New armored platform

Under the name New Armored Platform , shortly NGP was in Germany by the German Federal Armed Forces developed a joint armored chassis and the German arms manufacturers in the armored infantry , battle tanks should build and combat support vehicles. The new Puma infantry fighting vehicle is based on findings from this development .

History and Development

After it became clear that the systems introduced in the 1970s ( Leopard 2 , Marder , Gepard , etc.) would be at the end of their useful life after 2010, the combat value upgrade III of the Leopard 2 was deleted in 1995 and the project New Armored in its place Platform started. The project was intended to reduce the cost and development time for a new generation of combat vehicles by building the various platforms on a common armored chassis. Survivability, mobility and operational capability would therefore be identical. Since the beginning of the planning, a modular vehicle family with three platforms has been used:

• Platform A was a system for combating heavy ground targets, i.e. a battle tank.
• Platform B should be able to fight the other ground targets and contain a seating component, i.e. an armored personnel carrier.
• Platform C was intended to be used for combat support . This was air defense , pioneering and Bergepanzer provided.

In line with these requirements, the initial considerations were based on a space-optimized combat area. With a core crew of only two, the systems had to be highly automated. At the same time it was stipulated that the drive and drive must have the mobility of the Leopard 2A4. The required command and responsiveness was achieved with a command and weapon deployment system that is compatible with other systems of the Bundeswehr and that recognizes friend and foe. The use and feasibility of diesel-electric drives, distance-active protective measures (hard and softkill), a digital on-board network, effective mine and bomb protection as well as high-performance powder or electro-thermal-chemical cannons with a caliber of 140 millimeters were also examined . With these first approaches, the schedule was structured as follows:

• until 1996: Development of the tactical concept (TaK)
• until 1999: Development of the phase document tactical-technical requirement (TTF)
• 1999 to 2005: Start of development
• 2005 to 2009: Introduction of the armored personnel carrier variant
• 2015: Introduction of the main battle tank variant
• From 2020: Introduction of the support vehicle variant (air defense, armored recovery vehicles, etc.)

In accordance with this schedule, in 1996 - one year after the Federal Office for Defense Technology and Procurement (BWB) had commissioned the industry - the armaments companies at that time Krauss-Maffei , Wegmann & Co. , MaK Systemgesellschaft mbH and Henschel-Wehrtechnik presented their concepts with KUKA Wehrtechnik GmbH . In addition to the classic design with front and rear engines, proposals were also submitted that were optimized for both combat and armored personnel carriers. The MaK concept relied on a uniform driving module and a mission module that was intended for installation in the rear. Wegmann & Co., on the other hand, constructed a system with a motor that was moved to the right rear of the tub. The weight range of the concepts fluctuated between 55 and 77 tons for main battle tanks and between 55 and 71.9 tons for armored personnel carriers.

After the ideas competition was over, it became clear that the technological areas of the 2-man compact combat area, distance-active protection, diesel-electric drive , vetronics and weapons systems require further investigation. This took place in the years 1997 to 2002. Among other things, a 2-man combat area simulator was built into a tracked vehicle (technology carrier chain, TTK) and tested at the end of 1999 in the tank troops training center in Munster.

As early as 1998, the tight budget situation showed that a parallel development of three systems would not be feasible. On February 26, 1998, the further development of the armored personnel carrier was decided and the Tactical Concept New Armored Personnel Carrier (NeSPz) approved. The security policy guidelines of NATO from 2001, in which armed forces with the ability to air deploy were given preference, also changed this concept and the "NGP" project was finally discontinued.

Technology and concepts

After the NGP project was included in the Bundeswehr plan in 1995, the requirements for industry were formulated, which then submitted their concepts in an ideas competition in 1996. The senders were asked to conceptually represent the variants NGP-MBT and NGP-AFV. The requirements for the vehicles were:

• Mobility like Leopard 2A4, military load class (MLC) 60 (approx. 55 tons), rail loading dimensions
• Core crew as with combat helicopters 2 people, but with 2 people alternating crew .
• Details of the ballistic protection were not published, but apart from the front armor, this should have been similar to the Puma AFV. In Wegmann's patent drawing, the vehicle has front armor with a depth of around 1000-1300 mm. This is likely to have been similar for other participants, since the same protection requirements existed.
• In 1995, the companies KMW, EADS and Buck New Technologies began working on the softkill system ASSS (distance-effective softkill protection system) as part of the NGP program. The system, which did not have to be represented in the concepts, was later developed as a MUST for series production.
• Diehl started in 1997 with technology studies for a hard kill system. The concepts AFSS (against missiles) and AKESS (against balancing projectiles) finally led to the AWiSS system, with which hardware tests were carried out from 1999. The system should consist of two launchers, each with 4 projectiles, which fire defensive grenades at the threat. Although not required, Wegmann incorporated the system into his concepts.
• The NGP-KPz variant should be equipped with a weapon system of the type NPzK-140 with 30 rounds and an automatic loading device.
• The NGP-AFV variant should have a seating strength of 6 to 8 people, as well as an externally powered Rh 503 automatic cannon with 300 rounds.

The requirement to adapt the base vehicle to both the requirements of a battle tank and those of an armored personnel carrier proved to be particularly demanding. The rear exit for an armored personnel carrier was considered essential. At the same time, however, this requirement collided with the optimization of the functions of a main battle tank and the usual engine placement in the rear area. Ultimately, the concepts of Wegmann (now KMW ) and MaK (now Rheinmetall) crystallized, which are examined in more detail below. Henschel and KUKA practically only played outsider roles: The MaK System Gesellschaft had been 60% part of the Rheinmetall Group since 1990 , and Henschel's defense technology division was also taken over in 1999. Krauss-Maffei and Wegmann also merged in 1999, just two years after the ideas competition.

• The Wegmann & Co. platform had a motor that was moved to the right rear of the tub. As a result, the hull could be used equally for the main battle tank and armored personnel carrier variants. A 750 mm narrow aisle was available between the left drop side and the unit. The vehicle tub had a box-like appearance, with an only slightly inclined front and six castors on each side.

A very narrow tower was provided for the NGP-MBT variant, as the loading machine was housed in the tower cage. The cartridges with already connected additional propellant charges should be housed in an L-shaped belt magazine with 20 rounds in the tower cage. The upper end of the "L" is to the right of and at the level of the weapon system, where the bullets are removed upwards by a transfer piece. The transfer piece then moves with the ammunition into the turret rear and laterally behind the weapon barrel, where it is then attached. The transfer piece then moves to safety on the right of the return zone; after the shot has been taken, the cycle starts all over again. In the stern next to the engine there was also a vertical tape loader with 10 rounds, whose ammunition can be transferred to the L-shaped tape magazine when the turret is at 12 o'clock.

A larger turret with a rectangular floor plan was planned for the NGP-SPz variant, and a grenade machine gun was to find space in the rear of the turret . The engine in the rear of the tub resulted in a somewhat strange seating arrangement for the Panzergrenadiers. To save weight, the tub roof next to the engine on the exit side was inclined so that the roof and rear armor were identical. The passage would have been opened by folding it up.

• The MaK platform was based on the front-wheel drive test vehicle (VTF), which was tested in 1984. In the VTF, the engine was housed in the tub front, the two-man crew sat parallel behind it. In order to ensure adequate front protection in spite of the engine, the NGP concept from MaK used a steeply inclined tub front. The design of the tub front was similar to the later GTK Boxer ; the vehicle had six rollers on each side. The choice of a front engine allowed the optional installation of the mission module "battle tank" or "armored personnel carrier" in the rear of the vehicle.

For the NGP-MBT variant, an unmanned hump tower was provided with a turret roof sloping forward. The reason for this and the structure of the loading machine are unclear. However, in 1996 Rheinmetall submitted the patent DE19644524 “Gun turret for armored vehicles”, which explains the shape of the turret well. There are two vertical tape loaders to the left and right of the main weapon in the tower cage, which protrude into the tower almost up to the level of the weapon system. The belt loaders are warped so that the rear upper end protrudes over the tower rim, while the front upper part only extends to the tower rim, which can explain the tower design. In the rear of the tower there are two loading tubes that are connected to the tower via levers. The ammunition can be pulled backwards into the loading tube, which then swivels behind the weapon and attaches the ammunition. Then the loading mechanism swings to the side again to release the pipe return zone.

A turret of roughly the same size was provided for the NGP-SPz variant, which, in contrast to Wegmann's design, had no extra weapon. By choosing a front engine, it would have been easy to accommodate the tank grenadiers. If only 6 armored infantry can be reasonably accommodated in Wegmann's patent specification, the desired 8 armored infantry should have found space in the MaK design.

rating

Like the US Army's previous ASM program, the NGP project was canceled for political reasons. Both programs aimed to create a family of modern armored vehicles to simplify logistics and reduce maintenance costs. The aim of both programs was to give the armored personnel carrier the same level of protection as the main battle tank, since both vehicles are now exposed to the same threat situation. In order to improve the level of protection, both programs rely on unmanned towers or apex mounts and comparable passive armor protection on the hull front. The fundamental difference was that the US Army, with the Vehicle Integrated Defense System (VIDS), relied more on active protection, while the Bundeswehr was working on space-optimized concepts with a two-man crew.

The MUST and the idea of ​​an unmanned tower were adopted for the follow-up project SPz Puma . Due to the demand at the time for lighter, air-transportable vehicles (e.g. FCS ), MTU developed the 890 engine series, which is characterized by excessive downsizing and is referred to by the manufacturer as high-power-density engines. Unsurprisingly, it turned out in the Puma mobility test vehicles that an increase in displacement was necessary.

The weight restrictions on the Puma not only led to a significantly lower level of frontal protection, but also to the choice of an MK 30 as the main armament. The problem here is that, according to an investigation by the TNO, the 30 mm APFSDS ammunition is not able to penetrate the front of a BMP-3 with additional armor. Furthermore, to neutralize the optics of a T-80 with a 35 mm KETF, only half the amount of ammunition is required than if a 30 mm KETF is fired. Since the 35 mm ammunition also works better against Mi-24 and infantry, the Dutch Army decided on 35 mm armament for the CV9035NL . The second problem when choosing the MK 30 is the fact that, unlike the Rh 503, it is a gas pressure charger. Misfiring must be removed by automatic, external loading, since the tower is unmanned. Due to the external drive of the Rh 503, misfires would simply have been ejected when firing.

Another difference between the SPz Puma and the NGP vehicles is the decoupled hydropneumatic support roller drive, which was derived from the Experimental Trough Total Protection (EGS). The entire chassis is only connected to the vehicle pan via rubber elements, which reduces the structure-borne noise level in the vehicle. The disadvantage, however, is the large amount of space required by the drive carriers. Since the vehicle cannot be made as wide as desired (rail loading dimension), the tub must be made narrower. Although the CV9035NL is narrower (3.1 by 3.4 m) and shorter (6.5 by 7.6 m) and has a full-fledged turret cage in the hull, 8 tank grenadiers can sit in the vehicle, while the Puma can only hold 6 . Other countries therefore only installed decoupled drives in prototypes (e.g. SEP ), in series production it is and was not used (e.g. CV90 , FCS , GCV , FRES ).

literature

• Friends of the officers of the armored forces: 50 years of armored forces of the Bundeswehr 1956–2006 . Verlag Schneider, ISBN 3-935107-05-6
• Förderkreis Deutsches Heer eV : Defense technical report: Puma infantry fighting vehicle . Report publisher
• Rolf Hilmes: Main battle tanks today and tomorrow: Concepts - Systems - Technologies . Motorbuchverlag, edition: 1 (December 6, 2007), ISBN 978-3-613-02793-0

Web links

• Modern German Tank Development, 1956-2000 (PDF; 1.2 MB)

Individual evidence

1. ↑ ^{a b} patent sketch Wegmann
2. ↑ Wegmann patent with loading machine
3. ↑ Gun turret for armored vehicles, DE19644524 (PDF; 481 kB)
4. ↑ TNO: RNLA IFV Firepower / 30 mm versus 35 mm / 35 mm KETF Firing doctrine , 2005 ( Memento from August 24, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 1.7 MB)