Singapore Army Introduces Bionix II Infantry Fighting Vehicl
-
Broncos replacing tonners? But are they a little slow in comparison? No doubt the protection it offers is good, but what about speed?
-
They are faster in off road conditions and amphibious as well. Already many western armies have different armoured, mechanised infantry and foot infantry units. The British royal marine commandos use a smiliar vehicle as well.Originally posted by sgf:Broncos replacing tonners? But are they a little slow in comparison? No doubt the protection it offers is good, but what about speed?
This mode of transport will not replace tonners totally, but will compliment and give additional options during operations. Just like using helicopters, boats and ships. It doesn't take much to train infantry units to operate with APCs (wheeled or tracked). Doctrines are different from the amoured units though.
I was from such a unit. -
Originally posted by bcoy:
I suppose the difference is that AI will fight side by side with their vehicles while for the case of the motorised infantry they will dismount and fight the enemy while the Bronco takes cover?
They are faster in off road conditions and amphibious as well. Already many western armies have different armoured, mechanised infantry and foot infantry units. The British royal marine commandos use a smiliar vehicle as well.
This mode of transport will not replace tonners totally, but will compliment and give additional options during operations. Just like using helicopters, boats and ships. It doesn't take much to train infantry units to operate with APCs (wheeled or tracked). Doctrines are different from the amoured units though.
I was from such a unit.
-
Mathematic wise is correct BUT do not forget about operation process & how arty work.Originally posted by gary1910:Yes, but there is no corresponding reduction of firepower and more efficient.
Let's do the maths.
Bronco MTC firing rate is 10rds/min
M113 SP MC firing rate is 6rds/min
So 4 Bronco MTC batt ~ 40rds/min,
6 M113 SP MC batt ~ 36rds/min.
Manpower reduction is also significant,4 Bronco MTC batt needs 4x4=16 gunners,
whereas M113 SP MC batt needs 6x6 = 36 gunners, 55% reduction!!!
And you include the survey team and that of the command vehicle for the M113 SP MC batt that is no more needed, the number is even higher!!!!
I also believe that the towed 120mm mortar batt for the infantry units will also be replaced by the SRAMS on LSV in the future becos of manpower reduction, lesser preparation and higher rate of fire.
1 arty tgt is 200x50M and 120mm mortar bomb effective radius is 15m. As such 6 tube barely enough to cover 1 arty tgt for Sabo fire. If reduce to 4 tube, which mean 2 tube need to fire 1 rd extra to compensate the delta. Which come to: -
Sabo fire for element of surprise effectiveness is gone
Some tube wear rate is excessive
What about the tube sustain rate (not max fire rate)
Come to tgt need to be EN (in come case need to fire 120 rd per tgt), good luck.
How about irregular tgt shape?
Relay the tube to line of fire after fire needs time as well.
Comparing rate of fire(which in perfect condition) is not the solution. -
Tks for your insight, cos I am no arty expert.Originally posted by seachfun:Mathematic wise is correct BUT do not forget about operation process & how arty work.
1 arty tgt is 200x50M and 120mm mortar bomb effective radius is 15m. As such 6 tube barely enough to cover 1 arty tgt for Sabo fire. If reduce to 4 tube, which mean 2 tube need to fire 1 rd extra to compensate the delta. Which come to: -
Sabo fire for element of surprise effectiveness is gone
Some tube wear rate is excessive
What about the tube sustain rate (not max fire rate)
Come to tgt need to be EN (in come case need to fire 120 rd per tgt), good luck.
How about irregular tgt shape?
Relay the tube to line of fire after fire needs time as well.
Comparing rate of fire(which in perfect condition) is not the solution.
Just want to ask , is it possible for mortar to do a "Time On Target" senario where a salvo of 2~3 rds with different charges and elevation so that all the rds land on the same time like those by 155mm SPH???
SRAMS does come FCS that could such calculation but I am not sure 120mm mortar rds comes with different charges, if it does, it seem possible for ToT. -
I am not very sure of the reduce man power way is the directive to adopt
(despite teh reduce birth rate)
Reduce men per section or per-task, due to automation/higher firepower may not necessary lead to similar effectiveness. Trained with the USMC and they are surprise to see us packing so much load and FP into 7 man section.
1 main point to note, if we are in war, it will be more then 3mths. I mean land warfare. (1 to 11/2 mths main front and the rest is to strenghten defensive position)
So the reduction in manpower effectively decrement our ability to take attritions.
Furthermore the manning readiness will be greatly reduce after 1 mths into the fighting.
?? so question of sustainability is there even with increase in
Automation
network ecentric
greater firepower --- -
Just read that the AMOS has such ToT or Multiple rounds simultaneous impact (MRSI) capability.
http://defence-data.com/features/fpage52.htm
Not sure abt our SRAMS though. -
I agree with your assessment. Higher rate of fire and more intense firepower does not compensate for less men. One of the key factors is attrition. Simple maths.... say the SAF section of 7 men with their firepower can kill the enemy at a ratio of 3:2 , i.e. for each of our troops killed, 1.5 of the enemy is killed. The enemy section of 11 men, will outlast our section of 7 ! Simple maths !Originally posted by justcooler:I am not very sure of the reduce man power way is the directive to adopt
(despite teh reduce birth rate)
Reduce men per section or per-task, due to automation/higher firepower may not necessary lead to similar effectiveness. Trained with the USMC and they are surprise to see us packing so much load and FP into 7 man section.
1 main point to note, if we are in war, it will be more then 3mths. I mean land warfare. (1 to 11/2 mths main front and the rest is to strenghten defensive position)
So the reduction in manpower effectively decrement our ability to take attritions.
Furthermore the manning readiness will be greatly reduce after 1 mths into the fighting.
?? so question of sustainability is there even with increase in
Automation
network ecentric
greater firepower ---
Also, with more troops , in a static battle, your frontage is wider. From historical events, the side with the larger frontage is going to have many options of outflanking ( or turning the flanks) of the narrower side. It's jsut like football. If your flankers are strong, the other side will be forever be forced into a defensive game, always shrinking towards the centre to protect being outflanked and by-passed. -
Give each man 2 rifles. Problem solved.Originally posted by specfore:I agree with your assessment. Higher rate of fire and more intense firepower does not compensate for less men. One of the key factors is attrition. Simple maths.... say the SAF section of 7 men with their firepower can kill the enemy at a ratio of 3:2 , i.e. for each of our troops killed, 1.5 of the enemy is killed. The enemy section of 11 men, will outlast our section of 7 ! Simple maths !
Also, with more troops , in a static battle, your frontage is wider. From historical events, the side with the larger frontage is going to have many options of outflanking ( or turning the flanks) of the narrower side. It's jsut like football. If your flankers are strong, the other side will be forever be forced into a defensive game, always shrinking towards the centre to protect being outflanked and by-passed. -
pl post the side view of BIONIX 2 here.there is one in Business Times.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
I think the suspension are designed to handle up to certain loading, anything exceeding it might cause premature failure.
[b]DSTA 's very good news report and down loading very fast
2.BIONIX 2 loading 4780 kg
Bronco ATTC is 4800 kg for enclosed and 5300 kg for flatted
why cant exceed this range??[/b] -
You can see prtty good side view of BX II from the video from this link:Originally posted by lionnoisy:pl post the side view of BIONIX 2 here.there is one in Business Times.
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/topics/Weapons/bx2/photosvideos.html -
I agree that a larger frontage is advantageous. However, with visibility lacking in the jungle, a larger frontage would also present problems with communication to the section.Originally posted by specfore:I agree with your assessment. Higher rate of fire and more intense firepower does not compensate for less men. One of the key factors is attrition. Simple maths.... say the SAF section of 7 men with their firepower can kill the enemy at a ratio of 3:2 , i.e. for each of our troops killed, 1.5 of the enemy is killed. The enemy section of 11 men, will outlast our section of 7 ! Simple maths !
Also, with more troops , in a static battle, your frontage is wider. From historical events, the side with the larger frontage is going to have many options of outflanking ( or turning the flanks) of the narrower side. It's jsut like football. If your flankers are strong, the other side will be forever be forced into a defensive game, always shrinking towards the centre to protect being outflanked and by-passed.
True, strong flankers force the opponent to shrink into the centre. Thats where the firepower we have come in.
Finally, a larger section may also be harder to deploy in the jungle as well. 7men by 5 meters seperation, would cover 30 meters across. Sometimes, we may not even see up to 30 meters! In a 10-11 man section, would the section commander be able to appreciate the situation for a 50 meter front and make good decisions out of it?
I believe the 7 man section has its pro-s and cons. Fighting in our region, its either plantation, jungle or urban. Since plantation would undoubtedly have adequate armor support, the jungle and urban areas would be the only place where the infantry is tested. Urban warfare is another whole new ball game. -
I presume you are talking about tgts at different location that require TOT mission. Yes, it not a issue & this shall be calculated & coordinated in the CP & is a common mission in arty.Originally posted by gary1910:Tks for your insight, cos I am no arty expert.
Just want to ask , is it possible for mortar to do a "Time On Target" senario where a salvo of 2~3 rds with different charges and elevation so that all the rds land on the same time like those by 155mm SPH???
SRAMS does come FCS that could such calculation but I am not sure 120mm mortar rds comes with different charges, if it does, it seem possible for ToT. -
Don't understand our SAF young policy maker. Reduce manpower thru compensate in increase firepower, this may sound right in mathematic & in perfect assumption. How come they never consider casualty in any operation before actual contact with red force, by then does it mean we still have the same fire power or man power to complete the job?Originally posted by specfore:I agree with your assessment. Higher rate of fire and more intense firepower does not compensate for less men. One of the key factors is attrition. Simple maths.... say the SAF section of 7 men with their firepower can kill the enemy at a ratio of 3:2 , i.e. for each of our troops killed, 1.5 of the enemy is killed. The enemy section of 11 men, will outlast our section of 7 ! Simple maths !
Also, with more troops , in a static battle, your frontage is wider. From historical events, the side with the larger frontage is going to have many options of outflanking ( or turning the flanks) of the narrower side. It's jsut like football. If your flankers are strong, the other side will be forever be forced into a defensive game, always shrinking towards the centre to protect being outflanked and by-passed. -
No, Time on Target or Multiple-Round Simultaneous Impact is to have one tube firing a number of rds with different elevation and propllent charges so that each rds will land on the one target at the same time as shown below:Originally posted by seachfun:I presume you are talking about tgts at different location that require TOT mission. Yes, it not a issue & this shall be calculated & coordinated in the CP & is a common mission in arty.
Becos of different elevation and propllent charges , each rd will have different trajectory & each flight time will be different, so you fire the longest one first then the next longest etc , with proper timimg of firing for each rd , you could have a few rds landed on the same target at the same time( maybe 2~4 sec apart).
I did some reading and I found that some mortar rds do come with variable charges, they have main propellant cartridges and number of removable incremental propellant charges.
ST Engg 120mm ICM
And a number of new mortar systems has already developed such MRSI capability
Patria-Hägglunds AMOS ( double barrel)
http://www.defense-update.com/products/a/amos.htm
Another single barrel version, Nemo from the same company.
http://www.defense-update.com/products/n/nemo-mortar.htm
US new Non-Line-of-Sight Mortar
http://www.baesystemspresskit.com/AUSA-2006/NonLineofSight_Mortar.cfm
Here how AMOS mortar system does MRSI which is actually similar to how SPH does it:AMOS can fire 26 rounds in one minute and the first 14 rounds can be set to impact on the target at the same time. This happens by adjusting the angle and power of the shots and carefully calculating the time between the shots. The first rounds are shot with higher angles and loads of propellant so that the rounds fly a high arc. The next rounds are shot a couple of seconds afterwards with a slightly smaller angle and with less gunpowder so that they fly a lower arc but fly as far as the first rounds. This can be done seven times in a row, always adjusting the angle and power, so that the result is that all the 14 rounds hit the target simultaneously. The adjustment between the shots is done by a computer. The strike of one AMOS unit roughly equals one strike of an artillery battery.
Note: All the above system are turreted and the AMOS and NEMO have direct fire mode.
So far , SRAMS never mentioned abt MRSI capability but it does come with FCS computer, it could theoretically calculate based on distance from target, the charges required, the elevation and timing for each subsequent rd to achieve MRSI , perhaps 2~3 rds MRSI capability.
Comments??? -
We shud have sent the "bean counters " for 1 month ojt with front line US Army battalion in Iraq war and when they come back ( hopefully in one piece ), ask them if we need a 7 man section and if we need more than 4 mortar tubes in an infantry battalion.
After this experience , SAF will then probably get 11 man sections and 8 mortar tubes per battalion.
In a real war, there will be casualties, both human & equipment the moment the bullets fly. You cannot compete your mission when you do not have redundancy in your system. -
war isnt determined by a mere fight between a 7 men section vs 11 men section.
with 7 men a section u will just end up with more battalions, and with an 11 men section... less battalions.
in war... sections within a platoon are suppose to reinforce each other, platoons within each companies are suppose to reinforce each other... companies within a battalion are suppose to do likewise, and so are battalions within a brigade, brigades within a division, divisions within an army.
ultimately.... wat determines our ability to take combats tolls is determined by our total military manpower under arms... vs the enemies total manpower under arms.
and how many manpower we can place under arms is determined by the total population and economic strength of our country. -
nv heard about it.Originally posted by gary1910:So far , SRAMS never mentioned abt MRSI capability but it does come with FCS computer, it could theoretically calculate based on distance from target, the charges required, the elevation and timing for each subsequent rd to achieve MRSI , perhaps 2~3 rds MRSI capability.
Comments??? -
Does using cargo rds help with the reduction of tubes?
N we do fire faster now around us anyway......But we should have stayed with 6 tubes(make use of the xtra man to field more tubes..5 more? Maybe too much) n fire cargo rds(ammo problem lah..fired too much)..
Metal Metal Metal Storm 
-
I was highlighting the incremental charges of some 120mm mortar, here another:Originally posted by papabear20046:Does using cargo rds help with the reduction of tubes?
N we do fire faster now around us anyway......But we should have stayed with 6 tubes(make use of the xtra man to field more tubes..5 more? Maybe too much) n fire cargo rds(ammo problem lah..fired too much).. Metal Metal Metal Storm 
Those white semi rings are the increment charges. -
Point noted....Just happen last pic was one of mortar cargo rd with bomblets....Cargo rd increases the footprint of mortar rd over the usual 15m radius...So good to have as well n if we stick to 6 tubes or more with increased firing rate thenOriginally posted by gary1910:I was highlighting the incremental charges of some 120mm mortar, here another:
Those white semi rings are the increment charges. -
No MRSI for SRAMS, too bad!!!Originally posted by beavan:nv heard about it.