SAF MBT(Main Battle Tank)
-
hmmm... your topic sets me thinking...
during the time when ST were developing the Primus, they bought 50+ chasis from General Dynamics but is the chasis that the Primus's using now a General Dynamics M109A5 Chasis?Originally posted by snk86:ok, first declaration, i am a civilian, so all i say is what i heard abt.....
i did hear from my fren we aqquired a new tank, he din say if it was a MBT or not but i guess it is, so i just blast tank names at him, i did notice his face change a little when i mention a particular tank............
and yes, i think i am quite sure we OWN MBT's since we bloody have M60's already............and maybe this national day we get to see new "hardwares........" -
The M60 that we had are Armoured Engineer Vehicles based on the M60 chasis. It had a dozer blade and a 165mm demolition gun. It is not a MBT.
If you are Hi-tech and you are up against a low-tech opponent, would you use your standoff weapons, superior C3I and all the gizmos and whack him upside down or would you want to slug it out door to door room to rom in a urbanized environment. -
opps. sorry, forgot that is was a combat eng modOriginally posted by spencer99:The M60 that we had are Armoured Engineer Vehicles based on the M60 chasis. It had a dozer blade and a 165mm demolition gun. It is not a MBT.
If you are Hi-tech and you are up against a low-tech opponent, would you use your standoff weapons, superior C3I and all the gizmos and whack him upside down or would you want to slug it out door to door room to rom in a urbanized environment. -
I thought our Primus are using the chasis of the Bradley?Originally posted by foga:hmmm... your topic sets me thinking...
during the time when ST were developing the Primus, they bought 50+ chasis from General Dynamics but is the chasis that the Primus's using now a General Dynamics M109A5 Chasis? -
If i remembered correctly, its a cross between the M109 and M-2.
-
Originally posted by panzerjager:
is it viable for the enemy to launch a SAM at a UAV? kinda expensive i think...
Current technology UAVs, if used to scout out for routes of advance through fortified objectives, are very clearly a liability given their level of signature reduction, especially in the visual and aural fields. Even the upcoming potentially advantageous micro-UAVs are not significant improvements in themselves.
Things being that these current technology UAVs give themselves away immediately upon discovery - why? Because to the enemy, they look like they don't belong and deserve to be blasted away immediately. And the enemy does not need to see them in order to know they're around - their powerplants are noisy enough.The ultimate UAVs (or even UGVs) will be those that totally look (and sound) benign - things that look natural and blend in with the environment, e.g. for UAVs, could be as small as housflies and look (and fly if possible) exactly like them, allowing them to actually penentrate enemy strongholds with impunity to scout them out.
that's definitely very interesting
imagine if a section has at its disposal one or two of them which they can use to fly ahead of the section in a BUA to scan through windows, look round corners and detect ambushes... definitely one that could save countless lives on the side using it.Then, for UGVs, could be a 'stray dog' or 'stray cat' embedded with sensor and motor implants to be controlled by remote. To add to realism, such UAVs/UGVs could even interact with enemy entities and environments in order to 'coerce' them into inadvertently divulging of additional valuable information
not sure i understand that application... care to elaborate? -
IMHO, the Ranger mission was a poorly planned and executed operation.Originally posted by subudei:From what I understand, the Rangers got into trouble because their political masters didn't allow them to bring heavy firepower into the Mog. They were too lightly equipped for their mission.
Maybe that's the root of the problem - maybe what's needed to boost your chances of winning a FIBUA action is lots of armoured vehicles and heavy firepower: armoured vehicles to provide your troops with some protection and mobility, and firepower to smash a particularly stubborn enemy to pieces with sheer brute force, e.g. wrecking or even collapsing a building in which enemy forces are strongly holed up.
Of course, this isn't a foolproof solution, either. For example, it seems that modern armour technology still can't provide that much protection against oncoming fire; I was quite shocked to see those photos from Gulf War II that showed how even M1s had been disabled by the humble RPG-7.
Anyway, as for the Rangers - although the Mog was technically a defeat for them, let's not forget that the number of casualties they actually sustained was a paltry 18, compared to over 700 KIAs suffered by Mohammad Aideed's militia. They acquitted themselves rather well, all things considered.
Their assumption that they could exfiltrate with land vehicles through hostile territory implied either arrogance or plain stupidity.
No matter how elite your troops are, when you have a couple of hundred of angry people with AKs firing at you, you will definitely take casualties.
I also think that quite a few of the casualties were inflicted by the Little Birds on their strafing runs, not the Rangers. Had there not been CAS, they would have been isolated and overrun. -
'Stray dog' or 'stray cat' UGVs could 'befriend' enemy troops during their lager period. Whatever is not known apparently from what is seen initially could be brought about to knowledge by this UGVs play-acting with the enemy troops - e.g. indirectly cause troops to inadvertently bring the stray dog/cat to more sensitive/private quarters such as command centre, barracks, armoury, motor pool etcOriginally posted by CX:not sure i understand that application... care to elaborate? -
Basically the idea of radically unconventional UAVs/UGVs that I had been talking about in the preceding threads are related to opening up with a whole new technology that can be coined as deceptive technologies (compare disruptive technology)Originally posted by panzerjager:'Stray dog' or 'stray cat' UGVs could 'befriend' enemy troops during their lager period. Whatever is not known apparently from what is seen initially could be brought about to knowledge by this UGVs play-acting with the enemy troops - e.g. indirectly cause troops to inadvertently bring the stray dog/cat to more sensitive/private quarters such as command centre, barracks, armoury, motor pool etc
A quite ultimate in vehicle incorporating deceptive technology could be applied to special missions like assassination/deep insertion rescue, whereby covert forces approach enemy-inhabited areas as if they are friendly to them and open up on them at point blank range. Disruptive technology could also be be applied to suppress enemy resistive elements while the liquidation process is in progess, e.g. mind control on enemies to remain still/immobilised while the execution take place -
Basically the idea of radically unconventional UAVs/UGVs that I had been talking about in the preceding threads are related to opening up with a whole new technology that can be coined as deceptive technologies (compare disruptive technology)
I thought this thread was about the SAF MBT. For anyone's info, there is no such thing as a MBT in the SAF despite the presence of the old Centurions, and the AMX-13SM1s, these are basically used as fire-support vehicles, in support of mechanised infantry and other ground forces.
A quite ultimate in vehicle incorporating deceptive technology could be applied to special missions like assassination/deep insertion rescue, whereby covert forces approach enemy-inhabited areas as if they are friendly to them and open up on them at point blank range. Disruptive technology could also be be applied to suppress enemy resistive elements while the liquidation process is in progess, e.g. mind control on enemies to remain still/immobilised while the execution take place
As for the UGV/UAV, believe me, it uses probably a lot of computer technology, and lots of AI is still not clearly understood, so don't bank too much on unmanned vehcles, or disruptive technology.
There are real problems for a UGV/UAV force and first amongst them is network access and the communication range of your network nodes. Plus the security and authentication of user privileges on the network, packet encryption etc.
The using force must have a ground pool of technicians and engineers capable of programming, modifying, and repairing such UGV/UAV in the theatre, and the teleoperation of the UGV/UAV sounds like a concept adopted from the civilian application of remote computing; from what I read of these thread, readers here automatically assume that the resources will be there for the SAF to have a UGV/UAV force in the next five to ten year window, and that I believe is far-fretched to me, despite it being promoted as a vision of a connected military that the SAF wants to promote. -
Then what we are really talking about then could be what the local military is dealing with the source country of our pioneering armour vehicles at the time of our nation's infancy...either developing one for us from scratch or just providing us the designed turret. Then our own contender might be what the local industry could be coming up with to counter it....All purely commercial at this stage...no politics involved....but maybe more so in key systems mainly located within the turret which are still black, being g-to-gOriginally posted by agsm1:I thought this thread was about the SAF MBT. For anyone's info, there is no such thing as a MBT in the SAF despite the presence of the old Centurions, and the AMX-13SM1s, these are basically used as fire-support vehicles, in support of mechanised infantry and other ground forces.
As for the UGV/UAV, believe me, it uses probably a lot of computer technology, and lots of AI is still not clearly understood, so don't bank too much on unmanned vehcles, or disruptive technology.
There are real problems for a UGV/UAV force and first amongst them is network access and the communication range of your network nodes. Plus the security and authentication of user privileges on the network, packet encryption etc.
The using force must have a ground pool of technicians and engineers capable of programming, modifying, and repairing such UGV/UAV in the theatre, and the teleoperation of the UGV/UAV sounds like a concept adopted from the civilian application of remote computing; from what I read of these thread, readers here automatically assume that the resources will be there for the SAF to have a UGV/UAV force in the next five to ten year window, and that I believe is far-fretched to me, despite it being promoted as a vision of a connected military that the SAF wants to promote. -
The utilization of unmanned units in future engagements is not a matter of if we can do it, but a matter of it we want to. It is certainly not far fetched, non of the problems we have with them today are due to any fundemental flaws in their operating concept, but a matter of time when technology improves, they will be solved.
In the end, why do we want to devote a number of resources towards getting unmanned technology? Because it offers a ton of advantages in battle. A UAV can be replaced rapidly, and in many cases cost less then the SAM that shot it down, but to replace a recon scout who had to scout to forward locations just to get a weak view of the enemy is a lot more expensive, harder, and drains our labour pool.
Micro UAVs can even be one of the tools used by our recon scouts to find out what's ahead of him, it will certainly improve their line of sight.
It's far from far fetched, it's like saying using missiles to arm our aircraft is far fetched because we have to create a whole new class of workers to handle their related issues. No, when you do the math, the cost is more then worth it.
In the end why do we want a networked army with unmanned eyes? Because the army that can see through the fog of war better, and diffuse the information along to the right people faster, will be the one who will ultimately respond faster, make better and more informed desisions, and outwit a slower, blinder opponent, which as anyone can see, will be a great advantage for the side which holds these cards.
In a battle soldiers would certainly like to know where that sniper is, or were that machine gun position is instantly over a network via imaging software instead of somebody risking their lives to relate that information by voice, or better, using such networked technology to take out the threat without even having a LOS to it. Like send a non-LOS missile tied in to an aquostic or microradar sniper detection system to a sniper nest without even exposing yourself.
Worth it? Certainly. We should not shy away from developing these technologies because of the cost, but put more resources into them to make sure when cruch time comes, we are as far forward of the field as we can. -
Well.... Russian style MBTs still possess a very fundemental problem when it comes to surrounding terrains and that is their weight. At 44.5 tonnes, the T-72S, which I am using as the base unit for comparison is just too heavy for the soil around, let alone the road. In dry weather, it might be able to transverse ground but when it comes to wet weather, the MBT will sink into the ground, being bogged in by the wet soil! There is a reason why the SAF has stuck to light vehicles to date! At 21.5 tonnes, the Bionix, is the heaviest vehicle used in the SAF Armor Corps, not including the Centurions which are not part of the regular armor formations. For Russian style MBTs to be used against Singapore, they would have to transverse their own terrain in order to reach us, which would be a task all on its own. If they get bogged down, which is extremely possible, our own armor units just bypass them to strike at vital areas, cutting own their supply lines. If any do reach us, Apache Longbow supported by Milans and Spikes take them out before they can do any harm.Originally posted by panzerjager:In response to this in-lieu of spencer99's 10.23am post on 7 Apr in the same thread:
In fact, Russian style modern MBTs are by most if not all accounts, more agile than any of the Western style MBTs, primarily because of their prevailing ex-Soviet doctrine in the employment of MBTs, i.e.
in an offensive role, tank maneuvers involving charging down relentlessly headlong towards the mission objective, ignoring enemy resistance. This is quite unlike Western style tactics in which mopping up operations are carried out progressively along the line of advance. In essence, the Russians had harnessed the true purpose of the tank...
So in the light of using the tank in this way, the Russians preferred their tanks to be light but powerful enough to provide the charge, and making them cheap and in numbers helps in the curtain effect in overwhelming the enemy. This ultimately meant that Russians traded away a lot of protection to achieve this. Which is why Russian MBTs are normally seen with add-on reactive armour to circumvent their inherent lack of protection.
So do not underestimate the potential value of Russian style MBTs used by potential adversaries against us. Unfortunately our own military is still too steeped in the Western style of warfare tactics to allow for a radical paradigm shift in their own doctrines.
Another point I would like to bring up is that merely purchasing MBTs is well and good but to maintain them is a totally different ball game. To keep an MBT running in the humid conditions of Southeast Asia a year from the date of purchase is no easy feat. Anybody can buy an MBT but to keep it capable of combat missions entails good base support. Thus, it is not merely the strategies but the ability to keep the simple things running that is what differentiates a good army from a mediocre army. -
Actually, BIONIX is not the heaviest in SAF armour, armoured engineers' CEV and AVLB are already MLC 60 (as opposed to BX's MLC 30), utilizing M60 chassis, noting the yellow circular numbered sign on the vehicle fender.Originally posted by bot_in_shop:Well.... Russian style MBTs still possess a very fundemental problem when it comes to surrounding terrains and that is their weight. At 44.5 tonnes, the T-72S, which I am using as the base unit for comparison is just too heavy for the soil around, let alone the road. In dry weather, it might be able to transverse ground but when it comes to wet weather, the MBT will sink into the ground, being bogged in by the wet soil! There is a reason why the SAF has stuck to light vehicles to date! At 21.5 tonnes, the Bionix, is the heaviest vehicle used in the SAF Armor Corps, not including the Centurions which are not part of the regular armor formations. For Russian style MBTs to be used against Singapore, they would have to transverse their own terrain in order to reach us, which would be a task all on its own. If they get bogged down, which is extremely possible, our own armor units just bypass them to strike at vital areas, cutting own their supply lines. If any do reach us, Apache Longbow supported by Milans and Spikes take them out before they can do any harm.
Another point I would like to bring up is that merely purchasing MBTs is well and good but to maintain them is a totally different ball game. To keep an MBT running in the humid conditions of Southeast Asia a year from the date of purchase is no easy feat. Anybody can buy an MBT but to keep it capable of combat missions entails good base support. Thus, it is not merely the strategies but the ability to keep the simple things running that is what differentiates a good army from a mediocre army.
And these armoured engineer vehicles are supposed to be in the frontline, not in the rear as popularly believed and understood. Meaning that if Russian-style MBTs of 40-tonne class are going to be bogged down, these 60-tonne behemoths will be worse! Furthermore the powerpacks on these non-MBTs do not possess as great a power-to-weight as those used on the Russian MBTs - imagine regular diesel engines vs gas turbines. Of course the fuel economy will be a big question but my argument is to counter the notion that Russian-style MBTs could be bogged down in SEA terrain. And my stand is that they will not be as affected as any of the current latest generation of Western MBTs, even with gas-turbined Abrams. Because the Abrams will still have to deal with its own ground pressure vs, say, a typical Russian MBT - lighter with probably the same ground pressure -
Just to add to my last thread:Originally posted by panzerjager:Actually, BIONIX is not the heaviest in SAF armour, armoured engineers' CEV and AVLB are already MLC 60 (as opposed to BX's MLC 30), utilizing M60 chassis, noting the yellow circular numbered sign on the vehicle fender.
And these armoured engineer vehicles are supposed to be in the frontline, not in the rear as popularly believed and understood. Meaning that if Russian-style MBTs of 40-tonne class are going to be bogged down, these 60-tonne behemoths will be worse! Furthermore the powerpacks on these non-MBTs do not possess as great a power-to-weight as those used on the Russian MBTs - imagine regular diesel engines vs gas turbines. Of course the fuel economy will be a big question but my argument is to counter the notion that Russian-style MBTs could be bogged down in SEA terrain. And my stand is that they will not be as affected as any of the current latest generation of Western MBTs, even with gas-turbined Abrams. Because the Abrams will still have to deal with its own ground pressure vs, say, a typical Russian MBT - lighter with probably the same ground pressure
All I am implying (imploring) is that the local military should seriously consider distanting itself from Western style technology - don't think it is that great and useful/practiceable to solve our unique/peculiar environment and experiment more with Russian/ex-Soviet technology. Exercise the 'you will never know until you try it' mentality, and realise that the costs could be lower, even though they may not be apparently so. Stop being paranoid and holding on to traditional stronghold schools of thought any more. It is a disgrace and very demeaning to all those worthy tankees in the world to be forced to use a waiting death-trap (think: AMX-13, SM1 or whatever) in this day and age -
oh ya... did anyone see 2 BMPs in SG camo color on the BKE ard 1week plus back...? In the morning...
-
interesting to note the 2 schools of thought - western and russian/ex-soviet.
i think for SG, it is more important that we know our own needs pertaining to the budget and size of our force. we cannot afford large numbers compared to bigger countries and in terms of human resources, we are at a disadvantage due to our land capacity which resulted in the population size being small and contained.
having the above in mind, it is thus important that this "mbt" that we are all so interested in must come from within the country and not merely from an external source. specifications and design of the "new" AFV must be unique and caters to the very need in times of operation...multi-operations. i likened this "multi-operations" to that of a multi-role fighter jet.
therefore, not any schools of thought nor any mbt in the present can satisfy the requirement.
i believe we need not a mbt in terms of size but rather a mbt in terms of capacity and operational status to match in any operational situations that we might be in. -
I do agree with you in that the SM1 needs to be changed. However, what I do feel is that Singapore's solution does not lie with the MBT route... The SEA terrain is one that is extremely difficult for MBTs to function at will. For the SAF to use MBTs, the SAF Armor Corps would then have to give up its ability to conduct rapid manuevers, giving up 'mobility'! Either Russian or Western-style MBTs would still face that same problem.Originally posted by panzerjager:Just to add to my last thread:
All I am implying (imploring) is that the local military should seriously consider distanting itself from Western style technology - don't think it is that great and useful/practiceable to solve our unique/peculiar environment and experiment more with Russian/ex-Soviet technology. Exercise the 'you will never know until you try it' mentality, and realise that the costs could be lower, even though they may not be apparently so. Stop being paranoid and holding on to traditional stronghold schools of thought any more. It is a disgrace and very demeaning to all those worthy tankees in the world to be forced to use a waiting death-trap (think: AMX-13, SM1 or whatever) in this day and age
Light tanks from my point of view are preferable to MBTs for their ease of passage through the surrounding terrain, allowing the armor corps to surprise the enemy where it never expects to face armor units! The XM8 would have been good. Too bad the program was cancelled... The AMX 10 PAC 90 was a move in replacing the SM1 but too bad it failed. -
A cheap solution to go with our current systems if we will never phase in an MBT-class vehicle and have to rely on IFV types, is toOriginally posted by tiggersgd:interesting to note the 2 schools of thought - western and russian/ex-soviet.
i think for SG, it is more important that we know our own needs pertaining to the budget and size of our force. we cannot afford large numbers compared to bigger countries and in terms of human resources, we are at a disadvantage due to our land capacity which resulted in the population size being small and contained.
having the above in mind, it is thus important that this "mbt" that we are all so interested in must come from within the country and not merely from an external source. specifications and design of the "new" AFV must be unique and caters to the very need in times of operation...multi-operations. i likened this "multi-operations" to that of a multi-role fighter jet.
therefore, not any schools of thought nor any mbt in the present can satisfy the requirement.
i believe we need not a mbt in terms of size but rather a mbt in terms of capacity and operational status to match in any operational situations that we might be in.
develop cannon/grenade ammunition that have the reach of MBT type main armament. But instead of expecting a total vehicle kill, i.e. penetration via KE or CE rounds, such ammo will ensure total mobility/vision kill/incapacitation.
Mechanisms already in place include the 40mm ABMS for grenades that are claimed to be able to knock out the optics of target vehicles. Supposedly the idea of the non-lethal weapon application of sticky goo or entrapment netting could also be used in conjuction with air-bursting rounds to envelope the target vehicles' running gear or weapon/optics systems in an all-round fashion, i.e. regardless of the attitude of the target in relation to the engagement profile. Such a tactic would buy enough time for the dedicated hunter-killer ATGM/LAW teams to ensure final vehicle and crew kills. We do not have to waste too much higher valued air-based munitions for such a job. -
The problem to use cannon/grenade type ammo for delivery of non-lethal apparatus could be in the volume constraints of the payload of each round. It could boil down to novel chemical processes to contain sticky goo in stable, compacted form in the rounds, which upon detonation by air-bursting fuse, the substrates could rapidly react with the onset of immediate exposure to ambient atmosphere in a self-forging manner, expanding in micro-seconds to form the required aereal expanse for encapsulating target area. Coupled with automatic firing rates of cannon/grenades to achieve a blanket effect.Originally posted by panzerjager:A cheap solution to go with our current systems if we will never phase in an MBT-class vehicle and have to rely on IFV types, is to
develop cannon/grenade ammunition that have the reach of MBT type main armament. But instead of expecting a total vehicle kill, i.e. penetration via KE or CE rounds, such ammo will ensure total mobility/vision kill/incapacitation.
Mechanisms already in place include the 40mm ABMS for grenades that are claimed to be able to knock out the optics of target vehicles. Supposedly the idea of the non-lethal weapon application of sticky goo or entrapment netting could also be used in conjuction with air-bursting rounds to envelope the target vehicles' running gear or weapon/optics systems in an all-round fashion, i.e. regardless of the attitude of the target in relation to the engagement profile. Such a tactic would buy enough time for the dedicated hunter-killer ATGM/LAW teams to ensure final vehicle and crew kills. We do not have to waste too much higher valued air-based munitions for such a job.
This process could be further developed for the case of employing entrapment netting within the space available for cannon/grenade ammo. -
Haha. Already heard about the MBT. I am quite cock sure about it. Though I have yet to see it. Heard some loose lipped armor officer blabbing it on the MRT. I happened to be in that carriage and heard him talk about his training in that tank.
Anyways, it, MBTs maybe heavy. But sometimes, the ground isn't as soft as its made out to be. -
I was told by a tankee officer in Australia that Sg brought 100 secondhand tanks from a sensitive country, for the price of US 1 million each. Is that expensive for a secondhand tank? How much a new tank will cost, why not sg buy new one?
-
Cos its quite a good second hand tank? LOL.
Maybe its not a tank at all?? It could have legs... Partical Pulse Cannons as well as Heavy Auto Cannons.. -
hmm. i tot we bought ion cannons?! i heard it from my friend's auntie's nephew's friend's officer....Originally posted by Shotgun:Cos its quite a good second hand tank? LOL.
Maybe its not a tank at all?? It could have legs... Partical Pulse Cannons as well as Heavy Auto Cannons..
-
No leh, My uncle's nephew's neighbour's dog's girlfriend's brother who is an armor officer says its more like mechwarriors.