Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks
-
Skarly he has been riding around in a Leo2 for all this while but so suakoo tot it was a LT...
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Maybe he thought LT=Leopard Tank?
Skarly he has been riding around in a Leo2 for all this while but so suakoo tot it was a [b]LT...[/b]
-
AMX-10P is not from Sweden. Its from France.Originally posted by equlus84:Folks, let me side-track abit, since we are talking abt light tanks, and that I heard there was a wide dissatisfaction to the AMX-10P version of the Light tank. This Light tank from Sweden may be a good alternative for amphibious operations. 3m width and only weighing 16.3 tons with 330hp engine and 90mm main gun>>>>>>IKV91
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikv_91 -
I am aware of that. Actually, I was referring to the Sweden IKV-91 mainly bcos it is amphibious and could be potential candidate to replace the AMX-10POriginally posted by LAW1:AMX-10P is not from Sweden. Its from France. -
easy lah get the blueprints for the sherman tanks n jus modify it
maybe design our own ones by putting a turret on a bionix?????? -
Sherman tanks are not light tanks.
Anyway, I guess S'pore will develope some sort of light tank on its own for several reasons : -
1. there are no modern off the shelf LTs ( not in significant numbers
anyway ) in current operational use in the world ; most are mere
demos or prototypes
2. it already has developed Bionix which can be used as base for
development of a LT - I hope with a 105 mm gun and not larger -
120 mm will be unwieldy , impractical and the LT will have too little
space to carry a credible amount of ammo
3. LT's role , I believe for Spore context, shud be for fire support, recon /
scout roles and not as a MBT killer - we already have that role fulfilled by
Leopard 2 A4s , Apache/ Hellfire , Spike, airforce Mavericks / LGBs. The
terrain in Singapore defence context will still require a LT in many
scenarios.
4. Time is running short for our SM1s as they currently cannot possibly fulfill
its LT role due to inadequate firepower and armor. -
Is it possible for our SM1 replacement light tank to have both the 105mm main gun and ATGMs such as Spike missiles? After all many of us agree that the new LT should at least be of the 105mm and someone from Mindef have mentioned that the new LT may have missiles.
I don't think it is feasible, simply because no other tank have such a weapon combination before. Having said that, we might well be the first to come out with this new design! Comments? -
As it is , with heavy existing workload to a 3 man LT crew, adding another system such as a add on missile system may be too much for a crew to be proficient in all the systems ; given that we have less than 2 years to train & give necessary experience to a NS tank crew.
It is of course possible to add a Spike or two to a LT. IFVs such as US Bradleys have TOWs and I believe UK Warriors have them also. However, these TOWs being stowed outside are also very vulnerable to small arms and arty fragments.
An alternative wud be to have armored Spike AT carriers. We can mount Spikes on specialized Bionix. I think this will be better option. This will add flexibility to an armored force which now can also have long range AT capability. A specialized crew will have the advantage of being very proficient in its use. A company of 6 to 8 Spike carriers per armor batallion will be good. -
But there are many advantages which a tank gun have over a Spike missile launcher. Here are just a few.Originally posted by glock:As it is , with heavy existing workload to a 3 man LT crew, adding another system such as a add on missile system may be too much for a crew to be proficient in all the systems ; given that we have less than 2 years to train & give necessary experience to a NS tank crew.
It is of course possible to add a Spike or two to a LT. IFVs such as US Bradleys have TOWs and I believe UK Warriors have them also. However, these TOWs being stowed outside are also very vulnerable to small arms and arty fragments.
An alternative wud be to have armored Spike AT carriers. We can mount Spikes on specialized Bionix. I think this will be better option. This will add flexibility to an armored force which now can also have long range AT capability. A specialized crew will have the advantage of being very proficient in its use. A company of 6 to 8 Spike carriers per armor batallion will be good.
1. Each Spike missile launcher can only be fired once then discarded, while a tank gun can be reloaded and fired continuously until the gun wears out.
2. A tank gun can fire more than one kind of ammo, while a Spike launcher can only fire a Spike missile which is mainly designed for anti-tank use.
3. Although a single Spike missile is much more accurate and sofisticated, it is very expensive compared to a single tank round.
4. Assuming that the platform is the same, the one with a tank gun is more likely to carry more ammo as compared to the Spike carrier. -
The LR ATGW such as Spike also has advantages which tank gun does not have : -
1. Very long range ( I think 4 km for the version used by SAF )
2. Top attack profile
3. Indirect fire mode ( one of the more unique features of Spike )
4. Being able to select your point of impact
5. BDA
That's why I suggested only 6 to 8 Spike carriers per battalion as the expensive Spike shud be used in special cases when the tank gun cannot be used as for above scenarios. -
strip the amx-13 n upgrade them??? mount a 90/105mm to a bionix chasis or develop a new one since we can make bionix which is pretty good?
-
How much per rd?Originally posted by glock:The LR ATGW such as Spike also has advantages which tank gun does not have : -
1. Very long range ( I think 4 km for the version used by SAF )
2. Top attack profile
3. Indirect fire mode ( one of the more unique features of Spike )
4. Being able to select your point of impact
5. BDA
That's why I suggested only 6 to 8 Spike carriers per battalion as the expensive Spike shud be used in special cases when the tank gun cannot be used as for above scenarios.
-
Originally posted by M551Sheridian:
It is just simply not economical to do so as the SM1 variant of the AMX-13 is one of the most advance versions. The original AMX-13 have already been extensively upgraded and any further upgrading will not make any economic or operational sense as the platform itself is simply way too old. Spare parts are very expensive as we are one of the very few countries producing them. And these old tanks break down easily and frequently requiring much spares.
strip the amx-13 n upgrade them??? mount a 90/105mm to a bionix chasis or develop a new one since we can make bionix which is pretty good? -
We shud forget the AMX13. It is already at the end of its long and useful service to SAF. Remember this tank was design & produced in the 50s.
A new generation of LTs or otherwise will eventually replace it. -
Dont need to upgrade.... SM1 is still good enough to put a nice big hole through the regional apc/ifv...just wait for the real proper replacement. I'm sure ST is testing something. Cause we sure arent buying anything/putting up a tender for LTs...
-
Funny statement. SM1 is DEFINITELY NOT good enough. Any IFV with a 25mm armour piercing rounds are going to do SM1 good. DOn't forget that most IFVs' guns are stabalised, and SM1 gun is not. So the IFVs will be able to get the first shot, and probably first kill.Originally posted by CM06:Dont need to upgrade.... SM1 is still good enough to put a nice big hole through the regional apc/ifv...just wait for the real proper replacement. I'm sure ST is testing something. Cause we sure arent buying anything/putting up a tender for LTs...
I will take my chances of a moving Bionix II against a moving SM1 anyday. -
SM1 is definitely outdated. SAF shud not and will not invest further in it. Its simply reached the end of its useful life. Even a Bionix II , although not a LT , with stabilized 30 mm gun, laser rangefinder, thermal sights, BMS and upgraded armor shud be a tougher adversary than a SM1.
-
75mm gun can do stuff that 30 mm cant...It might be outdated..but heck it's what armour will rely on as direct FS any day. Down to Coy /Plt level they are still there. and has very few immediate and *cost* effective replacement.
-
I am not a fan of the SM-1 for all the reasons already mentioned, especially the non-stabilised gun and thin armour.
But having 300 of them around - assuming they are all operational and we have enough crews - is not something to be scoffed at.
It would be quite expensive to buy/build 300 LT to replace the entire fleet.
The 75mm gun is anytime better than a 25mm or 30mm cannon. It is also more lethal than the 76mm gun found on the Scorpion used by everyone in the region. If our tank gunnery is kilat, then it should still be way cheaper for dispatching enemy bunkers, LT, IFV or APC than using ATGMs.
A tank gun round is also faster than an ATGM, which needs a few seconds' flight time.
After firing a wire-guided ATGM for instance, you still need a few seconds to guide the missile to target. In that time, your vehicle is a sitting duck target. Not much different from an AMX-13 having to stop for a few seconds to aim and fire before moving oiff. -
the thing is , no other modern army uses a "light tank" anymore in a fire support role. the "Heavy" role is being taken on by MBTs, the "light" roles taken on by IFVs type tracks like M3 Bradleys... with 25mm or Warrior 30mm guns.Originally posted by Daniel-Lim:I am not a fan of the SM-1 for all the reasons already mentioned, especially the non-stabilised gun and thin armour.
But having 300 of them around - assuming they are all operational and we have enough crews - is not something to be scoffed at.
It would be quite expensive to buy/build 300 LT to replace the entire fleet.
The 75mm gun is anytime better than a 25mm or 30mm cannon. It is also more lethal than the 76mm gun found on the Scorpion used by everyone in the region. If our tank gunnery is kilat, then it should still be way cheaper for dispatching enemy bunkers, LT, IFV or APC than using ATGMs.
A tank gun round is also faster than an ATGM, which needs a few seconds' flight time.
After firing a wire-guided ATGM for instance, you still need a few seconds to guide the missile to target. In that time, your vehicle is a sitting duck target. Not much different from an AMX-13 having to stop for a few seconds to aim and fire before moving oiff.
so that is why i am wondering why we still need a light tank... -
UK Warriors do not have ATGWs.... UK's doctrine is to use the MBT or dedicated ATGW armed tracked vehicles.... as Anti Tank platforms.Originally posted by glock:As it is , with heavy existing workload to a 3 man LT crew, adding another system such as a add on missile system may be too much for a crew to be proficient in all the systems ; given that we have less than 2 years to train & give necessary experience to a NS tank crew.
It is of course possible to add a Spike or two to a LT. IFVs such as US Bradleys have TOWs and I believe UK Warriors have them also. However, these TOWs being stowed outside are also very vulnerable to small arms and arty fragments.
An alternative wud be to have armored Spike AT carriers. We can mount Spikes on specialized Bionix. I think this will be better option. This will add flexibility to an armored force which now can also have long range AT capability. A specialized crew will have the advantage of being very proficient in its use. A company of 6 to 8 Spike carriers per armor batallion will be good. -
We need a light tank because o the terrain in our region which is filled with dirt tracks,rubber and oil palm plantations. And ours being a military with a forward defence doctrine need to be able to operate in such terrain.Originally posted by spencer99:the thing is , no other modern army uses a "light tank" anymore in a fire support role. the "Heavy" role is being taken on by MBTs, the "light" roles taken on by IFVs type tracks like M3 Bradleys... with 25mm or Warrior 30mm guns.
so that is why i am wondering why we still need a light tank...
Other countries military do not face such problem. The US and UK don't need a light tank in the flat plains in Europe against the then Soviet Union. They also don't need a light tank in the streets in Iraq and Afganistan because with lighter armour it is sucidal. Light tanks being smaller and lighter can follow with the IFVs into those tight spaces. The IFV can also keep up with the light tank better than a powerful MBT. What i am trying to say is that different military faces diferent problems and thus require different solutions.
Yes, the ATGM is a good tan killer, no doubt about that but how many of such missiles can an IFV carry into battle? These missiles don't come cheap too, they are much more expensive than the relatively simple tank rounds. And he ATGM launcher can only fire the same type of missile(although some multi-purpose) but the tank gun can definitely fire more more types of ammo for different purposes such as knockng down walls in FIBUA. -
If I understand fellow forumers here, I think it's more a need for larger caliber gun(low velocity?) rather than a light tank.
So probably a 90mm or 105mm ST turret that can be fitted to existing Bionix (.5"/40mm cupola upgrade).
Close enough? -
Right, there are some targets for which 25 or 30 mm not powerful enough which 75 mm in SM1 is more suitable. However, SM1 needs to be replaced with new LT as SAF doctrine is such that there are many scenarios where only the LT can fit.
I think 105 mm firing standard ammo shud be the right choice of gun. It is more than enough to take out light armor, bunkers, buildings & with latest AT ammo , may even have a chance to take out a MBT in an emergency.
Many countries still use the NATO 105 standard and I think there is still some R & D for this calibre. -
That is a good idea too. The BX is a capable platform with reasonable amount of armour and mobility to serve as a mobile gun platform. And it shares common parts with the IFV BX. The troop compartment behind can allow room for modifications such for ammo and fuel storage,maybe evencan carry a few troopers. The ability of th BX to sim is also a benefit.Originally posted by Fairyland:If I understand fellow forumers here, I think it's more a need for larger caliber gun(low velocity?) rather than a light tank.
So probably a 90mm or 105mm ST turret that can be fitted to existing Bionix (.5"/40mm cupola upgrade).
Close enough?
However, there seems to be the problem that the BX chasis may not be able to withstand the firing of a large calibre gun such as the 105mm.