SAF's future MBT operations
-
Now that our neighbour's up north have the PT-91, what tank do you think Singapore will acquire next to replace our ageing population of Tempests?
-
we are not aquiring...
we are going to make out own mbt....but the turrent will be bought
-
I don't think we will be building new MBTs -- light tanks maybe, but not MBTs.
I am not very convinced that MBTs are that useful in warfare in our region. Unless you have a lot of Engineer support, they are easy to render ineffective in the restricted terrain of the region, making them cumbersome on the offense. They are therefore defensive weapons, and our doctrine is based on offense as a means of defense.
It seems to me as if the latest round of Malaysian weapons acquisitions were defensive in nature and specifically designed to counter advantages that we have. MBTs to counter our huge armor forces. MLRS for counterbattery missions on our tremendous artillery forces. Submarines to take advantage of our weakness in ASW. Air superiority fighters and ADA to counter the best air-strike capability in SEA.
Their recent moves to introduce NS also seems a defensive move. Officially, they have said that while their NS will have a military component, they will not be trained into full frontline soldiers. Instead, all Malaysian males will be given some weapons training to turn them into light infantrymen or militiamen. This is one of the best ways to stop a preemptive Singaporean attack. The foe that we are worst equipped to fight is the guerilla fighter. Having to fight huge numbers of highly motivated soldiers that are scattered throughout the population without presenting masses we can strike at with our technology would make any Singaporean military moves extremely costly. This is asymmetric warfare.
The irony of this is that their defensive move is an offensive move to us. Because of our situation, we must attack to defend. If they stop us from attacking, they also prevent us from defending ourselves. Therefore this is an offensive gesture. Oh bitter irony
If this goes through, we will need some means of fighting guerillas effectively with our limited resources. MBTs are not it. Maybe massed ICM, thermobaric (FAE) and incendiary (napalm) bombardment can clear jungles and flush out guerillas in preparation for a maneuver, but it would buy us no friends. Thermobarics are not called "poor man's nukes" for nothing. It would leave a smoldering wasteland of any part of Malaysia we choose to suppress as a part of a defensive preemptive attack. I can't think of anything better to deal with potentially millions of Malaysian infantry or guerillas. -
dont be an alarmist... million of guerillas dont come cheap... they need lots of money to train... arm, supplied and stay in combat conditions.... and once your forces reach a certain size within a area... you effectively cease to become guerilla unit per se...Originally posted by dkhoo:I don't think we will be building new MBTs -- light tanks maybe, but not MBTs.
I am not very convinced that MBTs are that useful in warfare in our region. Unless you have a lot of Engineer support, they are easy to render ineffective in the restricted terrain of the region, making them cumbersome on the offense. They are therefore defensive weapons, and our doctrine is based on offense as a means of defense.
It seems to me as if the latest round of Malaysian weapons acquisitions were defensive in nature and specifically designed to counter advantages that we have. MBTs to counter our huge armor forces. MLRS for counterbattery missions on our tremendous artillery forces. Submarines to take advantage of our weakness in ASW. Air superiority fighters and ADA to counter the best air-strike capability in SEA.
Their recent moves to introduce NS also seems a defensive move. Officially, they have said that while their NS will have a military component, they will not be trained into full frontline soldiers. Instead, all Malaysian males will be given some weapons training to turn them into light infantrymen or militiamen. This is one of the best ways to stop a preemptive Singaporean attack. The foe that we are worst equipped to fight is the guerilla fighter. Having to fight huge numbers of highly motivated soldiers that are scattered throughout the population without presenting masses we can strike at with our technology would make any Singaporean military moves extremely costly. This is asymmetric warfare.
The irony of this is that their defensive move is an offensive move to us. Because of our situation, we must attack to defend. If they stop us from attacking, they also prevent us from defending ourselves. Therefore this is an offensive gesture. Oh bitter irony
If this goes through, we will need some means of fighting guerillas effectively with our limited resources. MBTs are not it. Maybe massed ICM, thermobaric (FAE) and incendiary (napalm) bombardment can clear jungles and flush out guerillas in preparation for a maneuver, but it would buy us no friends. Thermobarics are not called "poor man's nukes" for nothing. It would leave a smoldering wasteland of any part of Malaysia we choose to suppress as a part of a defensive preemptive attack. I can't think of anything better to deal with potentially millions of Malaysian infantry or guerillas.
Motivated??... yes.... SAF will motivate malaysian NSmen to fight for their family under SAF control... in fact... we might simply conscript them into our frontline forces!!
The NS policies of malaysia is nothing compare to the creativity of the human mind.... stupid pigs... will always be stupid pigs.... muahahaaaa.......
-
I'm not worried of them as a fighting force. But like you said, they will recieve weapons training. If somethings don't well across the border, Singaporeans will be at risk travelling into Malaysia. I'm mean, firearms are quite "available" there to buyers. Eg. The number of assault rifles that go missing.... ahem. Its different from people not TRAINed to use them, people trained to use them will hit more accurately and at critical components. There IS danger from all this.
-
Even a trained MAF soldier can fool around with his weapon and shoot his own mate by accident.
What better way to get rid of more of themselves, by letting half trained "soldiers" run around with weapons to shoot at each other.
Don't worry too much, at least the Chinese and Indian Malaysians will have weapons to defend themselves, when they are forced by the MALAYsians to be half-trained "cannon fodders" against the superior strength and trainiing of the SAF.
These guys may actually put the weapons to good use against the MALAYsian MAF troopers who have been bullying the non-MALAYsian non-BUMI citizens.
They may end up being the 5th column working in our favor. -
Originally posted by dkhoo:
There is a significant change to singapore armour concept i agree to what you said MBTs are quite inpractical basing on singapore island terrain.That is why the apache was introduced into our inventories.Saf requirement for 105 mm rather than 120mm main gun.120mm could effectively punch a serious hole into the thick armour of a MBT,105mm couldnt really cause that amount of damage done by the 120mm
[b]I don't think we will be building new MBTs -- light tanks maybe, but not MBTs.
I am not very convinced that MBTs are that useful in warfare in our region. Unless you have a lot of Engineer support, they are easy to render ineffective in the restricted terrain of the region, making them cumbersome on the offense. They are therefore defensive weapons, and our doctrine is based on offense as a means of defense.
It seems to me as if the latest round of Malaysian weapons acquisitions were defensive in nature and specifically designed to counter advantages that we have. MBTs to counter our huge armor forces. MLRS for counterbattery missions on our tremendous artillery forces. Submarines to take advantage of our weakness in ASW. Air superiority fighters and ADA to counter the best air-strike capability in SEA.b]
but considering the fact what it can do the advancing enemy IFV.
The killing heavily armour MBT lay on the attack heli and anti-tank armed infantry units (correct me if i m wrong)
appreciated -
light tank with a heavy gun turret i hope... would need it to be effective against modern armour.Originally posted by dkhoo:I don't think we will be building new MBTs -- light tanks maybe, but not MBTs.
but that opens up a whole new can of worms... big gun recoil might damage fire control system if the tank is not heavy enough to stabilise it. happened with the sheridan.
would have to be properly armoured too. its the eternal tradeoff between size, weight, speed and armour... u can't have it all.
hope STK makes a good one... -
Something likr the CV90?
It started out as an IFV also but ended up a light tank with a 120mm gun -
The Terrex AV81 will be an ideal platform to develop a wheeled type MBT, similar to GIAT built AMX wheeled series of MBT.
See the following site:
http://www.stengg.com/land/downloads/tech%20spec_terrex_av81.htm -
What the hell, Typhoon? Oei! how come my brother is on this board!!!!!!!!!??????
Why don't we just get a Bionx and slap on an anti-tank gun or missiles? -
Something like this can be mounted either on a BIONIX or onto the TERREX AV81:Originally posted by Mark Lee:What the hell, Typhoon? Oei! how come my brother is on this board!!!!!!!!!??????
Why don't we just get a Bionx and slap on an anti-tank gun or missiles?
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/armoured/mowag/mowag1.html
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/armoured/mowag/index.html -
what the hell do u think we're talking about??? DuH...Originally posted by Mark Lee:Why don't we just get a Bionx and slap on an anti-tank gun or missiles?
problem is which gun and how big!
missiles, we've already talked about in other posts. not viable as a primary weapon. expensive. limited numbers carried etc, etc... -
If we are to use existing chassis of a BIONIX or the TERREX AV81, it looks like the GIAT Type of Turret with a 105mm main gun is the optimal solution.
Otherwise a completely new prime mover unit will have to be R + D to carry the bigger 120mm main gun.
Click:
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/turrets/giat/giat3.html
Place your cursor indicator on the photo for more information of the subject matter. -
As we have, in so many posts in this forum, noted that SAF requirement is based on a 105mm gun light tank to replace the SM1. It has been reported by Janes that ST Kinetics are designing and developing one (probably based on the Bionix chassis).Originally posted by CX:what the hell do u think we're talking about??? DuH...
problem is which gun and how big!
missiles, we've already talked about in other posts. not viable as a primary weapon. expensive. limited numbers carried etc, etc...
My personal opinion (more like guesses) is that the 105mm gun would probably be a low-recoil gun (probably from Rheinmetall or a modified version of the L7A3) that can fire curren NATO 105mm rounds including the APFSDS rounds. The new light tank will probably be a 3-man crew, incorporating some sort of auto-loader system, advanced fire-control computers including thermal sights, 2-axis stablisation for the gun and the sight. My personal wish is also that the commander is given an independent sight (panaromic) or CCITV that allows a hunter-killer mode to be added.
I also think that SAF should evaluate the CV90-120T for the suitability. This particular armoured vehicle (hybrid tank) was actually being eval in Malaysia. I haven't seen any report about the test results and don't know how suitable it is for the local environment). Furthermore, the trial was done in the late 90s. It will be a real good option to replace the Centurions earmarked for the 32 Div.
Some really interesting articles about the CV90-120T:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/data/communiques/archives/2002Apr/data/2002Apr9793/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/index.html#cv9010
Furthermore, I would also like to see a variant of Bionix armed with the AMOS turret. -
I usually are less incline to choose the French version of the TK-105 turret because the French 105mm rifled gun does not fire the NATO standard 105mm rounds. The French have their own 105mm rounds. Secondly, their 105mm gun on the AMX-10RC are not fully stabalised and thus the whole vehicle needs to come to a complete stop before can fire.Originally posted by Atobe:If we are to use existing chassis of a BIONIX or the TERREX AV81, it looks like the GIAT Type of Turret with a 105mm main gun is the optimal solution.
Otherwise a completely new prime mover unit will have to be R + D to carry the bigger 120mm main gun.
Click:
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/turrets/giat/giat3.html
Place your cursor indicator on the photo for more information of the subject matter.
However, having said that, Giat came up with the new TML 105 turret for the AMX-10RC that can fire the NATO rounds. The TML 105 turret is armed with stabalised105mm NATO standard gun. The TML 105 turret has a conveyor for storing and loading ammunition rounds. The Giat Industries APFSDS (armour-piercing, fin-stabilised, discarding sabot) 105 F1 round, fired by the TML 105 gun, can destroy single and triple NATO heavy tanks at a distance of 2,200m. The hit probability is stated as higher than 90% at 2,000m.
The TML 105 turret has a Soptac fire control system, from SFIM, which provides automatic acquisition of targeting parameters for on-the-move firing against mobile targets. It is equipped with a range of modular day and night observation equipment, based on image intensifiers or infrared technology. The capabilities range from firing by day against fixed targets to on-the-move firing by day and by night against mobile targets at a distance of more than 2,000m.
This TML 105 turret seems to be the logical choice. I would also consider a few more foriegn turrets like the one from Stringray II, M8 AGS (it has an advanced autoloader as well), etc. -
How about the RH 105 barrel? "The 51-calibre SB Rh 105 105-30, by virtue of high grade steel properties and chrome-plated barrel, sees its gas pressure hovering over the 600 Mpa mark. A muzzle brake and hydraulic brake minimize recoil impulse to bearable levels, but when used in conjunction with the new 1700 meter-per-second muzzle speed KE 105 round, the gun is said to offer about the same performance as a conventional 120 mm tank gun."Originally posted by CX:light tank with a heavy gun turret i hope... would need it to be effective against modern armour.
but that opens up a whole new can of worms... big gun recoil might damage fire control system if the tank is not heavy enough to stabilise it. happened with the sheridan.
would have to be properly armoured too. its the eternal tradeoff between size, weight, speed and armour... u can't have it all.
hope STK makes a good one...
looks good to me.... -
Actually I feel that the human is the most resourceful weapon on the battlefield, all the other equipment out there are just build around to defend against the human.Originally posted by CX:light tank with a heavy gun turret i hope... would need it to be effective against modern armour.
but that opens up a whole new can of worms... big gun recoil might damage fire control system if the tank is not heavy enough to stabilise it. happened with the sheridan.
would have to be properly armoured too. its the eternal tradeoff between size, weight, speed and armour... u can't have it all.
hope STK makes a good one...
Look at somalia, militias men women and children simply armed with RPG's and AK chopped the rangers to pieces. And these aren't even trained professional soldiers at all just think what if they were half trained. Look at chechnya and more recently 911, it took a few determined goat herders with a little imagination to cause massive deaths and mayhem.
The malaysian NS concept is a effective one, one would initially question the effectiveness of a 5 year NS program with long breaks in between, as naturally less frequency of training equates less proficient soldiers right?
But imagine using numbers of half trained guerillas disguised as civilians each armed with knowledge of tactics and mebbe 1 RPG and some rounds or METIS M, yur armoured force whereabouts will be swiftly located & dispatched in no time at all. How big yur amoured force also leow.
That's why I advocate to have our own saboteur force, mebbe the government can form a foreign legion secret police unit trained to root out these guys. -
pls put future threads like this at
www.sgmilitary.cjb.net -
oh yah, and if you check out the other threads, I think SAF already put some SPIKE on some of their M113, so they can knock out tanks if necessary I guess, i can't imagine using SPIKE-armed M113 in a dedicated anti-tank role. . .
and I think Thailand had a problem with some of their tanks some time ago because they mounted a gun that had too much recoil one type of tanks and there were cracks in the chassis. . .
not very sure, read it some time ago liao, can't remember details. ..sorry -
I don't think one can writeoff the power of convincing would-be-enemies to fight for another side. Just look at how intel gathering & pyschological warfare have on outcome of war. If a leadershipOriginally posted by tripwire:Motivated??... yes.... SAF will motivate malaysian NSmen to fight for their family under SAF control... in fact... we might simply conscript them into our frontline rces!!
is able to win these, a war is probably half-won already.
Singapore knows ultimately, the Malaysian gov has a strategic
plan of getting it back within the federation, by hook or by crook.
Just look at how the water issue was handle and you'll get
a pretty good idea what long term plan they hv in mind.
They are spreading lies and confusion amounst Malaysian public
every now and then.
Void the water agreement = Void seperation agreement in 1965.
That equates to war. Like it or not and Malaysian gov knows this
very well and is trying to assertain the risk of going to war with
Singapore over water/forced merger.
There is a saying: War is just another exercise of a state policy. -
There is a saying: War is just another exercise of a state policy.[/b][/quote]
I believe that quote was from Clauswitz : War is an extension of policy. Alternatively, some people would say that war is a bankruptcy of policy for it is when all else fails do you resort to war...... -
War : An exercise of the state's will to enforce it's policy on other states.