Singapore At War
-
<http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:g9O9tSb-RMUC:www.ciaonet.org/olj/sa/sa-feb00-6.html+singapore+igla&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1>
Singapore has bought Igla (Needle) Man-protable Air-defence System (MAN-PADS) and the relevant production license from Russia for 120 million dollars.
<http://www.cast.ru/english/database1.html?article=88>
It is known that in the last several years export contracts involving the “Igla” SAM systems were signed with Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea and Brazil. The shipments of those SAM systems were accompanied by transfers of technologies for their production.
<http://www.ets-news.com/malay_grow.htm>
Malaysia has, in recent years, shown a great deal of interest in gaining access to missile technology....
....According to reports from last year's LIMA '99 defence exhibition the Russian arms trader Rosvooruzhenie, the Kolomna engineering design bureau and Penang Shipbuilding Corp signed a memorandum of co-operation for the licensed production of Igla mobile air defence systems. The memorandum allegedly provides for co-operation in advancing the systems on the regional market and the maintenance service of such systems.
<http://www.cast.ru/english/publish/2000/july-aug/npk.html>
The "Igla-2" anti aircraft complex has already become a best seller. This system was delivered to Singapore, Brasilia, South Korea and Malaysia.
<http://www.milparade.ru/market/paid/018/08_03.htm>
ROSVOOROUZHENIE TO BOOST IGLA MISSILES SUPPLY TO ASIA-PACIFIC (read this, lots of info) -
More interesting tregional news:
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/pcropper/html/body_latenews.html>
Malaysia's imminent procurement of the Vympel R-77 (NATO AA-12 'ADDER') for their MiG-29 fleet is likely to lead to regional sales of the previously restricted US AMRAAM missile. Defence analysts believe that the R-77 will provide the RMAF with a decisive edge in air-to-air combat against any regional fighters. The prospect of Malaysian fighters establishing air-superiority over Southern Thailand has Thai strategic planners urgently examining new armament requirements. Bangkok Post, 2 May 1999.
<http://rcaam.milparade.ru/paid/048/08_01.htm>
Russia, Malaysia signed memorandum of understanding in the field of cooperative production of Igla PADMC
Buying Russian is not always wise:
<http://www.dehai.org/archives/dehai_news_archive/dec01/0219.html>
"When the 17 [MiG-29] fighters sold to Malaysia are not flying, less than half of them are operational, with no spare parts available. This complicates the promotion of new contracts."
Russia has lost hundreds of millions dollars annually in undelivered services and spare parts, according to experts. -
Hello, its nice to have someone new on the board :-) BTW, I'm YourFather...lol, sorry, just a lame self-intro.
Err, on that point you made on "I guess the MINDEF procurement people thought "18 is a bigger number than 16 so it must be better". " You dont really mean that, right? Cause those determining Singapore's procurement's just aren't stupid, else we would be in deep shit by now. Perhaps they feel that the SA-18 provides more Bang for the Buck, or that its capability is sufficient to counter any threat we face? We cannot look at just the capability of the equipment. Life-time operating costs, unit costs, threats likely to be encountered, and other factors will have to be taken into account on top of just pure capability. -
And perhaps the Russkis are willing to sell the older IR seeker technology to Singapore. Perhaps buying SA-16 would limit Singapore to just getting the missiles but no production licenses. I wonder if ST/DSO can acquire such IR/IIR seeker and rocket motor technologies from the Russians, and perhaps reverse engineer some retired AIM-9Js, perhpas with some perseverance and some kind assistance from the Israelis and Taiwanese, Singapore can build a local version of Python 3, AIM-9P4, MANPAD SAMs such as Mistral, etc.Originally posted by YourFather:Err, on that point you made on "I guess the MINDEF procurement people thought "18 is a bigger number than 16 so it must be better". " You dont really mean that, right? Cause those determining Singapore's procurement's just aren't stupid, else we would be in deep shit by now. Perhaps they feel that the SA-18 provides more Bang for the Buck, or that its capability is sufficient to counter any threat we face? We cannot look at just the capability of the equipment. Life-time operating costs, unit costs, threats likely to be encountered, and other factors will have to be taken into account on top of just pure capability.
Just a thought... -
I didn't know the Malaysians also had Iglas. However, I know that we are producing the Spike anti-tank missile, which uses an IIR seeker. Perhaps we may learn something from producing the Spike?
Today, ST reported that Malaysia is seeking to benefit their own industries through defense purchases. Seems like they are looking for defense offsets, where production would take place domestically... they also quite keen to have tech transfer. -
.... that will depend on how much they are willing to pay....Originally posted by YourFather:I didn't know the Malaysians also had Iglas. However, I know that we are producing the Spike anti-tank missile, which uses an IIR seeker. Perhaps we may learn something from producing the Spike?
Today, ST reported that Malaysia is seeking to benefit their own industries through defense purchases. Seems like they are looking for defense offsets, where production would take place domestically... they also quite keen to have tech transfer. -
dont worry.... most fighter planes needs only 300 to 400 meters to take off.... the RSAF falcons dont really even need a runway to begin with...Originally posted by YourFather:Astros just needs to be used on our runways, and that will do more than enuff damage to our capabilities, which hinges heavily on air-support.
those long long runways are for big big slow slow planes like C130 and other transport planes...
and if u put a ramp at the end of a road... the 'runway' can be as short as 200 meters...
so.... how many 200meter long straight roads does singapore have?? cos unless these are taken out as well... the falcons would still fly to drop napalm on our enemy -
Huh? I didn't know that the Vipers can take off using a ramp? I thought the only aircrafts that are qualified to do that kind of take offs are the Harriers and the Russian equivalent... and not forgetting F-35 as well...Originally posted by tripwire:dont worry.... most fighter planes needs only 300 to 400 meters to take off.... the RSAF falcons dont really even need a runway to begin with...
those long long runways are for big big slow slow planes like C130 and other transport planes...
and if u put a ramp at the end of a road... the 'runway' can be as short as 200 meters...
Vipers, can you confirm this? -
Using a ramp increases the AoA of the aircraft during its take off run, however I don't believe that take off distance can be so dramatically reduced (from 300-400m to 200m). It would also depend on the TO speed of the aircraft, if you have a ramp but ar too slow when you leave the ramp, you will still sink and pancake into the ground.Originally posted by Joe Black:Huh? I didn't know that the Vipers can take off using a ramp? I thought the only aircrafts that are qualified to do that kind of take offs are the Harriers and the Russian equivalent... and not forgetting F-35 as well...
Vipers, can you confirm this?
AoA is only a small factor of the takeoff process, it helps a little but not much. Same reason why the mainwheel of the A-4 and F-5 can be raised, and the F-8 Cyusaders wing is variable incidence, this increases the AoA and shortens the TO run a little(which is crucial for carrier ops for the A-4 and F-
, but not much. As for Vipers taking off from 400m, I need to question the source of this info. I believe it can do it, but in what kind of loading condition? Half empty tanks, no external stores? Or full fuel, with a viable combat load? -
Even if the Vipers could take off with 200m of runway, can the Hawkeyes and the Hercs do so? Their presence(Hawkeye, Fokker) and utility(Hercs) are as important as the Vipers in the opening stages of a war, and IMO, the Hawkeye really is one of our assymetrical advantages possessed by us over them.
-
Ok. This is for real, the PT-91 has been bought by the Malaysians. Haven't done any research on it yet, but I heard from other boards that its essentially an upgraded T-72 fitted with a SAGEM FCS (same as that fitted on french leopards, Leo 1 or 2 I dont know).
According to Malaysian press, its fitted with laser warners too. (scared of our Apaches) -
Unfortunately those laser "warners"(gotta love their use of the language) would be about as useful as a knife in a gunfight when the Hellfires are the radar guided version fired by the Longbows.Originally posted by YourFather:According to Malaysian press, its fitted with laser warners too. (scared of our Apaches)
Besides, whats the point of having a laser warning device when the missile is already being sent your way? Oh I know, to let the crew get out of the tank before it becomes a firetrap
And don't say "so the tank can discharge smoke..." cos by the time the smoke builds up to an acceptable density to confuse the laser the missile would have scrapped the tank. -
While I'm not as well read in Tank technology as compared to aircraft (so please forgive me if I say something stupid), I do believe that a laser warner is very useful. Firstly, it gives a tank advanced warning of any unwelcome interest on it by enemies, through detection of laser guidance beams and laser measuring systems. It's almost the direct tank equivalent of the plane's RWR. The tank, should it have advanced warnng of any incoming missiles, will have the oppurtunity to take evasive action. Most of the time, a tank is killed by a missile which is undetected by the crew.
Ok, I know you're going to say what you said, the smoke won't come up in time, rite? Actually, no. The Hellfire missile would usually be on a LOBL mode, and the laser would be on for the whole duration of the flight, from beginning to the end. The smoke grenades are specially designed to disperse very quickly and envelope the whole tank.
I dunno whether the PT-91s are equipped with any of the Russian tank reactive countermeasures systems. While I'm not too clear on their capabilities, some of them like the Shtora, Arena systems have no direct western equivalent, if I'm not wrong, and they should be treated with respect. -
Actually it does has reactive armour developed by the Poles.Dunno much about it,aside that it has extra armour and a upgraded engine.Originally posted by YourFather:While I'm not as well read in Tank technology as compared to aircraft (so please forgive me if I say something stupid), I do believe that a laser warner is very useful. Firstly, it gives a tank advanced warning of any unwelcome interest on it by enemies, through detection of laser guidance beams and laser measuring systems. It's almost the direct tank equivalent of the plane's RWR. The tank, should it have advanced warnng of any incoming missiles, will have the oppurtunity to take evasive action. Most of the time, a tank is killed by a missile which is undetected by the crew.
Ok, I know you're going to say what you said, the smoke won't come up in time, rite? Actually, no. The Hellfire missile would usually be on a LOBL mode, and the laser would be on for the whole duration of the flight, from beginning to the end. The smoke grenades are specially designed to disperse very quickly and envelope the whole tank.
I dunno whether the PT-91s are equipped with any of the Russian tank reactive countermeasures systems. While I'm not too clear on their capabilities, some of them like the Shtora, Arena systems have no direct western equivalent, if I'm not wrong, and they should be treated with respect. -
I'm not too well versed in tank technology as compared to aircraft as well, so I'm asking to be corrected if what I'm saying is wrong. However I do believe that the system is not foolproof. Even for Laser guided Hellfires theres always has been the ripple fire option, whereby a number of missiles are fired at targets and as the A-model Apaches PNVS/TADS systems(is it still the same systems in the D?) switches targets automatically as they are taken out one by one. I would presume that its possible to use this option and fire the missile BEFORE lock on and only lock onto target when its too late for countermeasures. same deal with todays PGMs, toss them b4 lock on an switch on lasers only when the bomb is in terminal phase.
-
Maybe spike could be a good way to counter it.It uses infra red instead of convetional laser guided missiles like the milan.Originally posted by Viper52:I'm not too well versed in tank technology as compared to aircraft as well, so I'm asking to be corrected if what I'm saying is wrong. However I do believe that the system is not foolproof. Even for Laser guided Hellfires theres always has been the ripple fire option, whereby a number of missiles are fired at targets and as the A-model Apaches PNVS/TADS systems(is it still the same systems in the D?) switches targets automatically as they are taken out one by one. I would presume that its possible to use this option and fire the missile BEFORE lock on and only lock onto target when its too late for countermeasures. same deal with todays PGMs, toss them b4 lock on an switch on lasers only when the bomb is in terminal phase. -
Yes, there is a LOAL mode for the Hellfire as well, I agree that could reduce the time for the tank to take evasive action. Perhaps the Spike, with its Imaging IR sensor, would be better in the sense that since its totally passive, the tank will probably have less warning of its arrival. I dont think the PT-91 has a missile approach warning system like the Shtora(or izzit Arena sys? I remember one of them has it), so we are still ok. However, the Spike is not totally invincible, as its IIR sensor which allows fire and forget operations can be spoofed by a tank using special infra-red emitting smoke which blurs the outline of the tank, thus confusing the IIR sensor of the Spike, and causing it to lose track. Thankfully, the Spike has a back-up optical guided mode, which allows for manual guidance to target by the operator, inlike the American Javelin.
-
The D models still use the same PNVS/TADS systems as the A models, but they are in the process of being upgraded with the 2nd-gen Arrowhead system, of which we are the first export customers for.Originally posted by Viper52:I'm not too well versed in tank technology as compared to aircraft as well, so I'm asking to be corrected if what I'm saying is wrong. However I do believe that the system is not foolproof. Even for Laser guided Hellfires theres always has been the ripple fire option, whereby a number of missiles are fired at targets and as the A-model Apaches PNVS/TADS systems(is it still the same systems in the D?) switches targets automatically as they are taken out one by one. I would presume that its possible to use this option and fire the missile BEFORE lock on and only lock onto target when its too late for countermeasures. same deal with todays PGMs, toss them b4 lock on an switch on lasers only when the bomb is in terminal phase. -
Hellfire II operating modes:
http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_products/antiarmor/HELLFIRE/website/OP1.html -
I'd like to see the PT-91s panic when their laser threat recievers come on, someone pops the smoke, and the driver drives away from the smoke.
I'm no expert in tanks either, but I seriously doubt Russian tank capabilities. Unfortunately, how unsophisticated they might be, they would still be newer and more advanced that the SAF's current tanks, ie SM1s and Centurions. Perhaps its time to review the purchase of the Leopard2s. -
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The region is unsuitable for tank warfare. Assuming numerous reports are correct in assuming SAF will fight its battles(not necessarily against Malaysia) in the peninsula. The southern part is mainly undulating forest/jungle, cut approximately north-south by mountains. Anything beyond light tanks is not suitable(The Japanese were spot-on in this respect during 1941-42). The T-72 class, weighing in at just over 40 tons would be the heaviest tank suited for this kind of terrain, personally IMO, a little too heavy. The Western MBTs would even be worse, most weigh in at around 50-80 tons. The recent slant by the SAF towards mobility and speed(witness the proliferation of Flyer LSVs and the new air-portable howitzer) is a correct trend, the terrain in this region simply does not lend itself to heavier tanks. Hence the SAF's failure to replace the Centurion is IMO the correct move, as for the SM1s there needs to be a suitable replacement, of which there's almost none currently.
As for fighting in Singapore proper, tanks will be nothing more than "60-ton roadblocks", to quote Tom Hanks. Totally unsuitable for FIBUA -
Viper, I do agree with most of what you have said, but I do believe that the Stingrays (Thai army got 108 of them) or M8 AGS are suitable for our environment. The Vietname war is a good example of the use of extensive use of tanks in dense forest by both the US Army and the North Vietnamese Army. As for using of tanks in built up area, we do see on a daily basis that Israeli do use their MBTs in both the Gaza strip and West Bank towns. They are not just good roadblocks but one that can easily put down some building harbouring snipers. To send troopers to go into each building to flush out snipers will be costly.Originally posted by Viper52:I've said it before and I'll say it again. The region is unsuitable for tank warfare. Assuming numerous reports are correct in assuming SAF will fight its battles(not necessarily against Malaysia) in the peninsula. The southern part is mainly undulating forest/jungle, cut approximately north-south by mountains. Anything beyond light tanks is not suitable(The Japanese were spot-on in this respect during 1941-42). The T-72 class, weighing in at just over 40 tons would be the heaviest tank suited for this kind of terrain, personally IMO, a little too heavy. The Western MBTs would even be worse, most weigh in at around 50-80 tons. The recent slant by the SAF towards mobility and speed(witness the proliferation of Flyer LSVs and the new air-portable howitzer) is a correct trend, the terrain in this region simply does not lend itself to heavier tanks. Hence the SAF's failure to replace the Centurion is IMO the correct move, as for the SM1s there needs to be a suitable replacement, of which there's almost none currently.
As for fighting in Singapore proper, tanks will be nothing more than "60-ton roadblocks", to quote Tom Hanks. Totally unsuitable for FIBUA
Remember in saving private ryan, the snipers on top of the church bell tower were effectively taken out by the German tank round (1 single round do the trick). Tanks have their place in built up area... just need to know how to use them and wen to use them. -
I almost fully agree with Viper. Even the Malaysians required a tank not more than 50 tons, which was why they didn't go with the ~70 ton T-80 and T-84s, which were affordable for them, and much more capable than the PT-91s. Their highways weren't built to handle the weight, so deployability would be troublesome.
For Singapore, more light, extremely mobile platforms with long-range (min 4 to 5km) anti-tank striking power would be better. Thus the LSVs equipped with Spikes are a good choice for Singapore. However, tanks would still be needed, as there may come a time when the fight will 'merge', and you dont really want the LSVs to be anywhere within 2 to 3 km of the tanks, do ya? (oh ya, do the PT-91s have the capability to fire the AT-11 Sniper? THese things have a range of 5 km. Quite worrying, IMO. Luckily they have to be laser-guided all the way, and are not fire-and-forget like our Spikes, which allow us to shoot and hide.)
So I guess we have to get a 35~45 ton tank. One of you guys have said that Singapore is developing a tank based on the Bionix, armed with a 105mm cannon. Is that enuff, considering the ERA equipped armour of the PT-91? Also, with the PT-91's 125mm cannon and good fire-control system, our tank HAS to be able to take a reasonable amount of damage and continue functioning, otherwise they would just be target practice for the PT-91s.
So, could anyone give some good choices of tanks available on the market to suit Singapore's needs? The K1A1 was offered to the Malaysians, but it wasn't shortlisted. At 50 tons, based on M1A1 tech and specially designed to be able to cross even soft soil like those in paddy-fields (which are like those in S.Korea), its an Abrams-lite. It seems like a good idea, what say you guys? -
Here's some info on the
Shtora system : http://members.dencity.com/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/shtora.html
Arena system : http://members.dencity.com/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/arena.html
Drozd system : http://members.dencity.com/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/drozd.html
The americans are still researching something like the Arena and Drozd system, but there are no operational equivalents yet... these two are particularly worrisome, but thankfully PT-91s are not equipped with them. -
Well we all agree what SAF need is a medium-light tank. The RoK K1A1 looks good but a little too heavy. SAF will probably look at a 20+ to 30 tons tank with common chassis to the IFV or similar engines, automotive and parts. My feeling say that they will build a 105mm light/medium tank.Originally posted by YourFather:I almost fully agree with Viper. Even the Malaysians required a tank not more than 50 tons, which was why they didn't go with the ~70 ton T-80 and T-84s, which were affordable for them, and much more capable than the PT-91s. Their highways weren't built to handle the weight, so deployability would be troublesome.
For Singapore, more light, extremely mobile platforms with long-range (min 4 to 5km) anti-tank striking power would be better. Thus the LSVs equipped with Spikes are a good choice for Singapore. However, tanks would still be needed, as there may come a time when the fight will 'merge', and you dont really want the LSVs to be anywhere within 2 to 3 km of the tanks, do ya? (oh ya, do the PT-91s have the capability to fire the AT-11 Sniper? THese things have a range of 5 km. Quite worrying, IMO. Luckily they have to be laser-guided all the way, and are not fire-and-forget like our Spikes, which allow us to shoot and hide.)
So I guess we have to get a 35~45 ton tank. One of you guys have said that Singapore is developing a tank based on the Bionix, armed with a 105mm cannon. Is that enuff, considering the ERA equipped armour of the PT-91? Also, with the PT-91's 125mm cannon and good fire-control system, our tank HAS to be able to take a reasonable amount of damage and continue functioning, otherwise they would just be target practice for the PT-91s.
So, could anyone give some good choices of tanks available on the market to suit Singapore's needs? The K1A1 was offered to the Malaysians, but it wasn't shortlisted. At 50 tons, based on M1A1 tech and specially designed to be able to cross even soft soil like those in paddy-fields (which are like those in S.Korea), its an Abrams-lite. It seems like a good idea, what say you guys?
As for if SAF should get a heavier tank to counter the M'sa MBT, the answer is maybe. It depends yet again on the battle doctrine and if SAF can fight alternative to counter the MBT (ie. ATGM, Helos, etc). Personally I am in for a 1 to 1 replacement of the Centurions with a decent enough MBT in the less than 50 tons category. That rules out Abrams, Leo2, Leclerc, Challenger2, and Merkava. I think upgrade Leo1 or Stingray-type chassis are probably more suitable.
As for the armour, SAF can always go for the add-on reactive armour. As for the gun, using 105mm Amour Piercing Sabot rounds rather than HEAT will probably do the trick.
As for defensive aids, we can look at Israel for good tank defensive suite. They are usually pretty good at those stuff. SAF could get an Israeli equivalent of Shtora, Arena or Drozd if they do exist.
Just my 2 cents,
Joe Black