and ASCOD 2 already have been showcased as light/medium tanks, Lynx more or less (Marder 1A3 was fitted with various turrets)... question is if a Puma light tank could be made. The Leopard 2 is considered the best option, being a high-tech tank that might be available for affordable leasing thanks to the EU defence fonds. The problem is that only very few Leopard 2s are available for leasing (something about 100) - enough for the Czech Army, but Croatia and Bulgaria are also interested in them. The only MBT other than the Leopard 2 offered to the Czech Army is the Sabra tank in the latest version. The Ariete and the Leclerc are not in production anymore, while the M1 Abrams, the K2 Black Panther and Japanese Type 10 are all too expensive to operate and maintain. Originally IMI and partners wanted to offer the Merkava 4, but seeing the requirements and European terrain they considered the Sabra to be a better option. The Sabra is considered a worse option than the Leopard 2 due to being based on the M60 chassis and being inferior in performance. (Some of this text is off-topic given the thread title, please ignore that).
  7. In the Czech trials for a BMP-2 replacement, the Puma IFV proved to be more accurate than all other contenders. It hit the highest number of targets during the static and also during the dynamic (fire on the move) tests. The trials lasted six weeks and included firing trials, high speed driving on roads, traveling cross-country, climbing, crossing ditches, wading through water and other tests. The manufacturing companies hope to copy the Leopard 2's success and to start a Puma user's group responsible for suggesting upgrades, sharing operational experience, etc. PSM offers that all Pumas for the Czech Army would be assembeled locally and even some components for the German Puma would be made in the Czech Republic (currently some of the cables and parts of the fire suppression system are already made by Czech suppliers - in the future this also could include the tracks). Seems like a cost-cutting measure, but that may be the solution to make the Puma affordable (also make it cheaper for Germany) . On average wages in Germany are 3.64 times as high as in the Czech Republic (data from 2014), but it might mean that some jobs are outsourced from Germany (unless there is enough demand for tracks to keep KMW busy). It is possible to easily create other Puma variants such as a recce vehicle and an armored ambulance based on the Puma's hull. Btw. the Spike-launcher to be added to the Puma IFV will be armored to resist enemy fire.
  8. Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    Second generation thermal imagers were adopted on the M1A2 SEP, the previous M1A2 model still had the same gunner's primary sight with first gen thermals.
  9. Contemporary Western Tank Rumble!

    What about 20 British soldiers thought about the M1A1 Abrams after testing the tank for two days in Grafenwöhr:
  10. CV-90, why so much love ?

    That's also the driving force behind the Dutch-German cooperation: saving money. The Netherlands cannot afford to have their own tanks, while Germany cannot afford enough soldiers (or rather find enoough people to do the work given the low wages) - just let Dutch crews take a few leased German tanks. Germany cannot afford to buy a new resupply ship? Let's just take the Karel Doorman when available/required. The SEP is really an odd case. It was designed from the very beginning with superior protection than the CV90 (two armor packages, including one with protection against 30 mm APFSDS ammo), but it wasn't meant to replace the CV90. Not really; the TMRP-6 is an EFP mine and therefore is not related to shock proof seats as used on modern vehicles. The EFP won't create a such a large shock as a conventional HE mine or an IED. Mine proof/decoupled seats are mostly focused on meeting the STANAG requirements for mine protection, which are not fitted with EFP warheads, but pure HE mines. This is certainly an oversight, for example it is possible to modify the ASCOD Ulan to mee the STANAG 4569 level 3 mine protection requirements (8 kg TNT) by adding a 25 mm steel plate to the belly; this wouldn't survive the smaller TMRP-6 (5.1 kg TNT), which has an EFP warhead that can penetrate 40 mm steel at 800 mm distance according to the manufacturer. The TMRP-6 has less HE content than required for STANAG 4569 level 2 mine protection (6 kg TNT), so decoupled seats are not really required to deal with it. First vehicles with proper mine protection and decoupled seats were made in Africa. Germany tested a few of them in the early 1990s and decided to start developing the Dingo MRAP shortly after. Two prototypes were made, the last one finished in 1995 (one year before the start of the wars in Yugoslavia); one year later it was decided to upgrade the Marder 1A3 with a mine protection kit and decoupled seats, though funding delayed the introduction in service. At this time, NATO had not encountered the TMRP-6 mine. Canada, Norway and Sweden all bought MEXAS kits for a limited amount of AFVs before KFOR/SFOR, though at this time they might already have known about the TMRP-6.
  11. In 2012, the Danish Army looked for a new APC. They tested the FFG 5, the CV90 Armadillo, the VBCI and the Piranha 5, choosing to buy the latter. ARTEC also submitted the Boxer as option, but it was not shortlisted (this has apparently to do something with the price...). Here are some foils from the ARTEC presentation to Denmark: Regarding Germany and the Netherlands: Regarding the Boxer's design and features:
  12. Polish Armoured Vehicles

    - http://www.defence24.pl/654631,mspo-2017-premiera-borsuka#
  13. CV-90, why so much love ?

    That's essentially the same as with the Marder, with the difference that the MILAN launcher on the Marder was mounted at the commander's hatch during travel and could be used to engage heavily armored targets. Once the infantry left the vehicle, the missile launcher was carried by the AT team. For the Puma the ATGM launcher will be fixed, but both the infantry squad and the IFV will share the same stock of missiles. Can you elaborate? I've never heard of any "great powers" (USA, Soviet Union, NATO?) stopping any cooperation between the Scandinavian countries. The Netherlands were offered to buy the Puma IFV or cooperate in the development during a very early stage. They opted for the CV9035 instead, because of their wish for a 35 mm gun, the lower cost of the CV9035 and the earlier possible introduction. I am not sure how deep the cooperation between the Netherlands and Norway is, but I'd imagine it wouldn't be as deep as the cooperation between the Netherlands and Germany currently is - though it might have been a closer cooperation at the time the CV90 was chosen. The Dutch tanks are semi-integrated into the German Army (and located in Germany), while just recently a new cooperation on air-defence was made. The FlaRakGruppe 61 will be subordinated to the Dutch Air Force, while the procurment of future air defense systems will be made jointly - that means the Netherlands might buy MEADS/TVLS at some point in the future, while both countries look for a VSHORAD system to properly fill the gap left since Gepard/PRTL Cheetah were decommissioned (maybe Skyranger on Boxer?). The current systems relying on Stinger SAMs only (i.e. Fennek and Wiesel) are not capable enough for protecting moving convois. The German naval infantry is part of the Dutch Korps Mariniers, while the Luchtmobiele Brigade is subordinated to the German Division Schnelle Kräfte. At the same time Germany and Norway are buying submarines together, but the Dutch are not interested in the U212 class. So European military procurement is still in a pretty bad shape, where cooperation is limited and rarely used when it could save costs. Well, the title of the topic is a bit biased and certainly makes it look like this is a bashing topic only, I didn't have the intention to bash anything for no reason. The CV90 is a popular choice and it is not inferior to most other IFVs, but it is often praised for questionable reasons and has a large fanbase, that sometimes doesn't look at the facts. In so far I think the title chosen by Serge, "Why so much love?", seems to be quite fitting. I once posted in another forum that the the basic CV90 (Strf 9040) armor should protect against 14.5 mm/23 mm AP in the frontal arc only (both rounds with the same penetration), but then was told by another poster that the CV90 clearly had better armor and all-round protection against 14.5 mm ammo, while the frontal armor should resist 30 mm APDS. The Norwegian CV9030 with composite armor then would resist 30 mm APFSDS ammo frontally and APDS ammo at the sides... Now, BAE Systems' own presentation says something against such myths, together with the armor schemes from the UDES 09 prototype (23 mm LFP armor, 6-10 mm side armor). I've seen people posting in forums that the Strf 9040 is the best IFV! Not being as good as claimed by fanboys doesn't mean that the CV90 is bad, it is just not very good either. It is average and has a number of advantages (low size, seven roadwheels pairs, separated fuel tanks, low costs) over other IFVs from the same time; however if rating vehicles only by armor protection, FCS or power-to-weight ratio, the CV90 is certainly not the best IFV. The fact that the CV90 won the Swiss evaluation by price and reliability, but not by performance is something that surprised me when reading; I never considered the Warrior 2000 to be something special and I also didn't think that Kuka's M12 (E4) turret was superior to the CV90's E30 turret at that time. The Norwegians essentially dislike(d) all things that the Swiss also disliked on the evaluated CV9030: low troop compartment size (that's why tthe SPz 2000 has an enlarged one), bad thermal imagers (thats why the CV90 Mk II has second generation thermal imagers) and no hunter-killer capability (too expensive to fix for the Swiss Army). ____ Not very well known, but Germany actually tested an upgraded version of the CV9030CH in late 2001/early 2002. It was rejected for several reasons, which is why the Puma development was started in Fall 2002. I am still searching for more info on that, but there is an archived question in the Swiss parliament, where a member of one party questions the value of the CV9030CH in the Swiss Army based on the German critique. I.e. it appears that the CV90 in Germany was fitted with a mine protection kit, which was still found unsatisfactory. The basic conception of the vehicle has been claimed to be based on the ideas of the 70s and 80s. The weight of nearly 30 tons of the up-armored variants was too close to the weight limit of the chassis, limiting the growth potential and upgradability of the CV90 in thte future. The exact wording of the Swiss MP says that the CV90 got "the last place" in the evaluation, suggesting it was tested against other vehicles (or concepts for future vehicles). I'll try to look into that topic.
  14. I think the Merkava uses proper SLERA (self-limiting explosive reactive armor), which for example can contain only small amounts ("pockets") of explosive materials inside a larger layer of an elastic material. It is also possible to combine reactive/energetic materials with explosives for use as SLERA/ERA. http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/papers/symp_19/TB611523.pdf