Replacement for our light tanks and MBT?
-
while having many weaponary on the FV is good (offensive), i think you got to have an equally impressive electronics/FCS to go with it. Currently, our FCS is a bit outdated and i wouldn't want to burden myself with all the action/commands in actual ops.
its already alot to jaga...if u know what i mean. -
The US and Europe played with that idea but after research it was considered too expensive to place 2 fire-control systems in 1 AFV.Ended up having the M1A1 and the M2 instead of a hybrid of both.....But then again that was long ago...maybe it might be cheaper now.....Originally posted by Shotgun:After such a long time, i'm beginning to wonder the 105mm BX was a joke in the first place or not. Perhaps ST is already designing a new chassis for a new light tank... we can't always base every damn vehicle on the BX design rite?
Here's a suggestion for a Sg made tank-hunter. IF one really wants to use a BX chassis heres n idea.
BX with a 40mm turret. Coupled with 4 SPIKEs for tank killing. 40mm to support infantry, deal with light vehicles, bunkers etc. If they can come up with an auto-spike-reloader system that can automatically reload the expended spikes, even better. Redesign our spikes with a tandem warhead arrangement, and it ought to beat any reactive armored tank. EVEN though spike attacks from the top.
throw in a data link, and our SPIKE-BX can even play tag-team with our Apaches. -
How about Leopard 2 A6 for SAF?
-
Recently i found out that singapore might have a tank which is superb..... never imagine that.... hehehe Sm1 tank can be used as target training haha =)
-
yes...some old amx-13s. Perhaps some of these might even be the bullet-ridden ones we bought from the israelisOriginally posted by BaKa NeK0:Recently i found out that singapore might have a tank which is superb..... never imagine that.... hehehe Sm1 tank can be used as target training haha =)
Some are from india and france too -
Huh?Originally posted by BaKa NeK0:Recently i found out that singapore might have a tank which is superb..... never imagine that.... hehehe Sm1 tank can be used as target training haha =)
What u mean? -
AMX-13 from India?
No lah AMX comes from France and Israel... you must have confused it with the Centurions, we got 63 Mk3/7s from them in 197? 5 i think...
as for our so-called 'super' tanks... ever wonder the real reason why there are no malays in armour?
if our neighbours found out about our MBTs, we sure kena whack to the extent that they may even cut diplomatic ties (or better still, water.) singaporean malays will never forgive us, which is an even worse prospect
for the sake of racial harmony in our country, can't say anymore -
hmm. . . speaking of armour, i'm just wondering how AI operate. do they get out of the APCs only when the battle starts or what? i think they're mostly on foot in urban areas rite? what are they armed with? standard infantry weaponry?
-
DELETED: double post
-
in the days when armoured units were still using amx-13s, the tanks whose mudguards (sorry i'm not from armour so don't know the term) are gently sloping downwards - if you look at the tank from the front - were bought from india. Got this info from an old-salt mechanic from armour.Originally posted by Typhoon:AMX-13 from India? No lah AMX comes from France and Israel... you must have confused it with the Centurions, we got 63 Mk3/7s from them in 197? 5 i think...
Anyway, india did use amx-13s which saw action in the indo-pakistan war of 1965 -
wow...then those things must definitely be very 'haram' to their religion i think!Originally posted by Typhoon:ever wonder the real reason why there are no malays in armour?
if our neighbours found out about our MBTs, we sure kena whack to the extent that they may even cut diplomatic ties (or better still, water.) singaporean malays will never forgive us, which is an even worse prospect
-
Well i believe that, generally, our fellow singaporeans you mentioned about are better than that, and more open minded - especially those who've signed on with the SAF. I believe most signed-on with their eyes wide open. Recently one even have publicly posed for newspaper with with weapon systems with 'haram' modifications.Originally posted by Typhoon:singaporean malays will never forgive us, which is an even worse prospect
for the sake of racial harmony in our country, can't say anymore
ok enough said -
I think you guys better tone down on the 'super-tanks' thingy.
-
another 'india' referenceOriginally posted by Typhoon:AMX-13 from India? No lah AMX comes from France and Israel... you must have confused it with the Centurions, we got 63 Mk3/7s from them in 197? 5 i think...
http://www.geocities.com/ptone50/AMX13_SM1.htm -
yah but the amx-13s got smashed up in that war. . . went up against heavies. . .Originally posted by IAF:in the days when armoured units were still using amx-13s, the tanks whose mudguards (sorry i'm not from armour so don't know the term) are gently sloping downwards - if you look at the tank from the front - were bought from india. Got this info from an old-salt mechanic from armour.
Anyway, india did use amx-13s which saw action in the indo-pakistan war of 1965 -
Here something for you guys to ponder:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON --- The technology behind space ship lasers and force fields is a lot closer to reality than many think.
Although those lasers and force fields wonÂ’t be fielded for a few more years, Gus Khalil, an engineer at the ArmyÂ’s Tank and Automotive Command in Dearborn, Mich., said the Army has identified what they want for the ArmyÂ’s Future Combat System.
“There’s a lot more demands for the FCS vehicle than there are for the legacy force today,” he said. “Anything we do today that gives the soldiers less capability than he has is unacceptable.” That technology is being developed for the Army’s Future Combat System, the family of 16 manned, unmanned, ground and aerial vehicles the Army wants fielded by 2010.
The manned ground vehicles have to weigh less than 20 tonnes. They also have to be as fast, as mobile and as lethal as an M-1A2 Abrams and M2 Bradley fighting vehicle. Doing all that will be like making a Toyota truck as durable as an 18-wheel semi-truck, one TARDECE engineer quipped at a recent FCS conference in Dearborn, Mich.
But it is doable, Khalil said. To demonstrate that, Khalil had a mock-up of the laser gun system at the Association of the U.S. Army annual meeting in Washington, D.C., Oct. 6-8.
The gun program falls under the Combat Hybrid Power System. Initiated by DARPA six years ago and handed over to TARDEC two years ago, the program is developing the FCS’ “pulsed power” weapons. Since the system is just being developed, the weapons could be Electro-thermal Chemical guns or even a laser gun capable of firing artillery rounds or destroying tanks, he said.
The mock up showed how TARDEC wants the system to work. On one end was a pack of three lithium-ion battery modules. When it was “fired” it went through a converter that increased the charge from 100 volts to 1,000 volts.
From there it goes to the pulse-forming network, a nest of capacitors and inductors, where the now 1,000 volts will be turned into a “pulse discharge” that will last less than one-millionth of a second, he said. Then the pulse of electricity goes through an out-put switch that will fire the pulse to its intended target, Khalil said.
The pulse was demonstrated through a bank of four strobe lights. If someone wasnÂ’t careful the lights could burn holes in their retinas, he said. Khalil said tests have shown that 600-volts to 10,000-volts weapons are possible. And thatÂ’s what theyÂ’re forecasting to be in the FCS, Khalil said.
The modules’ life span depends on how they’re used, he said. If they’re used just for mobility they can potentially last years, about 15, he said. If they use chemical or laser guns, they won’t last long, he said. “I don’t know the exact number because we have not done that yet,” Khalil said of how many times the batteries will fire the weapons.
He wants the batteries to last 50 rounds or “firings” but the modules will last only 20 rounds right now, he said.
The FCS is projected to have anywhere from 20-50 of those battery modules and since battery technology is getting smaller, that requirement will be met, Khalil said. The pulse gun will also have the ability to fire something like todayÂ’s sabot anti-tank round. But the FCS pulse weapon will give it more penetration capability than it already has, Khalil said.
To the soldier on the battlefield, it will look similar to a sabot round -- a flash of light -- and the result might be the same -- a destroyed tank or armored vehicle, he said.
But KhalilÂ’s team isnÂ’t stopping there. His team is also developing electro-magnetic armor capable of stopping not only other pulsed weapons but conventional weapons. The electro-magnetic armor will also be run from the same power source that will power the weapons system and the engine.
If the power system that powers the pulse gun that Khalil is designing fires in milli-seconds, that same source will power the electric armor in micro-seconds, he said. In other words, itÂ’s much faster and uses a lot more juice, he explained.
The biggest challenge for his team is to run the gun and armor off the same batteries that will run the engine, Khalil said.
-ends-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is may be related why the Israeli are stopping any new development on the new variants of Merkava & join the US on development for the new AFV.
The British are also looking at a new AFV that is suppose to be less than 20 tons that have the same fire power & protection as today AFV.
Our "new tank" if any will be obsoleted when this is developed. -
Obsolete? Remember, what threat are we facing? We'll only be facing PT-91s in the forseeable future. Such high tech stuff you read about will not be widely proliferated any time soon even when they become viable, due to a simple reason - cost. And that's assuming that such technology will be allowed to proliferate by their host nations, which is not really probable.
-
You r right abt that the possible opposition, we can due with the problem with conventional AFV.Originally posted by YourFather:Obsolete? Remember, what threat are we facing? We'll only be facing PT-91s in the forseeable future. Such high tech stuff you read about will not be widely proliferated any time soon even when they become viable, due to a simple reason - cost. And that's assuming that such technology will be allowed to proliferate by their host nations, which is not really probable.
But the trend is to operate any new AFV for at least 30 years & even 50-60 years.(Sg will most probably use it for at least 50 years)
With hints from the sources, the new " high tech" AFV should be fully developed by at worst early next decade. Proliferation by 2025-2030
By then our new tanks will be obsoleted only going thru half their life cycle. Got what I mean? -
More hints:
SANTA CLARA, Calif. --- United Defense Industries, Inc., under the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armament Command (TACOM) Integrated Army Active Protection Science and Technology Objective (STO), is transitioning the IAAPS suite of survivability technologies from the technology base development to the Future Combat Systems (FCS) System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase.
IAAPS has now successfully defended a moving vehicle at 20 mph against live RPGs and tank fired HEAT using the “hard kill” active protection system. The RPG and tank fired HEAT achievement follows the successful defeats of antitank guided missiles with both “hard kill” and “soft kill” countermeasures.
“The multiyear survivability program at TACOM has generated field data while moving at 20 mph against numerous threats that meets the criteria set by the FCS Defense Acquisition Board,” said Mark Middione, United Defense’s Active Protection Manager. “The integrated IAAPS slewed system can be tailored to meet FCS close-in defeat requirements, while providing the lightest weight active protection solution.”
United Defense, TACOM and teammates Northrop Grumman Space Technologies and BAE Systems tested the IAAPS hardware and software beyond program requirements to obtain additional data by defeating a variety of threats from dual active protection and electronic warfare defeats to defeating two types of RPGs while on the move. The prototype IAAPS hardware was rigorously tested over an 18-month period, demonstrating high reliability in adverse hot weather conditions exceeding 115 degrees.
According to the company, the continued success of the IAAPS hardware and software is demonstrating that a Future Combat Systems requirement for an integrated suite of sensors, processors and countermeasures is technologically achievable. The IAAPS program was established to demonstrate that by integrating a multitude of unique survivability technologies, a highly survivable system was ready to defend next-generation systems.
United Defense has integrated a suite of survivability equipment and computer programs from teammates BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman Space Technology that includes United DefenseÂ’s field-proven platform survivability processor as the foundation, with BAEÂ’s commanderÂ’s decision aid (CDA). The System Design & Development-ready platform survivability processor, developed and refined over the past six years, controls the system and includes a user-optimized soldier machine interface (SMI) with networked revenge kill capability built in.
The IAAPS suite - designed to greatly increase vehicle survivability while allowing for a decrease in armor and, therefore, vehicle weight - includes two types of passive sensors, electronic warfare countermeasures and an active protection system composed of launcher, radar and a deployed countermeasure.
United Defense designs, develops and produces combat vehicles, artillery, naval guns, missile launchers and precision munitions used by the U.S. Department of Defense and allies worldwide, and provides non-nuclear ship repair, modernization and conversion to the U.S. Navy and other U.S. Government agencies.
-ends-
Read the bolded text. It did not said electromabnetic armor but a active protection system. -
http://www.uniteddefense.com/pr/pr_20031006c.htm
York, PA, October 6, 2003 - United Defense Industries, Inc. (NYSE: UDI), today unveiled Thunderbolt, an advanced armored gun system demonstrator with a 120mm main armament on a light chassis featuring a rugged hybrid electric drive package, an enhanced band track system, and a lightweight ballistic composite armor package at the Association of the U. S. ArmyÂ’s annual meeting.
The Thunderbolt demonstrator illustrates the ability to deliver devastating firepower in a light package, and features transformational technologies that can be quickly integrated into current platforms to enhance soldier capabilities.
“United Defense designed, integrated and built Thunderbolt in 7 months by applying unmatched capabilities in the rapid design and prototyping of new platforms and technologies,“ said Elmer Doty, vice president and general manager. “Thunderbolt demonstrates that we can deliver significantly enhanced capabilities to soldiers quickly through the modernization of existing platforms.”
The company, which is currently developing manned ground vehicles for the ArmyÂ’s Future Combat Systems, emphasized that Thunderbolt demonstrates near-term transformational technologies complementary to the current force.
“Thunderbolt combines United Defense’s unsurpassed expertise and focus on transformational technology development to increase the mobility, lethality and survivability of our forces,” Doty said. “It’s an exciting package that showcases our strengths and exemplifies our desire to support the Army’s mission, now and in the future.”
Prior to AUSA, United Defense fired Thunderbolt repeatedly from stationary and on-the-move positions, the first time a 120mm main armament has been successfully fired off a 20-ton weight-class chassis. ThunderboltÂ’s XM291 main gun is backed by an autoloader that handles both HEAT and SABOT rounds. The autoloader handles 120mm rounds with combustible casings and rounds of varying weight distributions, and it can eject stubcases. Thunderbolt delivers firepower that can defeat heavy enemy armor and destroy enemy targets such as bunkers and buildings.
“We believe that a 120mm gun integrated on a light chassis would provide unprecedented firepower, able to effectively defeat heavy enemy armor,” Doty said.
Thunderbolt Features Transformational Technology
Thunderbolt integrates a durable hybrid electric propulsion system that provides improved performance and fuel economy, enhanced reliability and reduced emissions. The propulsion system utilizes generator, inverter and traction motor components that have performed well in testing on the United Defense Transformation Technology Demonstrator.
ThunderboltÂ’s drive power is transferred through an advanced band track system developed for 20-ton weight class vehicles. The advantages of band track include improved ride quality, longer life, and reduced noise and thermal signatures.
The mobility package integrated on Thunderbolt delivers a range of 600 miles on gravel roads, with four miles of silent mobility capability. Conversion of a standard chassis to hybrid electric drive generates significant additional interior space that can seat additional soldiers, increase the quantity of stowed ammunition, or be applied to other mission requirements.
Thunderbolt is the latest United Defense platform to feature hybrid-electric propulsion, following the Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon platform, the Transformation Technology Demonstrator and two demonstrators that were unveiled at AUSA last year: the Future Combat Systems-Tracked and Future Combat Systems-Wheeled platforms.
ThunderboltÂ’s advanced ballistic composite armor design offers enhanced survivability while reducing overall vehicle weight. The composite turret armor package is designed to provide 14.5mm protection all around, with 30mm frontal arc protection.
“We set out to demonstrate what critics said can’t be done – providing heavy firepower on a light platform, and quickly and effectively upgrading an existing platform with transformational technologies that can modernize the current force,” Doty said.
“United Defense developed Thunderbolt to demonstrate that we can quickly and effectively upgrade existing platforms with transformational technologies that can modernize the current force,” Doty said. “We believe we owe it to the soldier to demonstrate combat vehicle technologies that can support and enhance the Army’s ability to complete its missions.”
Thunderbolt was designed and built at the companyÂ’s research facilities in Santa Clara, California.
-end-
==============
Perhaps this could also be a potential AMX-13SM1 replacement for SAF?
Here comes M8 AGS with a 120mm gun !!!
-
I've never seen any MBT before, but just wondering how come such machines are so sensitive to us & the neighbouring countries?Originally posted by eurofighter:I think you guys better tone down on the 'super-tanks' thingy.
There are many servicemen who don't know what is MBT or Tempest too.
Other than being an offensive weapon, what make it so specially until the neighbour could get so upset with? By now everyone already know that M'sia has ordered the PT-91 & MLRS, so isn't such weapons more offensive? Furthermore they didn't even treat that as classified info at all.
Anyone care to advise in a convincing yet non-classified way? -
politics politics, its all politics
-
The manufacturer is an international pariah which uses these tanks to whack muslims.
Ambigous enough? Could apply to either of two countries. In any case, back to the light tank discussion. -
hey, that thunderbolt thing that joe black posted sounds like a great REPLACEMENT for the amx-13sm1, it packs a heavy punch and weighs only 20tons. armour is kind of weak at 14.5mm in most places, but then again, if the purpose of that armour on that armoured gun system was to enable it to withstand hits from medium to large calibre weapons in the first place, its gonna be frigging heavy and won't count as a amx-13 replacement anyway.
perhaps the best way for singpaore to offset the advantage any potential enemies have interms of MBTs is to deploy more anti-tank missiles rather than using even heavier MBTs. i think using large numbers of anti-tank missiles would be more cost effective than small numbers of MBTs, even if MBTs are about the best weapon for a 'show of force'.
a row of heavies lined up looks alot more impressive than a platoon of infantry with anti-tank missiles. . .
this topic is virtually exhausted already, perhaps is time for this forums as a whole to extend into strategic concerns and military strategy rather than just technical stuff and individual weapons. -
its not only politics but also to do with religion. their(muslims) god versus IDF(Jews) God which is also my God. its very complex. get it?