most urgently needed weapons......
-
I don't think the that is the role of the MPA. Its job is to stay high. Sub hunting is more of the Seahawks.Originally posted by tankee1981:1. SM1 need to be replaced by something like the XM8
2. S-300 or Arrow for ballistic missile defence
3. Current MCV to be replaced by Swedish Visby class
4. C-130H to be replaced by C-130J or A400(better capability)
5. MPA to feature ASW capability by having torpedoes and MAD6. MLRS such as the Russian Smerch
Whatever for? Wars are no longer fought on that kind of annihilation scale.
MY bought some thing similar because they think can go around invading countries.7. E-2C to be replaced by Gulfstream V Phalcon
Bronco is a POS. Too small and too slow to carry any significant infantry. I am thinking about the South African. The one they used during aparthied.
8. M-16/M203 to be replaced by SAR-21/M203
9. Ulitmax Mk 4 to be introduced
10. Bronco(with mounted GPMG) for all infantry battalions as armed armoured transport11. Terrex with RCWS for our RDF
Any thing strategic cannot be land based.
12. F-35A Lightning II
13. Global Hawk or LALEE for recon and/or AWACS
14. Predator or MAV(from ST) as UCAV and for recon and survelliance
15. BMP-3 to replace the AMX-10
16. Submarine launched anti-ship /cruise missiles (Harpoons/Club/Popeye)
17. Land-based Club missiles for strategic cruise missile capability -
I think SAF should ask USA to reinstate the scrapped Comanche programme and Singapore will be the first buyer of this Comanche helicopter with stealth facilities.
-
E MPA can react n reach places faster, also it can stay in e air for 12hrs
-
Originally posted by touchstone_2000
May i ask your expert opinion on how to classify land-based ICBM mobile launchers such as Chinese DF-31, the Russian SS-25 Sickle and Silo-based US LGM-118A Peacekeeper? Strategic or Tactical or Conventional? Thanks
Any thing strategic cannot be land based.
Here are some links for your reference:
Russian SS-25: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/rt-2pm.htm
Chinese DF-31:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/icbm/df-31.htm
USA Peacekeeper:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-118.htm -
Originally posted by touchstone_2000
1.I beg to differ on its small size and lack of ability to carry significant infantry.
Bronco is a POS. Too small and too slow to carry any significant infantry.When being used as a troop carrier, the ATTC can carry a total of 16 - six in the front, including the driver and vehicle commander, and 10 in the rear unit, plus their equipment
Source: "New All Terrain Vehicle Makes Tracks For Eurosatory"
by Chris Foss Jane's Daily, 20 June 2000
2. I beg to differ on its speed.
(i)It is fully amphibious, being propelled in the water by its rubber tracks at a maximum speed of 5km/h.
Source: "New All Terrain Vehicle Makes Tracks For Eurosatory"
by Chris Foss Jane's Daily, 20 June 2000
(ii)With load carrying capacity of up to 5 tones, the ATTC is sharply responsive with a top speed of 60 km/h on the road and at least 25 km/h on cross-country terrain
Links for reference:
http://www.one35th.com/attc/attc_intro.htm
http://www.one35th.com/attc/attc_intro2.htm
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/army/armour_equip_bronco.htm
Finland and France interested in a Singaporean POS?
http://www.defenseworld.net/eurosatory2006/news/Singapore_Technologies_Bronco.htm -
18. Zubr ACLC X1 (for RDF)
With this Russian hovercraft, SAF's RDF will truly be rapidly deployed! It will do humanitarian missions such as the Asian Tsunami rapidly as well!
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/zubr/ -
Excellent research. Lets stick to Singapore shall we? We don't have huge fields, mountains or outback to hide this stuff.Originally posted by tankee1981:May i ask your expert opinion on how to classify land-based ICBM mobile launchers such as Chinese DF-31, the Russian SS-25 Sickle and Silo-based US LGM-118A Peacekeeper? Strategic or Tactical or Conventional? Thanks
Here are some links for your reference:
Russian SS-25: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/rt-2pm.htm
Chinese DF-31:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/icbm/df-31.htm
USA Peacekeeper:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-118.htm
Any strategic military weapons for Singapore needs to be mobile. -
Most urgent will be AMX 13 SM1 replacement. A hi / lo mix will be ideal.
With battle proven M1 A1 or A2 , we shud have at least one battalion of these. Australians are also using it. We can then interoperate with Aussies & use their vast raining ground.
Also, up to 300 light weight ( up to 30 tons ) in the CV 90 or Bionix ( with 105 mm ) class for infantry fire support will be great. -
haha armour is a real expensive thing to operate. i think it'll bankrupt the army if they follow ur ideaOriginally posted by glock:Most urgent will be AMX 13 SM1 replacement. A hi / lo mix will be ideal.
With battle proven M1 A1 or A2 , we shud have at least one battalion of these. Australians are also using it. We can then interoperate with Aussies & use their vast raining ground.
Also, up to 300 light weight ( up to 30 tons ) in the CV 90 or Bionix ( with 105 mm ) class for infantry fire support will be great. -
Not really so far fetched since Singapore already operates several hundred AMX13 SM1s which are in dire need of replacement.
S'pore has very expensive equipment anyway - F16s, F15s , Lafayette class
frigates, Vastergotland subs etc The army shud not be left out..... -
We don't need a direct numbers replacement. Just 'cos we have 300 SM1 tanks doesn't mean we have to replace all 300 with MBTs. I'm no expert but I would think that 100 MBTs with perhaps another 100 new light tanks would suffice. After all we do have other armoured vehicles too.Originally posted by beavan:haha armour is a real expensive thing to operate. i think it'll bankrupt the army if they follow ur idea
Its just like the A4 Skyhawks. I don't think RSAF intends to replace the exact number of Skyhawks with the exact number of F-15s. -
aiyoh .... equip all the combat soldier each carry one RPG29 or RPG27 loh ... whatever T80 or Pt91 come what may also can settle.
http://world.guns.ru/grenade/rpg-29.jpg
Caliber: 105 mm barrel; 65/105mm warheads
Type: rocket booster
Overall length: 1850 mm ready to fire; 1000 mm disassembled for transportation
Weight: 12.1 kg unloaded, with optical sight; 18.8 kg loaded and ready to fire
Effective range: up to 500 m
Armour penetration: ERA plus more than 600 mm RHA
COST
R-29 launchers cost over US$500 each, and the rockets for about $300 each.
RPG-27s cost over $500 each
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/military_photos_2004614.asp
NUMBERS GAME
How many millions can they throw on buying Pt-91 or T80?
For every 1 super tank they buy we follow up by equipping 10 combat soldiers each carry one RPG29, One Pt-91 or T80 mbt can tahan how many rpg fired up it's armored backside?
we have over 300k guys to equip we shud just find the cheapest way to counter can liao. 300,000, 10 guys to cover 1 tank is abt 30,000 tanks, can anybody tell me who can afford 30,000 tanks in this region?
For instance 1 RPG-29 + 1 rocket cost US800 x 30,000 = USD24mil
48 - Pt-91 for 400million incl spares + support. Cost of 1 tank with spares and support USD8.3 million
dedicating 10 RPG rockets to 1 tank cost USD8000 to kill 8.3million or 9%
For them or anybody to counter our 30k RPG using tanks will cost
8.3 million * 30,000 = USD249 billion worth of palm oil they have to sell for the next 900 years -
erm every unit of an army has it's own part to play.
yes it's true that u can kill a tank with 300RPGs. however, with these 300RPGs can u push far ahead into enemy lands? -
hmmm...i believe malaysia's infantry sections are currently also eqipped wif rpg-27s.....definitely a threat for our venerable SM-1s and also M113s!
-
Actually the Malaysian army is equipped with RPG-7 which is of Pakistani origin. One infantry section have 2 RPG gunners. Now that will provide a very serious threat to our armoured forces especially the softer skin ones.
Maybe Singapore should seriously consider buying the right and technology to produce RPG launchers and rockets locally. After all this supposely cheap and crude weapon have claim many victims from the high-tech US military, both in Afganistan and Iraq. RPG weapon system have many types of rockets for a variety of targets. I think it could be used to replace the heavier and cumbersome 84mm.
I believe Russian and Eastern bloc military technology should be considered as well as Western ones. After all we did purchase the technology and right to produce the Igla SAM and cooperate with Ukraine to develop guided rockets for the Apache. -
That would be inadequate to equip all our armoured regiments. And we must bear in mind that the threat environment from armour in other Asian countries has increased as well. Buying 300-500 new 120mm equipped light tanks should not be a problem as well. In fact these should cost much less than the planned (eventual) 40 or so F-15SGs. These would be a welcome addition to the around 100 MBTs we have according to unofficial sources such as Jane's. However, just 100 new light tanks would be sorely inadequate against an experienced and determined foe equipped with large numbers of ATGWs and other anti-armour weapons.Originally posted by sgf:We don't need a direct numbers replacement. Just 'cos we have 300 SM1 tanks doesn't mean we have to replace all 300 with MBTs. I'm no expert but I would think that 100 MBTs with perhaps another 100 new light tanks would suffice. After all we do have other armoured vehicles too.
Its just like the A4 Skyhawks. I don't think RSAF intends to replace the exact number of Skyhawks with the exact number of F-15s. -
I thought Germany have this Panzer...... something, wad ever, it is like RPG breech loaded and the round is loaded in the front. It is around 12 plus kg, definitely lighter than the 84mm. A gd MAW replacement.
-
Originally posted by four-niner:
Hello, you think every infantry man and guardsmen only has to carry RPG is it? There are a lot of other equipment to carry on top of the personal weopons you know. Not to mention that there are also the enemy infantry to be concern about.
NUMBERS GAME
we have over 300k guys to equip we shud just find the cheapest way to counter can liao. 300,000, 10 guys to cover 1 tank is abt 30,000 tanks, can anybody tell me who can afford 30,000 tanks in this region?
For instance 1 RPG-29 + 1 rocket cost US800 x 30,000 = USD24mil
48 - Pt-91 for 400million incl spares + support. Cost of 1 tank with spares and support USD8.3 million
dedicating 10 RPG rockets to 1 tank cost USD8000 to kill 8.3million or 9%
For them or anybody to counter our 30k RPG using tanks will cost
8.3 million * 30,000 = USD249 billion worth of palm oil they have to sell for the next 900 years [/b] -
ok maybe 30k of rpg is overkill but is a cheap solution to a thorny problem and a great morale booster for us we can hit people back with whatever they can throw at us. Their tankees will also feel demoralise and afraid if they know we can also pull punches.
Let say there abt 48 pt91 lets say eventually it grows to 100 vehicles.
Maybe create every combat batallion we have 8 tubes, 2 tubes per company, each tube 2 guys, 1 gunner(1 loaded rocket) 1 manpack(2 rockets) so 4 guys there per company with 6 rockets. 4 companies thats 24 rockets with 16guys.
1 Brigade is 48 guys or 24 tubes.
we have how many combat brigades to outfit, it's a pure numbers game and we will still win
If we don't want to have another antitank component for each batallion then throw them under brigade strength to make logistic easier and if 48 guys is too much half that number to 24 guys or 12 tubes, don't tell me 1 brigade cannot afford 24guys meh?
At most if they want to pit tanks against combat brigades they can only afford max 4-6 tanks & any tank at most if lucky can survive 1 round, 2 rounds definately gone case, there 12 tubes and 36 rounds there.
equipment cost for 1 brigade to field 12 tubes
36 rounds @ USD300 per unit = US$10800
12 tubes @ USD500 per tube = US$6000
total ================== US$16800
equipment cost for "them" to field 4-6 tanks vs 1 combat brigade
1 tank + spares + support = USD8.3million (freakin expensive for 1 tank if you ask me)
4-6 tanks = 33.2mil/49.8mil
cost ratio 12tubes to 4 tanks === peanuts shells
cost ratio12tubes to 6 tanks === maybe half a peanut + small change -
You need an array of various systems to kill an MBT.
If you are in the air, a AH64 D will be great ; a LGB or Maverick from a F 16 will also be fine ;
If you are infantry, a Spike will be great ;
If you are in an armoured formation & you don't have a AH64 D or F16 overhead, you better have a MBT such as M1A1 or A2 when you face up with another MBT ; or do you think a AMX13 SM 1 will be fine. Take your pick -
AMX 13 SM 1 replacement concept - see attached.
I personally will go for off the shelf battle proven MBT - eg M1 A1, A2 -
Eh... Have you done your NS yet? The infantry and guards battalions do have a organic anti-tank component. And each section has their own anti-tank capability.Originally posted by four-niner:ok maybe 30k of rpg is overkill but is a cheap solution to a thorny problem and a great morale booster for us we can hit people back with whatever they can throw at us. Their tankees will also feel demoralise and afraid if they know we can also pull punches.
Let say there abt 48 pt91 lets say eventually it grows to 100 vehicles.
Maybe create every combat batallion we have 8 tubes, 2 tubes per company, each tube 2 guys, 1 gunner(1 loaded rocket) 1 manpack(2 rockets) so 4 guys there per company with 6 rockets. 4 companies thats 24 rockets with 16guys.
1 Brigade is 48 guys or 24 tubes.
we have how many combat brigades to outfit, it's a pure numbers game and we will still win
If we don't want to have another antitank component for each batallion then throw them under brigade strength to make logistic easier and if 48 guys is too much half that number to 24 guys or 12 tubes, don't tell me 1 brigade cannot afford 24guys meh?
At most if they want to pit tanks against combat brigades they can only afford max 4-6 tanks & any tank at most if lucky can survive 1 round, 2 rounds definately gone case, there 12 tubes and 36 rounds there.
equipment cost for 1 brigade to field 12 tubes
36 rounds @ USD300 per unit = US$10800
12 tubes @ USD500 per tube = US$6000
total ================== US$16800
equipment cost for "them" to field 4-6 tanks vs 1 combat brigade
1 tank + spares + support = USD8.3million (freakin expensive for 1 tank if you ask me)
4-6 tanks = 33.2mil/49.8mil
cost ratio 12tubes to 4 tanks === peanuts shells
cost ratio12tubes to 6 tanks === maybe half a peanut + small change
Altho you quote impressive numbers, you don't quite have the facts on the military's capabilities right.
Even with the organic capability, there still is a need for tanks in today's military. -
I n local contect, we need small tanks, not MBT. How do you expect them to naviagte in the forest and urban area?
-
From his "theories", doubt he has done his NS yet...Originally posted by insouciant:Eh... Have you done your NS yet? The infantry and guards battalions do have a organic anti-tank component. And each section has their own anti-tank capability.
Altho you quote impressive numbers, you don't quite have the facts on the military's capabilities right.
Even with the organic capability, there still is a need for tanks in today's military.
Our organic AT for Infantry, Guards, Amoured are all different due to their nature of operations... -
The guards do have some very credible ATGW but only for secret spearhead units will they use these ATGW but the rest of the non-spearhead guard units and infantry battalions is it not the anti-tank component is comprised of 84mm section? Tell me what is the capability of the 84mm RR hmmm ..?Originally posted by insouciant:Eh... Have you done your NS yet? The infantry and guards battalions do have a organic anti-tank component. And each section has their own anti-tank capability.
Altho you quote impressive numbers, you don't quite have the facts on the military's capabilities right.
Even with the organic capability, there still is a need for tanks in today's military. is it not the role of 84mm section doing close firebase support or tiger force hmm ?
If they meet a pandur or scorpion ok sup sup sui. But tell me what happens if they meet a T80 or PT91 hmm?
That is why if you read carefully my post I also said "if you don't want to have another antitank component in combat units put them under strength of brigade" did I not say that?
btw the normal infantry section antitank component is only law or matador which will undoubtly just create a small small scratch on a T80 or Pt91 only.
