25 Mar, 07:56AM in sunny Singapore!

Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks

Subscribe to Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks 85 posts

Please Login or Signup to reply.
  • spencer99's Avatar
    1,982 posts since Jan '03
    • Hi,

      We already know that we are getting 66x Leo2A4.

      This is definitely not enough to replace the 350 (Jane's) SM1s in our Orbat.

      Do you think we are currently looking for a replacement? Or are we going to just forgo it?

      What do you guys think?

      I will start the "ball" rolling.

      Maybe the order is just a preliminary one and there might be additional order for Leo2 MBTs in the future. The german army must have hundreds of Leo2s back in the cold war days...

      Maybe we could replace it with another 150 Leo2 MBTs to have a total of 200 MBTs. This still less then the 350 SM1s for a 1 for 1 replacement.

      However, with the BXs 30mm gun and the 40mm AGL, i think the need for a "light" tank has been reduced.

  • Texcoco II's Avatar
    3,015 posts since Oct '05
  • spencer99's Avatar
    1,982 posts since Jan '03
  • lem0nade's Avatar
    157 posts since Nov '02
    • Do we really need so many MBTs? Like you had said, SM1s are just light tanks, so I dun see the logic of having a 1 for 1 replacement. With the NS liability reduced to just 2 years or less, do we have enough time to fully train up the new tankees? Gg for technicians… hauling up V12 engines! Or are they gonna leave the jobs to STK?

      Edited by lem0nade 12 Dec `06, 12:02PM
  • LazerLordz's Avatar
    35,169 posts since Apr '03
    • Originally posted by lem0nade:
      Do we really need so many MBTs? Like you had said, SM1s are just light tanks, so I dun see the logic of having 1 to 1 exchange. With the NS liability reduced to just 2 years or less, do we have enough time to fully train up the new tankees? Gg for technicians... hauling up V12 engines! Or are they gonna leave the jobs to STK?

      I believe that we might just decide to replace the SM1s with up-armored BX with a SAMSON turret (2x SPIKE launchers with a 30mm Bushmaster) .

  • dork3d's Avatar
    4,740 posts since Feb '06
    • In my opinion, SAF can maintain a hybrid of tanks in our Orbat for multi-ops purposes...

      Our new Leopard 2 A4s MBTs can be complemented with our existing AMX-13 SM1s as armoured escorts to the MBTs and our Primus SPH1s...

      Also our Bionix 2s and Broncos with SLAMs and APCs with OWSs and Bionix 1s can be armoured escorts for infantry and recons... At the sametime, provide fire support for our SM1s, Leopards and Primus against ground troop assaults...

  • gary1910's Avatar
    1,316 posts since Jun '03
    • Originally posted by LazerLordz:
      I believe that we might just decide to replace the SM1s with up-armored BX with a SAMSON turret (2x SPIKE launchers with a 30mm Bushmaster) .

      It's like BX III, not a LT. Crying or Very sad

      I think they should at least consider 105 gun on the BX like in the Stryker, for fire support like bunker busting , it is still good to have a big gun for our mechanised force!!!!

      Edited by gary1910 12 Dec `06, 12:54PM
  • fallin's Avatar
    887 posts since Oct '04
    • I’d say its morely likely that a new light tank will be locally developed. From designing a IFV to designing a light tank, I wouldn’t say that the leap is VERY big. I think it’ll be good for the industry if we could do that. Hopefully the Germans would able to give us a hand as an “after-sale service”.

  • LazerLordz's Avatar
    35,169 posts since Apr '03
    • Think a Terrex with a smoothbore 105mm gun, possibly a Rheinmetall collaboration with STK?
      Laughing

  • equlus84's Avatar
    434 posts since Nov '05
    • Folks, let me side-track abit, since we are talking abt light tanks, and that I heard there was a wide dissatisfaction to the AMX-10P version of the Light tank. This Light tank from Sweden may be a good alternative for amphibious operations. 3m width and only weighing 16.3 tons with 330hp engine and 90mm main gun>>>>>>IKV91

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikv_91

  • Pitot's Avatar
    43,431 posts since Aug '05
    • The swedish have design a number to tanks to meet their needs in the forests of their land..

      However, they are now back to the MBT. Operating the leopard 2A4 and 2(S) version...

      They are using the CV90 IFV with a 40mm bofors cannon..

      Different countries opted different cannons to be mounted like bushmasters 35/50 etc etc..

      It has an interesting version with a 105 mm smoothbore tank turret/gun.

  • LazerLordz's Avatar
    35,169 posts since Apr '03
    • Originally posted by equlus84:
      Folks, let me side-track abit, since we are talking abt light tanks, and that I heard there was a wide dissatisfaction to the AMX-10P version of the Light tank. This Light tank from Sweden may be a good alternative for amphibious operations. 3m width and only weighing 16.3 tons with 330hp engine and 90mm main gun>>>>>>IKV91

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikv_91

      This is probably too old. There is another one, the Swedish CV90 105 variant. Using a GIAT 105mm smoothbore gun, mated to the CV90 body.

      image

      Now, there's an interesting comment made by TACIII in Strategypage, which although is not the best authority around, does make for an interesting read.

      "The CV90 can keep up with the Leo 2A5 as they go offroad and is intended for a higher intensity of conflict. They are more expensive, though.

      The Piranha IIIC and -H are excellent for peacekeeping or patrolling as they are fast on roads and some offroad terrain, they're cheap, upkeep is less than an IFV, less maintenace etc. So a good vehicle for Iraq or Kosovo. The Swedes use the CV90 for peacekeeping in places like Africa where the road network sucks.
      "

      http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/44-805.aspx

      --

      Furthermore, this guy posted here that the Swiss Army had some problems with their Leos due to the winding roads in the Swiss countryside. And that the CV90-105/120 might make a better complementary option.

      The dimensions of the CV series are not much bigger than our BX, and I think it would be quite realistic to attempt to mate a 105mm gun to the stretched BX version that took part in the US Army's interim brigade combat vehicle tender, which the Stryker won.

      We do have a lot of GIAT LG1s lying around..they're 105mms.

      Edited by LazerLordz 12 Dec `06, 1:33PM
  • Pitot's Avatar
    43,431 posts since Aug '05
    • Originally posted by LazerLordz:
      This is probably too old. There is another one, the Swedish CV90 105 variant. Using a GIAT 105mm smoothbore gun, mated to the CV90 body.

      Now, there's an interesting comment made by TACIII in Strategypage, which although is not the best authority around, does make for an interesting read.

      "The CV90 can keep up with the Leo 2A5 as they go offroad and is intended for a higher intensity of conflict. They are more expensive, though.

      The Piranha IIIC and -H are excellent for peacekeeping or patrolling as they are fast on roads and some offroad terrain, they're cheap, upkeep is less than an IFV, less maintenace etc. So a good vehicle for Iraq or Kosovo. The Swedes use the CV90 for peacekeeping in places like Africa where the road network sucks.
      "

      http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/44-805.aspx

      --

      Furthermore, this guy posted here that the Swiss Army had some problems with their Leos due to the winding roads in the Swiss countryside. And that the CV90-105/120 might make a better complementary option.

      The dimensions of the CV series are not much bigger than our BX, and I think it would be quite realistic to attempt to mate a 105mm gun to the stretched BX version that took part in the US Army's interim brigade combat vehicle tender, which the Stryker won.

      We do have a lot of GIAT LG1s lying around..they're 105mms.

      Like wad i said...

      Interesting to note, besides the 105mm gun.

      THere is another version with a tank turret and a 120mm gun.

  • LazerLordz's Avatar
    35,169 posts since Apr '03
    • Originally posted by Pitot:
      Like wad i said...

      Interesting to note, besides the 105mm gun.

      THere is another version with a tank turret and a 120mm gun.

      We had problems integrating a 120mm gun on the previous test platform. A 105mm should do the trick.

  • Pitot's Avatar
    43,431 posts since Aug '05
    • Originally posted by LazerLordz:
      We had problems integrating a 120mm gun on the previous test platform. A 105mm should do the trick.

      haha. i was refering to the CV-90.

      They have a 120mm gun with a tank turret version.

  • LazerLordz's Avatar
    35,169 posts since Apr '03
    • Originally posted by Pitot:
      haha. i was refering to the CV-90.

      They have a 120mm gun with a tank turret version.

      Oh yeah. Thought you were mentioning a BX with 120. Twisted Evil

  • Pitot's Avatar
    43,431 posts since Aug '05
    • Since we are already sharing technologies on a number of stuff with the swedes.. there is no telling if we can get abit on the light tank.. Laughing

      Swedish ladies are beauties.
      Laughing

  • ^Delta^'s Avatar
    335 posts since Mar '06
    • Originally posted by lem0nade:
      Do we really need so many MBTs? Like you had said, SM1s are just light tanks, so I dun see the logic of having a 1 for 1 replacement. With the NS liability reduced to just 2 years or less, do we have enough time to fully train up the new tankees? Gg for technicians... hauling up V12 engines! Or are they gonna leave the jobs to STK?

      The issue of whether to have one for one replacement has been widely debated.

      The key of having sufficient critical numbers as being very important too. Think of it, an advanced tank can do so much more but still it cannot be involved in operations in 2 places at once. There has to be sufficient numbers to allow for fighting in several locations. And our neighbours are also improving their technological aspect too, cutting too much on numbers will negate even the edge of advanced technology.

      I share the view that many ppl here have that the Leopard 2 is more of a replacement for the Centurion than the AMX-13. The new light/medium tank project is still alive and well, but don't expect to see it in service before 2010. Hence the need for a stopgap in the form of the Leopard 2. However, effectively upgraded these Leopard 2s would see continued service alongside whatever new tank/combat vehicle that STK comes up with and the existing fleet of other AFVs. The Centurions would be scrapped soon though; its days are numbered.

  • acwire_2125's Avatar
    836 posts since Apr '06
    • Singapore has never officially claim that we have Centurions, so offcially, we are buying the Leopards as an addition to our tanks right?

  • LRRP's Avatar
    316 posts since Mar '04
    • i was hoping it would be Merkava. Nonetheless Leopard aint a bad choice.

      But i think they would still need a light tank. The Stryker perhaps?

  • fudgester's Avatar
    25,382 posts since Jan '04
    • Originally posted by LRRP:
      i was hoping it would be Merkava. Nonetheless Leopard aint a bad choice.

      But i think they would still need a light tank. The Stryker perhaps?

      Isn't the Stryker an IFV?

      I would object to using the Stryker with an MGS installed (Mobile Gun System). Lotsa complaints regarding it.

      How would putting an MGS on a Bionix fare instead?

  • SingaporeTyrannosaur's Avatar
    6,889 posts since Jan '03
    • Originally posted by fudgester:
      Isn't the Stryker an IFV?

      I would object to using the Stryker with an MGS installed (Mobile Gun System). Lotsa complaints regarding it.

      How would putting an MGS on a Bionix fare instead?

      I think they have been fiddling around with it. No news so far though... but it would make it more a hybrid IFV/FSV, you might get a tradeoff in some ways.

  • chillycraps's Avatar
    87 posts since Aug '06
    • Originally posted by LRRP:
      i was hoping it would be Merkava. Nonetheless Leopard aint a bad choice.

      But i think they would still need a light tank. The Stryker perhaps?

      the israelis has sold everything from radar to missile to uav, but the merkava is one thing they haven't put in their export list.

      Think they won't sell it anyway.

  • tankee1981's Avatar
    2,906 posts since Sep '02
    • Originally posted by chillycraps:
      the israelis has sold everything from radar to missile to uav, but the merkava is one thing they haven't put in their export list.

      Think they won't sell it anyway.

      That may not be the case. Cool

    • Originally posted by Big Banana
      the boss upstairs dont wanna talk about the LTs... though my friend in armor said his units has started to recieve the new LTs since last year!

      The above is a post by a Singaporean forumer from Asia & Pacific Defence Forum and title of the thread is 'Singapore/tanks?'

      http://www.network54.com/Forum/242808/thread/1165908848/last-1165923911/Singapore-tanks-

      We know that the SAF will test their weapon systems in operational units ( such as BX & BXII in 42SAR) to confirm that they are good then they will release the news. So what he claimed is logical. Any one else can verify this? Very Happy

Please Login or Signup to reply.