Singapore's procurement blunders
-
Seeing one side of the coin again?Originally posted by glock: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 !
So are you implying that we are far better off dropping off all of our R&D and sinking all the cash into getting off the shelf systems like other countries in the region?
Truth is I don't think that's the way to go for Singapore... one of the key aspects to our survival and credibility comes not simply from having the cash to spend on stuff, but having the stuff that money cannot immediately buy. The simple math of the whole thing is that no matter how much cash we sink into off-the-shelf systems that anybody can buy all it takes is for somebody to outspend us... worse if they have more resources in land and manpower and are willing to spend on buildup. We can't really sustain a force parity simply by relying on buying our stuff off the shelf.
A lot of the technology that we need to maintain a proper force multiplier over potential opponents are simply not obtainable via main market systems. Looking at it this way, nations like South Africa, South Korean and even Japan see it fit to create their own weapons systems (Japan and SK have their own MBTs and are planning for the next generation of systems) when by many measures the defence industry is not really their main method of generating GDP... are they being silly given they could just buy off-the-shelf?
Let's not even forget about Israel... should they have spent all the money they blew on developing the Merky, Tavor and all those other local systems that have yet to find any place in the international market on off-the-shelf systems?
You are grossly underestimating the value of R&D. This is not to mention that you pointed out, but failed to notice the significance of the fact that we often repurpose other people's R&D for our own ends... so it is as much a modifying foreign technology to fit our needs as it is a learning experience.
It would be odd if we decided on a whim to design a new 25mm cannon for the Bionix when we already had proper systems to work with. But it's another thing to say that it's better altogether to just use the Bradley... which was considered, but finally rejected.
If you haven't noticed, the SAF does mixes and matches the way we get our weapons. Those that we can buy we buy, if we can modify it we modify. If we really need a capability that we cannot buy, we are willing to spend to create it ourselves. Is the spending justified? I certainly think so.
And what's with your nonsenscial point about millions of M16s and AKs manufactured worldwide versus what a small red dot can churn out? Do you not realize that since the SAF was young our mainstay infantry weapon, the M16 has but been manufactured right here in Singapore for the fact that we simply could NOT GET ENOUGH from off the shelf back then?
For the record, given we have already been manufacturing our M16S1s locally and it has always been the way we have kept our armies supplied with arms... so what's with your nonsense with not being able to make enough weapons with the switch to SAR-21? The infrastructure to manufacture arms had always been present since the industralization of our nation, you make it seem as if we just recently built it up from scratch.
The per unit cost of the SAR-21 factoring all the development costs and what have you not will certainly be cheaper in the long run then if we were getting some foreign off-the-shelf system. That bit is clear enough from the moment the whole project was started... which was the point of it to begin with.
I'm not sure what you are trying to do except to try to draw some argument from thin air.
And what makes you think there are only 100,000 SAR-21s in the SAF?
Given this fact, it is obvious that locally manufacturing some weapons systems is justified in the economic sense. Is this really protectionism? Or a just case of locallymademustsuckitis?
I think for all their blunders our government is that not silly... they would not waste years and billions on creating locally made weapons just for the fun of it. Not that all our procurement efforts are perfect... but to say that R&D is unneeded and to rely on whatever some other company in some other country with very different defence needs happens to think up of seems to be national suicide to me. -
glock, how well do you know about singapore arm industry ? Can see you are a total zero on it. Singapore may be small in size, but it is sizable player in the arms market. You keep assuming Singapore, keeping its product and expertize in Singapore only, but you did not see the oversea sales !!! Thus me it is huge.Originally posted by glock: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 !
You bring up the bionix, well since nothing is suitable we manufacture it by combining the best of all part, so what wrong with that ? We learn from all the best equipment and intergrate them. Well if over 200 bionix is not economic of scale enough for you ? You think people sell you a arm vehicle so cheaply without including development cost, and all other cost ? dream on.
SAR-21 is sold to singapore army ? You can be assure that it is more then 0.1 million in singapore alone !!! Oversea sales, did you aware that sar-21 is been sold oversea also ? Just because you not oversea to buy it, does not mean there is no sales. SAR-80 and SR-88 and ultimax 100 have all had very good sales !!! Just because you do not know about it. -
R&D on small arms, ammo, pgms, armour plate/nanotech technology, NCW/BMS stuffs makes alot of sense to me.
But APCs and other platforms are just nothing more than specialised trucks. One can get Marders or Centurions and lots of surplus to modify or upgrade.
Larger weapons(like howitzers) actually their effectiveness dictated by the munitions (plus the NCW) that come out of it rather than the barrel and running gear it posses.
Suitability of one hardware to our requirements actually is decided by the mindsets of the evaluators. I don't think there's such a think as unsuitable hardware but rather the inflexibility of those that will operate them.
My 2 cents. -
I think the aim of local arms industries is to ensure a viable production line that can at least sustain us in a wartime situation where we may not get resupply of parts from our commercial partners from abroad.
It's called Plan B, and one that has been moderately successful. Think Spartan and the US Navy. Increasingly, we have a lot of bilateral R&D that have been moved on to producing stuff that is used in actual combat by major powers.
If you have indigenous capability, you can customise COTS equipment. If not, you are at the mercy of the source codes provider. -
with A380 delay and possible A350 delay, sometime wonder if sg choose eurofoghter maybe risk of delay when those euro countries bey-song one another over whatever. luckily sg chose F15sg
-
<>
We did not purchase them, given by the French at a friendship price of "1 franc " with 'millions' of spares and spare tires... when they introduced the Alpha jets. However, we did used them for few years at PLA but the engines were very noisy -
R&D is critical to the progress of ANY nation. To me you cant put a pricetag on R&D because information is worth more than cash.
U try playing simple RTS games and u will see the need for R&D to bolster and enhance the effectiveness of your troops. SAME THING. Keep buying from others will result in suicide when ur supply gets cut.
And the Ultimax is very widely used in the region although not by official militaries. I once saw a picture of a pile of freedom fighter weapons and saw quite a bit of Ultimax's in it. Was quite surprised!
Saw a pic of Denver (I think) SWAT team using SAR-21's for trials. Never followed up on that. Anyone knows if any american SWAT operators adopted the SAR-21? -
The West Virginia PD had it for trials too, if I recall correctly. Not sure if the Cleveland PD SWAT adopted it too, require more indepth research.Originally posted by storm_freaky13:R&D is critical to the progress of ANY nation. To me you cant put a pricetag on R&D because information is worth more than cash.
U try playing simple RTS games and u will see the need for R&D to bolster and enhance the effectiveness of your troops. SAME THING. Keep buying from others will result in suicide when ur supply gets cut.
And the Ultimax is very widely used in the region although not by official militaries. I once saw a picture of a pile of freedom fighter weapons and saw quite a bit of Ultimax's in it. Was quite surprised!
Saw a pic of Denver (I think) SWAT team using SAR-21's for trials. Never followed up on that. Anyone knows if any american SWAT operators adopted the SAR-21?
PNG uses them too.
http://www.pnggossip.com/news/g050916.html
Defense Review's article on the SAR21
Link -
Drawing oneÂ’s own drawn out conclusions which stray so far away from what was actually posted is a yawn. Long posts do not earn more points.
Are we developing equipment which are so unique that we cannot buy off the shelve or have it tailored to suit SAF’s needs ? Have we really developed technologies that are “ force multipliers “ ? It is great to be able to modify available equipment to give one an advantage no others may have. For example, software is one area where one can reap a great benefit. Developing complete weapons systems is commendable , but the issue is whether it is cost effective and does it really give you a real advantage. In the production of standard weapons for use in armies, economies of scale dictate costs. We not do have unlimited resources.
South Africa was forced to develop their own weapons because they were pariah state. For example, they developed unique mine resistant vehicles because of actual combat experience & scenarios which exist in their situation. Japan has for mainly political reasons built very expensive MBTs and other weapons which no one else can afford or wants. South Korea’s MBT was developed with General Dynamics – I wonder how cheap this was.
Some have low regard for the intelligence of members of this forum when they have to point out that M16S1s are manufactured locally. Who does not know that.
It is great to know that we have enjoyed great sales of Ultimax SAR 80 and SAR 88s. But to whom and how much is really a secret right ? So we will never know right ? I have not seen these weapons in numbers in any armed forces. Even the SAF does not use the SAR80 & SAR 88. -
Do I make long posts simply to score points? Or to expound in detail on the nonsense and sheer rubbish that are most of your posts? Please refer to the response of the other posters in here to realize which is which.
I bother to explain my position in detail properly and leave it clear for all to seeÂ… can the same be said of your constant use of weasel words, self-proclaimed logics, and one-liners?
Have you said anything to rebutt your opponents points?
We have long since accepted, and worked around the cost of R&D for building our competence in weapons. As many have pointed out, R&D provides plenty of other benefits that go beyond just making the weapons.
At the end of the day, it stills turns out that yes, it's still more then a worthwhile endeavour to embark on.
Note that the SAR80 and 88 were not adopted by the SAF because they were deemed insufficent for our needs versus what we already had- not due to any economic reasons as and then.
The ability to produce our own weapons has already long existed since those days and hence what's you issue with the justification for a locally made weapon like the SAR21? An exercise of which justifications that are already well known and accepted?
So what's your point? Except to fufill some desire to be contrarian at all costs?
Surely then you must have very big issues with the weapons of the entire Arty corps, of which virtually all of the guns are locally designed and made?
If Singapore, with an economic future was uncertain back then and defence lacked the resources of today saw it fit to design and make local weapons... one can only speculate on your motivations towards being a Lightweight Fighter Mafia here. -
How do you know that the local produced weapon will be more expensive than buying off the shelf?Originally posted by glock:Drawing oneÂ’s own drawn out conclusions which stray so far away from what was actually posted is a yawn. Long posts do not earn more points.
Are we developing equipment which are so unique that we cannot buy off the shelve or have it tailored to suit SAF’s needs ? Have we really developed technologies that are “ force multipliers “ ? It is great to be able to modify available equipment to give one an advantage no others may have. For example, software is one area where one can reap a great benefit. Developing complete weapons systems is commendable , but the issue is whether it is cost effective and does it really give you a real advantage. In the production of standard weapons for use in armies, economies of scale dictate costs. We not do have unlimited resources.
South Africa was forced to develop their own weapons because they were pariah state. For example, they developed unique mine resistant vehicles because of actual combat experience & scenarios which exist in their situation. Japan has for mainly political reasons built very expensive MBTs and other weapons which no one else can afford or wants. South Korea’s MBT was developed with General Dynamics – I wonder how cheap this was.
Some have low regard for the intelligence of members of this forum when they have to point out that M16S1s are manufactured locally. Who does not know that.
It is great to know that we have enjoyed great sales of Ultimax SAR 80 and SAR 88s. But to whom and how much is really a secret right ? So we will never know right ? I have not seen these weapons in numbers in any armed forces. Even the SAF does not use the SAR80 & SAR 88.
As long as our numerical requirement for the particular weapons is high enough( achieveing economical of scale), the fixed cost (R&D,production line etc) plus variable cost will be lower than buying off the shelf foreign weapon with their high profit margin!!!
Next is , where does the all the money go to if SG govt bought weapon from locally produced ST Engg's weapons?
High % of it will remain in SG, whereas buying off the shelf foreign weapon will be the complete opposite, so this good for our current account i.e. better economically for SG!!
This exactly why one condition of military aids to Israel by the US is that it could only be used to buy US produced weapon, they dun even mind they are Israeli deisgn weapon as long it is produced in US.
This will ensure the majority of the money of the military aids to Israel actually stay in US!!!
The other benefits is job creation, not only just employees of the ST Engg but also the supporting industrial that support ST Engg activities, this create ripple effect for the economy of SG( Keynesian economical theory).
This is why countries like Turkey insist that their weapon purchased include ToT and licensed production in Turkey.
ST Engg is one lof the argest compamy in SG which contribute the GDP growth of SG and with their export of weapons plus the use dual use technologies for commercial purposes, increase foreign funds by means of profits that are sent back to SG.
Just look at this latest report:
http://www.stengg.com/pressroom/press_releases_read.aspx?paid=1068
Last thing , the govt is major sharehoder of ST Engg, so whatever they earn from the sales( local or foriegn), majority of the profits go back to the govt by mean of dividends and taxes , is it not?
Even if ST Engg is totally private company, locally produced weapons will still benefits SG economically regardless.
All the above, I am only talking abt the economical benefits from buying locally produced weapons, there is also the strategic benefits which you will not get by buying foreign produced weapon off the shelf.
Enough said. -
Bravo and well said. One might grudgingly accept what Glock has to say if he had chosen the right battles to fight in here but it seems that each and every move made by him seems specifically intended to corner himself into an unwinnable position. A habit that many here find both annoying and somewhat amusing, but we would all rather do without.
ItÂ’s quite obvious that his whole song-and-dance about our locally procured weapons project is mostly snake oil, given this is not only an industry that has existed since the formative periods of our nation, but had actually grown considerably to what we have today. If it was really such a cost-incurring and unnecessary exercise as he makes it out to beÂ… one would expect the billions of dollars we waste in such things yearly actually make its serious effects felt. By all measures it seems that what is actually happening on the ground is defying all or most of him points, and to insist on them seems to me a rather futile battle on his part.
I'm rather interested how Glock actually forms his "case"... does he actually look at the ground, gather all the facts and form a conclusion from that or does he simply go by his "gut" feel on any topic and gathers whatever loose scraps of information to support that? I have a feeling it's the latter.
If it provides jobs, helps tool our industry, allows us to gain a vital knowledge base, and equips our troops with decent equipment at the end of the day... what exactly then is the problem?
Spending money just to get guns, or spending money to create jobs, gain knowledge, and tool our industry and get guns for our troops... which is a better use of our limited resources?
More then enough indeed has been said. -
Not ony that , it is in svc with with Homeland Security in Alabama:Originally posted by LazerLordz:The West Virginia PD had it for trials too, if I recall correctly. Not sure if the Cleveland PD SWAT adopted it too, require more indepth research.
PNG uses them too.
http://www.pnggossip.com/news/g050916.html
Defense Review's article on the SAR21
Link
http://www.exoticarms.com/Pages/Weapons.html
And Bangladesh SF
http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:VSZWlpvYIB8J:www.bdmilitary.com/main/military/sof/specialforces.htm+SAR-21+%2BBangladesh&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=sg
And there is JV with an indian coy to sell large calibre guns and small arms for India's defence and security requirements.
We maybe see more of SG weapons in SA.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/239050/1/.html -
wow the SAR-21 is doing way better than i thought! Thanks for the heads up! Glock and SGtyran shd just cool it off.
Glock read what has been said. It clearly shows.
Peace.
-
In a way, I can agree with what Glock said about the M-16 being lighter. Its design is such that the weight of the weapon would be distributed between 2 hands nicely.
The Sar-21, being a more compact bullpup, has its weight distribution slightly centralised. Hence, the right hand seems to be support the bulk of the weight. Hence, to me, when I last handled it, also felt a bit weighty.
For that, I guess I would blame it on the fact that I was unfamiliar with the Sar-21 and was more used to the M-16.
What I REALLY liked about SAR-21 is the speed one can really acquire and aim steadily at a target.
What I REALLY liked about the M-16, is the combat loading. Empty magazine, insert fresh mag, E-spring and carry on firing. -
Agree. Loading when prone already quite difficult especially when you lie on your webbing...bullpup i think i expose enough of my arm to get shot heh.Originally posted by Shotgun:What I REALLY liked about SAR-21 is the speed one can really acquire and aim steadily at a target.
What I REALLY liked about the M-16, is the combat loading. Empty magazine, insert fresh mag, E-spring and carry on firing.
But SAR21 esures you dont get shot cause you already shot the guy who intends to shoot you. -
Guys, gimme a break ! You are scrapping the bottom of the barrel to support the notion that the SAR 21 is a sought after weapon.
Originally posted by LazerLordz:
The West Virginia PD had it for trials too, if I recall correctly. Not sure if the Cleveland PD SWAT adopted it too, require more indepth research.
PNG uses them too.
http://www.pnggossip.com/news/g050916.html
This post dated 6 Sep 2005 stated that 3 nos. of SAR-21s were for the PNG police to trial for one year.
And Bangladesh SF
http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:VSZWlpvYIB8J:www.bdmilitary.com/main/military/sof/specialforces.htm+SAR-21+%2BBangladesh&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=sg
This article started off saying that “Very little info is available concerning…” Bangladesh’s weapons & then added that among weapons that the Bangladesh SF “ likely “ uses are SAR21s, AK47s, MP5s, Uzis ……….and “ other sophisticated weapons that are locally produced by the Bangladesh Ordnance FactoryBOF ” We shud think that we not in the same category as BOF ! -
How do you know that the local produced weapon will be more expensive than buying off the shelf?
How do YOU know ?
As long as our numerical requirement for the particular weapons is high enough( achieveing economical of scale), the fixed cost (R&D,production line etc) plus variable cost will be lower than buying off the shelf foreign weapon with their high profit margin!!!
Right, but how high is our numerical requirement compared to other armed forces ? We have a bigger requirement than other armed forces in countries which are developing their own weapons ?
Next is , where does the all the money go to if SG govt bought weapon from locally produced ST Engg's weapons?
High % of it will remain in SG, whereas buying off the shelf foreign weapon will be the complete opposite, so this good for our current account i.e. better economically for SG!!
If you read my post , a high percentage actually goes to foreign companies in some very high value SG developed systems such as the Bionix and Primus. Also , the Terrex was not developed by STK but by Timoney !
This exactly why one condition of military aids to Israel by the US is that it could only be used to buy US produced weapon, they dun even mind they are Israeli deisgn weapon as long it is produced in US.
This will ensure the majority of the money of the military aids to Israel actually stay in US!!!
Does Singapore have a large political lobby in the USA as Israel does ? Obviously no.
The other benefits is job creation, not only just employees of the ST Engg but also the supporting industrial that support ST Engg activities, this create ripple effect for the economy of SG( Keynesian economical theory).
This is why countries like Turkey insist that their weapon purchased include ToT and licensed production in Turkey.
ST Engg is one lof the argest compamy in SG which contribute the GDP growth of SG and with their export of weapons plus the use dual use technologies for commercial purposes, increase foreign funds by means of profits that are sent back to SG.
Just look at this latest report:
http://www.stengg.com/pressroom/press_releases_read.aspx?paid=1068
Last thing , the govt is major sharehoder of ST Engg, so whatever they earn from the sales( local or foriegn), majority of the profits go back to the govt by mean of dividends and taxes , is it not?
Even if ST Engg is totally private company, locally produced weapons will still benefits SG economically regardless.
All the above, I am only talking abt the economical benefits from buying locally produced weapons, there is also the strategic benefits which you will not get by buying foreign produced weapon off the shelf.
So which weapons systems we have produced gives us strategic benefits ?
Enough said.
DonÂ’t give up now. -
I just don't get you Glock... are you really serious about this? Or are you just deliberately being silly?
Hey a tip: use proper quote tags so people can tell which are your points and which are somebody else's. If not it actually looks like you had suddenly flipped flopped on your position or worse, developed a split personality. Here, you can learn from this post:How do YOU know ?
Try some basic common sense and seeing the big pictureÂ… it works.
More seriously, I am rather interested to see how YOU know your positions are valid. Because you have failed to put just any proper justification for them at all, what it seems you are doing here is to raise questions (and mostly silly ones that can be avoided with a bit of common sense) on your opponents questions.
But yes, can you prove that procuring foreign arms would be more cost-effective (just like your armoured 5-tonner mathematics perhaps?) and more beneficial to our economy, security, strategic position and technological ability then local procurement of what systems we had so far? If not then you should really shut up, because you jolly be quiet until you have have a better idea instead of talking about things you barely understand.Right, but how high is our numerical requirement compared to other armed forces ? We have a bigger requirement than other armed forces in countries which are developing their own weapons ?
Â…
Whatever are you talking about? Can you at the very least do a bit of your homework before posting something like this in here? Do you even know basic economics?
The numerical requirement (high or low) is made relevant by locally proportional demand and supply. Just because Gardenia cannot match the whole bread production and supply of the USA does not mean that it would not be justified, nor profitable, for it to bake bread for local requirements.
And more importantly you not considering other tangibles and intangibles that people have raised. If you insist on only seeing one possible track of justification, then please donÂ’t blame people for failing to convince you.Next is , where does the all the money go to if SG govt bought weapon from locally produced ST Engg's weapons?
Are you deliberately asking silly questions or are you really that selectively ignorant? I find such the level of ignorance demostrated in your one-liner rebuttals rather difficult to believe.
Please do use a bit of common senseÂ… if you pay the auntie at a local kopitiam $3 for your ba chor mee when does it ultimately have end up?
If you went to Japan and paid the Sushi uncle 500 yen (converted from your SGD) for sushiÂ… when does it ultimately end up?
On to other things:
Are people scraping the bottom of the barrel to suggest the SAR-21 is well accepted? They are just pointing out that we are not the only ones to see value in the weapon, which is quite a remarkable achievement given the saturated small arms market, that the rifle was primarily designed first and foremost for local requirements, and never intended to be an export world-beater.
Consider that many supposedly brilliant small arms designs never made it out of local borders despite attempts to foray into export. Why so harsh on the SAR?
If we fail to export other systems like the Primus or CIS .50 does it mean that they are primarily flawed? Of course then the question shifts to if we should be making our own stuff even if they are not fundamentally inadequate weaponsÂ… -
So which weapons systems we have produced gives us strategic benefits ?
You would think that not being at the mercies of the whims and wanes of other peopleÂ’s stuff is not a vital strategic benefit in itself.
Do we not bake our own bread just because it does not make us any stronger then eating somebody elseÂ’sÂ’ bread?
You are not considering the big picture, and are instead asking people to follow you down to the small viewÂ… worse when the validity of that small view is dependent on the big picture?
And you seem to be unduly harsh on the notion of R&D as wellÂ… the only weapons systems that I can think that provide their user with immediate strategic benefits would be stuff like the F-22 or nuclear weapons.
I think you are not entirely clear on the definition of “strategic”, and I think you are basing your point on a very shallow view of the matter.
By what that has been said in many posts, it is quite clear enough that they are already pointing out the strategic benefits of local R&D.
A strategy for national survival does not just stop at weapons aloneÂ… the ability to grasp your capabilities, technologies and logistics in times of crisis are equally important to the strategy of national survivalÂ… of which I think it has already been pointed out clearly enough how local R&D contributes to our national survival in very pragmatic ways, as well as providing peacetime economic benefits.
In many martial arts where a lot of the techniques learned are spent on conflict avoidance or emphasizing advantages in situations even before the first blow is launched. Your self-defence strategy consists a lot more then just giving and blocking blows, it should be an entire system that reaches out even before the blow is struck.
This means that if making mere weapons provide strategic benefits not related to its basic functionÂ… it would still be well and justified to do so. In fact not doing so would be folly.
So if you can booster your own economy, security, and technological prowessÂ… at the same time while spending locallyÂ… indeed why buy off the shelf when you can develop similar capabilities and even more benefits by doing your own homework? It would seem rather silly not to do so. We do not burn down Creative just because Microsoft is bigger and more widespread.
So what is your point (or idea)? That unless we cannot come up with something like the F-22 or something really special R&D has no place with us and we ought to be doing some rather wild things like dissolving the local arms industry and subjecting our defence needs to the profit margins and supply trains of foreign developers?
Indeed, what exactly are you suggesting? Your cost-saving ideas donÂ’t seem to save any costs- in fact they would lead to financial and security disastersÂ… which seem to me very strategic things.
You said that our resources are being wasted on R&D- well people have showed quite clearly that R&D is actually adding to our resources and economy. Conversely they pointed out the detrimental effects of an overt reliance on the shelf for our arms needs.
You questioned if there were any strategic rationale for local weapons procurement- well they already pointed out the strategic reasons as well.
So what exactly is your concern?DonÂ’t give up now.
IÂ’m going to take some time to address that one-liner.
Do you think you have the right to ask people to try harder to convince you when you have yet to convince anybody you are putting up even anything proper to be discussed? The fact that some choose to reply with such detailed and well-thought out information to your shoddy posts is quite remarkable to begin with.
In the court of law, would you dare to present your kind of defence versus what was raised? Please do not be mistaken- merely posting a one-liner or abrupt, dismissive sentence in response to all the responses and questions raised do not help your standing in here at all. At most it is just personal balm to your ego- but I think most people see through that.
If you want people to give you a break, then respect some basic laws of reason to begin with. Even if you find you canÂ’t win all you need to do is to stop posting- not post some one liner as an ego-boost but utterly fails to dislodge the weight of your opponentÂ’s arguments- it is for your own good. Not to mention drives you further down a path of error that you might someday look back on and consider yourself a fool. If a man batters his head against the wall of logic and reality, guess who suffers and becomes insane in the end?
That was not an insult or challenge- please so some serious soul searching before your next post. If not, I really see no need for anybody in here to change their position or rebuttals to what you just postedÂ… because what you basically posted were your instinctive reactions, and not well thought out rebuttals at all. Any animal can scream and lash out when challenged, but it is men who make reason in response and submit themselves to reason. Which one are you? -
At the end of the day, I can only conclude that it seems your entire position in here is one of irrational pessimism on anything pertaining to local arms procurement mixed up with a wilful ignorance of facts and selective viewing of reason and logic. What’s more amazing your proposed solutions to the “problems” are worse then the perceived problem itself. Off the shelf for already-established arms manufacturing capabilities? Armoured 5-tonners to fulfil the role of the multipurpose Terrex? Seeing world wide validation as a necessary requirement for our own defence needs? Is there anything more amazing you haven’t yet suggested? Might as well throw in acquisition of MJOLNIR mk. 6 armour while you’re at it.
But going from your dismal performance in other threadsÂ… could we really expect more? It is my main regret that you are stifling more productive and rational discussion in here with your antics.
HereÂ’s a piece of adviceÂ… if you really want to work for the good of this forum, please refrain from responding unless you are making coherent and solid arguments (if you so want to continue) instead of silly questioning that can be demolished with one step of basic logic.
ItÂ’s more for your own good then it really is for us. The fool rages but the wise man shows restraint. Who you want to beÂ… itÂ’s your choiceÂ… -
Is is YOU who claim that it is for more expensive!!!
Me: How do you know that the local produced weapon will be more expensive than buying off the shelf?
Glock: How do YOU know ?
So backup your claim with data, not gut feel!!!!
Me:As long as our numerical requirement for the particular weapons is high enough( achieveing economical of scale), the fixed cost (R&D,production line etc) plus variable cost will be lower than buying off the shelf foreign weapon with their high profit margin!!!
Glock:Right, but how high is our numerical requirement compared to other armed forces ? We have a bigger requirement than other armed forces in countries which are developing their own weapons ?
Have you ever taken a course like Intro to Economics or something similar???
Higher qty does not neccesary equate higher return, your assumption show that you have no economics background, that is this term called Diminishing Marginal Returns.
So let's say requirement is able to fully utilised a production line, the average cost will be lowest i..e. optimise.
Increasing of production factor/s so to increase qty does not equate lower average cost, that is why it mean by Diminishing Marginal Returns of factor.
So if we are producing at the optimise qty for that production line.and
FC + VC < Price of off the shelf weapon.
then it is worthwhile, that is only micro level and I am not even talking Macro level yet!!!
For small arms , our number are high enough to venture into it.
You can see many countires designing and producing their own arms, why???
For economical and strategic benefits!
Me : Next is , where does the all the money go to if SG govt bought weapon from locally produced ST Engg's weapons?
High % of it will remain in SG, whereas buying off the shelf foreign weapon will be the complete opposite, so this good for our current account i.e. better economically for SG!!
Glock: If you read my post , a high percentage actually goes to foreign companies in some very high value SG developed systems such as the Bionix and Primus. Also , the Terrex was not developed by STK but by Timoney !
It is all depend on the level of indigenous part, if 10% is indigenous in term money value, that mean 10% will remain in SG.
Labour cost of assembly will also remain in SG.
Foreign off the shelf weapon will be 100% out of SG!!
( unless you have local middleman that take a cut like those in MY, then some do remain locally!!! )
As for Terrex, Timoney only provde us the drive train and suspension, if it is by fully design by Timoney , then why STK is marketing Terrex and not Timoney???
You dun understand the example that I have given, the point is to have job creation, prevent flow of funds out the country i.e. better current account.
Me: This exactly why one condition of military aids to Israel by the US is that it could only be used to buy US produced weapon, they dun even mind they are Israeli deisgn weapon as long it is produced in US.
This will ensure the majority of the money of the military aids to Israel actually stay in US!!!
Glock : Does Singapore have a large political lobby in the USA as Israel does ? Obviously no.So which weapons systems we have produced gives us strategic benefits ?
All weapons locally produced gives us strategic benefits!!!!
1) the qty is unknown unless we leaked it out
2) the capability is unknown, for example we may have some secret stuff in it that we dun want other to know abt.
For example BMS, armour protection of BX etc.
3)we could design weapon that fully meet our needs, Primus, BX are good example.
4) we are less vulnerable when face with a arms embargo than a country that have no arms industry at all.
5) we could rammed up production in time of tension, and have more weapon much more quicker than buy off the shelf.
6) there are weapons that you could not buy off the shelf becos no one is selling them, for example NCW system , some electronics warfare stuff etc.
Such high tech and highly sensitive stuff are best produce by ourselves, but to produce such stuff , we must have certain the technology knowhow, w/o a good R&D and arms industry , we will not able to do so.
7) we hear all the time SG has silver bullets, secret projects etc, can we have such things if we buy everything off the shelf??? -
Aiyoh, all this is basic 1+1 stuff that even the Ah Beng in the street can tell you... if you don't even understand even the gist of this then you really have no place to be making big statements on the usefulness (or lack) of anything in here.
Can some people learn basic economic theory before making very big statements (or asking silly questions) in here?
At the end of the day it boils down to this... do our local procurement efforts provide us more benefits, all things considered then going off-the shelf?
If so then Glock really has no case to raise at all, even if he thinks he can pick a fault here and there (virtually all of which had been debunked) because he has yet be totally unable to raise an alternative course of action that would be better.
This is not to mention your proposed solutions are worse then the "disease" you seems to have so much problem with. Are you surprised that people in here reject many of your suggestions and ideas right off the bat? -
Whatever my opinions on the SAR-21, I am 100% for domestically producing arms and ammo.
The advantages are simply too numerous and obvious to mention.
My guess is that making our own weapons is cheaper but I have no proof either way.
However, Singapore is rich, we don't have to watch our pennies with defence spending. So what if making our own rifle costs more than buying? If it means we are one more step towards self-sufficiency in defence, then it is a "priceless" advantage. -
Sums it up very well.Originally posted by moca:Whatever my opinions on the SAR-21, I am 100% for domestically producing arms and ammo.
The advantages are simply too numerous and obvious to mention.
My guess is that making our own weapons is cheaper but I have no proof either way.
However, Singapore is rich, we don't have to watch our pennies with defence spending. So what if making our own rifle costs more than buying? If it means we are one more step towards self-sufficiency in defence, then it is a "priceless" advantage.
If we have our domestic military industry, any weapon fault or shortcoming CAN be corrected more promptly, rather than having to play games with other commercial firms and be held hostage to their timeframe.