SAF MBT
-
Actually i am in all favour with your idea. BMP-3 is a very capable platform. Users include Greece which is a Nato member. Developed nations in Asia using this includes South Korea which just not too long ago sent these vehicles to guard the DMZ.Originally posted by equlus84:I was actually thinking why not just buy the technology of the BMP-3 from the Russian and try to put a 105mm or 120mm NATO standard tank gun onto it. Many countries have already hybridised Russian and western technologies together. Besides, the BMP-3F is amphibious capable, we can modify it for the 21DIV, the MT-LB is also a good choice, very low profile
However, i must acknowledge that since the vehicle is of Russian origin so maintainence and servicing may be a problem. This is because their vehicles may use different types of POL.
-
If it is European tank, then as Dave said it will be declared and publicly announced, unlike the Tempest.Originally posted by chillycraps:if the *ahem*centurion*ahem* didn't appear in NDP, what makes us think that the replacement will?
And we do have vehicles similar to MBT paraded during NDP, our M60AVLB and CEV have done it, therefore a publiciesd European tank is not impossible to appear in NDP.. -
I'm just curious since the government has never actually admitted or denied the existance of our Centurion tanks, how on earth did the general population find out bout it?
-
Becos they were seen by thousands of SAF soldiers as well those from ROC during exe in ROC.Originally posted by fallin:I'm just curious since the government has never actually admitted or denied the existance of our Centurion tanks, how on earth did the general population find out bout it? -
Because it is stated in most major military texts and Janes' Magazines available to the public. Not to mention academic journals and articles.Originally posted by fallin:I'm just curious since the government has never actually admitted or denied the existance of our Centurion tanks, how on earth did the general population find out bout it?
-
Then how they know? Doesnt make sense what. Don't want people to know then still big mouth to the magazines for what.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Because it is stated in most major military texts and Janes' Magazines available to the public. Not to mention academic journals and articles. -
Actually there was a query in Parliament years ago, when an MP did enquire about the tanks and the query was answered publicly in the House. They exist for training purposes.
-
They never denied them. That's the main point. Anyway those are really old tanks, post-WW2 ones..Originally posted by fallin:Then how they know? Doesnt make sense what. Don't want people to know then still big mouth to the magazines for what. -
do the neighbouring countries around us have newer or better tanks than SAF? if they dont there isnt really any need to change tanks mah
-
I was wondering, Malaysia announced that it intends to build a armoured division a while ago. Lets say their economy permits them and they are really harded up on making such a division materialise,wad components like vehciles do u think they will have and wad we should do to counter such a move?
-
Its not so much what we SHOULD do, rather its what we HAVE done. I don't suppose we developed the Matador for fun? Also, our Apaches. In a way, we do have a new tank, the tank with wings and rotors, the AH-64.Originally posted by equlus84:I was wondering, Malaysia announced that it intends to build a armoured division a while ago. Lets say their economy permits them and they are really harded up on making such a division materialise,wad components like vehciles do u think they will have and wad we should do to counter such a move? -
Yes, gone on the days when you need a tank to fight/kill a tank, helicopters (eg the Apache, Cobras, Tigers or even an armed Gazelle etc) is the latest scrouge of tanks but remember, helicopters DON'T HOLD THE GROUND AND CLAIM SUCH GROUNDS 'CAPTURED' (from the enemy).Originally posted by fallin:...In a way, we do have a new tank, the tank with wings and rotors, the AH-64.
Yes, armed helicopters can turn tanks into a heap of scrap metal but heliopters can't hover at the same spot INDEFINITELY, you need an actual ground presence there to demonstrate that - and this is where infantry comes in.
That's the reason why everything is done ina package....you need this and that. -
Not to mention tanks can also serve as fire support for ground units and protect infantry from small arms fire. A tank will certainly be in the area of ops far longer then a chopper can and it's a lot cheaper to use and replace for the general damage it can cause. Yep, we still need some form of tanks around, the concept of a mobile, protected space carrying weapons platform is still needed... in whatever guise.
-
Er... yes leh. Just about every ASEAN country has a tank of sorts superior to the SM1. The term "armour" can be a misnomer in the SAF... it's more like mechnized armoured infantry.Originally posted by aiglosicicle:do the neighbouring countries around us have newer or better tanks than SAF? if they dont there isnt really any need to change tanks mah -
Guys, did u all notice there is this lon pipe like thing on the turret. It looks some wad like those on the BMP-3F marine variant. Does this mean it is amphibious too?Originally posted by lyzzard:I think the replacement of the AMX13 has long been on the minds of our military planners. This article appeared 2 years ago and I'm sure more developments are in the pipeline.
I think one of the issues facing the procurement of a tank suitable for the SAF is the lack of a suitable lightweight tank similar in size to the AMX13. Developing an indigenous solution is no small effort and can take years to realize. With the development effort on the Bionix coming to a close, perhaps more resources can be devoted to the development of a tank for the SAF.
-
This light tank has been canned.
-
Better now than 30 years later like the Indians.Originally posted by LazerLordz:This light tank has been canned. -
leopard 2A4 I was hoping for leopard 2A5/6 but A4 also not bad la, not bad at all
-
Hmm... wonder if we'll end up making our own version? Leo2SG anyone?Originally posted by spartan6: leopard 2A4 I was hoping for leopard 2A5/6 but A4 also not bad la, not bad at all -
Hey since the answer to this thread have been answered by the leopard, i guess the mod end this thread once and for all too?
-
Won't be surprised if that were the case.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Hmm... wonder if we'll end up making our own version? Leo2SG anyone?
We have a pretty long history of buying cheap old codgers and souping them up to make them comparable to sexy young things. -
Hooray!
Finally... these seems to be Centurion replacement rather then SM1 replacements... -
If I'm not wrong, the major difference between the A4 and A5/6 is the add-on armor, which I think with sufficient modification can be fitted onto the tank. The hull and the turret are similar if not the same.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Hmm... wonder if we'll end up making our own version? Leo2SG anyone? -
turret in A5 is slanted. A4 is not.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:If I'm not wrong, the major difference between the A4 and A5/6 is the add-on armor, which I think with sufficient modification can be fitted onto the tank. The hull and the turret are similar if not the same.
but A4 can be upgraded to A5 standard.
The norwegians upgrading...
The swedes operate a mix of 2 types... -
Are you referring to the wedge shape? That's the add on armour.Originally posted by Pitot:turret in A5 is slanted. A4 is not.
but A4 can be upgraded to A5 standard.
The norwegians upgrading...
The swedes operate a mix of 2 types...