SAF MBT(Main Battle Tank)
-
You are right. They have been around for a while in local industry already. But radar wise is not clear, could be having NATO call-sign type rather than those in the WestOriginally posted by Fairyland:I don't think so.......the overall package is too small to fit into the M113. Also I didn't see any microwave director unless it's in the millimetric wave band! Or it's laser beam riding?
Assuming it's still a SACLOS system.
The radar radome looked like it's covering a search radar not a parabolic dish.
I think it's Igla with PSTAR maybe? -
Mistral missile is a very good system ! reputation of it, it is the best of its type in market. But of course expensive and need platform.Originally posted by panzerjager:In retrospect, we got the Mistral missile sometime just after Gulf War (should not be because of it being war-proven, because defence buys by us are not so quick)
However, after that we quickly (and quite secretly at first) brought in the Igla. Due in part to Iraqi successes against US/Coalition aircraft during Gulf War 1.
Just drawing my point not to underestimate Russian technology and not to think Western designs are holy grail in any sense
For iglas, we brought it for another use, for cheap shoot and throw instead, something for shoulder shoot.
In a way it give us a good mixed of cheap and expensive options. -
The problem with Mistral is the operational aspect - the battery cooler for the IR seeker head has enough juice for just about under 20-25 secs of continuous tracking, if the missile is not released within such a critical time, the whole thing is dud cannot be used any more and have to replace with another tube. Very bad operational impact, and considering its exorbitant cost compared with equivalent performance from Igla and better portability at so much lower price tag - why not replace itOriginally posted by storywolf:Mistral missile is a very good system ! reputation of it, it is the best of its type in market. But of course expensive and need platform.
For iglas, we brought it for another use, for cheap shoot and throw instead, something for shoulder shoot.
In a way it give us a good mixed of cheap and expensive options. -
Ask the SAF to consider the TUNGUSKA-M surface-to-air gun/missile system from Russia.Arm with 2x2A38M of 30mm calibre and 8x9M311 SAM,guidance system will be the semiautomatic, radio command, with optical line of sight.
TUNGUSKA-M Air Defence Gun-Missile System
The TUNGUSKA-M surface-to-air gun/missile system is a tracked combat vehicle designed to ensure round-the-clock protection of motorized infantry and tank regiments against low-flying aircraft and helicopters in any weather conditions.
The system's advanced features are as follow: an integrated gun/missile system provided with unified control; an automatic weapon selection function; a combined radar/optical target detection and tracking system; successive hit-to-kill missile-gun fire against helicopters; firing on the move. -
Looks very futuristic...
-
Too heavy.....
-
34 tons not that bad,still can handle by our combat engineer!Our Primus is only 4 tons lighter of 30 tons. By the way,it is more for defence not attack!
-
Well, that CERTAINLY is an option for a mobile ADA unit...
Which is smth which we dun require now :p -
in this case, we might encounter a lot of problems integrating this system into our current air defence network because this system employs russian programming.However as a standalone system,this could be pretty good.Looks great too.
-
Does anybody know that the Bronix turret is modified into a tank chasis with a bigger turret carrying a big calibre gun(around 76mm to 90m)? I remember seeing a SAF video showing a armour like that disembarked from a EP. If true,this may be the answer to SAF SM-1 replacement!
-
Video????Originally posted by zenden9:Does anybody know that the Bronix turret is modified into a tank chasis with a bigger turret carrying a big calibre gun(around 76mm to 90m)? I remember seeing a SAF video showing a armour like that disembarked from a EP. If true,this may be the answer to SAF SM-1 replacement!
I think what you have seen were the AMX-10PAC90s. -
Well, who nvr thought of it...lol
-
Mobile ADA platfroms are actually pretty useful in our context, as they could easily move around in our built-up areas and provide better coverage around the whole island.Each unit having its own concentric field of surveillance, thus providing layered protection IMHO.
-
Well, who knows?! Maybe they ARE already building a mobile ADA on the BX chassis.
This would then spawn a whole new range of defence/attack options on the BX chassis, namely:
1) Replacement for the old AMX10/SM1
2) Mobile ADA
3) Mobile Arty
and more...
Of these, The Primus has appeared.... -
Buford M8 Light Tank.Now thats a sweet lady if you ever saw one.If you look at the report below, this tank is quite capable enough to replace our SM1 clunkers.Having said that, its evident that the Primus was loosely based on the M109 Paladin's chassis, I would say that it could be cost-effective in buying up the rights to manufacture the M8 Buford since the US Army has terminated the program to a certain extent.VT Kinetics..Are you listening??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 UDLP'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 division'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 Sheridan's replacement. Eliminating AGS freed more than $1 billion over the service'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 Corps' 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 Hayes' 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 -
ST Kinetic shall make one!
-
Let there be no doubt......ST Kinetics can make one......
in 30 years when tanks are outdated!
MORE COST EFFECTIVE to buy the damm IP.
Mindef......are you listening?!!! -
Come on, its time to move on to missile technology.
Imagine a tracked armored vehicle platform. Turreted with a 90mm gun. On it, its mounted 8, Fire n Forget anti tank missile. Comes together with a CITV, allowing the commander to designate targets for missiles or search for additional targets. Gunner only fires the 90mm, while commander can engage with missiles.
Active defense system, coupled with reactive armor. -
But shifting to missile-based system is going to stress our logistic line. The size of one 105mm shell compared to one missile is extremely different. More shells can be carried then missiles. Furthermore, as was mentioned, a tank with 8 fire and forget missiles. What if they have all been fired. The tank would then have to stop to reload its missiles, which would make that particular tank unavailable to any tactical plans until it can be reloaded with new rounds. For an AGS fitted out with a 105 cannon, it doesn't have to stop until its rounds have been expended, which would be considerably more than the 8 missiles envisioned. A missile also does not guarantee a 100% hit rate, the gunner might miss due to extraneous circumstances.
Seriously, it is not whose weapons are more advanced that wins but who is able to keep those weapons functioning that is ultimately going to win the war. With such a high tech tank, missiles and all, one time Area D and it will come back with the fine dust that tankies get so used to. That plus the high humidity environment will mean anything that is high-tech is also going to spend alot of time in the workshop.
Another question that I would like to bring up is this. With a missile based system, would our gunners and VCs get enough experience in firing the missiles. Given that each missile cost is going to be pretty steep, it is unlikely all our gunners are going to be able the real thing and there is just no duplication of an actual firing by stimulators. Going by past experience, they will only conduct a live firing like once a year and only 1 or 2 missiles. Is that enough when the SAF Armor Corps have more than 1 or 2 tank crew? -
Originally posted by bot_in_shop:
Just to add on some pts. Look back the 60's, the US thought that missile would be the future to dominate the sky, as such the latest F4 was only equipped with missile & completely removed the cannon system BUT it proven wrong & they had to put back the cannon immediately to gain back the air superiority, till now all the fighter plane still equip with cannon to complement the fire & forget missile system. This would be the same for the tank as well.
Seriously, it is not whose weapons are more advanced that wins but who is able to keep those weapons functioning that is ultimately going to win the war. With such a high tech tank, missiles and all, one time Area D and it will come back with the fine dust that tankies get so used to. That plus the high humidity environment will mean anything that is high-tech is also going to spend alot of time in the workshop.
? [/b]
Don't forget that cost is the driving factor in term of procurement, training, logistic as well as maintenance regard ness how advance is the technology in any form of army. Bare in mind that tank role not only for destroy enemy tank BUT it does has a importance role of providing direct precision fire support to infantry which arty & aircraft could not or not efficient at all.
Cost & cost effective shall be the driving factors in any form of planning & operation NOT those attractive high tech gauges. -
Hi All,
Most of the main battle tank design with power plant at the back.
except the Merkava.
Most of the IFV and SPH with power plant at the front.
Probably if using the Bionix chassis (extended), with turret, it might have weight distribution problem.
Just my S$0.02 opinion.
Regards, -
Ah... i didn't say remove the main gun.
I said in the addition to the main gun, maybe a smaller one... 90mm.
Add missile packs. With it, fire n forget anti tank missiles with top attack capability. -
Same response... Logistics will be a killer. That and maintenance.
-
TOW missiles are an option..
-
hey actaully the MINDEF should considering replacing human fighters with T-800s and T-850s and tanks with
Hunter-Killers and Terminato-tanks
like in the movie Terminator 1,2 and 3 and now the tanks singapore is using is the outdated 1945 WWII era Mk-II. Skynet will rise.........