Singapore At War
-
SuperPuma fitted with Exocet ?
Have anyone seen or took pics of it? -
I cannot confirm this too as I have never seen any pictures or with my own eyes. However, I have read numerous reports and military information (including Flight Internation and some reputated journals) that RSAF have air launch Exocets. I cannot confirm the validity of such claims. I can only "guess" that it might be possible. I remember seeing this particular claim as early as mid 90s so I thought this is one of those "not public domain but everybody knows" kinda "secret".Originally posted by Viper52:With regards to Exocet use, this is the first time I've heard of this. I know that a Super Puma was experimentally fitted with a dipping sonar, but never heard that anything came out of that, nor of any fitting with Exocet, even on a test aircraft. I do know the new frigates come with MM40s though.
Anyway, it is no secret that for a short time, RSAF did practice using A/B version of Maverick as an anti-ship missile. However, the roles are usually given to the Skyhawks.
Got to check with my pilot friend one day since I think he is still in the Skyhawk sqn.
One other comment about the quality of RSAF pilots... I do agree with Viper52. My sources from RSAF pilot friends told me that they were quite highly regarded during the exercise with the US especially during the Red Flag. RSAF pilots did come up with some very good and pratical tactics which impressed the American and European pilots alike. -
Fwah... many many posts in 1 week...sorry for that dumb article :-) anyway, block leave is here! got more time to come here for the moment.....
About that last part, where someone said the Exocets were in use by Singapore. Could you please tell me where did you hear that from? Really would like to know. I never thought that we might have the exocets. Anyway, if it were true, would I be correct to say that the only way the SuperPumas could fire the Excocets will be through the help of datalinks, through which the E-2s will provide targeting info? -
who are we going to use the exocets on?
-
Why, sampans packed chock-full of Indonesian illegals of course, isn't that obvious?Originally posted by pocketpig:who are we going to use the exocets on?
Or perhaps whales that stray into nearby waters to prevent them threathening collisions with commercial shipping in the area.
Seriously, all our weapons are for deterrence, hopefully we will never need to use them. But in case we do, its good to know we have enough to defend ourselves if the need arises. -
why are we buying expensive exocet to shoot wooden boat and fish.
-
Janes has just published on June 6, that our friend up north finally inked the deal to buy Scopenes. Bought two, instead of three from the earlier reports. Wonder which model they got. (there are 3 types).
http://www.dcnintl.com/fiches/fich15a.htm
-=-=-=
http://www.dcnintl.com/htdocs/fraset05.htm
The Malaysian Ministry of Defence has awarded European naval shipbuilders DCN International and Izar a contract to build two medium-size Scorpene submarines. The contract signing ceremony held today in Kuala Lumpur marks an impressive move by the Royal Malaysian Navy paving the way for the formation of a submarine fleet. Submarines will significantly expand Malaysia's naval capabilities.
The two new-generation conventional attack submarines (SSKs) will be built jointly by DCN and Izar. The first, to enter service in 2007, will be assembled in Cherbourg (France) and the second, to enter service in 2008, at Izar's Cartagena shipyard in Spain.
Design features
Scorpene SSKs - already chosen by the Chilean Navy (two units currently in production) - feature state-of-the-art developments derived directly from France's submarines. They offer excellent size- and cost-effectiveness ratios.
Designed for missions ranging from anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare to special operations and intelligence gathering, Scorpene SSKs feature advances in hull shape and modular construction plus a range of state-of-the-art technologies. The outstanding combat system combines proven weapons handling and fire control with a complete sensor suite.
[This message has been edited by wombat (edited 09 June 2002).] -
Malaysia is buying an UNPROVEN product again, they better hope that it do not turn into another " Lekiu case ".
For the uninformed, Malaysia order 2 Lekiu class F-2000 frigates in 1992 for delivery in 1995 until to date the ships is still NOT in service in RMN ( as on 2000 ?? )
Anyone have the latest details on the 2 ships ??
Before anyone will start a " firefight " , let me clarified the term UNPROVEN - as NOT proven in operational use.
There is NO Scorpene SSKs in service.
All Scorpene SSKs is STILL under production - Chile -order 2 & My - 2 units.
Anyway, RMN having Scorpene SSKs is " so what" position to Sg. for the following reasons :
# Only 2 boats - by right there should be a minimal of 4 boats so have a boat out on station at all time.
# By 2010, when the RMN SSKs are ready for " operational " service - Sg will be phrasing into service its new submarines.
# Sg has 7 years head start in actual submarine service.
Please don 't tell me that RMN having been training for last 20 years because when they did was to sent INDIVIDUAL staff for training on other countries ' submarines.
INDIVIDUAL staff does " NOT RUN " submarines.
Like what I highlighted in one of my previous post on another forum - to have REAL operational service / capabilities, a country have to achieved the following:
Technical capabilities -
Maintenance / Repair / Spares
Tactical capabilities -
Ability to use / deploy the system at local level - a single unit
Strategic capabilities -
Ability to use / deploy the system at army / air force / navy level.
Kindly click the link for more details of the above: http://pub49.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm16.showMessage?topicID=621.topic
The above are my personal opinions and I always welcome all logical discussion. -
Originally posted by thomasct:
This time things are slightly different. Chile, being the launch customer will be experiencing all the teething problems. Malaysia will simply ride on back of the changes to be made to the design of from Chile's project.
Malaysia is buying an UNPROVEN product again, they better hope that it do not turn into another " Lekiu case ".
There was some fire-control and combat management systems integration problem just like the Royal Australian Navy suffers a similar issue with their Collin class sub. Things like that do happen for new platform but when they are resolved, the frigates are going to be quite formidable.
For the uninformed, Malaysia order 2 Lekiu class F-2000 frigates in 1992 for delivery in 1995 until to date the ships is still NOT in service in RMN ( as on 2000 ?? )
Anyone have the latest details on the 2 ships ??
We still have to give respect to sub "unproven" subs because they will end up hurting opponent who give them no respect. The French are good at building subs (even conventional diseal subs). I am sure that the Scorpene SSKs will give RSN Challenger class SSKs a run for their money.
Before anyone will start a " firefight " , let me clarified the term UNPROVEN - as NOT proven in operational use.
There is NO Scorpene SSKs in service.
All Scorpene SSKs is STILL under production - Chile -order 2 & My - 2 units.
Secondly, most of the new convention SSKs are new designs. You can say the same for the Swedish A17, A19, Israeli (German made and designed) Dolphine, European U212s, etc. So far, none of the new builts does not come from a purely new design. Are you saying then these "unproven" subs are all junks? In fact, all these new design improve many things over the "proven" design in the area of acoustic signature, engine design, fuel cell and air-independent technology, integrated combat systems, sonar technologies... I would rather RSN go for a totally new design sub than a "proven" sub like the U206 class. I would like to see RSN go for Scorpene, Dolphine, A19 or U212.
says who? Yes, 2 boats are a little short but how do you know that RMN would not order more in the near future? Just like RSN policy of getting a handful first than order more later.
Anyway, RMN having Scorpene SSKs is " so what" position to Sg. for the following reasons :
# Only 2 boats - by right there should be a minimal of 4 boats so have a boat out on station at all time.
Execuse me, where did you get this information???? If this is real, this is the first time this has been made public domain, and over a chat forum....
# By 2010, when the RMN SSKs are ready for " operational " service - Sg will be phrasing into service its new submarines. RSN is looking for a new sub - yes, this we know, but the time frame is definitely uncertain. RSN haven't even decided which sub design to go for, what kind of combat capabilities the new subs are going to have. They (RSN) are still learning the art of underwater warefare to determine what kind of sub suites the South China Sea, Singapore and Malacca Straits environment. I don't think we are anywhere near to determine the spec yet, not to mention start building one soon to be ready by 2010. Look how long it took the MCVs to be fully operational. Joe -
Are you certain that our current subs are mainl there for training? I always thought that we are going to be stuck with them for a loong time. If they were really for training, why buy so many (5!) subs of that kind?
-
YEAH!! THE MILITARY IS OVERSPENDING, OUR MONEY YOU KNOW?!?
-
We can never be certain what Mindef/RSN have in mind for the subs, but yes, officially, they are for training purposes. Of course they are also operational subs until 20xx when RSN see the needs to have new built boats that are much more technologically advanced. I think it will be sooner rather than later, between the 10 to 15 years timeframe?Originally posted by YourFather:Are you certain that our current subs are mainl there for training? I always thought that we are going to be stuck with them for a loong time. If they were really for training, why buy so many (5!) subs of that kind?
As for why RSN went ahead and purchase the Sjoormen class, I can only guess that they are dirt cheap cause the Swedish are going to send them to the scrap yard. The Sjoormen class had a combat system upgrade in the late 80s to early 90s with a cut-down version of the A-17 combat system. So, they are still pretty potent in low sub threat environment. Furthermore, it provides RSN initial capabilities to build a decent submarine force and sub surface warefare skills at a miminal cost possible. Each new built SSK today can cost up to nearly a full sqn of F-16s. That is why RMN can only afford 2 right now, RSN chose to acquire decent enough secondhand SSKs to equip a whole sqn rather than 2 !!!!
I guess SE Asian countries are new to the sub surface warfare and needed time to build up knowledge and skills especially around the surrounding waters. RSN is still quite new to this art evidence by the recent "sinkings" of the PVs and MCVs during war games with Australia, India and other countries.
Secondly, RSN is and will continue to conduct studies to determine what kind of subs are suitable, I mean what type of sonars for the higher temperature and "saltier" water found around Singapore, whether to use flank array, towed array, agility of the subs (X-rudder or the conventional T-rudder configuration), what kind of integrated fire-control system, topedoes, acoustic ID library etc.
All these knowledge and skills will take quite a number of years to accumulate, then compiled into a spec for RSN next gen subs. So, in a way, RSN is taking a whole new approach to customise local needs for very very very expensive platforms.
We are not talking about just buying a couple of planes. Each sub will cost roughly about an air force sqn. Each Navy sub sqn will cost Mindef and Singapore an equivalent of 4 to 6 sqn of fighters (almost entire air force).... get the picture ...
[This message has been edited by Joe Black (edited 13 June 2002).] -
Yes, I understand now. Thanks for that comprehensive reply :-)
-
[ QUOTE] Originally posted by Joe Black:
This time things are slightly different. Chile, being the launch customer will be experiencing all the teething problems. Malaysia will simply ride on back of the changes to be made to the design of from Chile's project. ". [/QUOTE]
That is provided that Malaysia orders the same boats with same equipment, fittings etc as Chile and are the chances of that happening?
Also anything major problems that effect Chile boats will effect the My boats deployment schedule / capabilities.
[ QUOTE] There was some fire-control and combat management systems integration problem just like the Royal Australian Navy suffers a similar issue with their Collin class sub. Things like that do happen for new platform but when they are resolved, the frigates are going to be quite formidable. [/QUOTE]
Well, I was informed that RMN commissioned the 2 ships in 1999 - 3 years behind time. Should be fully operational by now.
Yes, I agreed LEKIU is a well balance warship but ONLY 2 only units - again part-time / on - call capabilities ONLY.
quote:
" unproven " is NOT equal to Junk !!!We still have to give respect to sub "unproven" subs because they will end up hurting opponent who give them no respect. [/quote]
My comment is that is Scorpene SSKs in NOT service yet, therefore its technical, operational, functional etc capabilities is open to question / unproven.
What I am saying is that for Scorpene SSKs - how great / good / bad / successful etc in service open to question at this time.
Until the first boat will be launch in 2003, do you agreed that Scorpene SSKs is exist on paper only.Are you saying then these "unproven" subs are all junks?
When I say that Scorpene SSKs is " unproven ", is 100% accurate as the SSK concerned do NOT exists / in service yet.
" Unproven " is just a item etc whose performance, worth etc NOT YET verified, tested, confirm, determine etc.
Junk is an item PROVEN to be trash, useless, unfit for use etc.
You should be replying to what I have ACTUALLY written and NOT be replying to what YOU THINK what I am saying.
The reason that I say that Malaysia is buying two boats only is that the purchase agreement DO NOT includes any OPTIONS for additional boats.
says who? Yes, 2 boats are a little short but how do you know that RMN would not order more in the near future? Just like RSN policy of getting a handful first than order more later.
Personally, I beleived that for the foreseeable future, MY intended that its RMN to have only 2 Scorpene.
Options are common clauses in a purchase contract for possible intention to purchase additional units at a pre-agreed cost & delivery time frame.
Example: SG originally ordered 8 units of Apache with another option for 12 units that it later convert into firm order.
Submarine & aircraft take a long time to manufactured -
An aircraft can take up 1 to 3 years for it to be delivered to a customer.
A submarine will even tale a longer time -
Chile order in 1997 and will receive its first boat in 2003 - 6 years lead-time
RMN will receive its first boat in 2007 - 5 years lead-time.
As for the 4-boat requirement, naval doctrine:
1 on patrol
1 for dock maintenance
1 for stand-by & routine maintenance
1 going / retuning back from patrol area.
As the boats get older the maintenance cycle / needs will increased according.
So you want a FULL time capablity you need to have more than 2 boats.Sg officially started its submarine service in 1995, received its first boat in 1997 and by July 2000 has its first boat - RSS Conqueror in fully operational service in local waters.I am sure that the Scorpene SSKs will give RSN Challenger class SSKs a run for their money.
They (RSN) are still learning the art of underwater warefare to determine what kind of sub suites the South China Sea, Singapore and Malacca Straits environment. I don't think we are anywhere near to determine the spec yet, not to mention start building one soon to be ready by 2010.
Expect to have full squadron operational in 2003 .
Challenger in one on one with Scorpene (WITH ALL OTHER THINGS EQUAL) will sure to lose, as Challenger is 1 generation behind UNLESS Scorpene turn out to be an " inferior " design .
Base on current practice, SG will not allow My to exceed Sg 's military capabilities.
In order for the SG new generation subs to come in service by 2010, SG should place its order by 2005 latest if not earlier.
If by 2005, Sg Navy still cannot determine what they need for the new boats, then something is wrong with navy because by then Sg would have 10 years of subs service.
That why I say that by 2010 (or earlier) the new Sg boats will be coming to service.
[b] [quote] Look how long it took the MCVs to be fully operational.. [b/]Kindly elaborate on the above?
Have a nice day
The above are my PERSONAL opinions .
[This message has been edited by thomasct (edited 14 June 2002).] -
Hi thomasct,
Yap, I will in regards to the RSN MCV issues.
Kindly elaborate on the above?
RSN faced a few issues throughout the initial operational capability stage of the Missile Corvettes. There were the top mast being too heavy issue, the MCV rolled too much during heavier sea states. The integration of Barak came later than anticipated, my only guess is that IAI much have been delayed in some technical issues with Baraks. For some time the MCV have to operate without an anti-air system. The fire-control radars were not installed when the MCVs achieved initial operation capabilities.
These are just some of the more apparent issues. It is usual practice that new built boats are not built to be fully operational. It take some time to iron out system integration issues and sometimes, design/structure issues.
Unless one buy secondhand or proven design (with absolutely no changes), everyone will find themselves having to go through the same process of constantly having to rid unforseen design and development issues during the operational lifetime of the systems.
That's fine, it's ok to voice personal opinions especially well thoughtout and clearly articulated
The above are my PERSONAL opinions . Afterall this is only a discussion forums. We don't not represent any organisation in any of the posts here... Cheers. -
Originally posted by Joe Black:In my opinion, SAF can consider the following:
1. replace SM1 (that goes without saying) with a light/medium tank type with at least 105mm gun (preferrably 120mm). I personally like CV90-120mm type or upgraded Leo 1, A5 variant.
Actually the concept of traditional MBT armour crash is consider obselette in 21 century. I believe the next generation tank should be based along the new concept which the US is adopting, rapid deployment divisions where a whole combine arms division can be easily air transport/drop or via LST to hotspots within 24hrs. That will require a light armour tanks (MLC class 30 and below - or no more than 30 tonnes fully loaded). I forseen new technology like plastic composite armour chassis, modular addon armour, 40mm chain cannon armed with ABM/Armour Purcing rounds and launch pad with SPIKE series of guided missiles for the hard case MBTs.
2. Arty dudes need to increase their firepower with:
a. guided munitions such as copperhead-type munition or millimeter wave guided munitions.
b. different kind of munitions including cluster munitions, anti-personal and anti-tank mines, fuel-air explosive rounds, etc.
3. Greater use of UAVs (although theoretically this falls under RSAF responsibility), arm the UAVs with warheads for dive in kills and some with missiles such as Hellfires and Spikes.
In fact we already have such capabilities. All arty guns can fire 155mm AT, AP, AT/ME mixed rounds and some really nasty special rounds which is best not disclosed in the forum.
4. Improve air defence for each division with mobile launchers on M113 or the likes (like the LAV-AD LIGHT ARMOURED VEHICLE AIR DEFENSE system or the Linebacker SHORT RANGE AIR DEFENSE system).
I hope the 300 odd v150 and v200 will be replaced by TERREX AV81 platform, which should reach the end of their useful lifespan by now. For air defence, maybe a land based version of the Berak missile should be developed.
5. Improve anti-amour/anti-tank by upgrading some or all Bionix IFV with TOW missiles (eg. like M2 Bradley or LAV 25).
As in section 1. But I will still stick to SPIKE and Berak missile. Why? That is because we spend mony to co-develop SPIKE with Israel and also spend mony co-develop Berak with Israel and Chile. Current Rafael is helping us to build a manufacturing facility to produce these 2 highly aclaimed system locally and we can build as many as we like, not to mention export it. This 2 new system has lots of potential for expansion and the technology transfer will allow us to improve it in due time. Already plans are underway to develop a variant of SPIKE to mount on attack copters in case we run out of expansive hellfire and a land based Berak anti missile/aircraft system to replace rapier.
Does anybody have more ideas??? -
" 5. Improve anti-amour/anti-tank by upgrading some or all Bionix IFV with TOW missiles (eg. like M2 Bradley or LAV 25)."
Strongly agree here. Should unexpected contact be made with enemy armour, meaningful counterfire can be made immediately, without having to deploy the anti-tank squads under fire.(shudder)
"3. In fact we already have such capabilities. All arty guns can fire 155mm AT, AP, AT/ME mixed rounds and some really nasty special rounds which is best not disclosed in the forum. "
Nasty special rounds? I hope you aren't referring to the cargo round in development by us aren't you? Only exotic types are.... lets see... the German SMArt 155, the French-Swedish Bonus round, both of which are anti-tank rounds....... the EMP round (VERY interesting round) , by the Brits.... I dont think there are any others. Unless bought from them, we wont have such capabilities, as these are really high tech stuff requiring expertise which I guess we dont have. I think chem/bio warheads are out of the question. Hopefully.
"b. different kind of munitions including cluster munitions, anti-personal and anti-tank mines, fuel-air explosive rounds, etc. "
Cluster munitions. I hope we can acquire some of the new WCMD rounds, especially the BLU-105 with the 'skeet' munitions. Would be a nice capability to have.
"Actually the concept of traditional MBT armour crash is consider obselette in 21 century. I believe the next generation tank should be based along the new concept which the US is adopting, rapid deployment divisions where a whole combine arms division can be easily air transport/drop or via LST to hotspots within 24hrs. That will require a light armour tanks (MLC class 30 and below - or no more than 30 tonnes fully loaded). I forseen new technology like plastic composite armour chassis, modular addon armour, 40mm chain cannon armed with ABM/Armour Purcing rounds and launch pad with SPIKE series of guided missiles for the hard case MBTs. "
Let's not get too carried away with the US Army's vision of the FCS. First of all, we have to recognise that the requirements of the US Army are different from ours. They are an expeditionary force, having to deploy to conflicts anywhere in the world when called upon. This means that in addition to requiring tactical mobility, their land forces requires strategic mobility. Their lack of rapid deployability is glaring in the fact that it took 6 mths to build up their forces in S.Arabia during ODS. (only 101st arrived early, and they had no stopping force against any attack) Its understood that should China try to invade Taiwan, China will prevent the entry of American forces into the theatre. In fact, as recently reported, China has been trying to acquire such a capability for some time, though its more directed towards America's carriers.
America thus came up with the FCS. Its supposed to be a system which is highly air-deployable, and will have an offensive capability disproportionate to its size. It will rely on maximum situational awareness achieved through UAVs, the Wolfpack system (whole range of other sys lah), and exploit the info gathered to engage at places and times of their choosing. Currently, the concept is that engagement will be 'stand-off', as they would not be survivable against close-in engagements againts heavy armour. However, I believe research is going on to improve the defenses of the FCS vehicles to enable close-in engagements too, but this will most probably rely on 'active' defense measures like Boeings SLID. At 20 tons, insufficient amt of current armour can be installed, and even new concepts of passive armour in development would not be able to handle a direct hit from a tank's main gun, if they still wanna keep to the 20-ton limit.
Now, the question is, do we really have to follow the US Army's vision? We must understand that should war break out, the theatre of operations would be right HERE. There is no requirement for strategic mobility, tactical mobility is more than enough. We should, however, aim to reduce the logistical tail of our forces. Electric drive systems, decreasing the size of our ammo while increasing their lethality and Pks etc are some of the technologies we should invest in.
Another point of the FCS is their over-reliance on situational awareness. Due to their lack of armour, they try their best to engage at a stand-off distance. In other words, FULL situational awareness is not just important to the survival of the FCS, but critical. Should they come unexpectedly into contact with the enemy, they will be at a serious disadvantage. On a land terrain, with uneven ground limiting LOS, land features like trees, etc, situational awareness is not acquired as easily as at sea. Add this to the fact that the enemy will try their best to not be seen, and you will have hell of a trouble trying to get and maintain your situational awareness. The US, even with all their ISR equipment, (which is by far the best in the world) would be seriously challenged. If possible at all, all this can only be done with an extremely comprehensive network of sensors with extensive integration between sensors and shooters. This leads us to the question of
1. do we have the technology to integrate our systems to such an extent required by an FCS like concept? And if so, make the links robust enuff to continue to function under heavy jamming conditions? Its important to note that should the links fail to work for whatever reason, the whole system will actually be LESS capable than the systems today.
2. Do we have the financial capability to develop the extensive number and types of systems required to carry out the concept?
The US will have to utilise all the resources available to them, like the J-STARS, U-2, RC-135, Prophet EW system, future Wolfpack system, Space Radar, blah blah blah. Can we afford to put in place such a system? -
I think eversince the birth of armed gunships like APACHE and TIGER... the idea of sending armor against armor seems to be a day of the past...
Even if the armors should accidentally ran into each other on the battlefield... the relatively availability of air power such as fighters, bombers, attack aircraft and gunships... could easily turn the tide of battle....
And should air power be not available... there are the good old tank traps.... just draw them in... and its no way out of that ditch... no matter how power your engine is... how big your gun is or how thick the armor is... -
I am not saying we do exact copies whatever US Army does, besides we do not have the big $$$ like US does. But the days of the large expansive MBT is consider over, unless you have newer counter measures against the latest generation of anti amour missiles like the hellfire II, javelin or spike (which has the capability to overcome the thickest composite armour even equipped with reactive armour). If based on the conventional tank design like M1A2, Leapord II, Challenger II or the T-90, you need to have at least a metre thick of composite armour wall for protection which is totally unpractical. Moreover majority of our organic assault bridging capabilities are limited to MLC30 so there is no point of obtaining an MBT heavier than 30 tons which will reder them useless in our terrain (where every few kms there is a 4-8m wide longkang). I would rather suggest we get a light armour based along the Israel Maverick design but armed with chain cannon against soft/medium targets and also can be against AA targets and incomming AT missiles plus a couple of spike AT missiles againt hard/armour targets.
-
Originally posted by bigballs11:
huh?Maverick design, what is that? Could you kindly point me to any reference of this design. Do you mean the Merkava? If it is the Merkava you are talking about, you are looking at a 50 to 60 tons platform rather than a MLU 30 platform.
I would rather suggest we get a light armour based along the Israel Maverick design but armed with chain cannon against soft/medium targets and also can be against AA targets and incomming AT missiles plus a couple of spike AT missiles againt hard/armour targets.
In my opinion, SAF will probably end up getting a 105mm gunned light tank to replace the SM1. It will probably be:
1. a Bionix chassis 105mm gun from STEngg
2. a foreign designed local assembled light tank like Stingray, the Spain ASCOD LT 105
3. A 8x8 Terrix based 105 mm gun from STEngg
SAF will also probably get some secondhand MBT to replace the Centurions/Tempest. Running candidates I believe are:
1. AMX-30B2
2. M60A3
and of course I think they will be upgraded somewhat. -
Yup, sorry for the mix up, it's Israel Merkava...he..he...typo error.
For new light tanks, I would think they would just put the modified stingray turret (with the 105mm low recoll rifle gun) on top of the Bionix and still can squeeze in a section of infrantryman. That will be our localised version of "Merkava", see the light?
BTW we already got M60 tanks what...but only use for armour engineering task. BTW a second hand M60 hull is also quite expansive U know, also need SGD2million. SGD1million if you remove the turret, cheaper if you get M48A5 cost only half a million. But a ex warsaw pact mothball T55 will be a mere 100k, maybe buy 2 get 1 free, shipping cost and GST excluded.
- Quote obtain from DMO.Originally posted by Joe Black:huh?Maverick design, what is that? Could you kindly point me to any reference of this design. Do you mean the Merkava? If it is the Merkava you are talking about, you are looking at a 50 to 60 tons platform rather than a MLU 30 platform.
In my opinion, SAF will probably end up getting a 105mm gunned light tank to replace the SM1. It will probably be:
1. a Bionix chassis 105mm gun from STEngg
2. a foreign designed local assembled light tank like Stingray, the Spain ASCOD LT 105
3. A 8x8 Terrix based 105 mm gun from STEngg
SAF will also probably get some secondhand MBT to replace the Centurions/Tempest. Running candidates I believe are:
1. AMX-30B2
2. M60A3
and of course I think they will be upgraded somewhat. -
hey guys i realised this debate is being blinded by the concept of SAF acquire modern MBT the 50 \ 60 tonner.The question is DO WE REALLY NEED THEM?WILL IT BE USEFUL IN FUTURE WARDFARE?
In future conflict,air dominance will be the decisive factor.One latest example air power conflict is the korsove crisis.The Nato forces virtually didnt suffered any human causlties done by firing from the opposition enemy forces.This is one huge advantage by extensive use of air power.
singapore as an island surrounded with natural barrier(water)is more vulnerable to air/sea attack.With regard to MBT well.......i dun see there is any need to replace SM1 light tank with some 50 tonner.
I personal opinions is SAF should give some serious consideration to acquire MLRS / Long range self propelled artillary pieces such as the South africa G6 155mm Self Propelled Howitzer
PzH 2000 155mm Self Propelled Howitzer considering the fact it can attack faraway target -
If you follow the thread of discussion, most of us agree that SAF should not be acquiring a 50 to 60 tons MBT. We looking at a 30 to 40 tons (hopefully with 120mm gun) to replace the Centurions and a 20 to 30 tons light tank (105mm gun) to replace the SM1s.Originally posted by Orcishwarrior:hey guys i realised this debate is being blinded by the concept of SAF acquire modern MBT the 50 \ 60 tonner.The question is DO WE REALLY NEED THEM?WILL IT BE USEFUL IN FUTURE WARDFARE?
In future conflict,air dominance will be the decisive factor.One latest example air power conflict is the korsove crisis.The Nato forces virtually didnt suffered any human causlties done by firing from the opposition enemy forces.This is one huge advantage by extensive use of air power.
singapore as an island surrounded with natural barrier(water)is more vulnerable to air/sea attack.With regard to MBT well.......i dun see there is any need to replace SM1 light tank with some 50 tonner.
I personal opinions is SAF should give some serious consideration to acquire MLRS / Long range self propelled artillary pieces such as the South africa G6 155mm Self Propelled Howitzer
PzH 2000 155mm Self Propelled Howitzer considering the fact it can attack faraway target
As for the Self Propelled Howitzer issue, some posters already mentioned that STEngg bought some M106 chassis to marry in the FH88/2000 gun to produce a local variant self propelled howitzer. SAF has always shown interest in MLRS but deemed too hot to have because Malaysian govt will sure to complain that we are about to invade them. MLRS is too offensive oriented. But that doesn't mean that SAF is not looking at the HIMARS or some other multiple launch rocket systems. There are even rumours from some defence technology journals that STEngg has been experimenting some multiple launch rocket systems themselves. A locally designed and built version made sense. -
I agree that we as neighbours should be sensitive to each other discomfort regardless of any issue
but regarding the MLRS,the malaysian had acquired brazilian MLRS and reported to have been delivered to the MAF.I dun see y!!we cant do the same.....this MLRS of theirs can be quite a nasty threat to us.a few rockets can already cause heavy causlties before we can even throw our "shit" at them.
I believe our force should be have a more offensive attitude towards them.
Of course not to the extend to the brink of war......i mean to show them we can be quiet and tolerances,on the other hand show them we can display the might of a true LION.
-
Speaking of MLRS systems, assuming we are getting the US MLRS system, should we get the HIMARS version or the normal version. I believe that getting the normal tracked version is better as the HIMARS air-mobility is not really needed, and it has only half the firepower of the normal version. What say you guys?