This is a discussion on PUMA - Ultimate IFV presented within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Waylander
No, but a well build suspension as well as good tracks can save your day.
So ...
No, but a well build suspension as well as good tracks can save your day.
So what makes you think that a Puma is not able to go were a CV90 can go? I don't say that the Puma has a better mobility or vice versa.
I am confident that the Puma is going to be mobile enough and as I said the Brad is not known for being the best designed IFV when it comes to mobility.
Right now we just don't have enough infos about the mobility of the Puma in normal service so we just cannot rate it exactly.
Right now we know that it has a new and modern decoupled running gear with hydro pneumatic suspension, a good hp/ton ratio given by a modern 800kw engine, new and modern tracks and a ground clearence of 450mm (How much is the ground clearance of the CV90?).
Looking at the pure stats it looks as if the Puma is going to be very mobile but as I said before we cannot finally judge it before it enters normal service.
Well, as you say - we'll have just to wait and see. The secret is the chassi and the ground pressure, CV90 has a ground pressure of 0,53 kg/cm² and the new vehicle that Hägglunds is developing, SEP, has an ever lower ground pressure. The ground clearance is 0,45 m.
Suspension!
Having a good suspension has much more influence on your cross country mobility than some more hp, a little bit less ground pressure ore some more ground clearance.
And rating a suspension by published data is much more difficult than rating engine power, ground pressure, etc.
Because of that I said we need to wait for the first reports from day to day business out of the units.
But I am confident that Rheinmetall and KMW haven't messed up the suspension. They have the experience and the capabilities to build a very modern and capable suspension and I hope they made good use of their available ressources.
Tracks are also a factor but with Diehl the tracks of the Puma are provided by a company with an excellent national and international reputation.
In the end there are not many extrem cold and snowish countries left which don't have already bought CV90 (Sweden, Norway, Finland) or will never field a foreign design (Russia, USA).
Only Canada comes to my mind and it is not very likely that they are going to buy real tracked IFVs andytime soon even with their current government.
Suspension!
Having a good suspension has much more influence on your cross country mobility than some more hp, a little bit less ground pressure ore some more ground clearance.
And rating a suspension by published data is much more difficult than rating engine power, ground pressure, etc.
Because of that I said we need to wait for the first reports from day to day business out of the units.
But I am confident that Rheinmetall and KMW haven't messed up the suspension. They have the experience and the capabilities to build a very modern and capable suspension and I hope they made good use of their available ressources.
Tracks are also a factor but with Diehl the tracks of the Puma are provided by a company with an excellent national and international reputation.
In the end there are not many extrem cold and snowish countries left which don't have already bought CV90 (Sweden, Norway, Finland) or will never field a foreign design (Russia, USA).
Only Canada comes to my mind and it is not very likely that they are going to buy real tracked IFVs andytime soon even with their current government.
Well, I guess you are right. However the tracks are a bit different. The Cv90 has 7 pairs while the Puma has 5. Which configuration that's the best remains to see.
You don't mean tracks but roadwheels which are an integrated part of the running gear.
The tracks used by the CV90 are IIRC also provided by Diehl.
In the end bad tracks are not the biggest problem of an AFV because one can always use change to other tracks very fast and without many costs. This is not the case with the running gear and suspension.
BTW, it is interesting to see that the roadwheels of the Puma are not symmetric but more close together on the front side than on the back. This is due to it being frontal heavy with all the armor and the engine in the front.
The impression I got is that the Puma is a very capable IFV, with a modern design. The drawback as far as I've heard is that it's a bit pricey compared to CV90 wich is also a capable design.
IIRC correctly they plan with more than 5 million € for one Puma making it scratch the price tag of a modern western tank...
It is defenitely going to be expensive and I am sure this is going to hamper possible export chances.
Does anybody has the price tag for the CV9030 Mrk III for Finland at hand or do I need to do some research? This should be the most capable and most expensive version of the CV90 and would be best suited when one wants to compare price tags.
People tend to look at the Puma and say: "Well, it looks like a big classical IFV with a 30mm gun, what is so special about it except the good protection and modular armor concept?"
But there are some other bells and whistles which are going to make our Panzergrenadiere smile when they change form Marder A3/A5 to the Puma.
Situational awareness is greatly improved and is going to set standards for IFVs, as well as is mine protection. And it comes with a soft kill defense system (MUSS).
IMHO especially the improved SA for the whole crew (including the squad in the back) is going to be really liked by the crews and squads.
This is one of the main reasons for the hefty price tag. All these gismos are really expensive.
"In June 2004, Finland ordered 45 CV9030 vehicles for a cost of €120 million. This works out at €2.67 million per vehicle." //Wikipedia
Dunno if it's 100% correct, though.
As long as I know there are no important differences between the finish CV90 and danish CV90 except the gun right?
In the end I hope Denmark got a lot of support, training, ammo, etc with their CV9035 DK. Reminds me of the Leopard IIA5DK purchase. It also looks rather expensive but I expect it to come with a lot of support and stuff.
Ah, I hate trying to get good infos about price tags of AFVs. You never really know what is included or not...
As long as I know there are no important differences between the finish CV90 and danish CV90 except the gun right?
In the end I hope Denmark got a lot of support, training, ammo, etc with their CV9035 DK. Reminds me of the Leopard IIA5DK purchase. It also looks rather expensive but I expect it to come with a lot of support and stuff.
Ah, I hate trying to get good infos about price tags of AFVs. You never really know what is included or not...
Maybe Denmark is just bad at bargaining...
We are usually very good at bargaining. I found the legislative acquisition act and discovered that everything was included, even new climate conditioned buildings. And an extensive comms package. Though for how long spares and support is included I cannot see.
The Mk III is the latest and greatest version. I don't think it was available in 2004.
________________ "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
I found figures of more than 700mm for Spike-LR and more than 1000mm for Spike-ER.
Javelin also as less range than Spike-LR with its 2.500m.
Milan ER was also in the race for our new ATGM.
What type of launch system will they use, will they be able to fire it while under armor or will they still have the issue of crew exposer as on the Marder series with Milan.
I expect them to be able to use them under armor protection.
They say the Puma is wired for the implemention of ATGMs which sounds like they attach it directly to the sights/FCS of the Puma.
The MILAN on the Marder was in fact used like a normal ground based MILAN with no direct links to the Marder itself despite the mounting.
I have no idea if it can be reloaded under armor protection. As long as I know no further infos are available.
I expect them to be able to use them under armor protection.
They say the Puma is wired for the implemention of ATGMs which sounds like they attach it directly to the sights/FCS of the Puma.
The MILAN on the Marder was in fact used like a normal ground based MILAN with no direct links to the Marder itself despite the mounting.
I have no idea if it can be reloaded under armor protection. As long as I know no further infos are available.
When are they planning on emplementing them on the Puma, is there a time frame.
They want to have it ready when the Puma enters serial production.
So hopefully (We all know how much can go wrong...) we will not see Pumas entering service without their ATGMs.
At least there should not be that much to do.
Spike LR (Eurospike) is a mature system. The Puma has the general wiring for ATGMs and Eurospike is build by a german company for some time.
I don't expect that many problms like one can expect with a totally new system (PARS 3 for the Tiger comes to my mind).
