Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks
-
From the little I understand, it seems a shorter barrel may alleviate the recoil problem. Probably not good for kinetic rounds and so not quite anti tank, I guess but more for fire support.
Perhaps 76mm (Denel GT4?) maybe still ok. Common ammo with navy. They have the guided DART round too. Don't know if it has more to look forward to in R&D.
Probably this ST turret(OWS?) should have a high elevation angle too for MOUT scenarios.
Should try to keep it in the BX family. -
Don't really like the idea of the SM1 replacement being armed with missiles only. As pointed out before, it has several disadvantages. Should probably get a 105mm platform for the replacment. As for missiles, well maybe they should start arming our M113 Ultra, BX & BX2 with Spikes so at least there's something they can use against enemy tanks.
Seriously doubt the 30mm cannon on the BX2 will do much damage to enemy MBTs. Even worst for the 40/50 variants of the BX or Ultra. No doubt no one will be insane enough to send an IFV/APC out specifically to engage a tank but when the sh*t hits the roof, you'll never know when you'll come up against one. Knowing you have an ATGM or two with you will surely make you feel more at ease. -
Japanese tanks used in invasion of Singapore 1942:
Type95 Light Tank
Type 95 tank destroyed by Aussie gunners at Bakri
(8 tanks were destroyed by a single anti-tank unit comprising only 2 anti-tank guns in this battle)
Order of battle :
1st Tank Regiment under Colonel Mukaida
37 Type 97 Medium Tanks
20 Type 95 Light Tanks
6th Tank Regiment under Colonel Kawamura
37 Type 97 Medium Tanks
20 Type 95 Light Tanks
14th Tank Regiment under Colonel Kita
45 Type 95 Light Tanks
Well, it seems 159 tanks were deem enough in the Japanese invasion of Singapore and Malaya.......... -
Yo Tankee 1981
You really think we got those "engine- in-front tanks" ah ?
-
You think i thought...(Dr) Who confirm?Originally posted by Dr Who:Yo Tankee 1981
You really think we got those "engine- in-front tanks" ah ? 
Well...lets just say that i have credible sources...
From a point of view using purely common sense, there is no need to buy the Leo2A4 when we are supposed to have the "engine- in-front tanks". After all having these tanks is more than sufficient to replace the Tempests.
However, one must note that for this sales to pull through, the customer must be approached by the German Federal government, not the other way round,as German foreign military sales is highly regulated. So i think this purchase of German tanks is not planned at all, its just a great bargain which comes along that no country can resist.
-
Still, I would rate the LEO purchase as a valuable chance to learn more about European armor developments and doctrines. Not to mention STK being able to improve on their tank R&D with tech transfer and further experience gained.Originally posted by tankee1981:You think i thought...(Dr) Who confirm?
Well...lets just say that i have credible sources...
From a point of view using purely common sense, there is no need to buy the Leo2A4 when we are supposed to have the "engine- in-front tanks". After all having these tanks is more than sufficient to replace the Tempests.
However, one must note that for this sales to pull through, the customer must be approached by the German Federal government, not the other way round,as German foreign military sales is highly regulated. So i think this purchase of German tanks is not planned at all, its just a great bargain which comes along that no country can resist.
The LEOs are good and timely for all the right reasons. -
Folks, I cannot reason why Singapore (or rather ST Engg) not simply buy the blue print of M8 Thunderbolt and build 200+ locally. Sell another 200+ to Taiwan to replace their M41 Walker Bulldog and we will all be laughing. Problem solved.
-
That is an option but there are problems.Originally posted by Joe Black:Folks, I cannot reason why Singapore (or rather ST Engg) not simply buy the blue print of M8 Thunderbolt and build 200+ locally. Sell another 200+ to Taiwan to replace their M41 Walker Bulldog and we will all be laughing. Problem solved.
The M8 may have technical problems which is why US did not buy any for themselves.
Singapore almost always produce something which the SAF can use and have export potential. The M8 have been around for some time but there seems to be no potential customers and definitely no users as yet.
If we can export it to Taiwan, that will be best but Taiwan have many political problems, just look at their defence budget. The budget have been delayed over and over again, I don't think that they are very reliable customers. Further more selling tanks to Taiwan will definitely anger PRC.
However, i do think that ST cooperate with the makers of M8 will be a good idea. Much like how ST Marine cooperate with DCN to produce our unique Formidable frigates which differs significantly from the original French La fayette design. This way we will have a 'tailor-made' light tank for our armour and at the same time, learn from an established foreign defence company. -
There was nothing wrong with M8. In fact US Army was about to place an order for the 82nd and 101st Airborne Div before program was cut to save money.Originally posted by tankee1981:That is an option but there are problems.
The M8 may have technical problems which is why US did not buy any for themselves.
Here is an interesting read about the development of M8 AGS:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-ags.htm
If you do a bit of digging about M8's history and the development, I wonder why Singapore (ST Engg) simply just buy the design from United Defense (BAE Systems) and build some 200 vehicles. Make it so cheap and sell some to US airborne divisions at the same time.
To me, the design of M8 looks like the kind of platform best to replace the SM1. Furthermore, its vehitronics, combat system, fire control, etc align to SAF's 3G concept. Add a local BMS, you have a perfect light tank.
This sounds too easy and a real no brainer. I wonder what is stopping SAF, DSTA, DSO and ST Engg from doing such a thing.
There are a couple of features on M8 that are so nice to have:
1. low recoil gun (105mm or 120mm for Thunderbolt)
2. module level armour (Level 1 to 3 depending on deployment requirements)
3. Fire control is provided by a digital fire control system with microprocessors and a databus similar to that on the M1A2. The gunner's primary sight is a day/night thermal sight and integrated laser range-finder in a stabilized mount
4. Pretty much the same weight as SM1 on empty config. Air droppable from C130.
5. Optional CITV for the tank commander for hunter killer capability. The commander has unsurpassed vision for first-look, first-kill capability.
If only I have some say in the things, I would have SAF/DSTA/DSO to seriously look at taking the entire M8 design over to Singapore, localised it and then produce it, market it to Thailand, Taiwan and heck, even to New Zealand -
Marder with GDLS MGS turret or others perhaps.
-
If I am not wrong the XM 8 project was killed because the unit cost of this LT wud have been in the same price range as an M1A1.
-
The Original M8 was slated to be in the US army until it got canned and replaced by the strykers...
THe thunderbolt design was only developed after it got canned... -
Inside The Army
March 15, 2004
Pg. 1
Army To Transfer Four Armored Gun Systems To 82nd Airborne Division
The Army last week approved the transfer of four M8 Armored Gun Systems from contractor storage facilities to the 82nd Airborne Division at Ft. Bragg, NC, sources say, marking the first time the vehicles will be used by the service since the program was terminated in 1996.
Proposed in the 1980s as a lightweight combat vehicle that could fit aboard a C-130, the AGS was canceled as the Army struggled to pay for other priorities. Contractor United Defense LP, which fought the cancellation decision, has five M8 AGS vehicles in stock -- four in York, PA, and one in San Jose, CA.
The 18th Airborne Corps at Ft. Bragg recently passed along an "operational needs statement" to Army Forces Command that spells out the division's need for a rapidly deployable vehicle with firepower that could be dropped from an aircraft (Inside the Army, Feb. 16, p1). The Army's operations and plans office, or "G-3," has been reviewing the requirement with Training and Doctrine Command.
TRADOC completed its analysis on Feb. 19, and the G-3 approved the needs statement on March 8, authorizing transfer of the existing vehicles to the 82nd Airborne Division, sources say. By press time (March 11), the Army had not released a copy of the approval documents.
According to one source, officials made it clear in the documents that the transfer in "no way should be construed as support for an AGS program." Instead, it is an attempt to meet the immediate requirement with an interim solution and allow the division to begin developing and refining tactics, techniques and procedures.
The unit expects to receive the vehicles by the end of March, the source said.
Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC), a member of the House Armed Services Committee whose district includes Ft. Bragg, said he is pleased with the decision, but does not want the transfer to be misconstrued as a move to revive the terminated program.
"To be clear, I am not endorsing one system over another," Hayes told ITA in a March 12 statement. "I simply believe that, if these existing AGS are combat-worthy, then they should be fully utilized while we await the future technologies that are already in production.
"My priority on this matter is simple -- what can we do to help our soldiers in the field the fastest?" he added. "If our soldiers can utilize these existing systems, then I want these systems in Baghdad rather than in a manufacturing facility in Pennsylvania."
Hayes asked the Army last December to provide him information on the matter, including how much the transfer would cost and whether spare parts are available to maintain the gun systems. Last week, a spokesman for Hayes said the congressman was told government and contractor costs are estimated at approximately $1 million for one year of support for AGS.
The funding, however, is not as much of a concern to the Army as the availability of parts for a system that was terminated eight years ago. Sources say UDLP can sustain the systems for a limited amount of time, but many of its components are now obsolete or unavailable. Supporting the system beyond one year poses high risk, sources said.
Herb Muktarian, a spokesman for UDLP's ground systems division in York, said the systems are ready to go.
"We have not received any official requests from the Army regarding AGS, but the four AGS vehicles stored in York remain in excellent condition and we're ready to provide support if asked to do so," Muktarian said.
Maj. Rich Patterson, a spokesman for the 18th Airborne Corps, said officials at Ft. Bragg have been notified and are assembling the necessary manning documents, additional equipment and training plans, "with the intent to integrate the AGS into division operations as soon as possible."
The vehicles will go to the 1st Battalion of the division's 17th Cavalry Squadron, Patterson said. AGS will provide its assault teams "mobility, firepower and shock effects" within the "drop zone," he added.
"It gives us a capability we could deploy if we need it," Patterson said.
AGS features a 105 mm cannon, an ammunition autoloader and options for armor protection.
The division's requirement for an air-droppable platform has existed at least since the 1990s, when the division disbanded one of its battalions -- the 3rd Battalion of the 73rd Armored Regiment, which was equipped with an aging armored reconnaissance vehicle called the Sheridan. At the time, service officials thought other capabilities would become available to the paratroopers once the M551 Sheridan was retired.
When the division deactivated the armored battalion in 1997, however, then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Dennis Reimer had already terminated AGS, which had been regarded as the Sheridan's replacement. Eliminating AGS freed more than $1 billion over the service's outyear funding plan -- money that was badly needed for other cash-strapped programs, officials said at the time.
Two years after the program was canceled, service officials said they continued to review options for all light forces that wanted more firepower. Vehicles reviewed included AGS, the Marine Corps' Light Armored Vehicle, the Pandur lightweight vehicles used by the Kuwait National Guard and a variant of the M113 armored personnel carrier (ITA, Oct. 4, 1999, p1; Sept. 27, 1999, p1).
That effort, however, went nowhere, and the 82nd Airborne Division resubmitted its request for such a vehicle, eventually attracting Hayes' attention.
"Let's find out as soon as possible if AGS can serve effectively as a short-term solution for an immediate operational need," Hayes told ITA last week.
-- Anne Plummer
something interesting i got from defencetalk.com -
I am quite surprised that they didn't do this earlier. Afterall a few capable and close to brand new AGS are sitting and rotting in storage so might as well take them out and start using them.
-
ROLE OF NEW LIGHT TANK
What role will these Light Tanks of the future will have?
The new LT may in the long run replace the AMX-13, but this may not be the primary consideration.
The AMX-13 were bought during the 70's when doctrines were completely different.
So the new LT may have a completely new role to fit new doctrines instead of just being a replacement for the AMX-13.
I think the new LT role will definitely be the mailed fist of the RDF of the future.
So it would be important for the new LT to get there quickly either by air, sea or by land to before the bigger punch i.e. MBT, regular inf units, etc arrive later. -
WHAT ARMAMENT?
The primary role of the LT during battle would be to fire support infantry or spearhead infantry assaults etc.
So it will NOT be ATGM platform. It will be a GUN platform.
Besides, you can mount an ATGM on any amount of SUPPORT VEHICLES like Land Rovers, Spyder etc - You can man-pack ATGM or even mount ATGM on a modified bicycle theoretically - so why waste a LT chassis for this role?
I emphasize SUPPORT VEHICLES as no one type of weapon fight alone.
Guns are FAST, accurate and versatile. You can blow up different things with different ammo like HEAT, HE or flechettes etc.
Though deadly on tanks, ATGMs need some kind of fiddly guiding system and takes a longer travel time. And ATGMs are EXPENSIVE so you won't be firing them at enemy MG posts now, would you?
So in my opinion the new LT will definitely be a GUN platform that can fit into a C-130 or airlifted by some giant helicopter. What calibre I wouldn't speculate though 105mm sounds reasonable.
Finally, I suspect the turret could be completely unmanned. -
WHAT CHASSIS?
Now that I am certain it will be a gun platform, the million dollar question would be ....drum roll.... WHEELS OR TRACKS?
Because of the RDF consideration, it is very likely to be wheels. Why this is so will take another thread so we will not talk about "why?"...
But the global trend is now clearly in favour of wheels and any new LT purchase by foreign armies is likely to be in the WHEELS category.
Everyone keep saying it will be a Bionix chassis. No denying there is a big chance it would be, but it is not a sure thing.
The Primus is an indication SAF may not necessarily base everything on the Bionix chassis.
My final conclusion is that the new LT will primarily be a WHEELED GUN PLATFORM of 105mm calibre or less, and a unmanned turret.
Air deployable by C-130 and Chinook without modifications. Amphibious.
There might also be APC or IFV versions using the same chassis.
Finally, this new LT will compliment existing LTs and not necessarily replace them completely.
Just my uneducated guesstimation opinion that also reflect what many are already saying... -
Looks like we ar gonna hv a wheels vs track debate.
If we are to have a LT it wud be tracks since tanks are fitted with tracks and not wheels. Otherwise we cant call it a LT.
I will go for tracks as they are more versatile than wheels. Although great improvements have been made for wheels , there is a price to pay - they get even more complex with all the improvements.
There are still terrain where wheels can never outperform tracks.
My ideal LT for Spore will be a new Bionix based chassis designed specificallly for a LT - stabilised 105 mm gun with new APFSDS rounds, hunter killer fire controls with latest thermal sights, ERA, 7.62 co axial chain gun, autoloader, front engine, active armor protection system ........................ -
One needs to take the recent popularity of wheels into prespective... note that in FIBUA, where there are plenty of chances to make use of paved roads or otherwise forgiving terrain, wheels give you the mobility that is such a great asset in battle...
However once you go off road, the mobility of wheels start to take a big hit... so it depends on the kind of war you expect to fight... if there's a ton of FIBUA and road travelling... wheels are a good choice. But if you expect to go offroad and what have you not... tracks still provide the best solution.
This is not to mention that the amount of protection you can mount is limited on a wheeled unit. And while a wheeled unit is more resistant to mobilty kills due to its redundancy, it is more vulnerable to damage to begin with.
But I think ST would be on the right track to develop both the tracked and wheelED options for our FSVs. -
No, I am not going into a WHEEL vs TRACK debate.
Though I speculate that the next LT will be a WHEEL platform, this does NOT mean I favour WHEELS over TRACKS or vice versa.
I am merely trying to guess what direction the experts at ST and SAF are going.
I emphasise again that I specualte the new LT will have a new role in RDF doctrine that cannot be fulfilled by a TRACK vehicle. For RDF, the LT must be lightweight for air deployment and also be fast and agile on roads.
All this points towards WHEELS.
Just because we develop a new LT doesn't mean we have to REPLACE the existing ones. (We have the Bionix, but we didn't get rid of the M113 or V200, for example.)
The AMX-10 & 13 will still soldier on for a while. But they DO NOT fit the RDF concept of being deployable by air and fast on roads. -
There is a Swedish solution (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/) where they mounted shorter calibre 120mm cannon onto an AFV. That would have been a great solution with the added advantage of using the existing 120mm ammunition. There is also the newer Israeli 105mm rounds which are supposedly as good as the 120mm rounds.Originally posted by glock:Looks like we ar gonna hv a wheels vs track debate.
If we are to have a LT it wud be tracks since tanks are fitted with tracks and not wheels. Otherwise we cant call it a LT.
I will go for tracks as they are more versatile than wheels. Although great improvements have been made for wheels , there is a price to pay - they get even more complex with all the improvements.
There are still terrain where wheels can never outperform tracks.
My ideal LT for Spore will be a new Bionix based chassis designed specificallly for a LT - stabilised 105 mm gun with new APFSDS rounds, hunter killer fire controls with latest thermal sights, ERA, 7.62 co axial chain gun, autoloader, front engine, active armor protection system ........................
With regard to Japanese WWII tanks, it is safe to say that they are essentially quite useless and the Soviets found killing them to be target practice and the Jap tanks couldn't leave a dent on the T-34. -
Problem in war is that the original intended role for a weapon system ( such as a wheeled armored gun system ) is never what the weapon will be actually used for.
After expending its role for strategic mobility, a wheeled armored gun vehicle still needs to wait for the heavily armored tank ( when & if it finally arrives at the battlefield ) to do real battle.
If the heavy armor does not arrive in time, it will be called upon to do the job with nasty consequences. What I am saying is that really, its role is very limited. -
It has been asssumed that Singapore has been developing a new direct-fire weapon/light tank for many years.
--Christ F Foss,JDW 20.12.2006.
2.will SG use Compact Kinetic Energy Missile (CKEM) in the light tank under development?
this article says that there is no explosive in this missiles.
pl share more here.
http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/
Two key advantages of CKEM are its deployability and tremendous overmatch in lethality. The CKEM Weapon System provides increased countermeasure effectiveness and survivability while allowing the soldier to engage the toughest and most sophisticated targets.
CKEMÂ’s ATD demonstrated a path forward for a smaller, lighter KE missile that can be integrated on to both current and future combat platforms and has the ability to fill current lethality gaps against enhanced reactive armor and active protective systems.
CKEM will be particularly effective in bridging the ArmyÂ’s capability gaps identified for the Infantry Brigade Combat Team and the Stryker Brigade Combat Team by ensuring lethality at both close and extended ranges.
--http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_products/antiarmor/CKEM/product-CKEM.html
The Compact Kinetic Energy Missile (CKEM) is 60 inches long, weighs less than 100 pounds, and has an extended range for direct fire, line-of-sight and beyond line-of-sight engagements. Its hit-to-kill technology provides the warfighter with near fire-and-forget capability, overwhelming lethality and a high probability of first-round kill. -
hi guys new here,
does the army possesed the 'chariot'? merkava means chariot, bcoz the engine were at the front. personally i dont think so. But i will be really surprise if the army didnt test drive it yet. its just too heavy.
but then again the army buy the leo. is it safe to say these heavy tanks were not intend for deep offensive? -
We have close to some 300 SM1.
The SM1 tanks which are now being gradually retired, were bought as second-hand AMX 13 tanks from various countries in the late 1960s and refurbished. In the late 1980s they were upgraded to the SM1 standard and only now are we beginning to phase them out after over 40 years in the SAF. We have close to some 300 SM1s. We are replacing the first batch of the SM1s with the refurbished Leopard 2A4. We recently bought 66, with 30 spare tanks, from German Army stocks. We will replace the remainder in the coming years. But not on one-for-one basis as the Leopards are more capable.