Replacement for our light tanks and MBT?
-
I predict that the Tempest will stay with us for a longer period of time as its already upgraded to quite an advanced level. So for the moment i dun think that it will be replaced in the next 5 years. However i have a vision that the Isareli Merkeva will take over our SM1. Maybe not as a MBT but a smaller version similar to that of the Delta frigates that the navy is getting. The frigates is only based on the original French La Fayette frigates but not identical. They are to be smaller and needed less crew. Why i chose the Merkeva is because of its design and its combat proven. The Merkeva is used extensively for FIBUA in Isarel. The world that we live in is increasing urbanised so a FIBUA capable armoured force for SAF is beneficial.Please air your views. Thanks
-
I agree that the Merkava is an awesome MBT, but it is definitely too heavy and large for our requirements, but making it smaller also means sacrificing some of its abilities that make it so effective in the first place, such as its main gun, or its ability to carry personnel, or level of protection. Anyway, included a pic of the Merkava 4 autoloader as some eye candy.
[b]
Caption reads:
A microprocessor controlled, fully automated, electrically driven, 120 mm rounds magazine. The system is located in an isolated space of the turret and is designed to protect the crew in case of ammunition explosion. The system is easy to operate from the crew compartment. The loader can select proper ammunition out of four different types and 10 rounds total.
from http://www.fprado.com -
The merkava is built for mostly israeli-specific ops - i don't know about a 'merkava lite' but it may turn out be a good solution after all. But having developed an IFV that is well-suited for the SAF, a singapore next gen light tank shouldn't be not too far off'Originally posted by tankee1981:However i have a vision that the Isareli Merkeva will take over our SM1. Maybe not as a MBT but a smaller version similar to that of the Delta frigates that the navy is getting.
The world that we live in is increasing urbanised so a FIBUA capable armoured force for SAF is beneficial.Please air your views. Thanks
But having said that, i believe the future of warfare lies in unmanned vehicles not unlike the ST Spartan. Tanks will however continue to prevail in the middle-east - a place suited for warfare until 'the time of end'. -
Tankee1981may i noe which unit were u frm? anyway abt the merkava tank, wat u meant by navy using merkava? merkava is one of the top tanks in the world. if spore were to get it, how would spore train its personal on it? it would be a highly classified thingy. even if there is a chance to train on it, dun think spore will risk sendin pple to israel to train. look at the current situation, pple die almost everyday it israel. if personal was sent there and die, how is saf goin to answaer to their parents. another thing, other pple outside spore will not be happy.
-
I've often wondered if the terrain that we are in is actually suitable for MBTs? Historically speaking, I think tank warfare in the South East Asian region has been limited largely to light tanks, such as the Japanese invasion in 1942. Even in the Vietnam conflict, MBTs were limited to certain areas of the country and were vulnerable to ambushes. What was far more useful were the APCs.
I think it might be better that defence dollars be spent on purchasing light tanks based on the existing Bionix chassis. It may lack firepower and armour, but high mobility and manoeverability would compensate for that. A 105 mm main gun should suffice. What can compensate to the lack of killing power might be to get ST to develop newer types of SABOT rounds, and to put reactive armour on the light tanks.
My 2 cents....
-
There has been many changes to SEA terrain since 1940.
Which city in SEA at that time is over 1 million in population? Now, there are mega highways, tall buildings and probably 1000x more vehicles on the road that those days.
The vegetation changed, with plantations taking up jungle. Roads are better built, and GPS can accurately help navigate the land.
Population has better communications, and are more dispersed than previous era. And anti tank weaponary is longer range and deadlier.
This all means that we have to consider heavier combat vehicles. Light tanks may be good for skirmishes and recon duties, but if you do meet the enemy head on, you need something that can dish it out and take it. -
As a tankee i think MBT would be useful for fighting in built up area. i personally wish saf will get a new tank to replace the old AMX13-SM1 and tempest.
To me SM1 is a good training tank and not a very good fighting tank. tempest is a good mbt but at times a safety hazard. it is quite dangerous to operate one without proper training of tempest.
if saf were to replace both tanks, i would like a tank version of BX which i think ST is currently developing. I dun mind seeing merk in action for spore (also provide israel allow the sale for it) -
To say that speed and mobility can compensate for firepower and armour is a fallacy. And one that attempts to fly in the face of logic. Just how on earth do you expect such a high mobility but low firepower and protection unit to fight in our context?
No, we need a unit with good protection, firepower, and mobility as well. I dunno why so many visionary singaporean armour planners here all want hot rod units that must be fast but lack the guns to do serious damage and the armour to protect themselves from even the most basic of threats. What would these units do in war with their mobility? To run away that's about all they can do.
Just look at the crappy LAV-25 the marines are using now... a perfect example of mobility crazy planning. That thing can't even do its job right. -
There will still be a trade off between speed and armour.
A front mounted engine provide more armour to the front but it will sacrifise some speed in return.
A rear mounted engine will provide more spped but will sacrifise some armour to the front.
car too have the same idea. car with rear engine tend to run faster than car wif front engine. but if a car wif rear engine carsh, will the driver surviour? the car wif a front engine will have a higher rate of surviour comparing wif the one wif rear engine. -
I'm from an anti-tank team, and I can say that its not easy to hit armoured vehicles moving at speed moving under cover. Line of sight may be limited at times. Speed is important here.
But, armoured vehicles moving without infanty support are easy prey to close-in ambush. Close urban and jungle terrerin allows for well hidden blocking teams. Heavy or light tanks - should always have armoured infantry attached.
We should have both heavy and light tanks to suit the operational needs. Heavy tanks with better protection can operate in urban settings, as proven by the IDF. Light tanks with better speed are good for infantry support and recon.
The problem with the LAV-25 and other wheeled armoured vehicles are not with the vehicle itself but the way it is used. Wheeled armoured vehicles are not tanks - they are, to me, transport vehicles only. At most - they provide covering or support fire. Heavy, light and wheeled armoured vehicles are war tools - use the right tools for the right job. I hope to see new heavy tanks here (locally produced??). Light tanks are already being developed and we have the Terrex wheeled light armoured vehicles as well. I read in another forum that Israel is looking for new wheeled light armoured vehicles. -
Nonsense, the position of the engine mounting has little bearing to do with speed. Putting the engine in front however, will indeed add more protection to the unit, but the reason why or most MBT designers put them behind is the simple reason of space and geometry, and of course, to protect the engine.Originally posted by +Alucard+:There will still be a trade off between speed and armour.
A front mounted engine provide more armour to the front but it will sacrifise some speed in return.
A rear mounted engine will provide more spped but will sacrifise some armour to the front.
car too have the same idea. car with rear engine tend to run faster than car wif front engine. but if a car wif rear engine carsh, will the driver surviour? the car wif a front engine will have a higher rate of surviour comparing wif the one wif rear engine. -
I guess different countries have different needs.....the US with the need for speed and mobility are getting lighter armour to carry them around the world faster.I guess Singaporean planners want more lights then heavies for a faster break out and strike??Not too sure though.But yes there is no subsitiute for a heavy tank though a balance must be made between armour,gun and speed.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:To say that speed and mobility can compensate for firepower and armour is a fallacy. And one that attempts to fly in the face of logic. Just how on earth do you expect such a high mobility but low firepower and protection unit to fight in our context?
No, we need a unit with good protection, firepower, and mobility as well. I dunno why so many visionary singaporean armour planners here all want hot rod units that must be fast but lack the guns to do serious damage and the armour to protect themselves from even the most basic of threats. What would these units do in war with their mobility? To run away that's about all they can do.
Just look at the crappy LAV-25 the marines are using now... a perfect example of mobility crazy planning. That thing can't even do its job right.
Also having the engine in the back makes for allowing more armour up front and less behind.Also i believe a shorter drive train will be needed if the engine is in the back thus saving horsepower since pushing is easier then pulling?Not to sure about this though....just guessing -
Looks like we better start building robots, all the firepower, all the speed, no drawbacks. lol.
-
i thought our gundams are under pedra branca?Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:Looks like we better start building robots, all the firepower, all the speed, no drawbacks. lol.
-
israel would be more than glad to sell chariots (that's what merkava means in hebrew) to a friendly nation. A couple of years back, it was marketing it to turkey...though i don't know what is the status now.Originally posted by +Alucard+:I dun mind seeing merk in action for spore (also provide israel allow the sale for it) -
I think that was the upgraded M60 you were talking about, not the Merkava. It was called the SABRA upgrade.
-
The thickness of all morden mbt armour wouldnt have much of a difference.
How much more armour can u add to the front? for a m1a2,do u think the empty slot( the space for a the engine in a fornt mounted) will all be armour? i give them at most extra1-2 cm worth of armour to the front.
armours that tanks use would also determine the suvivour rate.
m1a2 uses depleted uriainum, merkava uses space age armour,etc......
m1a2 so call got the best armour but they might sacrifise crew as they might get nuke poisioning frm it.
merkava uses space age armour(dunno how it work though) so can talk much abt it. -
No difference, the length of the drive train, and with the case of the engine in front or behind, the drive sprocket is placed either infront or behind, with the engine. No diff.Originally posted by |-|05|:I guess different countries have different needs.....the US with the need for speed and mobility are getting lighter armour to carry them around the world faster.I guess Singaporean planners want more lights then heavies for a faster break out and strike??Not too sure though.But yes there is no subsitiute for a heavy tank though a balance must be made between armour,gun and speed.
Also having the engine in the back makes for allowing more armour up front and less behind.Also i believe a shorter drive train will be needed if the engine is in the back thus saving horsepower since pushing is easier then pulling?Not to sure about this though....just guessing -
Nonsense, the position of the engine mounting has little bearing to do with speed. Putting the engine in front however, will indeed add more protection to the unit, but the reason why or most MBT designers put them behind is the simple reason of space and geometry, and of course, to protect the engine. [/b][/quote]
If the crew dies, would the engine be useful and talking abt space, i recon they will put diesel,etc(depend wat they use) tank inside it. theorical speaking a diesel tank storage will also protect a rd frm goin through but does not do it better than engine. -
The Merkava uses spaced armor, not "space age". Basically a double shell of armor with a space between the layers, plus various other additional layers of passive armor in the newer models.Originally posted by +Alucard+:The thickness of all morden mbt armour wouldnt have much of a difference.
How much more armour can u add to the front? for a m1a2,do u think the empty slot( the space for a the engine in a fornt mounted) will all be armour? i give them at most extra1-2 cm worth of armour to the front.
armours that tanks use would also determine the suvivour rate.
m1a2 uses depleted uriainum, merkava uses space age armour,etc......
m1a2 so call got the best armour but they might sacrifise crew as they might get nuke poisioning frm it.
merkava uses space age armour(dunno how it work though) so can talk much abt it.
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/Merkava.html -
http://www.theturkishtimes.com/archive/02/03_15/business.html
Israel in $700 Mil Turkish tank upgrade deal-report
TEL AVIV, March 10 (Reuters) - State-owned Israel Military Industries (IMI) has won a $700 million deal to upgrade 170 Turkish M-60 A1 tanks in the largest-ever arms deal between the two countries, the Ha'aretz daily reported on Sunday.
The deal, to be signed in the next few weeks, could grow further since Turkey has 1,000 tanks that need upgrading, the paper said.
A spokesman for IMI was not immediately available for comment.
The deal follows four years of talks in which Israel originally offered to sell Turkey its Merkava tanks but Turkey decided instead to upgrade its existing tanks, the paper said.
Under the terms of the upgrading, to take place over the next six to seven years, IMI will set up a production line in Turkey and transfer technology for the manufacture of some parts to Turkish firms. -
One thing is for sure the SAF will constantly look for new ways to upgrade their existing capability and at the same time acquire new technology. I have seen for myself many new secret projects which i will not elaborate further due to security concerns. I think that sending men to Isarel to train is not impossible as SAF already send a lot to many different countries world-wide. So in my opinion, we should keep an open mind about getting the Merkeva MBT.
-
Tankie1981 better not say too much b4 MSD start checking on u. By the way o heard of 41SAR project?
-
ahem...since you mentioned it, pray tell what is it?Originally posted by +Alucard+:Tankie1981 better not say too much b4 MSD start checking on u. By the way o heard of 41SAR project?
-
I also dunno the project. i juz wondering if tankie1981 heard abt it. the only thing i noe is last intake 41sar is a tank battilion which men more tanks than m113.