A new tank for the SAF ?
-
We already got new MBTs. Whether those are used as replacement for the Tempests or to complement them, i am not sure. But what i am sure is that we already have a new type of MBT. Our primary concern now is the replacement for the AMX-13SM1.
-
tankee, I've been told as much about the new MBT, but lets leave it at that for now shall we? As far as what I was told, what you've said can be considered too much already.Originally posted by tankee1981:We already got new MBTs. Whether those are used as replacement for the Tempests or to complement them, i am not sure. But what i am sure is that we already have a new type of MBT. Our primary concern now is the replacement for the AMX-13SM1. 
-
double post
-
woah, tis getting heavy.
-
Good replacement will be CV90120, slightly better speed and also agile. But someone said we dun buy swedish anymore.Originally posted by tankee1981:We already got new MBTs. Whether those are used as replacement for the Tempests or to complement them, i am not sure. But what i am sure is that we already have a new type of MBT. Our primary concern now is the replacement for the AMX-13SM1.
I think we shud either build something like to CV90120 then slowly integrate and replace.
or
another way's to buy a huge load of cheap & good russian kornet/metis-m missle and strap it on all the 380 amx's to counter against any MBT's.
-
Originally posted by paulho:Good replacement will be CV90120, slightly better speed and also agile. But someone said we dun buy swedish anymore.
I think we shud either build something like to CV90120 then slowly integrate and replace.
or
another way's to buy a huge load of cheap & good russian kornet/metis-m missle and strap it on all the 380 amx's to counter against any MBT's. 
u might as well say 'lets get a full bn of MILANs!!' -
Yea i think it's alittle too much though i was not surprised we got it.Was only a matter of time.....but i wonder why the SAF wont say that we have/had the Tempest?Originally posted by Viper52:tankee, I've been told as much about the new MBT, but lets leave it at that for now shall we? As far as what I was told, what you've said can be considered too much already. -
It was in Jane's Defence mahOriginally posted by |-|05|:Yea i think it's alittle too much though i was not surprised we got it.Was only a matter of time.....but i wonder why the SAF wont say that we have/had the Tempest? -
which issue which year?Originally posted by Bochupi:It was in Jane's Defence mah -
but not official leh......the 1 in janes defence said some might have been transfered......Originally posted by Bochupi:It was in Jane's Defence mah -
heard that one from the grapevine too... though i admit... i WAS surprised to hear it...Originally posted by tankee1981:We already got new MBTs. Whether those are used as replacement for the Tempests or to complement them, i am not sure. But what i am sure is that we already have a new type of MBT. Our primary concern now is the replacement for the AMX-13SM1.
but won't see it in armour training area one lah... thats for sure... -
U realli have to congratulate MINDEF...i think it quite fantastic tt they could keep it under wraps for so long...
-
well... if u don't issue a news release, don't talk about it and don't drive it around LCK, who's gonna know???
-
A truelly secret stuff are only manned by regulars with Class 1 clearance but the existance of our Tempest was already leaked out since the 80s, maybe becos of it's size & number, the number of ppl involved, and especially been seen in ROC.Originally posted by CX:well... if u don't issue a news release, don't talk about it and don't drive it around LCK, who's gonna know???
Therefore those seen it w/o been told to keep quiet abt it started to spread it.......
Those so called classified units that are manned by NSF will not be kept secret and eventually be annouced by Mindef, afterall they will eventually ORD making monitoring difficult.
-
Originally posted by gary1910:
that's nice and good... but we were not not talking about the tempest.
[b]
A truelly secret stuff are only manned by regulars with Class 1 clearance but the existance of our Tempest was already leaked out since the 80s, maybe becos of it's size & number, the number of ppl involved, and especially been seen in ROC.
Therefore those seen it w/o been told to keep quiet abt it started to spread it.......
Those so called classified units that are manned by NSF will not be kept secret and eventually be annouced by Mindef, afterall they will eventually ORD making monitoring difficult.
b]
aiya stop talking about this liao lah... this is still pure speculation at this stage as there's no official public domain info backing it up.
lets focus on the topic instead... -
ok lets kickstart this discussion back to life again.
I think basic criteria for the amx replacement will be as follows.
must be tracked
must be light
must be fast
must be agile
must able to swim
must be air-droppable
must pack a punch
in other words must be young wif big bre@st.
There's not many good modern tanks around with such capability but lets look at the following contenders.
CV90120 (swedish)
BMP3 + 125mm main gun (russian)
M8 Buford AGS (american) (105/120mm)
I'm sure theres more like the SK105 but lets look at modern tanks.
of the above I think only the M8 has a width under 3 meters, managed by a crew of 3, road speed 72km/h and the with most basic config using 105mm gun weighs under 17 tons up to maximum 26 tons + C130 air-droppable.
anybody else like to add? -
What about Primus? Even though it's now fitted with 155mm howitzer.....at least you know the turret ring will be able to take a 120mm turret? I say it's one from RUAG but someone said it's the one from UD.Originally posted by paulho:ok lets kickstart this discussion back to life again.
I think basic criteria for the amx replacement will be as follows.
must be tracked
must be light
must be fast
must be agile
must able to swim
must be air-droppable
must pack a punch
in other words must be young wif big bre@st.
There's not many good modern tanks around with such capability but lets look at the following contenders.
CV90120 (swedish)
BMP3 + 125mm main gun (russian)
M8 Buford AGS (american) (105/120mm)
I'm sure theres more like the SK105 but lets look at modern tanks.
of the above I think only the M8 has a width under 3 meters, managed by a crew of 3, road speed 72km/h and the with most basic config using 105mm gun weighs under 17 tons up to maximum 26 tons + C130 air-droppable.
anybody else like to add?
I like to call this tank the "Dua Kong" -
I read somewhere that there is also a config for the amx to mount a 154mm gun or something like that. But in the end we got a SP howitzer in the form of M109.
I think for the replacement we will need something fast, a huge gun on a small chasis will slow down. -
Siaow! Primus chassis very little protection leh!Originally posted by Fairyland:What about Primus? Even though it's now fitted with 155mm howitzer.....at least you know the turret ring will be able to take a 120mm turret? I say it's one from RUAG but someone said it's the one from UD.
I like to call this tank the "Dua Kong" -
Ok, you the expert here on protection and it's probably sensitive.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Siaow! Primus chassis very little protection leh!
Pray tell me is there any visual clue on how one can at least guessimate the level of protection on a tank?
Or maybe it's because it's a SPH and weight is a premium allocated more to the turret/gun seeing it won't be spending alot of time in the front.
Still the armour should at least take a LAW right?
I thought I saw the same 'slab' (ceramic/spaced?) armour attached like the Ultra? -
United Defence LP, M8 Buford Armored Gun System
enjoy! -
the m8 is armoured to the max sia..looks like game tank lidat. dat will be such a good replacement. buden...muz see e gahmen wanna buy onot mah...den oso muz see Bush-boy wanna sell onot..
-
Some latest news on the M8......
Inside The Army
March 15, 2004
Pg. 1
Army To Transfer Four Armored Gun Systems To 82nd Airborne Division
The Army last week approved the transfer of four M8 Armored Gun Systems from contractor storage facilities to the 82nd Airborne Division at Ft. Bragg, NC, sources say, marking the first time the vehicles will be used by the service since the program was terminated in 1996.
Proposed in the 1980s as a lightweight combat vehicle that could fit aboard a C-130, the AGS was canceled as the Army struggled to pay for other priorities. Contractor United Defense LP, which fought the cancellation decision, has five M8 AGS vehicles in stock -- four in York, PA, and one in San Jose, CA.
The 18th Airborne Corps at Ft. Bragg recently passed along an “operational needs statement” to Army Forces Command that spells out the division’s need for a rapidly deployable vehicle with firepower that could be dropped from an aircraft (Inside the Army, Feb. 16, p1). The Army’s operations and plans office, or “G-3,” has been reviewing the requirement with Training and Doctrine Command.
TRADOC completed its analysis on Feb. 19, and the G-3 approved the needs statement on March 8, authorizing transfer of the existing vehicles to the 82nd Airborne Division, sources say. By press time (March 11), the Army had not released a copy of the approval documents.
According to one source, officials made it clear in the documents that the transfer in “no way should be construed as support for an AGS program.” Instead, it is an attempt to meet the immediate requirement with an interim solution and allow the division to begin developing and refining tactics, techniques and procedures.
The unit expects to receive the vehicles by the end of March, the source said.
Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC), a member of the House Armed Services Committee whose district includes Ft. Bragg, said he is pleased with the decision, but does not want the transfer to be misconstrued as a move to revive the terminated program.
“To be clear, I am not endorsing one system over another,” Hayes told ITA in a March 12 statement. “I simply believe that, if these existing AGS are combat-worthy, then they should be fully utilized while we await the future technologies that are already in production.
“My priority on this matter is simple -- what can we do to help our soldiers in the field the fastest?” he added. “If our soldiers can utilize these existing systems, then I want these systems in Baghdad rather than in a manufacturing facility in Pennsylvania.”
Hayes asked the Army last December to provide him information on the matter, including how much the transfer would cost and whether spare parts are available to maintain the gun systems. Last week, a spokesman for Hayes said the congressman was told government and contractor costs are estimated at approximately $1 million for one year of support for AGS.
The funding, however, is not as much of a concern to the Army as the availability of parts for a system that was terminated eight years ago. Sources say UDLP can sustain the systems for a limited amount of time, but many of its components are now obsolete or unavailable. Supporting the system beyond one year poses high risk, sources said.
Herb Muktarian, a spokesman for UDLPÂ’s ground systems division in York, said the systems are ready to go.
“We have not received any official requests from the Army regarding AGS, but the four AGS vehicles stored in York remain in excellent condition and we’re ready to provide support if asked to do so,” Muktarian said.
Maj. Rich Patterson, a spokesman for the 18th Airborne Corps, said officials at Ft. Bragg have been notified and are assembling the necessary manning documents, additional equipment and training plans, “with the intent to integrate the AGS into division operations as soon as possible.”
The vehicles will go to the 1st Battalion of the division’s 17th Cavalry Squadron, Patterson said. AGS will provide its assault teams “mobility, firepower and shock effects” within the “drop zone,” he added.
“It gives us a capability we could deploy if we need it,” Patterson said.
AGS features a 105 mm cannon, an ammunition autoloader and options for armor protection.
The divisionÂ’s requirement for an air-droppable platform has existed at least since the 1990s, when the division disbanded one of its battalions -- the 3rd Battalion of the 73rd Armored Regiment, which was equipped with an aging armored reconnaissance vehicle called the Sheridan. At the time, service officials thought other capabilities would become available to the paratroopers once the M551 Sheridan was retired.
When the division deactivated the armored battalion in 1997, however, then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Dennis Reimer had already terminated AGS, which had been regarded as the SheridanÂ’s replacement. Eliminating AGS freed more than $1 billion over the serviceÂ’s outyear funding plan -- money that was badly needed for other cash-strapped programs, officials said at the time.
Two years after the program was canceled, service officials said they continued to review options for all light forces that wanted more firepower. Vehicles reviewed included AGS, the Marine CorpsÂ’ Light Armored Vehicle, the Pandur lightweight vehicles used by the Kuwait National Guard and a variant of the M113 armored personnel carrier (ITA, Oct. 4, 1999, p1; Sept. 27, 1999, p1).
That effort, however, went nowhere, and the 82nd Airborne Division resubmitted its request for such a vehicle, eventually attracting HayesÂ’ attention.
“Let’s find out as soon as possible if AGS can serve effectively as a short-term solution for an immediate operational need,” Hayes told ITA last week.
-- Anne Plummer -
Nah, a LAW would cut straight through it like knife through butter. SPHS aren't built with a lot of protection in mind, they are supposed to provide mobility to a honking huge gun and then portection later.Originally posted by Fairyland:Ok, you the expert here on protection and it's probably sensitive.
Pray tell me is there any visual clue on how one can at least guessimate the level of protection on a tank?
Or maybe it's because it's a SPH and weight is a premium allocated more to the turret/gun seeing it won't be spending alot of time in the front.
Still the armour should at least take a LAW right?
I thought I saw the same 'slab' (ceramic/spaced?) armour attached like the Ultra?
Since SPHs typically operate behind lines, their main concern is not LAWs, but counter battery fire, hence the armour is enough to stop small arms fire and most sharpnel, but not anything major.
The Primus does not have any 'slab' armour, it is just plain steel, and pretty thin ones at that. -
I guess some of you guys might know this already...SAF thought or may still be thinking of getting French LeClerc MBTs (As the front-running choice)...source: Micool Brooke, "Fortress Singapore: A Key Player in Security," Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter, February 2001....