MIlitary in the Region
-
hahahaOriginally posted by Joe Black:Not really, you want to hang the Spike launchers at the side of the 25mm turret. It will not cause the profile to be raised. If you look the pictures of the latest gen LAV25, they also now carry TOW launchers at the side of the turret, one missile on each side. The guidance sight has to be on top though, it would have to be somewhat like the gunner's sight. The control joystick and firing trigger will be embedded inside the turret, somewhere the VC can easily reach while aiming the "crosshair" at the target.
then the BX will look like the M113 liao
like rolling box like tt.
Have u seen the platform used for the 155 gun?
REALLY like square box on wheels!
seems like the SAF likes square vehicles alot huh? -
its hip to be square
-
Where did you get this info about the LAV25 has stability problem from? So far I have not read any similar comment about the new LAV25. In fact New Zealand just bought 100 over of them and US Army has also has ordered a whole family of these vehicles.Originally posted by Shotgun:Latest gen of LAV25 also weighs the same as an M113, but severely lacks stability and balance. The damned thing tips over almost too easily.
BTW, having Spikes integrated beside the BX turret will not look that bad, furthermore, it gives all SAF Bionix IFVs an anti-armour capability. -
i'd agree with that. but how we gonna raise that suggestion? through the straits times forum? i dont think so rite..Originally posted by Joe Black:BTW, having Spikes integrated beside the BX turret will not look that bad, furthermore, it gives all SAF Bionix IFVs an anti-armour capability.
i guess it doesnt make sense for the bionix to be purely infantry fighting. esp with so many of them. and the rising armour threat. So many IFVs have been fitted with missles like the TOW or HOT. why not the bionix?
but is the chassis up to it? i've had the impression its just a moving bunch of armour plates. like it cant ford water. is there a tonnage requirement to fit certain weapons? the M551 sheridan had a huge cannon for its small size. was said to have lifted 2 feet off the ground everytime it fired its gun.
is the bionix strong enough? -
Not suggesting Bionix fire Spike from its gun barrel (quite impossible too). ST Engg just have to integrate a launcher unit to the each side of the turret, drill a hole for the wires to be pass into the turret connecting to some trigger. Have a Spike sight sitting just at the the front periscope of the VC.Originally posted by recoil:i'd agree with that. but how we gonna raise that suggestion? through the straits times forum? i dont think so rite..
i guess it doesnt make sense for the bionix to be purely infantry fighting. esp with so many of them. and the rising armour threat. So many IFVs have been fitted with missles like the TOW or HOT. why not the bionix?
but is the chassis up to it? i've had the impression its just a moving bunch of armour plates. like it cant ford water. is there a tonnage requirement to fit certain weapons? the M551 sheridan had a huge cannon for its small size. was said to have lifted 2 feet off the ground everytime it fired its gun.
is the bionix strong enough?
You asked "is the bionix strong enough?" if the Bionix can be lifted 2 feet of the ground everytime it fires a Spike, then the human operator has to have parachutes on their back so that they can survive after firing one and flying up 1000 feet high
[This message has been edited by Joe Black (edited 15 May 2002).] -
About the LAV-25, the experience was related by the Australian Military in East Timor. Even the USMC had encountered problems where the vehicle actually toppled. In anycase, the LAV's armor is seriously inadequate, (30mm steel. An 5.56 rounds can plow holes in that thing under 30 meters.) The LAVs have so far got stuck in Mud, washed off slippery roads and turned turtle, stuck in loose sand, and past experience has proven LAVs to be sitting ducks.
http://www.geocities.com/lavdanger/
This website tells a lot of unseen facts about the LAV. There is a reason why the US Army didn't follow General Shinseki's idea to scrap all heavy armor in favor of "LAVs" -
Anyone knew about the 120mm SRAMS or the AV81 design and manufacture by ST?
-
The AV81 looks more impressive than other vehicles of its class (4x4). It sure does look more stable than the LAV too! Other than that, wheels can be punctured, and like its family of vehicles, Limited to roads. Of course, I doubt SAF would use the vehicle on its own as an independent element..... I wonder how much armor that thing has.
-
Info about AV81 Terrex: http://defence-data.com/dsei/pageds1044.htm http://www.stengg.com/land/la_automotivegrp.html#WheeledOriginally posted by Eyezer:Anyone knew about the 120mm SRAMS or the AV81 design and manufacture by ST?
Info about ST Kinetics' 120mm SRAMS http://www.stengg.com/land/la_weaponsgrp.html#LargeCal
http://dsei.janes.com/show_daily/news13Sep2001_001526.shtml
http://defence-data.com/dsei/pageds1019.htm -
Thanks, Joe Black, for the useful info.Originally posted by Joe Black:Info about AV81 Terrex: http://defence-data.com/dsei/pageds1044.htm http://www.stengg.com/land/la_automotivegrp.html#Wheeled
Info about ST Kinetics' 120mm SRAMS http://www.stengg.com/land/la_weaponsgrp.html#LargeCal
http://dsei.janes.com/show_daily/news13Sep2001_001526.shtml
http://defence-data.com/dsei/pageds1019.htm
I came across them in the dsei journals and thought there would be some updated info concerning any modifcation. Reading the information from STEng, realises that most of the weapons are made for mobility and flexibility to be fixed on any chasis, does that have a close relation to the SAF battle doctrine?
Although the number of weapons and amunitions are pretty impressive, but it seems that ST does not have the export success as expected when they first set up the company. Wonder why though, could it have something to do with the type of weaponary that is pretty much similar to what's in the market? (Seriously the AV81 looks something like the Pirahna or the LAVs) I wouldn't deny that ideas are copied from these sources, and as usual, the advantages of the top few LAVs combined in one, that's how it usually works for local engineering anyway.
Would anyone foresee the STEng be half as successful as the IAI or other similar industries? In terms of marketing success and operational equipments that are being used in the armed forces. -
Originally posted by Eyezer:
Yap. you've got it. ST Engg's primary role is to design weapons and vehicles that fulfil SAF's needs. Selling overseas are secondary. However, there are quite a bit of success, some publicly known, some not so public
Reading the information from STEng, realises that most of the weapons are made for mobility and flexibility to be fixed on any chasis, does that have a close relation to the SAF battle doctrine?
ST Engg copies alot of idea.... not a lot of products are designed and produced from scratch. That is why the sales hasn't be spectacular. Secondly, there is something about marketing that ST is not doing right too...
Although the number of weapons and amunitions are pretty impressive, but it seems that ST does not have the export success as expected when they first set up the company. Wonder why though, could it have something to do with the type of weaponary that is pretty much similar to what's in the market? (Seriously the AV81 looks something like the Pirahna or the LAVs) I wouldn't deny that ideas are copied from these sources, and as usual, the advantages of the top few LAVs combined in one, that's how it usually works for local engineering anyway.
There are a few success such as:
1. FH88 to Indonesia ABRI
2. Ultimax 100 to US Navy Seals, Croatia army, and possibly some Arabs and SE Asia countries.
3. Patrol boats to Brunei
etc -
Oh, the ultimax did make it to the SEALs? That's quite a surprise cos i thought they were commenting that the calibre is too small and also the weapon not as rigid for their purposes.
So in a way, the STEng is a defence manufacturing and R&D arm of the Mindef?
Are anyone aware of the Ku-Band and Ka-Band wave that is around? I would like to know more about that. Basically, what i understand is just that they are mainly for data transferring and stuff. Are they used just only on SATs and ELINT/SIGINT/COMINT? Or are there by any chance to be employed on the UAVs as well? -
It seems like Malaysia has already made a decision to buy at least 12 F-18Fs instead of SU-30MKMs, and will announce the deal soon.
-
oh yeah....and looks like their defence announced that they will buy all related weaponaries that are available for use by the F/A-18E.
For once, RMAF is going to be a force to be reckoned with. -
They've also signed a $1 bil deal for 2 French Scorpenes, with another training sub to be included. Hmmm, I'd rather they go for the SU-30MKM. At least, that plane's avionics wont be so damned good. The F-18Fs, while being lousy performance wise, does feature the best avionics...
-
RSAF still outnumbers them in almost every area: fighters, transport and helicopters.
Not that scary if u think about it... 18+12 F18 vs. 70+ F16... well... and buying planes don't win wars. Still gotta use 'em properly... RMAF have never been known to keep with with their maintenance and their logistic requirements (remember the MiGs?).
Not really intending to belittle them here... Its expected that they would smarten up sooner or later and buy stuff they need instead of stuff that looks good. The F18 is a good choice 'cos it saves them the trouble of maintaining another supply chain if they'd bought the SU30... Guess they've thought it through properly this time round.
But seriously... Its gonna take more than a few smart decisions to create "a force to be reckoned with". What they've done this time round is merely make up slightly for the years of neglect their armed forces have been faced with.
There hasn't been a high profile purchase since the Migs years ago. They do have certain security concerns... such as the Spratly Islands tussle which potentially pitches them against Vietnam and *gasp* China =P (they sure got some nerve...) -
anybody out there knows how do RMAF pilots fare as compared with our pilots ?
I read somewhere in those defence journals that they have chinese combat pilots.
Sure, in terms of nos and quality we are far ahead of them but they are slowly catching up and very soon I believed they will be a formidable foe. -
anybody out there knows how do RMAF pilots fare as compared with our pilots ?
I read somewhere in those defence journals that they have chinese combat pilots.
Sure, in terms of nos and quality we are far ahead of them but they are slowly catching up and very soon I believed they will be a formidable foe. -
In the long run, assuming that they are consistent in their approach, yes, they will finally be able to use their armed forces to strengthen their diplomatic position.Originally posted by hunter:Sure, in terms of nos and quality we are far ahead of them but they are slowly catching up and very soon I believed they will be a formidable foe.
"Very soon" is an alarmist exaggeration. How soon is soon? 5 yrs? 10? Near impossible. They'll face fiscal insolvency if they build up their capabilities THAT quickly... Anything over 10 is not very soon to me.
Also, assuming that the MAF is upgrading its weapons to counter SAF forward defence capabilities, it should be considered also that the SAF is moving along as well... nobody is playing the hare in a race with the turtle.
Thailand on the other hand, does seem rather quiet of late... Aircraft carrier's still in dry dock and no flashy arms purchases... anyone read anything? Economic downturn must've hit them really hard. -
The Thais have been peace-lovin people so far... I guess thats why they aren't really interested in buying any new equip.
-
Good question. Its hard for me to be objective here but I'll try.Originally posted by hunter:anybody out there knows how do RMAF pilots fare as compared with our pilots ?
I've corresponded with aviation enthusiasts all over the world, some of them work in their respective air forces, though not necessarily as pilots. They've either had first hand experience, or heard from colleagues with first hand experience of "tangling" with RSAF pilots at exercises like Red flag, Maple Flag, Churinga etc. The consensus I hear is that the RSAF guys are a solid, professional bunch who know what they're doing and good at their job. I don't have specifics and I don't know if they're just being courteous knowing I'm from Singapore, but I'd like to think they're being truthful!
I don't know much about Malaysian pilots, but heres a quote on another forum:
==========
As one australian fighter pilot i have met said "If you shot down a malay in mock combat he wasn't there and never got shot down. If a singaporean got shot down they want to know how they got shot down so they could get better. thats a sign of an air force that beleives they will go to war and really want to win!" -
i dont recall our airforce having that many F16s. i dont think we do. its pretty impossible. we have more A4s than F5s and more F5s than F16s. our A4s number about 64. go figure.Originally posted by CX:RSAF still outnumbers them in almost every area: fighters, transport and helicopters.
Not that scary if u think about it... 18+12 F18 vs. 70+ F16... well... and buying planes don't win wars. Still gotta use 'em properly... RMAF have never been known to keep with with their maintenance and their logistic requirements (remember the MiGs?).
Not really intending to belittle them here... Its expected that they would smarten up sooner or later and buy stuff they need instead of stuff that looks good. The F18 is a good choice 'cos it saves them the trouble of maintaining another supply chain if they'd bought the SU30... Guess they've thought it through properly this time round.
but i guess if we bomb out their airfields with our 64 A4s first then we dont have to worry about their planes at all. =P -
8 A-16A/Bs in 1987Originally posted by recoil:i dont recall our airforce having that many F16s. i dont think we do. its pretty impossible. we have more A4s than F5s and more F5s than F16s. our A4s number about 64. go figure.
but i guess if we bomb out their airfields with our 64 A4s first then we dont have to worry about their planes at all. =P
18 F-16C/D in 1994
12 F-16C/D in 1996
12 F-16C/D in 1997
20 F-16C/D in 2000(not delivered)
Total = 70 - 2 written off; 1 F-16A in 1989, 1 F-16C in 2002.
Now 68
Where did you get your number of 64 A-4s from? Just curious -
wait. dont we have 12 F16s in the US? they crashed 1. pity.Originally posted by Viper52:8 A-16A/Bs in 1987
18 F-16C/D in 1994
12 F-16C/D in 1996
12 F-16C/D in 1997
20 F-16C/D in 2000(not delivered)
Total = 70 - 2 written off; 1 F-16A in 1989, 1 F-16C in 2002.
Now 68
Where did you get your number of 64 A-4s from? Just curious
i was referring to F16s based in singapore. wasnt clear just now. =P so its still way less than 70. =P
im still wondering what in the world our A4s are going to be replaced with. and our f16A/Bs. rafale?
the A4s? i cant remember. either from a book or a website. or both. -
I thought I read somewhere we got tons of A4 hulls, all second hand bought from Israel, Jordan and ex-US-navy mothballs counting at least 130 or more. So won't be surpise we have at least a 100 of them still in service. For F5E, besides the first few batches bought new from Northrop, also bought some 2nd hand Jordan and receive a quite a couple of them Taiwan. Also heard we got so much F-5E spare parts (kiasu syndrome) that the RSAF assemble 5 RF-5Es just from these parts alone.