Per my statement in my previous post, the US DOD/Army will not buy a foreign designed vehicle, aircraft, and/or equipment off-the-shelf. They may decide to buy the design with the intention of re-designing it to their liking and/or specification. When was the last time the US bought an off-the-shelf weapon system? The answer is "Never".
German Puma for US Army?
- Thread starter sgtgunn
- Start date
the road runner
Active Member
Charlie G (M3 MAAWS) was purchased off the shelf.
Harriers ,T-45 Goshawk all evolved designs of aircraft in service with the USA
UH-72 and maybe AW169 all evolved helicopter for US use.
The US has purchased LAV 25 off GD Canada ,that was a design based off the Swiss mowag family of vehicles.
I would say ,the US has a history of purchasing a design off a foreign nation/company and evolving that design to suit their needs.
USA evolving the Puma to their need ,who knows ,it could certainly be possible.
Time will tell
Cheers
actually they do - and quite a lot
the key to foreign design being used is that they must be built locally
in addition to RR's list
Austal LCS
Dauphin helo for USCG
Nulka AMD
a significant number of EWarfare systems from UK, Canada, Australia, Denmark, France
The internal security reqs will generally seek local content as part of congressional acceptance
sometimes thats a bad idea as the USCG Dauphin/Dolphin is a less capable platform. to the original French platform
M777, MB-57..M249..the list goes on.
Of course the US won't buy Puma as-is - there's already discussion on this thread about how the seating and stowage would have to change, it's almost certain that some US sensors and comms would be selected - but theoretically, they could do pretty much as they did on Stryker and buy the chassis, adapt it and use it.
Of course the US won't buy Puma as-is - there's already discussion on this thread about how the seating and stowage would have to change, it's almost certain that some US sensors and comms would be selected - but theoretically, they could do pretty much as they did on Stryker and buy the chassis, adapt it and use it.
A few mentioned some weapon systems bought by the US DOD. If one would take a look at those end items in the hands of the US DOD, they are not of the same configurations as originally designed. Off-the-shelf means, as everybody would know, is something that is not altered, modified and/or changed. Therefore, those weapon systems as mentioned, although originally from other countries, "became" US DOD designed weapon systems.
Quick reading comprehension test :
"Of course the US won't buy Puma as-is - there's already discussion on this thread about how the seating and stowage would have to change, it's almost certain that some US sensors and comms would be selected - but theoretically, they could do pretty much as they did on Stryker and buy the chassis, adapt it and use it."
What did you think this meant ?
AFFIRMATIVE! Did you understand what "off-the-shelf" means? I'm not disputing what you stated? I'm disputing what others stated about the US DOD procuring off-the-shelf weapon systems.
Well, perhaps you might quote them and not me then ?
Yes, I have a bad habit of just responding to the last post. I apologize for that. In addition, I am current on the "business" that we are discussing. I know at heart the capabilities of the M2/M3 vehicles and others.
Well, so do I. Guess who? I am current!
StobieWan and Bonza, you are both moderators: Please take a look at my email address and you will understand where I am coming from as far as my posts/comments relative to the thread/subject.
Is that a fact? Well, I hope you don't mind verifying it in some way with one of the mods in here who's in a position to do so. When people make claims of being in the business (whether it's industry or military service) we like to verify them, as anyone can claim to be anyone on the internet - I hope you can appreciate why we do this. Nothing personal but for the sake of the forum's integrity (and you can see it in rule 24 of the forum rules: http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php) we take these measures with anyone in your position.
Ok, what do you want to know? Perhaps my email address will validate it right away. Check it please. You have all the means to do it.
That would be acceptable by me. By all means do what you need to do to verify and/or validate my professional authenticity. Just don't ask for PII which could not be provided especially through the web.
I don't get why you are so fixated on this "off-the-shellf" issue. As far as I can see nobody here proposed to buy the Puma as it is and stuff it into the HBCTs.
Local content and configuration is a no-brainer for this kind of procurement. Nevertheless buying a foreign design/chassis and altering it to US specs could very well be the only way to get a new vehicle into service on time and on budget.
Local content and configuration is a no-brainer for this kind of procurement. Nevertheless buying a foreign design/chassis and altering it to US specs could very well be the only way to get a new vehicle into service on time and on budget.
I agree 100% with you, but...we have to wait for "above my pay decision"?
Some of you may not agree but although the DoD spends a ridiculous amount of money trying to make new weapons and then cancelling or shelving projects that doesn't mean that money is wasted or thrown away. A lot of that money and developed technology gets spread out and used on other platforms. Such as the work on the Commanche, I'm willing to bet that they used the majority of there experience and technology from that to make the "stealth hawks" that were used in the raid on Bin Laden.
Oh yeah I agree with you! It is not called R&D for nothing!