The German Bundeswehr - a "Paper Tiger?"

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The regiment was disbanded due to the actions of a few A-holes and the lax discipline practices of its commander which embarrassed the government of the day, clearly a political decision and not a corrective action.
You are sailing very close to the wind John. You are the one politicising this. Don't take it further.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
A nice and futuristic looking 8×8 armoured vehicle.
So FFGs Armoured Fighting Vehicle with a full hybrid drive, seems to be worlds' first environment-friendlier 8x8.
Also the performance is as good as a normal diesel-powered vehicle.


 

Big_Zucchini

Active Member
It does not look practical at all. But then, it is possible they're merely demonstrating some capabilities rather than offering a complete vehicle.
The location of the diesel generator and batteries at the front, make the Genesis excessively front-heavy. In addition, the protrusion of the front wedge to such a degree will prohibit the vehicle from fording or driving through trenches.
Excessive weight imbalance means the vehicle will struggle, or become completely incapable, of driving with several wheels missing. A scenario of missing or overly deflated tires is not some extreme or exceptional one. It's fairly common for wheeled armored vehicles, and in cases of mine or IED strikes, an 8x8 could lose a sizable portion of its wheels.

Here's a GDLS LAV 6.0 demonstrating exceptional weight balance, driving on only 4 wheels out of 8:

FFG are not being transparent about their implementation of their technology. I think it would do them great service to dump the idea of a subjectively hideous vehicle and create either a cutaway of it, or some realistic visible layout of the systems. Much R&D work could be saved that way.


Also, while we're on the topic of the Bundeswehr being a paper tiger, there were news over a year ago, maybe 2, about the VJTF being rearmed with APS on their tanks. I'm sure it was delayed by COVID, but is there any confirmation?
 

Terran

Active Member
A nice and futuristic looking 8×8 armoured vehicle.
So FFGs Armoured Fighting Vehicle with a full hybrid drive, seems to be worlds' first environment-friendlier 8x8.
Also the performance is as good as a normal diesel-powered vehicle.


Worlds second back in 07 the US Army had the Advanced Hybrid Electric Drive demonstrator 8x8.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
It does not look practical at all. But then, it is possible they're merely demonstrating some capabilities rather than offering a complete vehicle.
The location of the diesel generator and batteries at the front, make the Genesis excessively front-heavy. In addition, the protrusion of the front wedge to such a degree will prohibit the vehicle from fording or driving through trenches.
Excessive weight imbalance means the vehicle will struggle, or become completely incapable, of driving with several wheels missing. A scenario of missing or overly deflated tires is not some extreme or exceptional one. It's fairly common for wheeled armored vehicles, and in cases of mine or IED strikes, an 8x8 could lose a sizable portion of its wheels.
...
From FFG's new Genesis vehicle to demo hybrid propulsion systems
"Genesis is mainly a technology demonstrator for alternative propulsion concepts "
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Also, while we're on the topic of the Bundeswehr being a paper tiger, there were news over a year ago, maybe 2, about the VJTF being rearmed with APS on their tanks. I'm sure it was delayed by COVID, but is there any confirmation?
Haven't seen anything, but given the procurement might well be below 25 million Euro (for planned 17 Trophy units) it would not be published anyway.

VJTF is just an IFV battalion reinforced with a single tank company and other assets anyway, nothing major.
 

Big_Zucchini

Active Member
Haven't seen anything, but given the procurement might well be below 25 million Euro (for planned 17 Trophy units) it would not be published anyway.

VJTF is just an IFV battalion reinforced with a single tank company and other assets anyway, nothing major.
Yes, but it does pave the way for army-wide procurement.
I find it strange that German companies rarely, if at all, show AFVs with new kit in exhibits. Speaking of APS, I do not recall seeing the ADS on a German AFV other than once on a Leopard 2A4 demonstrator called "Revolution". Puma, Lynx, Leopard 2A7, all gone without industry showing their products on them.

Perhaps it's because they're property of the army and it doesn't allow borrowing them for exhibitions?

Either way, the purchase of Trophy shows the ADS is not yet mature for deployment, or just not deemed suitable for an MBT. I suspect the former, which is a common industry practice, to start maturation process when sufficient interest is shown.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
A rare ray of sunlight and good news on German procurement related to the MARDER life extension.
ADS.... is not yet mature for deployment, or just not deemed suitable for an MBT. I suspect the former, which is a common industry practice, to start maturation process when sufficient interest is shown.
I suspect that the German designed AMAP-ADS system is less suitable for a MBT and more suitable for the over 40 types of Bronco ATTC in service or the 10 types of Belrex MRAP vehicles (namely, security, engineer, reconnaissance, logistics, fuel, medical, mortar, signal, maintenance and mortar ammunition carrier) and is based on the Paramount Marauder (4x4) MRAP, as combat support vehicles to reduce ambush risk, especially in forward resupply with the SAF’s CSS train.
  • In British service, the ATTC encountered 30 IED attacks with zero fatalities. To retain swim capability and IED resistance, the Bronco 3 (which has German technology inserts) has been redesigned and is well suited to include the AMAP-ADS system as an additional survivability onion layer.
  • The battalion command and recovery variants of the ATTC especially need an APS system. ST Kinetics displayed the Bronco ATTC with the AMAP-ADS active protection system as far back as EUROSATORY 2008.
It has been documented that the SAF does remove some sensors on the Hunter IFV before it goes on public display — therefore not a surprise that the APS system, even if selected, will not be on public display.

Rumour has it that a few years ago Singapore has completed testing and placed an order for AMAP-ADS for certain classes of vehicles like the ATTCs, but as it is the norm, the SAF will not be willing to showcase these systems. There is significant defence industrial base collaboration between Germany and Singapore but the nature of such collaboration is not open source.
  • It is not unusual to find German speaking Singaporeans in our Army and Navy at LTC and above level and in our defence science organisation — as a select few are German trained.
  • The SAF’s conduct of armour training in the Oberlausitz Military Training Area (OMTA), in Germany, with the German Panzerbataillons, keep our armour doctrine aligned.
  • In this case, I see the Leopard 2SG is an important symbol of the excellent defence relationship — especially its German ammo, like the KE DM63 / DM53 A1 in use.
The doctrinal move to hull down fighting is an indication that APS systems are mature or close to mature.

But I think you or Kato would have a better idea of the pros and cons of each APS and not one size system fits all for the IDF’s or the Bundeswehr armour vehicle fleets — I look forward to hearing both your insights.
 
Last edited:

Big_Zucchini

Active Member
I suspect that the German designed AMAP-ADS system is less suitable for a MBT and more suitable for the over 40 types of Bronco ATTC in service or the 10 types of Belrex MRAP vehicles (namely, security, engineer, reconnaissance, logistics, fuel, medical, mortar, signal, maintenance and mortar ammunition carrier) and is based on the Paramount Marauder (4x4) MRAP, as combat support vehicles to reduce ambush risk, especially in forward resupply with the SAF’s CSS train.
  • In British service, the ATTC encountered 30 IED attacks with zero fatalities. To retain swim capability and IED resistance, the Bronco 3 (which has German technology inserts) has been redesigned and is well suited to include the AMAP-ADS system as an additional survivability onion layer.
  • The battalion command and recovery variants of the ATTC especially need an APS system. ST Kinetics displayed the Bronco ATTC with the AMAP-ADS active protection system as far back as EUROSATORY 2008.
It has been documented that the SAF does remove some sensors on the Hunter IFV before it goes on public display — therefor not a surprise that the APS system, even if selected, will not be on public display.

Rumour has it that a few years ago Singapore has completed testing and placed an order for AMAP-ADS for certain classes of vehicles like the ATTCs, but as it is the norm, the SAF will not be willing to showcase these systems. There is significant defence industrial base collaboration between Germany and Singapore but the nature of such collaboration is not open source.
  • It is not unusual to find German speaking Singaporeans in our Army and Navy at LTC and above level and in our defence science organisation — as a select few are German trained.
  • The SAF’s conduct of armour training in the Oberlausitz Military Training Area (OMTA), in Germany, with the German Panzerbataillons, keep our armour doctrine aligned.
  • In this case, I see the Leopard 2SG is an important symbol of the excellent defence relationship — especially its German ammo, like the KE DM63 / DM53 A1 in use.
The doctrinal move to hull down fighting is an indication that APS systems are mature or close to mature.

But I think you or Kato would have a better idea of the pros and cons of each APS and not one size system fits all for the IDF’s or the Bundeswehr armour vehicle fleets — I look forward to hearing both your insights.
Replying in points because this forum's formatting is a bit outdated. All in chronological order, as much as possible:

1)Exhibitions like Eurosatory are hardly indicative. It's common practice to only do mechanical integration of components to a platform, and proceed to software integration and UI development when there's a contract already, which, depending on the company's schedule, could take a couple years.
It's also expensive work and diverts valuable human capital from other projects for a considerable amount of time. That's why companies want a contract first, and armed forces are not protesting against the practice because it is totally legitimate.

For example, the Iron Fist was demonstrated in anti-KE tests as far back as mid 2000's, and also shown on various platforms like the Merkava, Namer, and various foreign platforms as well (CV90, ASCOD, etc). Yet when the US Army wanted it for the Bradley, the Iron Fist was not mature enough and the company's schedule did not meet the army's, and that's mainly because none bought Iron Fist prior to that. Only now there's huge interest.
So, 15 years after first demonstrations.

2)The laser warning sensor at hand, was shown for the first time in 2002 in the unveiling ceremony of the first Merkava 4 tank. Since then, at least 95% of photos of the Merkava 4 show the module missing with only the mounting brackets in place.
The IDF does not normally hide such equipment, especially if it makes sure to display it for everyone to see, and the company displays it on its site.
I suspect there are considerations here that are unknown to us.
My guess is there's some strict maintenance requiremens for this device, so it's mounted only during operational activity.
Your guess is almost as good as mine (mine's pretty solid. Hardly anyone can top that).

3)The Hunter's turret, as you know, is a Samson turret, and was built to accommodate a Trophy APS. It would be very odd if the SAF selected 2 types of APS for service, in a matter of several years, unless it does not trust the ADS, which in turn also sounds odd if it was really already purchased.
But then, we also know to take such claims with a grain of salt, like the alleged sale of Merkava 4 tanks, several years ago, to Singapore, which turned out to be fake news on Israel's part.

4)I see no relation here to hull down fighting. If anything, the very opposite should be the case.
Hull down is a common drill for any type of armed AFV.
An APS allows AFVs to be far more aggressive than usually, and therefore be more mobile rather than in prepared hulldown positions.
I believe you meant to also suggest the opposite?

5)Indeed one size doesn't fit all, but it doesn't mean buying 2 different systems makes sense.
In the age of digital architectures, it's possible to make a single system in any number of sizes.
Want the ADS? Buy it with light and heavy firing units for multiple platform categories.
Want the Trophy? It has 2 versions now as well.

The American approach is solid - develop as part of the VPS project an architecture first and only then ask industry to offer components that will be integrated from day 1 to the architecture.
Unfortunately, it's been a very long time since anything about the VPS program was published.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
@Big_Zucchini,

1. Thanks for sharing and helping me learn more. I have always been sceptical of the fake news of the SAF acquiring the Merkava 4.
1)Exhibitions like Eurosatory are hardly indicative. It's common practice to only do mechanical integration of components to a platform, and proceed to software integration and UI development when there's a contract already, which, depending on the company's schedule, could take a couple years.

2)The laser warning sensor at hand, was shown for the first time in 2002 in the unveiling ceremony of the first Merkava 4 tank. Since then, at least 95% of photos of the Merkava 4 show the module missing with only the mounting brackets in place...

I suspect there are considerations here that are unknown to us.

My guess is there's some strict maintenance requiremens for this device, so it's mounted only during operational activity.

Your guess is almost as good as mine (mine's pretty solid. Hardly anyone can top that).

3)The Hunter's turret, as you know, is a Samson turret, and was built to accommodate a Trophy APS.
2. Two quick points on the Hunter IFV and APS systems in general, in reply to your post:

One, I am pretty sure the Samson turret on the Hunter IVF will use a Trophy APS. It’s more a question of when and what version of it is integrated.​

Two, you are correct and I mean the opposite — forgive my wrong use of the term ‘hull down fighting’. IFVs with APS are important in aggressive movement for the SABs, especially to pass through urban areas. The SAF has specific tactical objectives to achieve by D+nn day of hostilities.​

3. This is the second major Bundeswehr procurement running head first into a wall after heavy transport helo procurement was spectacularly aborted only weeks ago. Whatever the details this is definitely a very bad look from a planned procurement perspective.
 
Last edited:

Big_Zucchini

Active Member
The variant of Trophy this turret integrates is called the Trophy VPS, as it was developed in part due to American demands in the VPS program.
It is a lighter version of Trophy, designed to give the same results as the old heavy version, but with a much smaller interceptor. This in turn might allow carrying more munitions, and reducing risk to infantry.

The Trophy HV on the Merkava carries 6 interceptors according to Rafael. Not sure if it's 2 deployed plus 6 in storage, or 6 in total. I suspect the latter.
As the Samson turret's Trophy modules themselves are smaller than on the HV, I assume it may carry a similar amount of munitions.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I suspect that the German designed AMAP-ADS system is less suitable for a MBT and more suitable for the over 40 types of Bronco ATTC in service or the 10 types of Belrex MRAP vehicles, as combat support vehicles to reduce ambush risk, especially in forward resupply with the SAF’s CSS train.
AMAP-ADS is in continuous long-term development - Generation 3 was trialled in 2018 (and shown in testing on a Fuchs APC, as previously Gen 2 in 2012). The Bundeswehr's procurement agency trialled Gen 1 on a Leopard 2 in 2003.

From press releases over that time span, it looks like the main point the Bundeswehr and other potential customers criticized originally and that the development process has been trying to address - for the last 15 years - is the risk of collateral damage to own troops through firing the active protection system automatically. The target of primarily assuring a minimized collateral damage can be seen in more recent trials in which generally dummy puppets are placed within close vicinity of vehicles protected by AMAP-ADS Gen3. Rheinmetall has stated it intends to obtain technical certification for Gen 3 that it is operationally as safe as an airbag, in particular lowering the chance of a potential accidental firing to a n order of scale of 0.1 to 0.01%.

The 2003 tests effectively pitted AMAP-ADS as a possible integration option for a hardkill solution against Hensoldt's MUSS as a softkill solution. While MUSS was not procured for Leopard subsequently, it is being deployed fleetwide on Puma IFVs (last battalion set for full fleet of 342 should be delivered this year) and had been trialled on other tanks such as British Challenger 2s.
MUSS 2.0, announced in September as an early bid to throw the name around for a future second batch of Puma, is being advertised to feature interfaces for possible integration of an additional hardkill effector.

In general here's also an underlaying vibe that hardkill systems are something considered outdated due to primary collateral effects and that secondary effects - such as detectability of the vehicle as a consequence of firing - are thought to be non-negligible either. In addition consumption and possible saturation - counting against a hardkill system - seems to be playing a role in long-term tactic-strategic procurement planning.


Regarding "light" vehicles, it should be noted that AMAP-ADS is rather heavy. A complete Gen2 system on a Fuchs 1A8 weighs around 480 kg (similar to Trophy-MV), which is not quite negligible for an effectively roof-mounted installation and on many of these 10-25 ton class vehicles can come to push limits.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
A rare ray of sunlight and good news on German procurement related to the MARDER life extension.
The interesting part about it btw is that it mentions 244 IR imaging units being procured. The procurement to upgrade the 78 Marder 1A5A1 was already financed in January, hence bringing tht total number to 322.

This number is interesting insofar as the overall layout for the Bundeswehr only foresees 560 IFVs beyond 2025, with the main stock being the 350 Puma which concluded deliveries in August this year. There'll therefore be an overhang of 112 units in order to equip VJTF2023, other possible deployments and training units with "either Puma or Marder" depending on availability at that time.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
@Big_Zucchini,

1. Thanks for sharing and helping me learn more. I have always been sceptical of the fake news of the SAF acquiring the Merkava 4.

2. Two quick points on the Hunter IFV and APS systems in general, in reply to your post:

One, I am pretty sure the Samson turret on the Hunter IVF will use a Trophy APS. It’s more a question of when and what version of it is integrated.​

Two, you are correct and I mean the opposite — forgive my wrong use of the term ‘hull down fighting’. IFVs with APS are important in aggressive movement for the SABs, especially to pass through urban areas. The SAF has specific tactical objectives to achieve by D+nn day of hostilities.​

3. This is the second major Bundeswehr procurement running head first into a wall after heavy transport helo procurement was spectacularly aborted only weeks ago. Whatever the details this is definitely a very bad look from a planned procurement perspective.
Some more information about the assault rifle protest by HK.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
From which i understand the system uses the PAC-3 missile.
The so-far proposed TLVS system from MBDA would use PAC-3MSE (primarily for BMD) and IRIS-T SL.

MBDA's decision follows three developments, and is of course designed to provide some pressure:
  • difficulties with the US government over the past several months having led to the US being unable until very recently (weeks ago) to provide a price estimate (upper ceiling) as part of a FMS sale for certain items - Hard- and Software - related to PAC-3MSE.
  • as a result of that no financial planning for TLVS could be signed off, and it is not included in the 2021 TLVS. A token 2 million has been budgeted for further development of other TLVS components.
  • due to the revised US offer and the overall price of TLVS the MOD has announced it will completely revisit within the next few months whether TLVS will be realized as such, or whether alternatives should rather be evaluated. This will explicitly include re-evaluating on whether and how to procure certain items from the US in FMS, as MBDA would intend to within the TLVS project.
In other words, the MOD is blaming ITAR and considering it a major hindrance to TLVS.
 
Top