What would u like to see on a new SAF light tank?
-
Good Day to all,
My very first post!
I am new here, so i am not sure if this topic has been posted before. Was reading one of the threads where u guys were talking about our old AMX13s. There are stories floating around that the SAF wants new light tanks, as u all know. Thought it might be fun if u guys have any ideas about what gizmos u want this 'rumoured' light tank to have? Time to get creative.... -
LKY tied to the top, Madmax style
-
-120mm low recoil gun
-hunter-killer capability
-bolt-on armour for flexibility
-provisions for digitisation programme in stages/options.
(This may include info sharing and comms system, missile approach warning system, laser detection system, active decoy system, to name but a few)
-provision for a hybrid power pack
(Improved stealth in terms of noise, infra-red, and fuel efficiency)
In order to keep it light, maybe the tank design should adopt a "containerised concept". This means that for example within a tank platoon, the tanks will each have at least some of the wish list items as generic, with each tank having at least 1~2 features unique in the platoon. This can help maintain the unit cost at moderate level, as well not trying to overload the light tank. You can only put so much into a Bionix sized vehicle. -
Errr....wouldn't having slightly different vehicles create higher costs....i think for a BX sized vehicle the above are all OKOriginally posted by warspite:-120mm low recoil gun
-hunter-killer capability
-bolt-on armour for flexibility
-provisions for digitisation programme in stages/options.
(This may include info sharing and comms system, missile approach warning system, laser detection system, active decoy system, to name but a few)
-provision for a hybrid power pack
(Improved stealth in terms of noise, infra-red, and fuel efficiency)
In order to keep it light, maybe the tank design should adopt a "containerised concept". This means that for example within a tank platoon, the tanks will each have at least some of the wish list items as generic, with each tank having at least 1~2 features unique in the platoon. This can help maintain the unit cost at moderate level, as well not trying to overload the light tank. You can only put so much into a Bionix sized vehicle. -
Who knows? You may see ST Kinetics introduce a NEW form of anti-armor weaponry. Nope, its no ordinary gun... a brand new species of high-velocity, zero-recoil, zero flash, "relatively silent" armament.
-
elevation up to 90 deg (!), super reactive armour, ability to submerge, super quiet, ability to teleport (jus joking), ability to clear minefields or any other conventional obstacles.
-
I would also like to add these items:
1. an autoloader to reduce the crew to 3.
2. active defensive suites including a laser warner, IR warner, IR jammer, laser disruptor
3. Some form of digitised battlefield management system including an IFF system.
4. Advanced smoke grenade launcher that can launch a variety of grenades including smoke, counter IR ATGM smoke, fragementation grenades against infantry, etc.
5. chassis mounted close circuit camera for driver (liken to that used in Mekarva 4 and Leo2A6).
6. Advanced fire control system including 2 or 3 generation thermal imager for the gunner, and an commander independent IR TV/panaromic sight for the hunter killer mode, examples are M1A2 CITV, Mekarva 3Baz/4 commander independent panaromic sight, Leclerc commander independent sight, Leo2A5/6, etc/
7. blow of panel for ammunition storage compartments.
8. Fire-supression system
9. High power to weight ratio.
10. stabalised sights and main gun.
11. High ergonomics interior.
12. capability to fold deep waters
13. shared/common parts used in Bionix especially in the automotive parts such as suspension, gear, engine etc. -
add 3 more, all the usual ones:
1. Low ground pressure
2. commander .50 cal MG for infantry/soft skinned vehicles
3. ability to upgrade armour package in future if needed, like bolt on applique, reactive (for tank battles), etc -
I just wish that the new light tank can swim...
-
Hey Joe, I would like to comment a little on your list. I pretty much agree with almost all your points, but points 2, 3 and 5 are a little too extravagant.
"2. active defensive suites including a laser warner, IR warner, IR jammer, laser disruptor "
I do believe that a laser warner, wire-quided missile jammer ( to defeat TOW type threats) and a combination of multi-spectral smoke screen from smoke grenades would give sufficient protection. If one wants more, maybe an IR suppressive paint coating would be good to reduce the detection range of any enemy tank equipped with a thermal detector. As for equipping our tank with a laser-disruptor, why? Our tanks are not facing any threat from laser guided missiles in the near term. Besides, even if there were such a threat, the above mentioned system of laser-warning and smoke screen protection should provide enuff protection to the tank.
"3. Some form of digitised battlefield management system including an IFF system. "
A digitised battlefield management system would also be, IMHO, extravagant. Such a system, if fielded, would need to be robust to prevent enemy jamming or worse, enemy hacking. Also, we do not have a huge ISR backbone comprising d ARLs, J-STARS, U-2S etc ala US. Thus, the benefits accrued from a digitised force would not be as great, considering the expense required to equip our tanks. I feel that a IFF system would suffice.
"5. chassis mounted close circuit camera for driver (liken to that used in Mekarva 4 and Leo2A6). "
This is also, IMHO, an extravagance, unless this tank is going to spend a lot of time in the urban environment.
"2. commander .50 cal MG for infantry/soft skinned vehicles "
I would prefer the 40mm AGL with HEDP and air-burst munitions instead. This would give much higher killing power. Maybe the .50 for the commander, and the 40mm co-axially mounted?
-
I dun think chassis mounted closed circuit camera for driver is too extravagant. the tank prob is gonna spend a large part of its time in urban environments.
And yes, the idea of fitting an AGL coaxial to a .50 MG is pretty good, and much more economical then an advanced grenade launcher system around the turret, those prob should remian as smoke grenade launcher only. also, they are mostly pointed at a certain degree upwards.
For most grenades launched from launchers instead of hand, there are usually pointing at the target or just above the target, the usual position of the smoke grenade launchers at the side are at a very wierd angle to have HE grenades popping out from... -
A hybrid engine would be very interesting, providing multiple benefits such as lower acoustic and infra-red signature, increased efficiency and even reduced logistics requirements through the production of water as a by product! (yes, that's what they are trying to do for the FCS) However, we'd never be able to get this technology in time for our light tank. Maybe in future as an upgrade
Its interesting that the Merkava actually has a 60mm mortar in the turret... but i'm not advocating something like that on our tank. I dont think there's the space... Just for interest, what do you think the load out (no. of stowed rounds) should be for our tank? -
A hybrid engine would be very interesting, providing multiple benefits such as lower acoustic and infra-red signature, increased efficiency and even reduced logistics requirements through the production of water as a by product! (yes, that's what they are trying to do for the FCS) However, we'd never be able to get this technology in time for our light tank. Maybe in future as an upgrade
Its interesting that the Merkava actually has a 60mm mortar in the turret... but i'm not advocating something like that on our tank. I dont think there's the space... Just for interest, what do you think the load out (no. of stowed rounds) should be for our tank? -
36 ~40 rds. As long as it is more than the miserable 12 rds in the SM1, plus those in storage (if I remember correctly).
-
Is there really enuff space? considering that you want an autoloader and all... Dont forget, the chassis probably ain't very big, assuming its a scaled up Bionix... I'd be happy with 30 rds...
-
Well, i guess how many rounds u can squeeze in depends on the calibre of the gun. I mean, if u are gonna slap a 120mm CTG on to it, i guess u could probably squeeze in about 20-25 rounds realistically.... Logically, a smaller gun means u can carry more rounds, rite? I am also worried about weight. I understand that an autoloader is necessary due to manpower restrictions, but that usually means a larger turrent and more weight and less space. Hopefully they can find a way for a small and light autoloading system. Do u guys think a 120mm gun is really necessary?
-
yeap....
for me.. slap on a twin TOW cellbox thingie beside the 120 like the one on the Bradley.... -
Points not yet mentioned:
1. The light tank MUST be able to fire on the move. If not, you had might as well build it as an assault gun rather than a tank (gun directly mounted in the body rather than on a turret). I doubt we can get a 120mm gun to fire on the move with a Bionix sized vehicle, since the larger CV90120 cannot. This means we are probably limited to 105mm, which is enough to kill the upcoming Malaysian PT-91s anyway.
If it were me, our tank forces would have two vehicles. One would be a conventional 105mm light tank and the other would be a more heavily armored 120mm (maybe 155mm) assault gun, which doubles as an SP mortar. Both would be Bionix sized. Go to Phil West's page to see what I mean.
2. The light tank must have sufficient anti-personnel and defensive weaponry. Since our potential opponents will not be tank-heavy forces (even after the Malaysians obtain their MBTs) and the terrain in the region is not conducive for tank on tank warfare, we should not go the way of the M1 Abrams and optimize the tank too heavily for the anti-tank mission.
The new tank must be able to fire APERS canister / flechette / beehive rounds through its main gun. It should have at least 3 weapons in addition to the main gun: a coaxial 12.7mm machinegun, and turret mounted 7.62mm machinegun and 40mm AGL. Preferably, it should have a bow mounted gun for the driver, and miniguns or 30mm ASP cannons instead of machineguns. The possibility of mounting a flamethrower should be available. If possible, the tank should have command detonated ERA, which would serve as defensive claymore mines.
3. The light tank must have enough armor protection. It must be able to withstand all existing LAWs to the front and flanks, since they will be the main threat to the tank. This will require spaced armor, ERA, and/or the new British electrified armor system to defeat the HEAT warheads. It is impossible to provide that much kinetic protection within the weight constraints, so we will need to settle for kinetic protection up to about 35mm using HHS and ceramics. Protection against top attack munitions like ATGMs can be provided by spaced armor on the top. Antitank mine protection is possible with a V-shaped double hull on the underside. Shields for the crew when firing the anti-personnel weaponry should also be provided. -
wow too much things on a light tank leh.Originally posted by dkhoo:Points not yet mentioned:
1. The light tank MUST be able to fire on the move. If not, you had might as well build it as an assault gun rather than a tank (gun directly mounted in the body rather than on a turret). I doubt we can get a 120mm gun to fire on the move with a Bionix sized vehicle, since the larger CV90120 cannot. This means we are probably limited to 105mm, which is enough to kill the upcoming Malaysian PT-91s anyway.
If it were me, our tank forces would have two vehicles. One would be a conventional 105mm light tank and the other would be a more heavily armored 120mm (maybe 155mm) assault gun, which doubles as an SP mortar. Both would be Bionix sized. Go to Phil West's page to see what I mean.
2. The light tank must have sufficient anti-personnel and defensive weaponry. Since our potential opponents will not be tank-heavy forces (even after the Malaysians obtain their MBTs) and the terrain in the region is not conducive for tank on tank warfare, we should not go the way of the M1 Abrams and optimize the tank too heavily for the anti-tank mission.
The new tank must be able to fire APERS canister / flechette / beehive rounds through its main gun. It should have at least 3 weapons in addition to the main gun: a coaxial 12.7mm machinegun, and turret mounted 7.62mm machinegun and 40mm AGL. Preferably, it should have a bow mounted gun for the driver, and miniguns or 30mm ASP cannons instead of machineguns. The possibility of mounting a flamethrower should be available. If possible, the tank should have command detonated ERA, which would serve as defensive claymore mines.
3. The light tank must have enough armor protection. It must be able to withstand all existing LAWs to the front and flanks, since they will be the main threat to the tank. This will require spaced armor, ERA, and/or the new British electrified armor system to defeat the HEAT warheads. It is impossible to provide that much kinetic protection within the weight constraints, so we will need to settle for kinetic protection up to about 35mm using HHS and ceramics. Protection against top attack munitions like ATGMs can be provided by spaced armor on the top. Antitank mine protection is possible with a V-shaped double hull on the underside. Shields for the crew when firing the anti-personnel weaponry should also be provided.
and for the guy who said yeap....for me.. slap on a twin TOW cellbox thingie beside the 120 like the one on the Bradley....
The Americans and Germans tried it but decided it would make the tank to heavy,to compliacating to build and handle and hard to mantain.In the end the scapped the project -
gee...
-
Well, this is my first reply in this forum. I can see every one here has smoked too much ganja, either that or they have never been appointment holders in an armoured unit. This is not war gamming here. This long wish list of items that you want on the next gen. light tank is impossible to squeeze into that size AFV. Not even half of it can go in. Its time for the SAF to get a real MBT. Something in the 50 ton class. Stop wasting time with all these Bionix light tank crap. It just gets tankees killed for no good reason.
roll: inquote]Originally posted by zigzag:
Good Day to all,
My very first post! I am new here, so i am not sure if this topic has been posted before. Was reading one of the threads where u guys were talking about our old AMX13s. There are stories floating around that the SAF wants new light tanks, as u all know. Thought it might be fun if u guys have any ideas about what gizmos u want this 'rumoured' light tank to have? Time to get creative.... [/quote] -
The Merk has had 60mm mortar for all 4 models. If you go with a 3 man crew,there will be no point in having this. Its interesting your expression "load out". In the SAF, we call it belly load. Which army are you from? The belly load will be dependent on the calibre of the gun. If you put a 105mm L7 in a Bionix chassis, expect to get 35 to 40 rounds main rounds in a belly load. This will be reduced to 20-30 if you use a 120mm gun, as I believe in that calibre, separate charge have to be used. Or maybe semi combustible rounds, but no tankee would like to see the belly load reduced so much for a gun that is overkill in SE Asia.
Its interesting that the Merkava actually has a 60mm mortar in the turret... but i'm not advocating something like that on our tank. I dont think there's the space... Just for interest, what do you think the load out (no. of stowed rounds) should be for our tank?
[/b][/quote] -
Originally posted by On the way:
Well welcome - not up to TankNet forums isn't it?
[b]Well, this is my first reply in this forum. I can see every one here has smoked too much ganja, either that or they have never been appointment holders in an armoured unit. ................. -
No, I disagree that it is impossible to fit these into a light tank. The M8 AGS is a prime example of what miniture technology has achieved over the years. In fact, what we have discussed so far (in terms of our wish list of things to have in the new light tank) is already available in the M8 AGS. You can also almost find most of these features in some of the AFV cum light tanks from the Spanish ASCORDs to the British Warrior light tank. Not to mention, the Swedish CV90-120T incorporated the almost exact specs (except for the lack of an autoloader) that we have wished for in the new light tank.Originally posted by On the way:Well, this is my first reply in this forum. I can see every one here has smoked too much ganja, either that or they have never been appointment holders in an armoured unit. This is not war gamming here. This long wish list of items that you want on the next gen. light tank is impossible to squeeze into that size AFV. Not even half of it can go in. Its time for the SAF to get a real MBT. Something in the 50 ton class. Stop wasting time with all these Bionix light tank crap. It just gets tankees killed for no good reason.
We have discussed, in numerous threads that MBTs are not suitable as a direct replace for the SM1s. We never dismissed MBT roles in SAF ORBAT. They should only replace the Centurions (Tempest or whatever name it was given). We also mentioned the need for the 32Div formation to be a truely heavy armour/mechanised Division. -
[/b][/quote]Originally posted by On the way:The Merk has had 60mm mortar for all 4 models. If you go with a 3 man crew,there will be no point in having this. Its interesting your expression "load out". In the SAF, we call it belly load. Which army are you from? The belly load will be dependent on the calibre of the gun. If you put a 105mm L7 in a Bionix chassis, expect to get 35 to 40 rounds main rounds in a belly load. This will be reduced to 20-30 if you use a 120mm gun, as I believe in that calibre, separate charge have to be used. Or maybe semi combustible rounds, but no tankee would like to see the belly load reduced so much for a gun that is overkill in SE Asia.
Its interesting that the Merkava actually has a 60mm mortar in the turret... but i'm not advocating something like that on our tank. I dont think there's the space... Just for interest, what do you think the load out (no. of stowed rounds) should be for our tank? 
"Which army are you from?" Come on, go easy on me I from the 'world class stupidity....errr army' known as the SAF... but in log unit (MMC), so dunno too much about armour side... Please do continue to correct my ignorance, thanks