SAF COMMISSIONS LOCALLY-BUILT SELF-PROPELLED ARTILLERY
-
I think if you stretched out the Bionix by by a additional road wheel, lower the profile a little, it could actually handle a turret like the Primus.
As for the gun, the L50 120mm low recoil gun is perfect. It was designed to be handled I think a AFV of above 25tons, therefore it will meet our spec perfectly.
CHARGE!!!
-
Ok, here's my BIG question -
Is it more cost effective, acquisition and life cycle wise, to get the M8 wholesale OR
Integrate the turret onto a Bionix?
Seems to me with the M8 you have most things working, tested and qualified for ops.
Bionix probably needs some costly integration work to be done(or is it done already?)......... -
Of course it's more cramped then the Ultra, it is an IFV for goodness sakes. The M113 series has above normal internal space for any APC, and it's not something you should take for granted. IFVs have far less internal space.Originally posted by rancour5:The thing is the troop area is very small, if you have taken the Bx outfield before, the space is even more cramped than the ultra. I doubt even if you take away the troop area. There will be sufficlent space to put the ammo and the 120mm turret.
There is more then sufficent space to put the ammo and 120mm turret, the Thunderbolt hull(AGS with 120mm gun) is lower, and smaller then the Bx after all. -
How do you squeeze gunner and commander in the turret since at least half of it will be occupied by the autoloader?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Of course it's more cramped then the Ultra, it is an IFV for goodness sakes. The M113 series has above normal internal space for any APC, and it's not something you should take for granted. IFVs have far less internal space.
There is more then sufficent space to put the ammo and 120mm turret, the Thunderbolt hull(AGS with 120mm gun) is lower, and smaller then the Bx after all.
Are they sitting one in front of the other? Or is the gunner located below the commander in the hull?
I think buying the Thunderbolt is more cost effective. Tactically it has lower profile. Armor wise I don't know. But assume the engine can handle more applique if required. -
What do you mean? In most cases the gunner sits lower in front of the commander, since when was an autoloader a problem?
-
Well, I'm using the SM1 as a reference here...though the gunner sits lower, he's on the other side of the gun.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:What do you mean? In most cases the gunner sits lower in front of the commander, since when was an autoloader a problem?
I'm not sure if that is the case with this 'turret'. I imagine that the gunner will be lower and directly ahead of the commander?
Unless the autoloader is located behind the crew in the turret bustle? Well I'll wait for the official release of the ST Thunderbolt if there's one. -
In most tanks, MBT or light, the gunner usually sits right infront of the commander, while the loader or autoloader takes up the left of the turret.
Unfortunately since the tin can SM1 is so small (can't be tankie if you are above 6 feet) their seating position is more the exception then the rule. Packing crew close together makes them easier to protect with armour and redundant systems, but for the SM1, it hardly a defect as it has almost no armour to start out with. -
The modified Bionix ( it has a lower signature hull) was to be armed with a 105mm gun turret. But with the availability of the UD upgun turret ( A M8 deriative ) as well as after the evaluation of the CV90s120 tank and Sabra, decision was made to change to 120mm guns. The Light Tank ( about 25tons ) will have 3man crew with add-on reactive armour and it was build to meet our new mechanised division requirement.This tank will have some tank hunting capacity ( it is too lightly protected ), which is not it's primary objective.
-
How the heck do you know what the new light tank is gonna be?? Even if you... shouldn't you be keeping your mouth shut abt this?
-
If the new light tanks are to replace the SM1, then it will be seen very frequently over at Area D in the future, maybe even now, therefore it will not be kept secret and will be unveiled when they are ready. I dun think they are Class 1 stuff.Originally posted by V1NS@niTY:How the heck do you know what the new light tank is gonna be?? Even if you... shouldn't you be keeping your mouth shut abt this?
CHARGE!!! -
Whatever information I'm providing it is available via public domain.
-
Could you please publish your source of "public domain"? Simply saying "Its public domain" does not help.Originally posted by damienthedevil:Whatever information I'm providing it is available via public domain.
The other mods and I have stated this before, but I shall state it again for your benefit. Whatever information stated here MUST be public domain information, and MUST be backed up by stating the source which the information is obtained from.
Public domain excludes equipment seen in restricted areas, hardware not shown at public events, information not released publicly and news and information heard from people "in the know" but not released officially, or information gleaned personally in the course of one's work.
The moderators are at liberty to remove anything posted here that we think might contrvene these guidelines, and will not hesitate to do so. -
Please comply with the rules of secrecy and not reveal information that is not supposed to be known by the public. For example i only post threads here in military nuts because there are moderators doing censorship. Please remember this is for the security of our country,don't take it lightly!
-
My observation of the Paladin & Primus is that their running gear are quite different ? For one thing, the tracks. Primus' tracks look wider. A further observation is that the track pad configuration on Primus look more like those on UDLP's Thunderbolt 120mm technology demonstrator (improved M8 AGS), which was shown on video at AA2004, although Thunderbolt uses band track system....Originally posted by observe:The USSR went backrupt after all that spending without giving due considerations to the economical viability all their projects.
I read somewhere once that for a combat vehicle like a APC or Tank etc, the rule of thumb is to have a requirement of around 300 to make it viable to produce them locally. Anything less is better to them from somebody else.
So from that angle, if the projected total numbers of the locally made SPH is less than 300 (for both SAF needs and for exports), it would have been more economical to buy them from somewhere else...esp if most of the requirements seems to be met by the M109 Paladin except for the width. The width of the M109 on only slightly more than 3m. -
Burst rate is around there...in fact, it felt more like a 3 rds/10 sec although was not measuredOriginally posted by cavsg:i watched the video, the burst rate is lower than the 3 round /20 sec quoted, chassis is not the m109 as some had said earlier
Chassis frontal is about 70% M109/Paladin I suppose. Using similar, if not same travel lock (which is a monstrosity) and headlights/headlight guards. Not too sure about chassis sides and rear...the exhaust system looks slightly modified from US standard.
Also no comments on the rear crew access door, but is definitely very thick, probably because they are using all aluminium to save weight.... -
52 cal SPH may not be tactically advantageous because of the longer barrel which will restrict traversing of terrain and even in transit through urban areas.Originally posted by Fairyland:39 Calibre?!!! Why 39 and not 52??? Any ideas?
How many rounds on board?
Is it chemical warfare proof?
So the M109 chassis is for something else?!! Probably bigger like the 175mm with ST version of Copperhead?
180kpa seems high compared to Bionix and SM=1......can they keep up?
Bearing in mind that this is a tracked SPH, therefore expected to be able to keep up with the main striking force by Armour during operations. This would mean that tactical ranges in the 30 km window would suffice. Coupled with 'shoot-and-scoot' tactics, the mobility granted to a 39-cal tracked SPH in the kind of terrain expected in the region would be far greater than a 52-cal weapon, even for a wheeled version..... -
In factuous right, it is the other way around, the Primus chassis does look like to M109/Paladin chassis and the gun is more like the FH88 rather than the Soltam M68/71 (not 72). Noting the difference in muzzle-brakes of FH88 and M71....The FH88's muzzle brake does look like that on the M109/Paladin though....Originally posted by Joe Black:Doesn't look like a Bionix chasis to me either - way to high up, it looks like a M113 hull with Bionix drive trains. Nothing like an M109 chasis at all. Singapore apparently did buy the M109 chassis as recorded in the FMS list. The question should be, did we buy it and found it not suitable or is there in fact another SP gun.
From the specs, I presume the 39 calibre was chosen because of the chassis size and weight - look, it is a darn light SP gun, only 28 tons. Second, the gun is NOT an FH88. It looks like the good o Israeli M72 or M68 in stored. Make senses since SAF doesn't use the old M72 or M68 anymore and they are kept in the storage someone underground. The burst rate also has the hallmark of the M68 gun. The FH88 gun has a much higher 8 rounds/min burst rate rather than 6.
Actually, after having a closer look, I think the gun looks like the Paladin gun. Perhaps instead of getting the M109 chassis, SAF actually got the gun and integrated it onto a locally designed chassis?
M109A6:
ROC M109A2:
-
The term 'light tank' is insideously misleading to the ill-informed of the reality of the capability of a 'light tank'. The correct term to use is 'tank destroyer'Originally posted by bcoy:ST is already developing a light tank. This was mentioned years back in the Straits Times, Finance section, after the launch of the Bionix. The light tank, like the Primus will use the same automotive components. (Does the Bionix use the same\similar components as the M8???)
The Primus chassis can be used to develop in mobile SAM, in my view.
Properly defined, 'tank destroyer' is described, in essence, as an anti-tank weapon, usually gun-based, mounted on a mobile platform. The weapon may or may not be under armour, e.g. M-50 Ontos (6-barreled 106mm recoiless weapon system on air-droppable tracked chassis - 1950s-era). Even if under armour, the weapon may or may not be traversable/turreted, e.g. Jagdpather, Marder (German tank destroyers - WW2 era).
Tank destroyers are solely designed to defeat enemy armour (up to MBT-class) but yet are not as protected nor as sophisticated as the MBTs. In this perspective, all 'light tanks' are in fact tank destroyers simply because they will never be able to survive a direct hit from enemy tanks.
So I say this for the ppl who may be awed by the armour that we have or may be intending to acquire - the AMX13SM1, M8 AGS or any other 'light tank' that may be indigeously conceived - do not get too excited. Armour will always have to bear the heavy burden of having their new 'light tanks' decimated in the face of heavy armour on the opposing side.
The only plausible argument by them would be the informed application of proven tactics of maneuver-on-contact by armies which had been out-numbered, out-gunned and under-armoured, like the IDF during the 1967 & 1973 wars. -
I am a detachment commander of this primus gun.
I can help answer some of the questions here if you guys like me to.
Just some fast fact, we have a software self destruct function so that if enemies take over our gun, they will not have access to our databases and information.[/img] -
Actually...I was wondering, which battery are you in? If its "C" battery, is Capt. Helen Ang the current BC? If you do know her, ask her if she remembers the 7th mono-intake...'95-97...and if she still remember the layer from Det 6...that's my fren...thanks!Originally posted by Wynternight:I am a detachment commander of this primus gun.
I can help answer some of the questions here if you guys like me to.
Just some fast fact, we have a software self destruct function so that if enemies take over our gun, they will not have access to our databases and information.[/img]
-
Originally posted by panzerjager:
The thing is, we need a capable TD platform, one that provides more protection to other battlefield threats other then MBTs, like Infantry-level AT weapons and is able to shoot on the move and defeat MBT armour, stuff which the SM1 cannot do.
So I say this for the ppl who may be awed by the armour that we have or may be intending to acquire - the AMX13SM1, M8 AGS or any other 'light tank' that may be indigeously conceived - [b]do not get too excited. Armour will always have to bear the heavy burden of having their new 'light tanks' decimated in the face of heavy armour on the opposing side.
The only plausible argument by them would be the informed application of proven tactics of maneuver-on-contact by armies which had been out-numbered, out-gunned and under-armoured, like the IDF during the 1967 & 1973 wars.
[/b] -
Here a report from the US abt the effectiveness of AFVs in Vietnam.
Clearly from this report show the reason why SAF still employ light tank instead of pure MBT forces.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1985/CTG.htm
-
Given the current technology, and that the local military onlyOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:The thing is, we need a capable TD platform, one that provides more protection to other battlefield threats other then MBTs, like Infantry-level AT weapons and is able to shoot on the move and defeat MBT armour, stuff which the SM1 cannot do.
wants MBT-type protection on a vehicle less than half the weight
of an MBT, and after which, does not have the pocket to pay for
economies of scale for R&D & production, this is just not realistic, or else such vehicles would have been long made the MBT itself
obsolete.
So, the local military must be the compromising party and never the industry. If the eventual act of war has to result in heavy losses, so
be it for the generals and the governments to shoulder the blame and not the industry.
I know I'm talking nonsense here. But there you have it - soldiers, officers and their families must have to deal with death every day. Stop asking the engineers to be gods because we are all human -
Yeah she's still the BC but she's gonna leave soon.Originally posted by Tango1:Actually...I was wondering, which battery are you in? If its "C" battery, is Capt. Helen Ang the current BC? If you do know her, ask her if she remembers the 7th mono-intake...'95-97...and if she still remember the layer from Det 6...that's my fren...thanks!
This year is her last year in 21SA.
Anyway I'm not from Charlie so I'm not that friendly with their BC.
Sorry. -
You misread my post liao.Originally posted by panzerjager:Given the current technology, and that the local military only
wants MBT-type protection on a vehicle less than half the weight
of an MBT, and after which, does not have the pocket to pay for
economies of scale for R&D & production, this is just not realistic, or else such vehicles would have been long made the MBT itself
obsolete.
So, the local military must be the compromising party and never the industry. If the eventual act of war has to result in heavy losses, so
be it for the generals and the governments to shoulder the blame and not the industry.
I know I'm talking nonsense here. But there you have it - soldiers, officers and their families must have to deal with death every day. Stop asking the engineers to be gods because we are all human
The point is, we cannot get protection in a light tank that allows it to absorb APFSDS and the like. That is true.
But the idea is, are we getting enough protection that we SHOULD be getting? Can our SM1 tanks repel LAWS? RPGs and other battlefield threats that with out weight considerations, modern technology can now protect against?
Can our current SM1 carry a gun that is capable of defeating MBTs? Which current technology can now provide a light tank?
Can our SM1 shoot on the move? Which long has been possible for light tanks?
Is our SM1 as mobile as it should be? An important consideration considering the only thing preventing it from being toast is its speed. Can modern technology make a light tank do better?
The answer to all of the above question is NO. The truth is, the SM1 is way outclassed and virtually obsolute when it comes to the technologies that have been developed for AFVs for its weight class, and worse, it can hardly do its job given a puny 75mm gun and armour that can along protect from small arms.
It can be argued that a technical with an 84 mounted might be more cost effective. Might as well dump all the armour on the SM1, given its nothing more then a half-measure eating up weight anyway!
If we can't use MBTs, the very least is that we get our tankies into a proper light tank. Technology existed for the Americans back in WW2 to use tanks far better then their M4 Sherman, but they did not, and they bled and suffered needlessly for it.