Singapore's procurement blunders
-
After 2 pages, I am surprised no one posted it. Is this a procurement blunder? Only those with access will know.
F-16
Months after the announcement was made there were rumours for months that Singapore were trying to convert the F-16 (then General Dynamics ) to F-18 ( McD). So strong were the rumours that it was reported in JDW.
JDW got it wrong? Remember, the Defense Minister retired shortly thereafter. -
Look at how many F-16s we've bought to date. Look at the level of modernization on them. You think its a blunder?
Maybe the first F-16A/Bs. But definitely not the current generations.
The F-16 has become and iconic symbol of multirole fighters. -
The Skyhawk is probably one of a couple of planes we know very well till today. Short of the OFP - which is overdue for upgrading anyway. We practically re-built the damn thing.Originally posted by storywolf:I am not sure if what you folks mention as blunders !!!
First A4- skyhawk
I happend to talk to the pilots who flew them, I can tell you non of them want to trade it with a hawk 200 ! With the upgrade, they basically even out manuover the f-5 !!! If the pilots who flew it feel it is good, then why we call it a blunder based on some hear say of some folks.
Since re-engine, there has not been any crash that I'm aware of. Maybe we have a better ILS in place now. If indeed there are cracks in the wing spar/root, guess who would be best placed to work out a solution?
I think there's still a place for a modernised OA-4S perhaps with the RF5-S avionics and lots of Rover pods.
Something about two tier fighter fleets - don't know if it's relevant to small country like Singapore.
Edit: Oops! Just realised this role may have moved to the Searcher UAVs! -
The F-16 have better electronics than the Russian fighters to be certain, though not as powerful a radar.Originally posted by Shotgun:Look at how many F-16s we've bought to date. Look at the level of modernization on them. You think its a blunder?
Maybe the first F-16A/Bs. But definitely not the current generations.
The F-16 has become and iconic symbol of multirole fighters.
The F-15 would be a quantum jump in capability to be certain. -
Is there a need for a more powerful radar? The F-16s radar (for mechanical radars) is for guiding weapons, not to act as AWACs. The current F-16's radar is more than adequate to guide missiles like the AMRAAM, and produces exceptional radar images in DBS modes. Its radar is more than adequate for a light-medium weight multi-role fighter.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:The F-16 have better electronics than the Russian fighters to be certain, though not as powerful a radar.
The F-15 would be a quantum jump in capability to be certain.
Its a shame to retire all the scooters like that. Then again, they are getting old. Perhaps if its possible, why not re-work and strengthen some of the air frames of some of them, and convert them into some kinda fast FAC? -
1. F16 is definitely not a procurement blunder - its a great buy.
2. I think a big blunder was when our air force bought the T 33s ( I think ) or Shooting Stars or something like that ages ago. They were trainers & I believe they were never used or flown .
3. How about the GIAT LG 1 105s ? We were one of the few armies which actually purchased the guns.
4. How about the V200s - again we were the only army that purchased it ; everone else bought the V 150s. The V200s were too large and had tendency to topple.
5. I personally think that for some weapons , although good if we can design ourselves, we shud purchase off the shelf or license build locally. Case in point are small arms. Reason for designing local small arms so that we can export is not valid - how many SAR80s. SAR88s, Ultimax have we exported the past 20 years ? There are many excellent small arms designs out there from manufacturers who have long and successful traditions in building weapons. I really don't know how we can be better unless we have a genius such as Glock of Austria. Glock literally took the handgun world by storm in the early 90s with their radical and very successful design. As for assault rifles, I personally like the G36, an excellent design from a company with long tradition in firearms. -
Hi,Originally posted by glock:1. F16 is definitely not a procurement blunder - its a great buy.
2. I think a big blunder was when our air force bought the T 33s ( I think ) or Shooting Stars or something like that ages ago. They were trainers & I believe they were never used or flown .
3. How about the GIAT LG 1 105s ? We were one of the few armies which actually purchased the guns.
4. How about the V200s - again we were the only army that purchased it ; everone else bought the V 150s. The V200s were too large and had tendency to topple.
5. I personally think that for some weapons , although good if we can design ourselves, we shud purchase off the shelf or license build locally. Case in point are small arms. Reason for designing local small arms so that we can export is not valid - how many SAR80s. SAR88s, Ultimax have we exported the past 20 years ? There are many excellent small arms designs out there from manufacturers who have long and successful traditions in building weapons. I really don't know how we can be better unless we have a genius such as Glock of Austria. Glock literally took the handgun world by storm in the early 90s with their radical and very successful design. As for assault rifles, I personally like the G36, an excellent design from a company with long tradition in firearms.
1. I am not sure why or when we buy the T-33s. But they might be "free" from the US. since at that point we are a developing country... maybe some sort of defence "aid".
2. I think we have a "need" for a 105mm LG. something light enough to the "lifted" by a Super Puma. Not sure if the Giat Design is optimal though.
3. No comment on V200.
4. Agree on this. Small arms seems to be the thing that most countries try to purchase their own, even the "eastern bloc" countries have their own versions of AK47 a couple of years back. Basically assualt rifles is a difficult market to compete in.
I think if ST is not a GLC but a completely pte company, we might had made a different decision on this. -
You donÂ’t seem to see the rather obvious reason why STK has been designing and developing small arms, as well as other weapons technologies. Not to mention you take your cases from a very narrow range of facts.
Looking at it this way, how many of any OTHER of STK creations have they really managed to sell to other countries? The super lightweight auto loading mortar? Primus? Pegasus? Flyer? Bionix? CIS .50? All the recent UAVs? Can you think of any that is in widespread use?
If export was the main reason STK did weapons, then itÂ’s entire history must a dismal failure wasting its own cash (and taxpayers money) and itÂ’s a miracle that it even manages to stay afloat despite such a monumental failure that I doubt even the most lenient way of looking at it by our government will be willing to cover up.
It is rather clear they are developing arms primarily for local use, and have been since the started out as CIS. Have you ever wonder why Singapore has insisted on going down the route of locally produced or modified weapons? One is to get weapons suited for our own needs, and thatÂ’s not just in numbers but in the cost of the systems as well. And another is to booster our own understanding and grasp of crucial war fighting technologies and R&D.
Economically, it makes sense to give your own arms-manufacturing capabilities a boost in the arm by being your own customer and developing the necessary skills, industries and jobs at the same time. Strategically, it also works to have a weapon on which inner workings you know to the greatest degree with which the rights are for you to modify and use at will. And we are hardly the only country to see this:
Many countries developing their own small arms for their own use- Israel has the Tavor and Galil, Iran has the Khaybar KH2002, the Chinese are working on their QBZ-95 family, the South Africans worked the R4 and CR-21 and what have you not. Some of them have worked and others not, but yet it seems despite the saturated small arms market and existence of “There are many excellent small arms designs out there from manufacturers who have long and successful traditions in building weapons.”, countries still see the need to have a locally produced firearm.
The key advantage that locally made systems like the Ultimax and SAR-21 offer is that they come on the cheap for the capabilities they offer. The SAR-21 set is cheaper then an equivalent M-16A4 decked out with the same capabilities, and that was one of the original design specifications for the weapon. As much as some have this dream of equipping every single Singaporean conscript with a G36 or what have you not from trusted brandsÂ… we need to wonder if this is really possible or favourable given our circumstances. We swapped out the Browning .50 HMG, a great weapon with a long and illustrious history for the C.I.S 50, a locally made firearm. Was this really a mistake? Or did we have a reason?
ItÂ’s one thing to get a batch of cool firearms, itÂ’s another to actually have the resources and understanding to keep these firearms in working condition within your army, as MalaysiaÂ’s own frustrating experience with the Aug has shown. Basically they had this whole bunch of nice guns that worked in the European context, but was found to be wanting in the tropicsÂ… and they didnÂ’t really have any clue what to do with it. -
The V200 was procured as a testbed and developmental force usage in the 80s.
This paved the way for lots of defence R&D in vehicle systems. -
One thing for sure is that we put a lot of effort into R&D... simply using whatever that is off the shelf isn't what we like to do.Originally posted by LazerLordz:The V200 was procured as a testbed and developmental force usage in the 80s.
This paved the way for lots of defence R&D in vehicle systems. -
I think Apache is a blunder look at the us apache being shot down in iraq by small arm fire ..
-
Nothing is indestructable. I wouldn't be worried if an Apache got downed by a barrage of small arms fire. I'd be worried if a farmer shot it down with a pea shooter.Originally posted by seancannot:I think Apache is a blunder look at the us apache being shot down in iraq by small arm fire ..
What makes you think other attack copters would've fared better? If placed in the same circumstances, I'm pretty sure the French Eurocopter Tiger, South African Rooviak or even the Russian Mi-28 or KA-50 would've gone down too.
Bottomline, its a joke to say something is lousy 'cos it got destroyed. Only someone used to playing CS in God mode would think there is something which is totally indestructable.
The American M1A2 Abrams & Israeli Merkeva are amongst the best MBTs out there. But both have been destroyed (partially or otherwise) before. Does that mean they suck? -
I think the Apaches are one of the greatest purchases ever done by MINDEF. It gives the SAF a very powerful sword.
Getting shot down or destroyed doesnt mean it sucks. Hell i cant think of a thing that cannot be destroyed so does that mean that eveerything sucks?
In my opinion, although there are good off the shelve buys for the small arms, I still see a need for us to create our own. Simply because not everything off the shelf is suitable for us. When we make our own, we can customise everything that suits our needs. The SAR-21 is in fact a very user friendly and maintenance friendly firearm. (Just becareful of the sights) no doubt i love the G36 for its reliability from a famed manufacturer and looks great as well. But from what ive heard its expensive and may not suit us.
By developing our own weapons, we can hone our R&D and engineering skills. Who knows one day, STK will be famed for building small arms just like HK? maybe even be well known to build Tanks? I am pretty sure HK, COLT or any well known arms manufacturer was producing fantastic weapons straight off when it first started. Give STK a chance, although there were misses the Ultimax was surely a hit. SAR-21 too to me is a hit because its just so easy to operate and use. with its features and specifications, i think its fantastic in urban ops for normal grunts. -
Correct, the Ultimax Mk4 is under trials right now to replace the M249 as the Marine Corps SAW weapon.
-
Just curious, will the USMC if they procure the Ultimax Mk4, be using the drum mags or using the box mags?Originally posted by LazerLordz:Correct, the Ultimax Mk4 is under trials right now to replace the M249 as the Marine Corps SAW weapon. -
I suppose one of the blunders is the issue of the apparently farked up D&G waterbag bladders. In one of my topics someone posted that the friggin bags just gets ripped open and D&G blames the recruits for not knowing how to use them.
-
talking about procurement blunders...
there's this particular detachment that operates this particular equipment that's useless in local terrain.
but they always get called back for reservist... -
Ironically the early versions of the waterbag seemed to work better. I never had any issues with my own older D&G sets, but it seems that the current batchs seem to be bursting rather well in BMTC.Originally posted by SpecOps87:I suppose one of the blunders is the issue of the apparently farked up D&G waterbag bladders. In one of my topics someone posted that the friggin bags just gets ripped open and D&G blames the recruits for not knowing how to use them.
But yes, it could be possible that the recruits are filling up the waterbag to the absolute max... which is bad in any waterbag cos if you put the weight of your fieldpack on it... it'll all be game over pretty soon. -
This is the classic example of what so call military idiots thinks !!!Originally posted by seancannot:I think Apache is a blunder look at the us apache being shot down in iraq by small arm fire ..
Just be cause a few Apache have been show down - then idiots go and label them as blunders !!!
So what a few Apache been down by small arms ? When it took out more tanks, buildings and troops !!! Do not know why people just focus on the stupid narrow point. If i give you a AK-47 with 10 magzine, and you go one to one with a apache, you think who will win ? If you win , than I would say it is is a blunder ..... !!!!
So if a soldier arm with M16 is shot , then it is blunder ? A tank destoryed is a blunder ? A heli shot down is a blunder ? Frankly there is not a weapon that is indestructable thus like that all weapons are blunders ?
Frankly anything which can shoot and kill is a successful weapon, only all depend on the user who use it and how they use it. -
AFAIK, the Apache is still among the most, if not the most survivable platforms in its role.
One needs to note that the AH-64s that had been supposedly downed by "small arms" fire were submitted to the fire of hundreds, if not thousands of rounds... would any other attack chopper in the world make it back if faced with the same thing (at hand I can only think of a few)? Would you like to be in a UH-1H trying to do the same job?
The reason why they have been taking losses is because they have been exposed to the most amount of fire among all the rotary wing aircraft in Iraq, but if you look at the ratio of losses to fire taken it's immediately apparent you want to be in an Apache when the stuff hits the fan.
And not to mention realistically speaking is the "small arms" here really AK-47s? Not unless you want to believe the insurgent propangada which is prehaps even more laughable then the yankie version (at least the yanks make an attempt to make their propangada sound possible).
Most of the damage dealt to the Apache likely came from higher caliber weapons like heavy machine guns, MANPADs and the like, for the bird itself is quite tolerant of AK 7.62mm rounds. Unless it was hit in a vital area (which could happen if you put enough rounds into the air), thinking that your AK would do good against the Apache is not only wishful thinking... it's quite possibly suicide. -
The AH-64 that got shot down weren't exactly in their dominating environment when they got shot down.
The Apaches were designed as Tank-Killers. They hunt TANKS and other vehicles in battlefields. Not surveying/chasing areas in urban areas where insurgents like to hang out. Unfortunately, its the only attack helicopter that is capable of doing that. We'd have more cobras shot down if they wanted to use those instead. -
[quote]Originally posted by SpecOps87:
I suppose one of the blunders is the issue of the apparently farked up D&G waterbag bladders. In one of my topics someone posted that the friggin bags just gets ripped open and D&G blames the recruits for not knowing how to use them.[/quot
Couldn't agreee more man!! Those D&G products sucks to the core!! They tried to "copy"designs from black hawk but they fail totally. Instaed i thought that those from Force 21 were much better than those from D&G. PArdon me but i seriously think that D&G products afre only good for the boy scouts and NCC alike. Military usage, i would rather stick to either blackhawk or products from Force 21.
I own a few piece of BH and F21 gears and till today, they are still faithfully serving me well. People may say that i never get to use them but the point here is if they can withstand the rigours of me a techie crawling in and out underneath vehicles, digging shell scrapes, etc etc. I think they are good. For D&G products, i just strap it onto my webbing for a test fit and the stiches gave way!!
. Also, if you were to ask combatants to chose between D&G and Force21 rpoducts, i believe with all my heart that they and surely go for FORCE21.
By the way, are you guys aware that D&G is own by a couple of malaysians but F21 is own by ex NAVY regulars?
Always Support Local!!!!!
Cheers!! -
The Longbows are used in Iraq as medium range observation and targeting/hunter-killer platforms. They loiter and orbit around city blocks, and when they have to pop down for a confirmation, that's when they are more prone to attacks because no matter how effective the millimeter-wave radar is, clutter is always a smokescreen that will reduce the effective nature of the avionics in detecting ALL the potential threats.
-
Giving one's industries a boost in the arm to the exclusion of others is sometimes called protectionism. Economically, it makes no sense for Spore to design & build its own weapons - there is simply is no economies of scale.
The only reason to design your own weapons is to retain a knowledge base & this is a very expensive exercise.
If you look at the weapons developed locally, how much do you think comes from overseas technical expertise ? A lot I wud think . If you look at Bionix for instance, most of the critical and high value systems are purchased off the shelve. If one adds up the costs of the Bushmaster, firecontrol system, engine, tracks , suspension, armor etc they probably account for more than 80 % ( if not more ) of the value of the Bionix. Also, one must add the infrastructure to design & build these systems - they also cost lots of money.
M16s are built by the million and AK47s by the scores of millions. How many SAR21s can we build for the SAF ? 0.1 million ? Economies of scale say it all - these locally developed systems cannot be had on the cheap ! -
No system is infallible.
Introduce a new weapon system & very soon there will be a weapon or tactic to counter it.
A rethink in tactics for the use of AH 64 in Iraq is probably in the cards. It is not only hardware that one shud look at.
Another " invincible " weapon is the Merkava. If the enemy is smart enough or has the right counter weapon, any " invincible " weapon becomes toast.