Singapore's procurement blunders
-
Hi,
don't flame me... i am a patroitic singaporean! As you can see from my posts...
but there are cases... but please.. public domain info only....
one of those that I can think of is the A4 upgrade.... although hail a success... i remember reading the article about it in a defence magazine. the article is comparing the cost of the A4 upgrade with RMAF's purchase of the Hawk 100/200 to replace their A4PTM.
The article is critical of the upgrade... saying that although the new F404 engine gives it plenty of improvement, it lead to extreme stress to the airframe... as a result the lifespan of the upgraded A4 is shortened.
The performance of the upgraded A4 is better then th Hawk 200, but the Hawkk 200 is zero hour... and can last longer...
as for the A4SU avionics upgrade, it only bring it on par with the Hawk. -
perhaps all they wanted to do is to delay the purchasing of a new airframe a couple of years so that they could get better "zero hour" planes?
-
A list of weapons that I feel should not have been bought:
Of course, let me stress that its only a personal view. Some may not even count as blunders but of course we all strive for the best.
SAR-21 Assault Rifles:
A better choice would be to produce German G36 assault rifles under license. Not that I know about any teething problems associated with the G36. Has most, if not all of the capabilities of the SAR-21 and comes at a reduced weight. It is reliable, hard hitting and accurate. Easy for old timers like us to convert from the M16S1 due to the conventional layout too.
Vastergotland SSKs:
No doubt that the 2 upgraded Vastergotlands bought by the RSN are extremely capable boats. But a more straightforward approach would be to simply buy a class of 4 new-built Gotland class, keeping in mind that the 2 remaining Sjoormens need replacement before long and we would bear the burden of having to support an additional type of replacement submarine.
Quad SA-18 SAMs on M113 APCs:
A novel, low cost solution indeed. Probably effective against low level air threats but a more effective solution will be needed against higher level threats. A system in the class of the Russian SA-15 will be needed. (Not that I advocate buying Russian arms, but a more capable system with a full range of sensors and 8 missiles per unit is advisable)
*Will add more in later posts -
ok ok... that article at i bought, is probably "bought" by BAe.... like a Hawk promotional article. but some of the points are probably true....Originally posted by beavan:perhaps all they wanted to do is to delay the purchasing of a new airframe a couple of years so that they could get better "zero hour" planes?
The upgrade for each skyhawk is USD8m if I am not wrong... not surprising, esp when the version of the F404 engine that we use is one of a kind and only used in the A4S1/SU.
SAF compared it to the cost of a new F16 at USD25mn and said that the upgrade is cheap.. but please, as if the A4SU is anything like a Block 30/40 F16 (during that 80s).
And if we had bought Hawks there and then, they will still have enough hours to keep flying now....
The operating cost of flying Hawks is also lower that for a A4SU... since it is a much newer a/c.
For a time, we are flying A4s with two different engine type, F404 and J65.. so there is not much different anyway... -
Purchasing 4x Sjoormens and 1 Sjoormens hull for "spares" to "evaluate" the boats...
I know the RSN like to keep a coherent force of either 6 vessels for PVs, APVs, MCVs, MGBs and FFs... and then a 4 ship force for MCMVs and LSTs ... and i guess getting 4x Sjoormens will form a coherent Sqn.
But I feel that 4+1 seems like a overkill, probably 2+2 or 2+1 will be better and cheaper.... -
I don't remember any Gotlands being available for sale yet. All the Gotlands being built are for the Swedish Navy isn't it?
-
Kockums offered its A19 Gotland design to South Korea in 1999 but withdrew the offer when HDW, its rival in the bid, bought Kockums.Originally posted by Shotgun:I don't remember any Gotlands being available for sale yet. All the Gotlands being built are for the Swedish Navy isn't it?
The Koreans chose the German company's Type 214 and the 1st unit built by Hyundai started sea trial last month.
Cheers,
Sunho -
Yes the F404 is way too powerful for the skyhawk's airframe. Apparently when the planes were delivered to the polytechnics, several micro cracks were found on the roots of the wings. However, it is actually a good upgrade as it would be a lot more expensive to buy new planes.Originally posted by spencer99:Hi,
don't flame me... i am a patroitic singaporean! As you can see from my posts...
but there are cases... but please.. public domain info only....
one of those that I can think of is the A4 upgrade.... although hail a success... i remember reading the article about it in a defence magazine. the article is comparing the cost of the A4 upgrade with RMAF's purchase of the Hawk 100/200 to replace their A4PTM.
The article is critical of the upgrade... saying that although the new F404 engine gives it plenty of improvement, it lead to extreme stress to the airframe... as a result the lifespan of the upgraded A4 is shortened.
The performance of the upgraded A4 is better then th Hawk 200, but the Hawkk 200 is zero hour... and can last longer...
as for the A4SU avionics upgrade, it only bring it on par with the Hawk. -
I think nearly everyone here is agreed that the close partnership between STK and its main patron the SAF is invaluable.
So even if some procurement from STK seems more expensive or unsuitable, in the long run it is the best solution for Singapore.
This partnership resulted in STK being able to produce some excellent weapons for SAF. And economically great as it creates jobs and made sure some defense dollars still stayed at home.
The A4 upgrade is a good showcase of our aero engineering capability.
And IMO, the A4SU were excellent platforms, out-flying even the F5E Tiger II. I am really sorry they are retired.
Regarding the decision for SAF to commission a locally-designed and built AR, I feel it is definitely the right one. We have the technology, the capability and the machinery to build an AR. We just need some help.
That the result was a bullpup SAR-21 may be slightly disagreeable to some (like me), but nonetheless, this is better than license-building. -
The Vastergotlands are a interim measure before we move on to new SSKs. Better to train up gradually..and they are much cheaper than the new Gotlands with nearly similar capability and the AIP engine.
-
the SAF has to do more to show that it's not a captive market for ST ... those in the "know" will know that lots of ST engineers are farking pricks who refuses to take feedback from the troopers and end users of the equipment they are designing for ....
anyone know about the " I'm an engineer, you're not, so shut up " incident in the navy ? ...
-
The reverse has happened too actually. Some of these generals and colonels are a little out of touch with reality.Originally posted by Fatum:the SAF has to do more to show that it's not a captive market for ST ... those in the "know" will know that lots of ST engineers are farking pricks who refuses to take feedback from the troopers and end users of the equipment they are designing for ....
anyone know about the " I'm an engineer, you're not, so shut up " incident in the navy ? ...
The trouble of course is that there must be sufficient discourse between user and service provider to ensure things work in the end.
If by anything, most of the products designed by ST/DSTA/DSO have largely been attempts to increase the knowledge and know-how of the industry so that we won't be wholely dependent on external sources for equipment. The artillery guns of the SAF was a result of reverse engineering I think an Israeli Soltam gun and allowed us to make some pieces of artillery which have served us somewhat well, though I haven't actually handled the guns before unless people here care to illuminate.
With regard to the Submarines, I don't quite understand why we had to do a step by step process towards procurement and if we started off with good boats and spent adequate time training with the Germans, we would have been able to operate them sooner. It is unlikely we will be able to build out boats any time soon, as Submarines require a fair bit more work than ships and we don't have the equipment i think to make the steel of the required tensile strength and to roll it to form the hull. -
micro cracks? by visual?Originally posted by storm_freaky13:several micro cracks were found on the roots of the wings.
well to determine if it really is a crack on the airframe, you would need to do NDI. -
ehhh since when did they ever ask for feedback?Originally posted by Fatum:ST engineers are farking pricks who refuses to take feedback from the troopers and end users of the equipment they are designing for
they just do whatever they want.
i have to say that the local modifications on the aircraft are a b|tch to install. -
Despite strong political pressure to field a locally-made AR, SAF did manage to resist 2 previous attempts - the ugly sisters SAR-80 and SR-88. This was reportedly because SAF troopers who tested the SAR-80 said they were crap.
So while ST may be stupid and don't listen, SAF sometimes does. -
The SAR-80 did find its way to the Balkans in the 90s and they were moderately useful.
-
double
-
Oh, the SAR-80 and SR-88 were good, usable weapons, for sure. And cheap. Just that they didn't look that sexy, and they were heavy, not so user friendly and SAF soldiers voted to keep the M-16. -
I think my father commented they had too many sharp edges. Irritating to use to be sure.Originally posted by moca:Oh, the SAR-80 and SR-88 were good, usable weapons, for sure. And cheap. Just that they didn't look that sexy, and they were heavy, not so user friendly and SAF soldiers voted to keep the M-16. -
SG always wanted to able to sell their produced weapons so not just rely on only sales to SAF, licensed production of G36 might not allow us to export it.Originally posted by ^Delta^:SAR-21 Assault Rifles:
A better choice would be to produce German G36 assault rifles under license. Not that I know about any teething problems associated with the G36. Has most, if not all of the capabilities of the SAR-21 and comes at a reduced weight. It is reliable, hard hitting and accurate. Easy for old timers like us to convert from the M16S1 due to the conventional layout too.
STK's foreign sales will ensure that it is be a viable biz entity , not just relying on local sales.
Let say RSN is to maintain a 4 boats sgn, then having 2 new one and 2 older one sound logical.Originally posted by ^Delta^:Vastergotland SSKs:
No doubt that the 2 upgraded Vastergotlands bought by the RSN are extremely capable boats. But a more straightforward approach would be to simply buy a class of 4 new-built Gotland class, keeping in mind that the 2 remaining Sjoormens need replacement before long and we would bear the burden of having to support an additional type of replacement submarine.
All 4 of the same class of sub will be easier for training , maintainance and general logistics support.
But you see SSKs need major upgrade or replacement perhaps every 2 decades, so if we bought 4 at the same time, 2 decades later we will either have major upgrade or replacement for all 4 of them at the same time frsme which means another major financial outlay.
Or we could staggered such thing by two newer subs and two older one.
The Swedish offer give us opportunity to do so, the 2 upgraded Vastergotland subs let's say deliver to us by 2008, it mean they will not need any major overhual till 2028, and we still keep 2 of the Challenger class till 2018 which by then we should be looking at two new subs(either A26, U212 etc) ready to replace them.
In this way , we always always have at least 2 subs that are modern & are not near the end of svc life where major overhual or replacement is required.
It is rumoured that we are having observer status for the A26 project, which should be ready in the middle of next decade, which is abt time for us to junk the Challenger.
Well, as you said it, low cost, Igla was chosen becos of that and we are licensed porducing them locally.Originally posted by ^Delta^:Quad SA-18 SAMs on M113 APCs:
A novel, low cost solution indeed. Probably effective against low level air threats but a more effective solution will be needed against higher level threats. A system in the class of the Russian SA-15 will be needed. (Not that I advocate buying Russian arms, but a more capable system with a full range of sensors and 8 missiles per unit is advisable)
They are meant to support ground troops, atm we dun need better one becos of our superioty of our AF as compare to other AF in the region, -
Actually SAR 80 is easier to clean ( piston driven), and less IA as compare to M-16.
But it is heavier, less ergonomical.
So it does not represent a great improvement over the M-16S1 but certainly not crap, otherwise it would not have any sales. -
I agree with the staggered purchase points. Its a very common practice even in the private sector when it comes to equipment purchases.Originally posted by gary1910:Well, as you said it, low cost, Igla was chosen becos of that and we are licensed porducing them locally.
They are meant to support ground troops, atm we dun need better one becos of our superioty of our AF as compare to other AF in the region,
Regarding the Igla and air defense, I differ. An IADS should not be too reliant on one component, (eg in this case, fixed air). We are not like the USAF with a large pool of resource and manpower.
Manpads and Shorads have a sufficiently important role to deny and defend against an air attack to deserve constant upgrades. However, at the moment, I'd think the Igla is a reliable enough to serve that purpose.
What we ought to consider IMO, are mechanised shorads like the Tunguska M1. Perhaps even a locally developed one built out of the BX or BX2 chassis. It should provide a deadlier mobile AA cover for our advancing armored units. A gun system provides versatility against targets with better counter measure systems. -
Yeah try cleaning 8 barrels + vehicle+ mg + missle launcher + engine...nsf/ns men will curse you for your suggestions.
That aside, the igla has good enough coverage for armour ops. 4 missiles ready to fire to engage 2 flying targets + ifv mg fire + tank canister + 25 mm = alot of projectiles in the air while the armour run away and call for CAP. -
A reliable basic firearm is the most basic requirement for any army. Take the reliability of the Ak-47 which gave the US troops armed with M16s in Vietnam such a nightmare. We cannot compromise defence just to give our local defence industry more market power. Sadly, in the world nowadays, many of such factors are taken in account when procuring weapons.
And the case of SA-18s being sufficient for our ground troops, it is prudent to note that even a single enemy warplane which gets through the screen of fighters armed with cluster munitions or even no frills HE bombs can kill more then a few of our good men on the ground. There is no excuse for having a top notch air force and a comparatively light SAM coverage for our troops.
Imagine in a shooting war, when some of our comrades are killed by some lucky enmemy aircraft, we would be cursing at why there is no better SAM coverage. SA-18s are good against low flying helicopters and warplanes. They are about as useful as stones when pitted against Su-30s flying at high altitudes equipped with the latest jammers and electronic countermeasures. -
i agree with some of you guys above
Flop1:Vastergotland
Flop2:F-15Es( we have been talking bout that since u know when)
Flop3:Sar 21( lilttle too heavy and bulky...too short for tall soldier like me)
but dont forget the good buys
1:Leopard(Best perforamce tanks around)
2:Missile Corvette (Small but capable enough vessel)
3.F-16( Something to do everything)