The Singapore Defence Industries
-
I currently writing my thesis. It is about defence industries in Singapore. Specifically I'm looking at Singapore Technologies Engineering (ST Engg) and its role in the defence of Singapore.
Despite ploughing through many journals, the most I got were puff pieces extolling the virtues of ST Engg as a business company or articles hawking ST Engg products. Which in itself is not too surprising, since magazines and journals like Jane's have vested interested in promoting defence industries.
I was wondering if one of you can direct me to articles/magzines/books, that you have read or come across, that critically discusses ST Engg, its activities, the organisation or its effectiveness?
You can either post your replies here or email me privately at [email protected] I thank you in advance!
PS: I am also trying to find ST College. Heard there's a library there. Maybe I can find more source material there. Does anyone know where it is, and if anyone can just go in? -
Not very likely to find critical articles, ST is indeed a good and innovative company.
-
Thanks for your prompt reply.
However, I would like to clarify what exactly you meant by 'good and innovative'. Can you raise specific examples of it being good? Or innovative?
What do you make of the coffeeshop talk about ST Engg merely rips off designs from the West and calls it their own? -
ST copy others design...??
put it this way...
IF ST comes out with a brand new "death star" weapon... do you think it will become public knowledge.. or will it be hushed up and secretly produced for SAF only? since revealing such system for WATEVER reason including for thesis would simply compromise national security....
Understandably... most defence industries does comes up with something new... but its usually hushed up... unless it is released for sale.... to the global market...or was used in public due to war...
example... NIGHTHAWK of USA ... -
"rips off" implies blatant patent infringement... and since ST does intend to market its products in the world arms market, it cannot do that without legal repercussions...Originally posted by Palmbum:Thanks for your prompt reply.
However, I would like to clarify what exactly you meant by 'good and innovative'. Can you raise specific examples of it being good? Or innovative?
What do you make of the coffeeshop talk about ST Engg merely rips off designs from the West and calls it their own?
but i don't see anything wrong with IMPROVING on other people's design concept. bear in mind that having an idea is a long shot from building an operational prototype.
like... are the car makers gonna sue each other for "copying" their design since most class 3 motor vehicles have 4 wheels?
we talked about this before in another thread... and the consensus seems to be, why re-invent the wheel?
-
Yes, I understand what you mean. But coming out with innovative design does not mean it is a 'good' defence company capable of fulfilling SAF's needs does it?
I am interested in looking how ST goes about fulfilling this need, or if it pursues projects that brings in profit, but not inline with SAF's defence requirements. -
What nice stuff did ST come up with so far?
As for good proucts, I'll vote straight for the SAR-21, the negative reactions I've seen coming from some who decide "to stick it with the M-16" are rather puzzling, since it was developed to replace, and be better then the M-16 itself. Most negative reactions I've seen seem to have stemmed from a form of mentality that homegrown weapons are inferior or from the normal kneejerk reaction most soldiers have to new equipment that replaces what they are used to. From what I can see and tried in both weapons, the SAR-21 is vastly superior to the M-16, and a crowning achievement of ST engineering. People who complain that it is a rip off of the Aug better look again, for the difference is only skin deep. In fact the SAR-21 is more advanced then the Aug, but I've yet to see the Aug get the same cold reaction. (in fact most people seem to think it's cool!) Said and done, the SAR-21 is good, period.
Other excellent products were the Ultimax 100 machine gun and Bionix I suppose.
As for real ST innovations, I think there are some:
I like their 14kg ultra lightweight grenade launcher and smart air bursting ammo that is similar in operation to the OCIWS 20mm grenade. And of course, the automatic repeating 120mm mortar system that spit out ten rounds a minute. -
ST has developed a 35mm anti-missile gun which can fire 35mm rounds filled with hundreds if not thousands of sub-ammunition bomblets.
A radar will first detect any hostile missile. The computer will predict its flight path. The gun will fire the 35mm rounds into the missile's flight path. These rounds will release these bomblets into the predicted flight path of the missile. So when the missile hit the bomblets, it will be rendered useless as the bomblets damaged the missile's seeker, fins etc. This sysetm was exhibited in the 2000 and 2002 Asian Aerospace along with a AIM-4 Falcon missile damaged by the weapon system. ST may have copied this idea and weapon system from Bofors which had also developed such a gun. -
MINDEF has pointed out that it is NOT a captive market for ST products. previous ST products HAVE been rejected by MINDEF if it did not suit SAF's operational requirements.Originally posted by Palmbum:Yes, I understand what you mean. But coming out with innovative design does not mean it is a 'good' defence company capable of fulfilling SAF's needs does it?
I am interested in looking how ST goes about fulfilling this need, or if it pursues projects that brings in profit, but not inline with SAF's defence requirements.
ST knows this. its shares are also publicly listed and traded so it would be rather spastic to assume that it can continue to make substandard products which SAF refuses to buy and which it cannot sell overseas. it needs to account to its shareholders u know...
strictly speaking, ST does BOTH of those things u mentioned. being based in Sg, it has certain advantages by trying to sell to SAF first.
at the same time, the SAF alone cannot provide ST with the critical mass it needs to survive and grow in the real world so it NEEDS to market its products abroad.
but in order to compete on the world market, it NEEDS world class products and innovations.
so, SAF gets to pick from a range of first class systems and select only the best suited for its requirements, which may not be ST.
fulfilling SAF's needs is but one of many of its key objectives. and it NEEDS to be a first world class innovator to win SAF contracts which attracts defence contractors from all over the developed world.
at the same time, they market abroad to increase sales (which incidentally, also attracts the same defence contactors to compete...)
so both aims complements each other. there is no contradiction as u seem to suggest. -
ST Engineering works with DSTA in developing products that can be used by the SAF, as well as the world market at large.
Towards this end, it is also known to have worked with leading manufacturers in joint R+D, or the outright purchase of Designs (with patents) from independent designers, and develop the design further for local use (if suitable).
Some of these ventures are the “air bursting” ammo (posted by “SingaporeTyrannosaur”, and referred to as “anti missile” gun firing 35mm ammo posted by “eurofighter”), which is developed jointly with Bofors (not copied).
The Bionix APC was developed jointly with foreign expertise in design and production engineering. It was specifically developed as a replacement for the dated M113 APC from the Vietnam War Era with its inherent weakness.
The Bionix APC was further modified, in an attempt to meet the US Army requirement for a replacement to the Bradley APC. However, it was unsuccessful as the US Armoured Corp had its revised doctrine for armoured warfare to be based on wheeled and not tracked APC.
The SAR-21 is an example of a foreign design purchase, with further refinements to the design to suit local operating conditions.
Stealth Patrol Boats have also been developed jointly with the Swedish Manufactures of the Visby series of Patrol Boats; while the modified La Fayetter Frigates with Stealth Features have been contracted to the French DCN Shipyard Yard, with contracted transfer of technologies being signed to allow ST Engineering to build the same vessels in Singapore.
In the Air, ST Engineering, was reported by JaneÂ’s Defense Journal, to have the assistance from the Israeli Defense Industries in the conversion of Skyhawks, F-5s and even the F-16. In all probability, the E-2C airborne early warning aircraft would have got some up-grade of hardware and software with the help of the Israeli Defense Industry.
These co-operation with foreign companies involved in the defense industries, will allow a shorter learning curve, and joint development will allow us more then a degree of being self-sufficiency and reliability in long term supplies. -
************************************************Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:What nice stuff did ST come up with so far?
As for good proucts, I'll vote straight for the SAR-21, the negative reactions I've seen coming from some who decide "to stick it with the M-16" are rather puzzling, since it was developed to replace, and be better then the M-16 itself. Most negative reactions I've seen seem to have stemmed from a form of mentality that homegrown weapons are inferior or from the normal kneejerk reaction most soldiers have to new equipment that replaces what they are used to. From what I can see and tried in both weapons, the SAR-21 is vastly superior to the M-16, and a crowning achievement of ST engineering. People who complain that it is a rip off of the Aug better look again, for the difference is only skin deep. In fact the SAR-21 is more advanced then the Aug, but I've yet to see the Aug get the same cold reaction. (in fact most people seem to think it's cool!) Said and done, the SAR-21 is good, period.
************************************************************
technology wise,sar21 is by all means superior than m16,period.
end user side wise, it sucks big time,period.
jus have to use it on the day to day basis and you'll know.
aug has a major advantage, it's much lighter friend. no offence friend but sometimes st does design shits, period.
******************************
Other excellent products were the Ultimax 100 machine gun and Bionix I suppose.
*******************************
ultimax 100? this so call saw in the inventory that we have sucks. and i'm talking about the mk3 version. true it mite be the lightest SUBmachine gun in it's catrgory but it IA big time!!!jus ask any saw gunners who have gone for their range. bionix wise i'm not very sure. from a friend in the armour, it's very crampy. much crampier than m113.
**************************************************
As for real ST innovations, I think there are some:
I like their 14kg ultra lightweight grenade launcher and smart air bursting ammo that is similar in operation to the OCIWS 20mm grenade. And of course, the automatic repeating 120mm mortar system that spit out ten rounds a minute.
this i have no comments. -
i believe in endorsin local products but there's no point in supportin it blindly by neglectin it's bad points. i believe ST would do much better if it have more end user, i mean saf soldiers who are gonna use it, opinon rather than those of the engineers.
-
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2003/01/15/191055
Taiwan producing prototypes of new anti-aircraft guns developed by Singapore. -
Erm, I'm refering to 40mm the smart Automatic Grenade Launcher ammo, not the 35mm air bursting. The range to target for the 40mm smart round is input when it's launched down the barrel of the launcher and the round counts down the time to target. It has the ability to explode over targets instead of the traditional impact grenades and hence has the ability to kill targets traditionaly safe in defilade. Not to be confused with the air bursting 35mm shell.
-
I guess we all have our personal favourites when it comes to weaponry. Just to play the Devil's Advocate... what in your opinion are the duds that ST have come up with, in terms of military hardware?
-
The US Army did not intend to buy the bionix as a "replacement" to the bradley. They are looking at it as an, light-airportable fighting vehicle in replacement of the M113s and alternative to the stupid LAV-25. There was a huge debate about tracked vs wheeled armored fighting vehicle, (guess Gen Shinseki was on whose team?), and finally it most people were convinced that tracked vehicles were somewhat less vulnerable. So the "tracked" faction suggested upgrading the M113 to Gavin standard, which the US Army didn't want to. And since they were also somewhat convinced against LAVs, they started looking for another vehicle that would fulfill the light, airportable, and tracked vehicle requirements. Thats where the Bionix came in.
-
http://www.austrade.gov.au/print_template/0,1059,ContentGroup%253Dcountryindust%2526ContentType%253Dcountryindust%2526ContentSection%253D%2526MetaRID%253DPWB179716,00.html
try this website....maybe it will be for some help... -
Wheeled units seem like a bad step in the wrong direction, already there have been many problems with the LAV, ridiculus armour protection, high cg that makes it prone to overturning at speed, pop gun weaponary, and those large bloated rubber tires (makes mobility kills easy) that need to be changed once every two weeks! And not to mention that dumb thing can't even fit in a C-130 without letting the air out of the tires, while a Gavin can just roll in. I'm going for the tracked faction anytime, I know which thing I want to be in during a firefight...
During the black hawk down incident, two Malaysian Condors, which are nothing more then garbage trucks on large rubber wheels were destroyed when they got set on fire and burst, being unable to move they were taken out or burnt out. Guess where the two malaysians died? -
There was this dud ST came out with, the SAR-80 rifle, which was supposed to be a cheapo replacement for the M-16. In the end it ended up in the black markets of mog being used by somalians!
-
What bout the latest ST Terrex APC?
-
here's an recent article on the Terrex:
ST Kinetics' new 8x8 Terrex AV81 has been designed to its requirements by Timoney Technology of County Meath, Ireland. In addition to designing its prototype, Timoney was also responsible for the welding of its hull, assembling it and carrying out preliminary automotive trials prior to its unveiling at the DSEi exhibition in London in September 2001 (see IDR 11/2001, p16).
The design and construction of the prototype were accomplished in a remarkably short period of 18 months. This stands in striking contrast to the protracted gestation of some other contemporary 8x8 armored vehicles, and can be attributed in part to the experience Timoney acquired in the design of similar armored vehicles and to the use of Timoney's previously developed axle and suspension modules.
Timoney's experience goes back to the mid-1970s when it built a small batch of 4x4 armored carriers for the Irish Army. The report on this by IDR (see IDR 4/1975, pp578-580) attracted the attention of the Belgian authorities and 146 Timoney 4x4 armored carriers were subsequently built in Belgium under license as the BDX. By 1990, Timoney had designed and built a heavier 6x6 armored carrier, which led to similar CM 31 prototypes for the Republic of China (Taiwan) as well as designing other vehicles and the chassis of the P.23 8x8 Crash Fire Rescue vehicle, 250 of which were built for the US Air Force (see IDR 8/1990, pp883-885). CM 31 is now being developed in Taiwan into the 8x8 CM 32, and its design foreshadowed in some respects that of Terrex AV81.
All the vehicles designed by Timoney have incorporated its integrated axle-cum-suspension modules, which have been refined progressively over a period of more than 20 years. As a result they are available, fully developed, for Terrex AV81, providing it with the advantages of a proven independent suspension and axle design. Its effectiveness is attested by its adoption also by the manufacturers of other vehicles, who wanted to benefit from the advantages of independent suspension instead of following the common practice of using rigid-beam axle truck suspensions but did not want to invest time and money in the development of their own systems. Examples of this include Volvo military trucks and the 4x4 M1117 Armored Security Vehicle produced by Textron Marine and Land Systems for the US Military Police. Another vehicle currently using Timoney axle-suspension modules is the Bushmaster Infantry Mobility Vehicle designed by Timoney and built by ADI for the Australian Army.
The independent suspension, which forms part of the modules, is of the double wishbone type with a single coil spring and a concentric telescopic damper acting on the lower wishbone. In addition to the suspension elements each module includes a differential unit, universally jointed half-shafts and hub-mounted disc brakes actuated by an anti-lock braking system. The wheels which go with this are fitted with large diameter 395/85 R20 tires connected to a central tire-inflation system which allows them to be deflated on the move to reduce the ground pressure for the crossing of soft ground.
Four modules support the hull, which is welded from high-hardness steel plates thick enough to provide in its basic form all-round protection against 7.62mm x 51-ball ammunition. However, higher levels of protection up to 14.5mm armor-piercing bullets are to be provided by add-on armor. As ST Kinetics' Bionix has already been fitted with the MEXAS ceramic tile armor produced in Germany by IBD, this is also likely to be fitted to Terrex AV81.
In keeping with the importance currently attached to protection against mines, considerable attention has been paid to it in the design of the hull. One of the results of this is that the hull has a double floor, with its outer layer being V-shaped to help deflect mine blast, and there is a blast-deflector plate under the drive line. In designing the hull against mines, Timoney benefited from its experience in Australia with the Bushmaster, which successfully competed with a vehicle from South Africa, the country that has led in the design of mine-resistant vehicles. In consequence Terrex AV81 is claimed to be able to withstand the explosion of a 10-12kg mine anywhere underneath it.
The hull has an internal volume of no less than 12.2m3, which is more than sufficient to meet the contemporary demands for capacity. This enables it, among other capabilities, to accommodate up to 12 persons in addition to a crew of two when Terrex AV81 is used as a personnel carrier. In spite of this, the overall dimensions of Terrex AV81 are somewhat smaller than those of other 8x8 armored vehicles currently being developed, the length being 6.8m, width 2.7m and height to the top of the turret roof 2.1m. One of the benefits of its relatively compact dimensions and an unladen weight of only 13,000kg is that Terrex AV81 is transportable in C-130 aircraft.
An interesting feature of the hull design is that its roof is removable to ease modifications required by different weapon installations or by demands for even more space - in particular headroom - for command-post and ambulance versions. The ability to remove the roof does not affect the integrity of the hull's monocoque structure, and represents a more effective approach to the problem of adapting a vehicle to different roles than the replacement of most of its hull by a separate, exchangeable 'mission module'. The latter has been adopted for some vehicles currently being developed, but is less efficient structurally and makes them heavier as well as more complicated and more costly to build.
As in other 8x8 armored vehicles, the front part of the hull houses the engine compartment. Alongside it is the driver's station, which is to be fitted with a novel type of cupola that is currently the subject of a patent application. The cupola is rotatable and has a 'bulletproof' windscreen on one side of it and a face of armor surmounted by periscopes on the other. The driver does not therefore have to drive 'head out' when he wants a better view of the road - exposing himself in the process to the weather and minor threats - but can look through the windscreen and stay under cover at all times, rotating the cupola 180º according to the conditions in which his vehicle operates.
As the rotatable driver's cupola was not installed on the prototype, the latter was fitted instead with the same arrangement of three fixed periscopes as the Bionix.
The engine which powers Terrex AV81 is a Caterpillar C 9 6-cylinder turbocharged diesel, developing 420hp (313kW) at 2,200rpm and coupled to an Allison HD 4560P automatic transmission with six forward and one reverse gear. The drive from the transmission is through a single-speed drop box and a single-speed transfer case at the second axle unit and then to the front axle rearwards to the third and fourth axles, all eight wheels being permanently driven. The whole drive train as well as the engine is designed to give the vehicle a maximum road speed of 120km/h.
When lightly laden the vehicle has sufficient buoyancy to float without aids, but these are being developed to enable it to operate in water even when its gross weight is at its maximum of 24,000kg. In water it can propel itself by means of two water-jet propulsion units made by Ultra Dynamics. These are hydraulically driven and one is mounted on either side of the rear of the hull.
At DSEi, Terrex AV81 was exhibited with an ST Kinetics 40mm automatic grenade launcher and a 7.62mm machine gun, both mounted externally and remotely operated from within the hull. Possible alternative weapon installations include a 25mm automatic cannon in an ST Kinetic two-person turret, which is already used on the Bionix, and low recoil-force 105mm tank gun.
The prototype has now been shipped to Singapore where decisions are to be taken about the second prototype. -
With regards to the emphasis on containing the terrorist threat in Singapore, what role do you see ST Engg can/should play?
-
I hope to see the Terrex replace the current V200 vehicles. The Terrex can serve as weopons platforms and APCs for selected infantry/guards units. The V200s attached to my unit are way too old, in my opinion.
-
I think it's rather unfair to say if the SAR sucks or rules since we dun really have the experience on the weapon itself. Holding the weapon in exhibitions or open house for a few secs is just too earlier to judge the weapon as I think most of us have never fired live rounds or trained with the SAR before. But we must note that although the SAR is out...it's still sort of in test phrase and it's use only by some NS units. The user-end feedback and suggestions have yet to be complete. Sad to say most of the "end-users" are NSF troop who are dying to ORD are dun give a fark about the feebacks...sigh............ But we can expect the MK II version to be fully ulitilize by SAF.
As for good proucts, I'll vote straight for the SAR-21, the negative reactions I've seen coming from some who decide "to stick it with the M-16" are rather puzzling, since it was developed to replace, and be better then the M-16 itself. Most negative reactions I've seen seem to have stemmed from a form of mentality that homegrown weapons are inferior or from the normal kneejerk reaction most soldiers have to new equipment that replaces what they are used to. From what I can see and tried in both weapons, the SAR-21 is vastly superior to the M-16, and a crowning achievement of ST engineering. People who complain that it is a rip off of the Aug better look again, for the difference is only skin deep. In fact the SAR-21 is more advanced then the Aug, but I've yet to see the Aug get the same cold reaction. (in fact most people seem to think it's cool!) Said and done, the SAR-21 is good, period.
************************************************************
technology wise,sar21 is by all means superior than m16,period.
end user side wise, it sucks big time,period.
jus have to use it on the day to day basis and you'll know.
aug has a major advantage, it's much lighter friend. no offence friend but sometimes st does design *&@&s, period.
******************************
The SAW is an old product. I would call it "excellent".... in fact the weapon has major flaws........ I'll just say my experience as I was a SAW-gunner for a short while during my stint. Basically, I agree with foga that it sucks..... The weapon is not really well designed and there are many rough parts. If you are one of those garang SAW gunners you realize that the pistol grip often rub against the top skin of your tumb and blister formed...... that due to the small gap between the butt and the steel body (SAW's butt is detachable).
Other excellent products were the Ultimax 100 machine gun and Bionix I suppose.
*******************************
ultimax 100? this so call saw in the inventory that we have sucks. and i'm talking about the mk3 version. true it mite be the lightest SUBmachine gun in it's catrgory but it IA big time!!!jus ask any saw gunners who have gone for their range. bionix wise i'm not very sure. from a friend in the armour, it's very crampy. much crampier than m113.
**************************************************
Jams in SAW? It depends...... if it fresh out of the armoury..... it'll be superb.... it'll never jam..... you can fire rounds after rounds.....BUT the problem come after you stop firing for awhile, the jamming come if you let rest the weapon for too long.... Reason is YOU DIDN'T MAINTAIN IT.... The SAW requires the user to constantly maintain it and that's a no no especially if you're on missions after missions. The gas regulator chokes up carbon too easlier...dunno whether izzit becuase it's a 5.56mm weapon.
A good SAW gunner will know how to handle the weapon, but they deserve better.....
IMO, the SAW could have been a better weapon......the time is near for SAF let it go.....
The BX saves alot on track and suspension maintainance...... that's a known fact......BX driver better know the luxury they have for the need to maintain tracks and suspension in intervals of 6 months. For the M113 troops, it's a weekly affair. Who like the crappy M113 torsion bar suspensions and their GREASE?
[/quote] -
I have to agree on these points. I've used the M16 for 12 years now (2yrs NS+10yrs reserve), and in all forms of exercises locally, and in places like Brunei, Thailand and Taiwan. I know the rifle well enough.
But SAR21 - I've only used it at the range, never out on field exercises. I'm sure the SAR21 is an updated modern rifle, but without enough experience on it (esp. in Brunei), we can never tell its pros and cons. We don't want another SA80 type problem here and I'm sure ST are working out the improvements.
Perharps they should get feedback from older reserve units as well. Assuming the SAR21 will be used for the next 30 years (like the M16), by that time - our sons would be using it, based on feedback their fathers gave.
On another note - there is a lot of discussion on the internet, with regards to conventional straight line rifles versus bullpup ones.Originally posted by Silenthunter:I think it's rather unfair to say if the SAR sucks or rules since we dun really have the experience on the weapon itself. Holding the weapon in exhibitions or open house for a few secs is just too earlier to judge the weapon as I think most of us have never fired live rounds or trained with the SAR before. But we must note that although the SAR is out...it's still sort of in test phrase and it's use only by some NS units. The user-end feedback and suggestions have yet to be complete. Sad to say most of the "end-users" are NSF troop who are dying to ORD are dun give a fark about the feebacks...sigh............ But we can expect the MK II version to be fully ulitilize by SAF.