Singapore At War
-
LOL!!! SPACE AGENCY!! Wahahahaha.
Heres one from talkingcock.com
Four delegates from China, Russia, the United States and Malaysia attended the United Nations' Meeting. All the nations were discussing about space exploration by the year 2000. Here are some of the conversations:
China Delegate: 'By the year 2000, China will start their moon exploration project. '
Russian Delegate: ' We too, we are going to explore the moon. This time we will see to it that our cosmonauts will step on the moon.'
Bill Clinton: ' We the United States will also explore the moon for second time.'
Malaysian Delegate: 'By the year 2000, Malaysia will explore the sun.'
There was a long silence, Bill Clinton stood up and asked the Malaysia Delegate: ' Isn't it too hot to explore the sun?'
Malaysian Delegate (smiling): 'I had this thought out already. We will do it in the evening.' -
HAHAAHAAAAAAAAAAA>...............Originally posted by Shotgun:LOL!!! SPACE AGENCY!! Wahahahaha.
Heres one from talkingcock.com
Four delegates from China, Russia, the United States and Malaysia attended the United Nations' Meeting. All the nations were discussing about space exploration by the year 2000. Here are some of the conversations:
China Delegate: 'By the year 2000, China will start their moon exploration project. '
Russian Delegate: ' We too, we are going to explore the moon. This time we will see to it that our cosmonauts will step on the moon.'
Bill Clinton: ' We the United States will also explore the moon for second time.'
Malaysian Delegate: 'By the year 2000, Malaysia will explore the sun.'
There was a long silence, Bill Clinton stood up and asked the Malaysia Delegate: ' Isn't it too hot to explore the sun?'
Malaysian Delegate (smiling): 'I had this thought out already. We will do it in the evening.' -
Hi guys. Just came to say this is one of my last posts for about 2 to 3 weeks. Gotta go in tomorrow. Bye!
(Uhh, if got any developments, hope someone kind enuff to post it here, dont think got much time to read news in BMT) -
Just went to Malaysia(KL). It re-enforced our discussion about the terrain suitability for tank warefare. For most part of Johor and the rest towards KL, it seems to be quite hilly and lots of coconut and palm tree plantations. No much flat land unless using the highways, freeways and motorways. Heavy tanks (30-40+ tons) are only best used for initial push towards enemy's front line, I think the rest will be done by lighter vehicles, most likely wheel vehicles considering that most travelling will probably be on well established roads rather than the ruggered terrain. I wonder what the Japanese forces did in WWII? I know most of their infantry eventually settled on bikes. Well can't see SAF doing that though
-
Sorry if my question is too naive.. but what is the point of having a tank that doesn't take hits? How are they gonna spearhead any form of aggression at all?
Most countries uses tank as another backup arty platform(due to the size of the guns that they have), i dun really see that happening unless SAF decided upon the 125mm(at least!) turret.
And i believe having defensive suites are only secondary and we shouldn't be so reliant to the point that we assume that can save our life. Still thinks that aggression is the best weapon against another tank, not evasion.
(My comments are probably less than 2 cents worth though) -
Eyezer, your points are valid. However, we have to look at a greater schema of things. Where the battles would be fought, what terrain would the tanks be fought on, what battle doctrine, etc.Originally posted by Eyezer:Sorry if my question is too naive.. but what is the point of having a tank that doesn't take hits? How are they gonna spearhead any form of aggression at all?
Most countries uses tank as another backup arty platform(due to the size of the guns that they have), i dun really see that happening unless SAF decided upon the 125mm(at least!) turret.
And i believe having defensive suites are only secondary and we shouldn't be so reliant to the point that we assume that can save our life. Still thinks that aggression is the best weapon against another tank, not evasion.
(My comments are probably less than 2 cents worth though)
Most MBTs today are designed during the cold war period suitable for European terrain and environment. They are pretty well suited for flatter terrain, eg. plain and desert environment than jungle, hilly terrain like that of tropical environment.
In terms of tropical region like ours, we probably be encounter lots of jungle type warfare or FIBUA.
Protection in terms of thickness of armour can never be absolutely replaced by electronic defensive aids. This is evidence in the Israeli Merkava design. However, there is NO tanks in the world that are not penetratable. If the theater of battle usually involves close tank vs tank battles, then the level of armour becomes the primary protection for the tank crews (such as the middle east warfare in 60s, 70s and the 80s between Israeli and Eygptians, Syrians and Jordanians).
Sweden and Russians however came up the idea of active defensive system to defend themselves. The Swedish CV90 and the Russian tanks are usually more lightly armoured than the NATO ones. The design attempt to use those defensive aids and general mobility and agility to survive. This is evidence in their speed compared to say the British Challenger tank.
In Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia terrain, tanks that are too heavy will often find themselves too difficult to move around. There are too many hills, creeks, ruggered terrain to cross. They also place too much reliance on Combat engineers to have sufficient resources to built bridges or clear obstacles for them to advance. Not to say they also consume more gas, more transport of fuel are necessary to refuel these heavy MBTs. Lighter tanks (especially ambipbous ones) are much more easier to support. Wheeled ones are even better. Of course all these mean that they better not get hit in the first place. The defensive aids also help them to get hit easily.
Of course, here we are assuming that these light tanks are sufficiently armed to counter heavier tanks. They should be armed with at least 105mm gun (preferrably 120mm smoothbore). Alternatively, they could also be armed with ATGM on their turret, something like that of M2 Bradley.
Just my 2 cents... -
We're not advocating a tank that cannot take hits. As Joe Black has pointed out, using factors such as the local terrain, potential nature of warfare as a guide, a armoured platform that sacrifices part of its armour(not necessarily firepower) in favour of mobility is more suited for our needs than a all-armour all-firepower platform that cannot traverse all but the most well-laid roads.
Don't worry about asking questions or making comments, thats what we're here for -
But if we are to think of mobility and speed by compromising on the armour protection, does that mean a greater threat persist from the ATGMs? They are a more profound threat in modern warfare compare to tank to tank battles, especially in FIBUA and Hilly terrain we find in our region, isn't it?
That is why the investment in the LSVs in SAF. How does that influence the war doctrines then? -
The problem with trying to defeat ATGMs is that sooner or later one is going to get you, thick armour of not. With the advent of smart ATGMs with new attack profiles(hitting from the top etc), there are limits to what ever-increasing armour can do. The trend today is to go with electronic means to defeat ATGMs. I'm not a armour expert(metal birds are more my thing), so my knowledge on this is limted. Maybe one of the other guys can give you more info on this.
What I do know is in jungle fighting, the smart way to go about it is through stealth and mobility, not brute force and static lines. The Japanese, and to a certain extent the NVA/VC, demonstrated this in the Malayan and Vietnamese jungles. The Japanese plan focused on speed and mobility, to the extent that they were told to ignore logistics in part and take what they need from the British(who were extremely helpful on this point). They bypassed the fixed British lines of defence and hit them hard from the sides or the rear. Since they are no LSVs in 1941, the Japanese used the next best thing for traversing the terrain: every bicycle they could lay their hands on. Their tactics got them so far that they defeated a force 3 TIMES their number in 3 months. Admittedly training and other factors played a part as well, but tactics and mobility was important too. It still applies today. -
The Milan ATGM has a wire link with the aiming module which is prone to entangling with the vegetation. Does the Spike has the wire 'weakneess'?
I am quite glad to see number of you are Singaporeans with extensive military knowledge here. Its not easy to keep up this interest when your friends are always labelling you as an 'army siao' and failed to contribute useful discussions on military issues.
I am new here and I am happy to be here.
One point I would like to discuss also is what is the Malaysia night fighting capabilities. Are equipment like NVG used extensively? The US has already integrated their fighter planes with Night Vision Devices. Their fighter pilots are trained to fly with the NVG. I see this one a documentary on discovery. Their test pilots are testing out this practice. Considering that this documentary is outdate by a few years, they should have this training program up and running. There were footage through the pilots helmet and I can apperciate the pilots' problems of flying at night. There is a depth perception problem.
WIthout the NVG, the pilots can only see the blinkers of the opposite aircrafts. The NVG would be a good asset for dogfights in the night.
On the issue of night fighting for the army, there is a recent US land operation which used NVG extensively. 'Operation Anocondra' saw every of the 10th Mountain troops used NVG. There were photos on the US army site with the soldiers having the helmet mounting for NVG. It minimise the number of casualties they incurred.
I am closely follow land combat issue. And was in infantry. I would say we would have to train more in the use of NVGs.
On the tank issue.
I my own opinion, I think for a such an enclosed terrain in Singapore and Malaysia, mechnizeed infantry units are the best tools for an army. And other than being able to cope with enemy fire, the dimensions of the tanks and APC have suitable enough to be able exploit the concealment offered by the terrain. So the SM1 is a valid design in this aspect.
Question is the T-91 able to withstand a round 105mm head on? Or a 155mm HE arty shell on the topside?
Isn't it easier to guided the arty on the moving enemy tanks? With the guns firing 20kms away? Friendly forces casualties would be minimise too. So one of the priority is to take out the countermeasures of the oppositions arty before doing this, of course.
A head on clash with the enemy armour would be avoided with this method. And you can deplete the enemy armour before sending your own against it. And you don't have to send a tank to kill one.
Also for an MBT the range covered would be shorter compared to a light tank due to its high fuel consumption. A heavy armour unit would need a long trail of logistic support to keep its advance. Its no good having caught out there with no fuel to move. A stationary tank is a dead tank.
We must not forget that a war is not fought with a single element only. And commnd and control of the forces is the top priority. Look at the full picture is better.
Feedback are welcome. -
The Milan ATGM has a wire link with the aiming module which is prone to entangling with the vegetation. Does the Spike has the wire 'weakneess'?
I am quite glad to see number of you are Singaporeans with extensive military knowledge here. Its not easy to keep up this interest when your friends are always labelling you as an 'army siao' and failed to contribute useful discussions on military issues.
I am new here and I am happy to be here.
One point I would like to discuss also is what is the Malaysia night fighting capabilities. Are equipment like NVG used extensively? The US has already integrated their fighter planes with Night Vision Devices. Their fighter pilots are trained to fly with the NVG. I see this one a documentary on discovery. Their test pilots are testing out this practice. Considering that this documentary is outdate by a few years, they should have this training program up and running. There were footage through the pilots helmet and I can apperciate the pilots' problems of flying at night. There is a depth perception problem.
WIthout the NVG, the pilots can only see the blinkers of the opposite aircrafts. The NVG would be a good asset for dogfights in the night.
On the issue of night fighting for the army, there is a recent US land operation which used NVG extensively. 'Operation Anocondra' saw every of the 10th Mountain troops used NVG. There were photos on the US army site with the soldiers having the helmet mounting for NVG. It minimise the number of casualties they incurred.
I am closely follow land combat issue. And was in infantry. I would say we would have to train more in the use of NVGs.
On the tank issue.
I my own opinion, I think for a such an enclosed terrain in Singapore and Malaysia, mechnizeed infantry units are the best tools for an army. And other than being able to cope with enemy fire, the dimensions of the tanks and APC have suitable enough to be able exploit the concealment offered by the terrain. So the SM1 is a valid design in this aspect.
Question is the T-91 able to withstand a round 105mm head on? Or a 155mm HE arty shell on the topside?
Isn't it easier to guided the arty on the moving enemy tanks? With the guns firing 20kms away? Friendly forces casualties would be minimise too. So one of the priority is to take out the countermeasures of the oppositions arty before doing this, of course.
A head on clash with the enemy armour would be avoided with this method. And you can deplete the enemy armour before sending your own against it. And you don't have to send a tank to kill one.
Also for an MBT the range covered would be shorter compared to a light tank due to its high fuel consumption. A heavy armour unit would need a long trail of logistic support to keep its advance. Its no good having caught out there with no fuel to move. A stationary tank is a dead tank.
We must not forget that a war is not fought with a single element only. And commnd and control of the forces is the top priority. Look at the full picture is better.
Feedback are welcome. -
The Milan ATGM has a wire link with the aiming module which is prone to entangling with the vegetation. Does the Spike has the wire 'weakneess'?
I am quite glad to see number of you are Singaporeans with extensive military knowledge here. Its not easy to keep up this interest when your friends are always labelling you as an 'army siao' and failed to contribute useful discussions on military issues.
I am new here and I am happy to be here.
One point I would like to discuss also is what is the Malaysia night fighting capabilities. Are equipment like NVG used extensively? The US has already integrated their fighter planes with Night Vision Devices. Their fighter pilots are trained to fly with the NVG. I see this one a documentary on discovery. Their test pilots are testing out this practice. Considering that this documentary is outdate by a few years, they should have this training program up and running. There were footage through the pilots helmet and I can apperciate the pilots' problems of flying at night. There is a depth perception problem.
WIthout the NVG, the pilots can only see the blinkers of the opposite aircrafts. The NVG would be a good asset for dogfights in the night.
On the issue of night fighting for the army, there is a recent US land operation which used NVG extensively. 'Operation Anocondra' saw every of the 10th Mountain troops used NVG. There were photos on the US army site with the soldiers having the helmet mounting for NVG. It minimise the number of casualties they incurred.
I am closely follow land combat issue. And was in infantry. I would say we would have to train more in the use of NVGs.
On the tank issue.
I my own opinion, I think for a such an enclosed terrain in Singapore and Malaysia, mechnizeed infantry units are the best tools for an army. And other than being able to cope with enemy fire, the dimensions of the tanks and APC have suitable enough to be able exploit the concealment offered by the terrain. So the SM1 is a valid design in this aspect.
Question is the T-91 able to withstand a round 105mm head on? Or a 155mm HE arty shell on the topside?
Isn't it easier to guided the arty on the moving enemy tanks? With the guns firing 20kms away? Friendly forces casualties would be minimise too. So one of the priority is to take out the countermeasures of the oppositions arty before doing this, of course.
A head on clash with the enemy armour would be avoided with this method. And you can deplete the enemy armour before sending your own against it. And you don't have to send a tank to kill one.
Also for an MBT the range covered would be shorter compared to a light tank due to its high fuel consumption. A heavy armour unit would need a long trail of logistic support to keep its advance. Its no good having caught out there with no fuel to move. A stationary tank is a dead tank.
We must not forget that a war is not fought with a single element only. And commnd and control of the forces is the top priority. Look at the full picture is better.
Feedback are welcome. -
%%%%%%%%%% Regarding these sturctures, I believe it is adopted from the Swiss. I went Switzerland last year and I was impressed by they construction and concealment of an underground airbase and the various obstacles build to slow invaders down. And the pride of the Swiss in their National Service is commentable too.Originally posted by bolts:Did anyone here read SM's From Third World to First? You'll realise that he started off the first chapter on National Service. The emphasis that he and the rest of the SG government place on national defence is very clear - We must have a capable defence strategy. Our forefathers have gone through the 2nd world war, the Confrontation with Indonesia and political posturing from across the causeway in 1965. My father is already 62. He tells me that he totally believe that we should have our own defence force. I think if I'm in my father's shoes and have experienced what he went thru' in the 40s and 60s, I totally believe that we should have a credible defence force.
Regarding the statement that since Singapore has no natural resources, there is no incentive for anyone to invade Singapore, history has a BIG lesson to teach us. If we follow the logic of that argument, there is no reason why the Japs invaded us in 1945 (But, they did) There is no reason why Iraq will want to invade a small country like Kuwait, after all, Iraq has got lots of oil as well and they have a sea lane open. What Kuwait did NOT have, however, was a defence force. In fact, it would be correct to say that if we were ever invaded, the US has little incentive to send a force to help us. We have nothing to offer in kind. They did not for Kosovo, either. But, they did for Kuwait in exchange for oil from Kuwait.
In the past, a certain prominent BG realised that there was something wrong with our SAF doctrine. Previously, the SAF build a defence force for self-defence and a deterence only. It meant that in a war, we put up a resistance but will still lose a war. That meant Singapore have to surrender or fight and still lose. Either way, it was sucide. This BG decided to change our doctrine. Yes, we have limited resources and manpower, but, technology and well-trained soldiers can be used as a force multiplier. That's why we have all these superior weapons and we have regular In Camp Training (My 8th In Camp Training is coming in October, and, Believe it or not, I'm actually looking forward to it because I will see all my old friends. We sweat thru' it together, but I won't trade the male-bonding experience for anything else.)
One day, if you are free, go down to URA office and look at the land plan they did for Singapore. You'll marvel at the amount of thinking that went into the land planning exercise. Obstacles were purpose-built to contain enemies landing on our shores. Special structures that were built to serve dual purposes. Amazing. Can't tell you what they are, sorry. Although some in this forum has already divulge too much info.
Why did the government go to such lengths?
If there is war, we have to defend our home, because no one else will.
Many European countries haev adopted the NS concept too. Example, Germany, Norway, Finland, Austria, Czech Republic, Swiss, Spain. I spoke to some of then and they are certainly proud of their NS. -
Originally posted by jagkoh:
Spike has a fire-forget mode which it employes an IIR seeker to lock onto the heat source from the vehicle. Unlike Milan or TOW which requires the operator optical sight to continuously lock unto the target until the wire runs out and the missiles simply fire towards the last known point for impact.
The Milan ATGM has a wire link with the aiming module which is prone to entangling with the vegetation. Does the Spike has the wire 'weakneess'?
As for the 105mm round penetrating T-91 - it's going to depend if the tank is equipped with add-on reactive armour, the distance which the 105mm round has to travel (the near the distant, the more kinetic energy), and if the 105mm round is armour piercing sabot round or HEAT, or even something less penetrative. It also depends if the round hits the top (turret), back or frontal arc.
On the tank issue.
Question is the T-91 able to withstand a round 105mm head on? Or a 155mm HE arty shell on the topside?
Isn't it easier to guided the arty on the moving enemy tanks? With the guns firing 20kms away? Friendly forces casualties would be minimise too. So one of the priority is to take out the countermeasures of the oppositions arty before doing this, of course.
Feedback are welcome.[/B]
I believe 105mm would penerate the turret and the back of the tank, disable one from the side but frontal arc, no idea. But then again, it is quite difficult to hit a tank turret given it's profile is smaller than the chassis.
As for using 155mm round to hit tanks... very difficult unless SAF has copperhead rounds and scouts/special forces armed with laser designator. Alternatively, STEngg should develop a millimeter wave seeker version for the 155mm round, 120mm mortar round and 81mm round. Or SAF can buy these rounds from Britan or Sweden
Just my 2 cents -
Actually, the recon troopers by now would have been equiped with a similar arty or air strike designator. When I was in a recce coy, we were taught how to relay info and called in air strike or arty strike during training and exercise.
-
Fire for effect!
Whether the T-90, or T-91 (didn really hear about this one), depends on the type of round fired. If its a HEAT round, or Sabot. Whether a Sabot round can punch through the armor depends on the distance it has to travel. Heat rounds can travel further than Sabot rounds, but packs a bigger punch at longer ranges. At shorter ranges, under 2km, Sabot rounds usually maintain enough velocity to hit harder than HEAT rounds. However, most Russian Tanks are equiped with Explosive reactive armor, which can nullify the force of most Shaped charged warheads. Sabot rounds are not as badly affected by ERA. -
I am lost here, are you saying that the arty rounds could be directed using laser designator? And what does the millimeter wave seeker do? can anyone explain the concept in detail?Originally posted by Joe Black:As for using 155mm round to hit tanks... very difficult unless SAF has copperhead rounds and scouts/special forces armed with laser designator. Alternatively, STEngg should develop a millimeter wave seeker version for the 155mm round, 120mm mortar round and 81mm round. Or SAF can buy these rounds from Britan or Sweden -
But if you have ever used the NVG, it is something very troublesome and uncomfortable. Moreover, it needs the mood light as a primary light source else it wouldn't work either. They don't work in complete darkness..(That's from what i know, correct me if wrong)Originally posted by jagkoh:On the issue of night fighting for the army, there is a recent US land operation which used NVG extensively. 'Operation Anocondra' saw every of the 10th Mountain troops used NVG. There were photos on the US army site with the soldiers having the helmet mounting for NVG. It minimise the number of casualties they incurred.
I am closely follow land combat issue. And was in infantry. I would say we would have to train more in the use of NVGs.
I would agree on the mechanised infantry, but their full capability are not exploited by the SAF, which is sad. And i thought we should be having lots more of that.... wonder which infantry in the world still walks...anyone?On the tank issue.
I my own opinion, I think for a such an enclosed terrain in Singapore and Malaysia, mechnizeed infantry units are the best tools for an army. And other than being able to cope with enemy fire, the dimensions of the tanks and APC have suitable enough to be able exploit the concealment offered by the terrain. So the SM1 is a valid design in this aspect.
Isn't it easier to guided the arty on the moving enemy tanks? With the guns firing 20kms away? Friendly forces casualties would be minimise too. So one of the priority is to take out the countermeasures of the oppositions arty before doing this, of course.
Feedback are welcome.
But for the arty fire, isn't it used more for area bombardments then target bombardments? Never heard of using arty as an alternative to tank columns. Are you serious about that? Thought a tank weakest protection is from the hatch, but that exposed area is so small compare to an area, isn't it too hard to do that? -
The US Army experimented with a howitzer launced AT missile called the Copperhead in the 80s. It is laser guided, much like the air dropped smart bomb, to give arty units AT capability. It went the same way as the Sgt York SP AA gun (ie. expensive failure). The concept was good, but I just don't know what happened.Originally posted by Eyezer:I am lost here, are you saying that the arty rounds could be directed using laser designator? And what does the millimeter wave seeker do? can anyone explain the concept in detail?
No idea abt the miliimeter wave round, but I would bet its got to do with the Longbow Apaches millimeter-wave radar. -
Yup it is, using arty fire to hit a tank is like trying to hit an infantryman with an unguided bomb from 10000 ft. While a direct hit from a normal arty round would surely take out ANY tank, its hitting the tank's thats the problem. While modern ballistics computers have reduced the CEP of an arty barrage quite significantly, its still a inefficent and risky way of taking out tanks. I think there are guided arty rounds in development or in service somewhere, but I've not seen it.Originally posted by Eyezer:But for the arty fire, isn't it used more for area bombardments then target bombardments? Never heard of using arty as an alternative to tank columns. Are you serious about that? Thought a tank weakest protection is from the hatch, but that exposed area is so small compare to an area, isn't it too hard to do that? -
But from what Joe Black says, the british and Swedish already got those rounds.... So that means their arty platform has AT capability as well?
How accurate are those stuffs?Anyone? -
But if you have ever used the NVG, it is something very troublesome and uncomfortable. Moreover, it needs the mood light as a primary light source else it wouldn't work either. They don't work in complete darkness..(That's from what i know, correct me if wrong)
Most NVG operate on the concept of amplying low ambient light, and making it visible to the naked eye. They are passive and do not emit their own light.
Some models are able to emit their own light source, and thus enabling the user to view in complete darkness.
However, to enemy forces using passive NVG, you will stand out very clearly, like shinning a torch in a dark room. -
Yup it is, using arty fire to hit a tank is like trying to hit an infantryman with an unguided bomb from 10000 ft. While a direct hit from a normal arty round would surely take out ANY tank, its hitting the tank's thats the problem. While modern ballistics computers have reduced the CEP of an arty barrage quite significantly, its still a inefficent and risky way of taking out tanks. I think there are guided arty rounds in development or in service somewhere, but I've not seen it.
// The technique of calling arty fire to destroy a tank is an obselete one. Its is relavent during the days when the tanks are slower during the days of 1980s.(Combat and Survival)
In this age of faster tanks, missiles that home-in the laser beam emitted is used now. The SAS and Delta Forces used this system to destroy stationary targets(Scuds launchers and depots) in Iraq during the Gulf War at ranges up to 1000m. I believe that this technique is applicable to tanks too as the missiles adjusts is path as it flies or glides to the target.
Or with GPS and laser range finder, arty can be called to saturate the area with bomblets. This is used by mainly US and Western cointries.
About reactive armour.
I went to a lecture on explosive and poyrotechnics, the lecturer said that the reactive armour are able to dull the explosive power of a shaped charge but is not very effective against the SABOT rounds. Also there is a development to make the most power explosive. Its nitrogen-** composite. And he said there was a scientist successful with it and he blow the whole lab up with 5g of that stuff. And according to him, this new stuff its so powerful, not armour in the world at present is able to stop it. -
// That is very true.Originally posted by wombat:Most NVG operate on the concept of amplying low ambient light, and making it visible to the naked eye. They are passive and do not emit their own light.
Some models are able to emit their own light source, and thus enabling the user to view in complete darkness.
However, to enemy forces using passive NVG, you will stand out very clearly, like shinning a torch in a dark room.
Though they are very uncomfortable to wear, They would be a edge again the opponents. However, the junke vegetation in SEA would reduce the NVG effectiveness. From all the camera shots take with the NVG shown on TV shows in a South American jungle, it seems to be so, and they have to add a bit of extra light to allow the person to be seen. However this could be 1st generation technology. Presently US is using third generation now.
Also for the operation in Afghanistan, it taken placed on a very open terrain, so the stars' light would be enough to allow their NVG to work.
But it was mounted on the US test pilot helmet and it enable him to see the other jet plane rather than the blinkers without. Helicopter pilots are mostly train with night flying using NVG all over the world but fighters are few. And the planes so far that has integation for this feature are F-16, F-18 to my limited knowledge and there are others too I believe.
Also I had the fortune to see the cockpit camera shot of a F-117 in the mist of tracer fire when it was flying through Baghdad during Desert Storm. It surrounded by tracers. And it had not suffered any serious damage. Amazing.
I have see the camera footage of a French carrier jet plane trying to land on the French carrier. It has only three dots of lights to guide it in and he has to aim a small hollow ball on his screen to the centre dot of light on the carrier. Amazing flying. Relying on just dots to land a jet plane on a platform with a width not much bigger than the plane. -
I think reactive is quite useless to Milan and the new generation of missiles, as it was earlier design to counter RPGs. Furthermore considering the amount of explosive power it can pack to that of a Milan, it quite weak. Furthermore it depends on which face is mounted, it like the Claymore, Think the designer would want to blow the mounted tank armour by accident right.Originally posted by Joe Black: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.
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
Considering the limited manuvering space in Malaysia, I don't they will adopt the reactive armour on the T-90S.1st it would increase the size to the tanks and making them difficult to go between obstacles. And the logistics to cover the loss plates is difficult also.
And I think a lot of armies are giving up on reactive armour. as its not viable as the crew have an extra factor to take care of. And its unstablity makes it quite unfriendly to the user.