Lelong in 2nd hand weapons Mkt
-
The Dutch Ministry of Defence has published the earlier announced defence cuts. In total 29 F-16M's , 6 new AH-64D 'Longbow' Apaches and all P-3 Orion aircraft will be withrawn from service.
The Dutch pulling out so many up to date weapons which I think SAF should take look at it. The F-16s could be purchased to totally retired both F-5 & A-4 a/c eventually when the NGF come on line. Which means RSAF only operate two type of a/c by 2010.
Although Twenthe AB, home of 313 sqn and 315 sqn, received a whole new runway last year, it will be closed together with Valkenburg and Soesterberg.
Defence cuts for the Royal Marine and the Royal Army (withdrawal of 70 Leopard 2A6 main battle tanks) are planned as well.
The Group Guided Weapons at De Peel were to receive three Patriot Missile Systems from the Bundeswehr as a replacement for the old Hawk systems. However, during the defence cuts they were considered as 'not longer necessary'.
The 6 Apaches certainly good buy, certainly cheaper from the US if we want to expand our fleet of Apaches.
Lastly the latest Leopard 2A6 MBT, it certainly will complement our Tempest & with sufficient number, even replace them totally.
What do you guys think? -
I am not sure we want the F-16s as they are only the A/B models. The Apaches are certainly a good idea, the Leopard 2A6, albeit the best tank in the world, may not be suitable. Perhaps Taiwan should get themOriginally posted by gary1910:The Dutch pulling out so many up to date weapons which I think SAF should take look at it. The F-16s could be purchased to totally retired both F-5 & A-4 a/c eventually when the NGF come on line. Which means RSAF only operate two type of a/c by 2010.
The 6 Apaches certainly good buy, certainly cheaper from the US if we want to expand our fleet of Apaches.
Lastly the latest Leopard 2A6 MBT, it certainly will complement our Tempest & with sufficient number, even replace them totally.
What do you guys think?
-
They could be placed in storage and not put out for sale. Anyway I feel it's a huge waste.
-
Yup, I think u r right,logistically, but the F-16 is still MLU upgraded model.Originally posted by Joe Black:I am not sure we want the F-16s as they are only the A/B models. The Apaches are certainly a good idea, the Leopard 2A6, albeit the best tank in the world, may not be suitable. Perhaps Taiwan should get them
The Apaches r brand new, & the Leopards r the latest upgraded model ,one the best MBT in the world, certainly able to handle the PT-91.
Whether they r for sales or not, I dunno.If they put them into storage , I think is a greater waste, I think they should sell them away for the money, at least able to recover up to 60-80% of the money they have already spent on it , afterall all of them except th P3 which I dunno & the brand new Apaches, the rest are recently upgraded this year... -
i bet the thais would be interested...tend to be in the market for 2nd hand weapon systems...from m-60 tanks, ex-israeli gal class subs, f-16s, harrier jets, fan trainers. Furthermore, their southern terrain is basically tank country...hence ideal for leopard 2s,
-
The Leopard 2s is so popular, u could almost call it the de-facto tank of Europe. Spain ,Greece & Poland have ordered and getting the Leopard 2 in the next few year.
Therefore, it is quite unlikely the SAF could get their hands on it even they r selling, most probably they will go to another NATO country.They r also quite heavy, weight almost 62 tons, that means SAF need to upgrade most of our bridging equipment to handle it.
One thing to note, the Polish is getting rid of their PT-91s replacing it with Leopard 2A4. So you could imagine how the Leopard 2A6 could handle the MAF's PT-91. -
getting the longbow would be interesting.......
-
Definitely lots of suitors for that item! Perhaps israel is one of themOriginally posted by duotiga83:getting the longbow would be interesting....... -
US and Germany(for the Leo2's) would still have to approve the sale thoughOriginally posted by IAF:Definitely lots of suitors for that item! Perhaps israel is one of them -
true... need approval from the original governments. anyway, israel is so politically close to USG, there should be no probs there. As for the Germans, just play the poor WW2 victim and put the germans on a guilt trip...
hmmm... our government should seriously consider getting the Apache/LBs to boost our AH forces...
"latest Leopard 2A6 MBT ... will complement our Tempest"
Orrrrr... u mean the 'special Tempest' that was mentioned in Tim Huxley's book har? didn't u know, during Bush's visit, he already offered us his M1A2s?
jus' kidding hor... -
I agree that the Apaches would be desirable, but i think it's still going to mean a fair chunk of money. Besides, there will be a lot of people lining up for the Apaches.Originally posted by espanol_man:hmmm... our government should seriously consider getting the Apache/LBs to boost our AH forces...
Espanol man, u Spanish?? -
Yep, agree that saf shoud go get da apaches if they're really still very new.
also, on the subject of the tank, what weights do u guys consider to be 'too heavy'?
and 'too heavy' meaning what? will it into the ground? what are the types of ground that these 'too heavy' tanks cannot operate on? and if the ground pressure of the tank is low enough, how would weight still be a factor? something like the vehicle transporting it can't travel on normal roads cos the ground pressure exerted by teh wheels of the transporter is too great??
basically, someone please just expound on the weight of a tank as a factor logistically and operationally, with regard to the local conditions.
thanx -
"Besides, there will be a lot of people lining up for the Apaches"
(Gasps) i hope Mat Landers are not lining up for it too... I want it all for myself... (greedy grin)
actually, even if it is expensive i think we have the $$$ for it. not like some parties who pay by Palm Oil (Mat Land's new currency?). anyone know what kind of AH are the Mats getting?
"Espanol man, u Spanish??"
hahaha! blockhead, u veri farnee... if i call myself Mad Hatter, will you ask if i am from Alice in Wonderland or am i mahathir? anyway, i dun think u are a blockhead...
no lar... me just another singaporean cyber-citizen...
"what weights do u guys consider to be 'too heavy'? "
Think 60+ tons is ok lar (believe that 'Tempest' is the same weight?) ... the roads can tahan??? anyway, the Leopard was designed for war-time ops in the muddy plains of Europe, so what is there in singapore/Mat Land that it cannot handle? Oil Palm and rubber plantations?
basically, someone please just expound on the weight of a tank as a factor logistically and operationally, with regard to the local conditions
wah lau... Laser, your question veri the chim... i'll let someone else more competent answer u... -
This has been discussed in many threats before, anyway, here is a brief summary I believe constitute to the "weight" issue in MBTs.Originally posted by laser51088:Yep, agree that saf shoud go get da apaches if they're really still very new.
also, on the subject of the tank, what weights do u guys consider to be 'too heavy'?
and 'too heavy' meaning what? will it into the ground? what are the types of ground that these 'too heavy' tanks cannot operate on? and if the ground pressure of the tank is low enough, how would weight still be a factor? something like the vehicle transporting it can't travel on normal roads cos the ground pressure exerted by teh wheels of the transporter is too great??
basically, someone please just expound on the weight of a tank as a factor logistically and operationally, with regard to the local conditions.
thanx
1. Gross weight
This is the gross weight of the tank. Why does it matter? It matters because the SAF combat engineers do not have quick launch bridges that are rated to carry anything above 30 tons.
Ref: http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/engineering/man/
SAF would need to invest on MLC60 or MLC70 class bridges to cater for a 60 tons and above MBTs. <- lots of additional funds will need to be allocated just to support MBTs.
Note: I am not sure what the M60 AVLB bridge ratings is, so I cannot comment on that
2. Footprint, or pressure on ground
This determines how much pressure per inch (or it is square inch) the tank track or tyre puts on the ground. This will determine how well a tank will be able to move around soft grounds, eg. snow or mud. The Bv206 and Bronco are the two armoured vehicles that have the lowest pressure, while the Mekarva and some other MBTs have the highest.
3. Physical size
The heavier a tank, the bigger the physica size - usually. A big tank is going to get bogged down in jungle warfare easily. They are better suited for urban, desert or open plain warfare where the chances of getting hit by enemies are big and thus heavy armoured are needed to protect the crew and give the tank the greatest possible survivability.
I hope this helps. -
Sorry to disappoint u man, but i am a Blockhead..... at least that's what my girlfriend keeps saying!Originally posted by espanol_man:hahaha! blockhead, u veri farnee... if i call myself Mad Hatter, will you ask if i am from Alice in Wonderland or am i mahathir? anyway, i dun think u are a blockhead...
no lar... me just another singaporean cyber-citizen...
-
Originally posted by Joe Black:
the existing bridges used by the SAF can only take up till MLC 60.... however most pontoons bridges are actually design to take up to MLC 100.....
SAF would need to invest on MLC60 or MLC70 class bridges to cater for a 60 tons and above MBTs. <- lots of additional funds will need to be allocated just to support MBTs.
[b]Note: I am not sure what the M60 AVLB bridge ratings is, so I cannot comment on that
[/b]
the M60 AVLB max capacity is MLC 60 -
Originally posted by Joe Black:
the existing bridges used by the SAF can only take up till MLC 60.... however most pontoons bridges are actually design to take up to MLC 100.....
SAF would need to invest on MLC60 or MLC70 class bridges to cater for a 60 tons and above MBTs. <- lots of additional funds will need to be allocated just to support MBTs.
[b]Note: I am not sure what the M60 AVLB bridge ratings is, so I cannot comment on that
[/b]
the M60 AVLB max capacity is MLC 60 -
After what the dear leader said i highly doubt the US will sell them the AH's especially with the longbow!I think they'd go to either Britian or Israel.Germany and France already have the Tiger which they are marketing for export while most east Europeans have the Mi-24 Hind or the Mi-28(i think) Havoc.So if we want to get them it wont be that hard.Anyway about the tanks being to heavy it's just for the bridging equpiment and even main bridges.It can still function well in mud.Originally posted by laser51088:Yep, agree that saf shoud go get da apaches if they're really still very new.
also, on the subject of the tank, what weights do u guys consider to be 'too heavy'?
and 'too heavy' meaning what? will it into the ground? what are the types of ground that these 'too heavy' tanks cannot operate on? and if the ground pressure of the tank is low enough, how would weight still be a factor? something like the vehicle transporting it can't travel on normal roads cos the ground pressure exerted by teh wheels of the transporter is too great??
basically, someone please just expound on the weight of a tank as a factor logistically and operationally, with regard to the local conditions.
thanx -
Originally posted by Joe Black:
That right. SAF need to new equipment to support tanks of more than 60 tons & it must be support by AVLB for its mobility, Current AVLB we have is the M60 AVLB which is class 60 & AMX-13AVLB which is I think is only class 30, in this case we need at least a class 70 AVLBs.
This has been discussed in many threats before, anyway, here is a brief summary I believe constitute to the "weight" issue in MBTs.
[b]1. Gross weight
This is the gross weight of the tank. Why does it matter? It matters because the SAF combat engineers do not have quick launch bridges that are rated to carry anything above 30 tons.
Ref: http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/engineering/man/
SAF would need to invest on MLC60 or MLC70 class bridges to cater for a 60 tons and above MBTs. <- lots of additional funds will need to be allocated just to support MBTs.[/b]
Oher Bridging equipment which are mentioned by someone is simply not mobile enough to support the Leopards. Armoured Engineers r suppose to travel with the new tanks to be effective.
Note: The Centurion MK13 is only 52 ton,the upgraded one should only add another one or two tons. Therefore Class 60 is sufficient.Originally posted by Joe Black:
Good point too. One of the criteria for the initial design of the Scorpion family was that the width of the vehicle must be small enough to squeeze thru between two rubber trees in a rubber plantation found in MY.(The British still has a large force in SEA then)
[b]3. Physical size
The heavier a tank, the bigger the physica size - usually. A big tank is going to get bogged down in jungle warfare easily. They are better suited for urban, desert or open plain warfare where the chances of getting hit by enemies are big and thus heavy armoured are needed to protect the crew and give the tank the greatest possible survivability.
I hope this helps.[/b] -
in the bridging world, there are 2 types of obstacles...... a dry gap and a wet gap. the AVLB only allows us to bridge a dry gap i.e antitank ditch....... due to the limited length of the bridge, anything more than that we would need to construct a bridge..... believe me we have that capability......to project even a MBT across.....so i don't think the info given above is current.
for a wet gap wise, we either bulid a bridge or a raft to transport the AVGs into the far bank...... just take out a map and you will notice that we need to cross a lot of rivers..... and trust me ... a Leopard A2 is not a major problem...... -
The M60 AVLB in the Armoured Engineers coy that support Armoured Bde is true with only bridge span of abt 19m but could be lay within 2 mins, they r meant for small river /ravine & tank ditches that the enemy has dug out to slow any armoured forces which might not be forseen by our forces. They r there to ensure that the armoured forces are not slow down by any natural or man made obstacles that is why they should have the same mobility as the armoured forces they support & has quick laying & recovery of bridge to be effective.Originally posted by kanzer:in the bridging world, there are 2 types of obstacles...... a dry gap and a wet gap. the AVLB only allows us to bridge a dry gap i.e antitank ditch....... due to the limited length of the bridge, anything more than that we would need to construct a bridge..... believe me we have that capability......to project even a MBT across.....so i don't think the info given above is current.
for a wet gap wise, we either bulid a bridge or a raft to transport the AVGs into the far bank...... just take out a map and you will notice that we need to cross a lot of rivers..... and trust me ... a Leopard A2 is not a major problem......
Since the current AVLB we have only a class 60, it could not support the Leopards which is 62tons, unless there is new class of AVLB that I am not aware of.
It is true that larger river will need special bridging equipment for the armoured force to cross but they r also slower in term of deployment & they r usually planned for since large river will not suddenly appear but tank ditches do. -
***post deleted***
-
The Leo2 is capable of erm....going under water to cross all the rivers which arent really that deep.....though the rest need to use pontoon bridges or build 1.Originally posted by kanzer:in the bridging world, there are 2 types of obstacles...... a dry gap and a wet gap. the AVLB only allows us to bridge a dry gap i.e antitank ditch....... due to the limited length of the bridge, anything more than that we would need to construct a bridge..... believe me we have that capability......to project even a MBT across.....so i don't think the info given above is current.
for a wet gap wise, we either bulid a bridge or a raft to transport the AVGs into the far bank...... just take out a map and you will notice that we need to cross a lot of rivers..... and trust me ... a Leopard A2 is not a major problem...... -
I feel that the Leopards are definitely a good potential. British made the mistake that tanks are not suitable here. am wondering if our SAF is making a similar mistake by thinking that heavy MBT has no place here. Tempest..... no one I know off ever seen them. do they exist in the first place. If they do exist means SAF do believe in them. All the more should try getting those Leopards. Apache can't be all the time around with the front guys.
-
Singapore does not need a new MBT for the next 20 years at least. Tankees should know why.