Singapore only buys military technology doesn't invent any
-
Just wondering which military weapons, did SG invent.
Singapore just buys technology transfers from other countries and modified it to local use, such as Israel ( SAR21, 155mm howitzer, 120mm advanced mortar, typhoon 25mm navalised guns etc..), Frances ( DCN Delta frigates etc.. ), Germany ( Victory Class Corvettes, LAW etc..), America ( Endurance class LST, Primus, etc..), Australia ( LCV ), Sweden ( Bedok Class MCM), Ireland ( Terrex81 ), Russia ( Igla1 and 155mm assisted round ) etc..etc.. -
so wats your point?Originally posted by damienthedevil:Just wondering which military weapons, did SG invent.
Singapore just buys technology transfers from other countries and modified it to local use, such as Israel ( SAR21, 155mm howitzer, 120mm advanced mortar, typhoon 25mm navalised guns etc..), Frances ( DCN Delta frigates etc.. ), Germany ( Victory Class Corvettes, LAW etc..), America ( Endurance class LST, Primus, etc..), Australia ( LCV ), Sweden ( Bedok Class MCM), Ireland ( Terrex81 ), Russia ( Igla1 and 155mm assisted round ) etc..etc..
are u assuming TAR21 n SAR21 are the same? -
weren't the LSTs locally designed and built?Originally posted by damienthedevil:Just wondering which military weapons, did SG invent.
Singapore just buys technology transfers from other countries and modified it to local use, such as Israel ( SAR21, 155mm howitzer, 120mm advanced mortar, typhoon 25mm navalised guns etc..), Frances ( DCN Delta frigates etc.. ), Germany ( Victory Class Corvettes, LAW etc..), America ( Endurance class LST, Primus, etc..), Australia ( LCV ), Sweden ( Bedok Class MCM), Ireland ( Terrex81 ), Russia ( Igla1 and 155mm assisted round ) etc..etc.. -
Tot the FH200 and assisted round copied from South Africa G5, also developed by Dr Gerald Bull (?)
Terrex AV81 from Ireland? -
and.... does it matter?
i don't care even if they buy it from malaysia, as long it works!
-
No mah, must yin sui shi yuan, acknowledge our benefactors...Originally posted by kopiosatu:and.... does it matter?
i don't care even if they buy it from malaysia, as long it works!
Kekekekekeke -
just buy and modify...no need to spend so much $$$, it will be more economical, but one will not hav that added advantage that first movers enjoy
-
why reinvent the wheel?
-
haiya...let others do the research...save $$
-
yup yup.. jus like the japs.Originally posted by sgboy2004:just buy and modify...no need to spend so much $$$, it will be more economical, but one will not hav that added advantage that first movers enjoy
-
design is the same... just a little deviation in the scope and the frame. Besides, they unveil at almost the same timeOriginally posted by NathanG5:so wats your point?
are u assuming TAR21 n SAR21 are the same? -
In the SAF, 7 out of 10 NSF Men are wearing glasses.Originally posted by Moonstriker:design is the same... just a little deviation in the scope and the frame. Besides, they unveil at almost the same time
The scope added to the SAR-21, certainly will be a great help for the NSF Men, otherwise all the shots will go wo-wo; now almost 90 Percent will score full points, and close grouping too. -
Even if the FH2000 is a 'copy', it is nothing similar to the South African G5 piece - the G5 is a 155mm 42calibre, while the FH2000 is a 155mm 52calibreOriginally posted by laurence82:Tot the FH200 and assisted round copied from South Africa G5, also developed by Dr Gerald Bull (?)
Terrex AV81 from Ireland?
Furthermore, it was reported in Jane's Defense that the SAF is the first army in the WORLD to field a 155mm/52 calibre howitzer.
Singapore Technologies had bought itself a 25% ownership of the Irish Defense Contractor - Timoney Holdings, which has subsidiary defense design and development company named Timoney Technology.
By holding a 25 percent stake in the parent company of Timoney, it becomes a moot point if the Terrex AV81 is a design purchased from Timoney Technology of Ireland, and its development is funded by Singapore Technologies.
In any case, there is synergy in the investment into Timoney, as our local Automotive Engineering Group has the local expertise with armored and commercial vehicles, tracked and wheeled undercarriage.
Without the funding, the design will probably remain on the drawing board.
South Africa G5-155mm/45cal.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rsa/g5.htm
ST Kinetics - FH-2000 155mm/52cal.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/fh2000.htm
Singapore's Overseas Investment - stake in Irish Defense Company.
http://portfolio.pacfusion.com/clients/usembassy/ep/2002/Investment%20-%20January%202002.html
Timoney Technologies
http://defence-data.com/dsei/pageds1044.htm -
Hmm... "either SG invented x or SG bought x"--that doesn't sound like an obviously true statement. Consider the Ultimax 100: originally designed by a British fellow James S. Sullivan (who was also on the design team of the--American--AR-15 and AR-18...), design bought by SG, locally produced and further improved upon in SG. Did SG invent the Ultimax? No. Did SG just "buy" Ultimaxes? No.... What about about "SG built x with the help of, say, the Americans", where x =, say, the Primus...is this also the same as "SG bought x"?Originally posted by damienthedevil:Just wondering which military weapons, did SG invent.
Singapore just buys technology transfers from other countries and modified it to local use, such as Israel ( SAR21, 155mm howitzer, 120mm advanced mortar, typhoon 25mm navalised guns etc..), Frances ( DCN Delta frigates etc.. ), Germany ( Victory Class Corvettes, LAW etc..), America ( Endurance class LST, Primus, etc..), Australia ( LCV ), Sweden ( Bedok Class MCM), Ireland ( Terrex81 ), Russia ( Igla1 and 155mm assisted round ) etc..etc..
[Incidentally, as far as Charles Cutshaw of Janes was concerned, "STKinetics... develop[ed] a new rifle that [was]... an indigenous project from start to finish...Although the SAR-21 bears superficial resemblance to other bullpup assault rifles, such as the Steyr AUG and IMI Tavor, it is a unique design that is similar to its cousins only in that it is of bullpup configuration." (See: http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/idr/idr000531_2_n.shtml)]
As Kopiosatu asks so aptly: "does it matter?" Perhaps we really don't need to care "if they buy it from malaysia, as long it works!" That sounds right--SG "being able to invent stuff" may have little connection with "SG is militarily effective".
But more than that, I am glad that SG doesn't just buy weapons: we produce them locally under licence, we develop versions of foreign designs that are uniquely suited to our needs, we buy advanced platforms but also assemble them in our own yards (think ships) and build new stuff with the help of foreign companies who are more advanced (think SP and LST); in the process "leapfrog into technologies" (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/Archive-2000/me-singapore-09-12.html) that we would have taken decades (if ever possible) to "invent" on our own.
Cheers! -
Yes it does matter, this means that if a military technology we need so badly and yet no one is willing to sell it to us, or that no one else shares that particular problem, we're stuck. Just like the AIM-120s.
I would have junked the AMRAAMS if there was an indigenous missile available...Originally posted by Theory:Hmm... "either SG invented x or SG bought x"--that doesn't sound like an obviously true statement. Consider the Ultimax 100: originally designed by a British fellow James S. Sullivan (who was also on the design team of the--American--AR-15 and AR-18...), design bought by SG, locally produced and further improved upon in SG. Did SG invent the Ultimax? No. Did SG just "buy" Ultimaxes? No.... What about about "SG built x with the help of, say, the Americans", where x =, say, the Primus...is this also the same as "SG bought x"?
[Incidentally, as far as Charles Cutshaw of Janes was concerned, "STKinetics... develop[ed] a new rifle that [was]... an indigenous project from start to finish...Although the SAR-21 bears superficial resemblance to other bullpup assault rifles, such as the Steyr AUG and IMI Tavor, it is a unique design that is similar to its cousins only in that it is of bullpup configuration." (See: http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/idr/idr000531_2_n.shtml)]
As Kopiosatu asks so aptly: "does it matter?" Perhaps we really don't need to care "if they buy it from malaysia, as long it works!" That sounds right--SG "being able to invent stuff" may have little connection with "SG is militarily effective".
But more than that, I am glad that SG doesn't just buy weapons: we produce them locally under licence, we develop versions of foreign designs that are uniquely suited to our needs, we buy advanced platforms but also assemble them in our own yards (think ships) and build new stuff with the help of foreign companies who are more advanced (think SP and LST); in the process "leapfrog into technologies" (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/Archive-2000/me-singapore-09-12.html) that we would have taken decades (if ever possible) to "invent" on our own.
Cheers! -
I agree you you! There is obviously a sense in which "it" matters--except that your "it" is not the same "it" that got this thread started. We hardly need to invent--from scratch, as it were--the required item. We need to know the technology, to be able to apply it, to be able to manufacture stuff locally, i.e., to have access to stuff without having to be at the mercy of a foreign supplier. But that's quite different from having to invent something totally new--at least not in every case.Originally posted by RussianPower:Yes it does matter, this means that if a military technology we need so badly and yet no one is willing to sell it to us, or that no one else shares that particular problem, we're stuck. Just like the AIM-120s.
I would have junked the AMRAAMS if there was an indigenous missile available...
Cheers -
kewl... but still prefer m16...Originally posted by Atobe:In the SAF, 7 out of 10 NSF Men are wearing glasses.
The scope added to the SAR-21, certainly will be a great help for the NSF Men, otherwise all the shots will go wo-wo; now almost 90 Percent will score full points, and close grouping too.
-
just a side question... did we receive any of our amraams?
-
i was skeptical abt SAR 21 too during my NS day..Originally posted by Moonstriker:kewl... but still prefer m16...
but SAR 21 is a much better weapon then M-16..
M-16 is gd for training..SAR 21 is gd for killing.. -
My bro was one of those who was asked to test the SAR21 in it early days. He commented to me he prefers the M16, i asked him why, since SAR21 seems to be better.Originally posted by NathanG5:i was skeptical abt SAR 21 too during my NS day..
but SAR 21 is a much better weapon then M-16..
M-16 is gd for training..SAR 21 is gd for killing..
He replied that SAR21 have tendency to break down, after some time of shooting. Heard this also from some other people too, so is the material used fror SAR21 improved now? -
yeap..my CSM say tat too when SAR 21 1st came out..Originally posted by laurence82:My bro was one of those who was asked to test the SAR21 in it early days. He commented to me he prefers the M16, i asked him why, since SAR21 seems to be better.
He replied that SAR21 have tendency to break down, after some time of shooting. Heard this also from some other people too, so is the material used fror SAR21 improved now?
but its a whole different story now..its meaner n better.. -
To answer RussianPower and Moonstriker, yes the Amraam is supposed to be in Sg the day the Thais got theirs in their homesoil.
Read some time back in JDW that SG acquired a small amount of Israel Derby, when the Americans decided to withhold the SG Amraam.
To answer NathanG5, I was highlighting some facts and yes the SAR21 was a modified and better version of the TAVOR21. -
No arms industries is an island, not especially Singapore.
It won't be pratical to design all of our weapons from scratch when we can modify existing systems or adapt other ideas to meet our needs.
As for the myth of the SAR-21 being a TAR-21 copy, I suggest you check that myth, internally, the SAR-21 is made quite different along with several patents under the product, including a safety plate that prevents a piece of metal from entering your brain when a round cooks off in the bulpup.
There is no need, nor pratical reason why ST should try to make a rifle design that is unique for the sake of being unique. What matters is what works, and what provides good egronomics, in which the ray-gun polymer bulpups have been a solid design to base our weapon on.
But it is not deniable that these two rifles are similar... it will probably be better expressed that the SAR-21 is inspired, rather then a copy of the TAR-21. It can't be called a copy any more then the Panther tank is a copy of the Soviet T-34.
Of course, we could have traded notes with the Israelis on the development of our respective rifles, but I don't think that's something the brass would discuss openly... -
The SAR-21 is in it's third incarnation now, and it is argubably among the most effective assualt rifles in the world today, as rated by Janes.Originally posted by laurence82:My bro was one of those who was asked to test the SAR21 in it early days. He commented to me he prefers the M16, i asked him why, since SAR21 seems to be better.
He replied that SAR21 have tendency to break down, after some time of shooting. Heard this also from some other people too, so is the material used fror SAR21 improved now?
The SAR-21, even in it's first version, is still far more reliable then your M-16, the thing is, Soldiers tend to get used to the M-16 foul ups and jammings as they feel comfortable with an established weapon but then to take every single time the SAR-21 messes up way out of it's actual implication due to the "new-weapon paranoia" syndrome, however even in it's first production version, the SAR-21 is more reliable then the M-16 in an order of several magnitudes, along with a marked spike in shooting accuracy. -
so izit still the same? think thru it before u post anything...u will only make a fool of yourself...hey in that case all bulbpup design gun are copies of each others..Originally posted by damienthedevil:To answer RussianPower and Moonstriker, yes the Amraam is supposed to be in Sg the day the Thais got theirs in their homesoil.
Read some time back in JDW that SG acquired a small amount of Israel Derby, when the Americans decided to withhold the SG Amraam.
To answer NathanG5, I was highlighting some facts and yes the SAR21 was a modified and better version of the TAVOR21.
facts? which most in this forum knows? obviously u have some other reason to post this thread..stop wasting my time..get to the point..