Any role for Terrex in SAF?
-
Greetings all,
Just wondering if there is any possible role for the Terrex wheeled armoured vhicle in the SAF, aside from possibly replacing the aging V200?
On an aside, i got to sit inside the Terrex at AA2002... while i was sitting down, an two Americans (judging from their accents) got in too and sat down opposite me.... One looked around and said "Pretty comfy..." The other grinned, and added, "Yeah, too bad it doesn't come with cupholders.." -
The Terrex will likely be put on sale to foreign customers. Locally the Terrex will replace the V200s as weapons platforms and as APCs for 2nd line units, homeland defence, etc. Others roles could include command vehicles.Originally posted by Blockhead:Greetings all,
Just wondering if there is any possible role for the Terrex wheeled armoured vhicle in the SAF, aside from possibly replacing the aging V200?
On an aside, i got to sit inside the Terrex at AA2002... while i was sitting down, an two Americans (judging from their accents) got in too and sat down opposite me.... One looked around and said "Pretty comfy..." The other grinned, and added, "Yeah, too bad it doesn't come with cupholders.."
Cupholders? I joked with my buddy that they should include CD players in the upgrade of our V200s. -
It will be quite a while before the V-200 is replaced by the Terrex etc as V-200 has completed its upgrade & re-engine progarm .Originally posted by bcoy:The Terrex will likely be put on sale to foreign customers. Locally the Terrex will replace the V200s as weapons platforms and as APCs for 2nd line units, homeland defence, etc. Others roles could include command vehicles.
Cupholders? I joked with my buddy that they should include CD players in the upgrade of our V200s. -
Not sure if i am treading on thin ice here, but anyone care to describe the V200 upgrade in more detail?
-
Reported in the (Chinese) papers - basically replacing the old petrol engine with a diesel one. Other automotive components should be replaced as well.Originally posted by Blockhead:Not sure if i am treading on thin ice here, but anyone care to describe the V200 upgrade in more detail? -
Actually I am surprised that they do the V200 upgrade.
It is really a old design. The profile is much too high. It is basically short in length and talk in height. Modern Vehicles like the LAV and the Terrex are shorter but far longer.
The high profile will make it a sitting duck against modern Anti-Armour weapons. The sighting system is primitive and have no Low-Light capability. The caliber 20mm is also obsolete as most Western FVs uses the 25mm caliber weapon.
Probably in peace time it is OK to have them around, but in wartime it will be a liability. -
I suppose the Terrex will be used mainly for air base defence and for the PDF in the future, just like what the V-200 is currently doing now. Hope to see a real one though,so far only seen a simulated picture.
-
for tankee
[b]
Pics from www.army-technology and www.jed.simonides.org respectively. -
no onli anti armor weapon..if u have Armor piercing round...just slug at the V200..everyone in it will be fried...not just the 20mm oerlikon gun is obsolete..the whole vehicle shld be scrap..Originally posted by spencer99:Actually I am surprised that they do the V200 upgrade.
It is really a old design. The profile is much too high. It is basically short in length and talk in height. Modern Vehicles like the LAV and the Terrex are shorter but far longer.
The high profile will make it a sitting duck against modern Anti-Armour weapons. The sighting system is primitive and have no Low-Light capability. The caliber 20mm is also obsolete as most Western FVs uses the 25mm caliber weapon.
Probably in peace time it is OK to have them around, but in wartime it will be a liability. -
Look at the water jet system on the Terrex , i believe the terrex can be modified for amphibous operations. The normal Terrex with modular weapon system can be use as an Infantry Fighting Vehicle while 105mm armed Terrex can be use as a fire support vehicle in any assualt.
We might want to intergrate the Barak SAM system on the terrex to cover the need for a Armour Anti-aircraft plateform or as a Signal vehicle due to her speed, mobility and ferrying capability.
The terrex chassis can be use as a study for our light tank project. The wheeled Terrex give us more mobility and speed that any of our counterparts in our region and with a 120mm gun , the Terrex can be equally devastating. Of course the Terrex might be vulnerable to small arms in the
wheel region , but it might be a point worth considering in exchange for mobility......... -
FYI , V-200 have BETTER amour protection than M113 .Originally posted by NathanG5:no onli anti armor weapon..if u have Armor piercing round...just slug at the V200..everyone in it will be fried...not just the 20mm oerlikon gun is obsolete..the whole vehicle shld be scrap.. -
Interesting - in what way better? Steel armor? My unit now operates with the ASU (V200). I've never operated from a M113, but I think the M113 is more comfortable for troops. Mounting and dismounting should be easier as well. With the V200, troops really have to be careful - fingers when closing hatches, legs getting caught in the turret ring, etc.Originally posted by thomasct:FYI , V-200 have BETTER amour protection than M113 .
Both the V200 and the Terrex, in future, provide mobility and protection to certain infantry units that depend on 3/5 tonners. -
Better Amour protection at 0.5 HMG AP rounds level than M113.Originally posted by bcoy:Interesting - in what way better? Steel armor? My unit now operates with the ASU (V200). I've never operated from a M113, but I think the M113 is more comfortable for troops. Mounting and dismounting should be easier as well. With the V200, troops really have to be careful - fingers when closing hatches, legs getting caught in the turret ring, etc.
Both the V200 and the Terrex, in future, provide mobility and protection to certain infantry units that depend on 3/5 tonners.
Agreed V-200 is that not user friendly & " comfortable " .
ASU stand for ???
Its configuration ? ( if cannot - No problem - understand ) -
Just having the capability to debus your troops from a ramp (Terrex/M113) instead of from the side (V200) is a great asset.
Provide some protection for the troops when they are most vulnerable. I think a ramp also facilitate debussing on the move which will make both the vehicle and troopers less vulnerable to enemy fire. Of course all this will only play a part in wartime. In peacetime who cares.
The big wheels and 20mm cannon (V200) can look real good.... -
I think ST should concentrate on a high mobility, tracked LAV unit instead of wheeled one. Wheels are limited to generally smooth terrain, have higher ground pressure footprints, high cg and profile, less optimised armour geometry, as well as inability to mount seriously heavy weapons without destablising the unit. Not to mention wheels are less resistant to battle damage and far less recoverable then a tracked unit.
Wheels may be great for peacetime, but when push comes to shove, you need something that is no-frills and no nonsense... Wheeled units seem to be more of red herrings to me, seemingly mobile, but can't really do much in the tatical sense, they are simply too fragile for heavy combat. Can you imagine what an RPG would do to a V2000 or Terrax? While on an upgraded M113 with strap on improvised armour/barang barang you have a far higher chance of surviving, and returing fire, as well as retreat through roadblocks and crushing things that wheels cannot move through. -
ASU - Armored Support Unit (V200) - its no secret, they were part of the mobile column during National Day a few years ago. Of course nobody really took notice of 30 year old stuff. Basicallly, the ASU V200s are used to transport troops.Originally posted by thomasct:Better Amour protection at 0.5 HMG AP rounds level than M113.
Agreed V-200 is that not user friendly & " comfortable " .
ASU stand for ???
Its configuration ? ( if cannot - No problem - understand )
As said earlier - wheeled armored vehicles are used mainly by 2nd line units, PDF, base security, etc, etc.
Frontline units - like the armor units will use heavier tracked vehicles.
Different roles for different units. (won't go into details) -
I agree somewhat about track vs wheels. However, there could be a foreign market for such vehicles (peackeeping, etc), and ST would try to sell them to foreign customers.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I think ST should concentrate on a high mobility, tracked LAV unit instead of wheeled one. Wheels are limited to generally smooth terrain, have higher ground pressure footprints, high cg and profile, less optimised armour geometry, as well as inability to mount seriously heavy weapons without destablising the unit. Not to mention wheels are less resistant to battle damage and far less recoverable then a tracked unit.
Wheels may be great for peacetime, but when push comes to shove, you need something that is no-frills and no nonsense... Wheeled units seem to be more of red herrings to me, seemingly mobile, but can't really do much in the tatical sense, they are simply too fragile for heavy combat. Can you imagine what an RPG would do to a V2000 or Terrax? While on an upgraded M113 with strap on improvised armour/barang barang you have a far higher chance of surviving, and returing fire, as well as retreat through roadblocks and crushing things that wheels cannot move through.
If other countries want to use them (wheeled) as frontline IFV instead, and get killed, that's their problem. The US LAV program has already generated a large amount of discussions in other forums. Malaysia is looking for 8x8 LAVs to replace their 6x6 Sibmas and 4x4 Condors.
As as I know, locally, the SAF uses heavier tracked armored vehicles for frontline units. All wheeled armored vehicles are used by 2nd line units. Also, ST has the Bronco as a high mobility tracked vehicle, but I'm not too sure about it being armored at all. Come to think of it - ST has produced tracked APC/IFVs (Bionix), a wheeled APC/IFV prototype (Terrex), high mobility tracked vehicle (Bronco), and currently developing a light tank. So what is missing is a MBT. -
I think we can restrict our wheeled vehicles to some roles.
I cannot imagine a tracked vehicle tearing through all the runways!!! For air field defence a wheeled vehicle might be superior. Less damage to road surface, quieter response (against infiltrators). Also they are likely to meet non-conventional infantry forces that are lightly armed and do have have arty and armour support.
Also for homeland defence wheeled vehicles might be better, again mobility on the many roads in singapore. Our homeland forces also is not expected to face a very serious threat. If 50 T-72s mananged to land on East Coast and is tearing down the ECP towards downtown CBD, I don't expect a unit of V200 or Terrex to stop them, because by that time, it means that the SAF had already failed as it didn't prevent the tanks from landing in the first place and that also means that our frontline "forward" forces are already defeated elsewhere.... time to surrender.
Also must think about cost. Tracks are nicer but much more expensive to operate. Also must use Trailers to transport tracked vehicles around so as to protect our roads.
Also Singapore is more active in peace keeping. I would rather see our Timor Peacekeepers in a Terrex compared to a exposed Styker. -
Thanks Blockhead
-
Your knowledge of the true nature of tracked locomotion appears to be inaccucrate. For a matter of fact, tracks are not significantly more damaging on roads then wheeled units. Even going at full tilt on a road, a 60 ton Abrams tank does not leave concrete spall in its wake, even when it slams the brakes that brings it to a halt from 60kph to 0 in 10 meters. As a matter of fact, with their lower ground pressure and rolling resistance, velocities, rubber padded tracks are actually less straining on aspalt then wheeled units.Originally posted by spencer99:I think we can restrict our wheeled vehicles to some roles.
I cannot imagine a tracked vehicle tearing through all the runways!!! For air field defence a wheeled vehicle might be superior. Less damage to road surface, quieter response (against infiltrators). Also they are likely to meet non-conventional infantry forces that are lightly armed and do have have arty and armour support.
Also must think about cost. Tracks are nicer but much more expensive to operate. Also must use Trailers to transport tracked vehicles around so as to protect our roads.
Also, this is proven all the more during SAF open house where they had Bionixes tear down normal roads during joyrides with no problem.
We can have tracked units tear up and down our runways with little problem. The idea that tracks are bad on roads is a misconception. The real reason why we transport them on trailers is far more logical, and pratical. It saves wear and tear on these expensive units, and it isn't really wise to drive from the limited vision confines of an AFV in peacetime unless they really have to. What if they ran over ah ma because they could not see her? It's far safer and cheaper to transport them on HETs... -
It will be good if all our infantry units (SIRs) are equipped with the Terrex to replace the 3-ton or buses which we currently used. Our SIRs units fighting capacity will be greatly enhanced by the introduction of Terrex.
The GPMG / 84mm teams + runners can also be doubled up as drivers/crews to man the vehicles.
-
Very true......tracks wear out really really fast.Which is why the are usually transported on flatbeds.Each track i believe only has a life span of some 300km before it needs to be replaced.While wheels have a life span of something like 1000km or maybe even more!!Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Your knowledge of the true nature of tracked locomotion appears to be inaccucrate. For a matter of fact, tracks are not significantly more damaging on roads then wheeled units. Even going at full tilt on a road, a 60 ton Abrams tank does not leave concrete spall in its wake, even when it slams the brakes that brings it to a halt from 60kph to 0 in 10 meters. As a matter of fact, with their lower ground pressure and rolling resistance, velocities, rubber padded tracks are actually less straining on aspalt then wheeled units.
Also, this is proven all the more during SAF open house where they had Bionixes tear down normal roads during joyrides with no problem.
We can have tracked units tear up and down our runways with little problem. The idea that tracks are bad on roads is a misconception. The real reason why we transport them on trailers is far more logical, and pratical. It saves wear and tear on these expensive units, and it isn't really wise to drive from the limited vision confines of an AFV in peacetime unless they really have to. What if they ran over ah ma because they could not see her? It's far safer and cheaper to transport them on HETs... -
A new turbo diesel engine.Originally posted by Blockhead:Not sure if i am treading on thin ice here, but anyone care to describe the V200 upgrade in more detail?
New front and rear disc brakes.
Upgraded to electric turret system from the old hydraulic powered one and still using the old turret.
New paint.
Nothing impressive. Still leaks during heavy rain.
-
CD player? U can't even hear each other properly when the V200 are on the move..Originally posted by bcoy:The Terrex will likely be put on sale to foreign customers. Locally the Terrex will replace the V200s as weapons platforms and as APCs for 2nd line units, homeland defence, etc. Others roles could include command vehicles.
Cupholders? I joked with my buddy that they should include CD players in the upgrade of our V200s.
-
You from ASU? or Air Force?Originally posted by Paladin:A new turbo diesel engine.
New front and rear disc brakes.
Upgraded to electric turret system from the old hydraulic powered one and still using the old turret.
New paint.
Nothing impressive. Still leaks during heavy rain.
For smokers - at least the damm thing won't catch fire so easily with a diesel engine.
And the vehicle doesn't qualify as amphibious anymore or is it?