Singapore's procurement blunders
-
Apologies to all, but I hate using quote tags as suggested.
Also, my apologies for keeping a few guys awake till 3 or 4 am judging by the timings of the posts – you guys don’t party do you ?
I notice that I receive lengthy & brash counter arguments from only a couple of members – what a relief. FYI , I did economics too – pretty boring stuff I must admit.
Nice touch about Gardenia, sushi, aunties at kopitiams, and of course the now infamous ba chok meeÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…. these titbits really add some good taste to this forum, although I really donÂ’t see their relevance in this forum. Please use better examples.
Oh, Tyra you think that Primus or CIS .50 are may be primarily flawed ? How so ? I personally think we shud have got off the shelf M109A5s or 6s and upgrade them. After all, the Primus is already half a M109 because of its chassis. I donÂ’t know anything about the CIS 50.
Having to manufacture locally small arms and ammo is definitely strategic. But my question is about the cost effectiveness of designing oneÂ’s own weapons systems, not about cost effectiveness of manufacturing locally. We manufactured M16s locally for a long time and were not dependant on supply of M16sÂ…..ditto for ammo.
Be honest with oneself -having 3 rifles sent to the PNG police force for 12 months trials and having the Bangladesh SF possibly having SAR21s is not something to shout about. I repeat that the standard issue SAR 21 in my opinion is an improvement over the M16S1 but there is a lot more STK can do to make it even better – and I am sure they will take steps to do so. I think we will see a lighter SAR 21 in the near future. However, I also think that an off the shelf rifle manufactured locally cud have achieved the same result of having a excellent weapon and having an assured supply of rifles.
R & D is absolutely necessary in the areas which gives us a decided strategic advantage or in areas where systems are truly not available to suit our very unique requirements. You have to develop it yourself.
Reasons have already been given that in terms of economies of scale , our locally developed systems are likely not cheap - remember that I studied econs too – I don’t need a lesson in econs …its boring.
Timoney designed the Terrex based on specifications from STK. However, TimoneyÂ’s key unique expertise is in drive trains. It is common to get someone to design and build something to your specs and you market it under your brand name. You will have to ask Timoney and STK regarding their commercial arrangement for the marketing for Terrex. There is no mystery here.
BMS is a good example of something really worth developing locally & spending R & D on.
BX appliqué armor is most likely MEXAs from Germany. Again, armor, engine, drive train, gun, firecontrol, suspension, track systems, cooling system etc for BX are bought off the shelf from foreign companies.
All pretty cut and dried , no tricks - I stick to my arguments. Keep an open mind so that our soldiers will get the best advantage in weaponry whether it be local or foreign. -
Read this article by Dr Tony Tan:
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/resources/speeches/2000/06sep00_speech.html
According to him,I should stress that all these (locally designed and produced) weapon systems were developed to meet the SAF's needs, and not to boost the bottom-line of our defence industry. If these systems find buyers overseas, then it is a bonus.
Bonus, are we doing well in that dept???
Janes world top 10 small arms exporter, ST Engg has been consistently around the world top 50th position largest Weapons producing company in term of revenue for number of years, I even read a report that said SG contributed abt 0.3% of the world arms production.
Not very impressive in absolute number but very impressive relatively to our size.
So what are the weapons that we produce that doing well??
(Remember that officially, SG never reveal any arms export , but we have seen reports and pix of weapons in other armed forces, so whatever I have here is certainly not the true picture)
Those are doing extremely well are
1) Ultimax 100( at least exported to 10 nations),
2) CIS 40 AGL(at least 4 nations)
3)FH88/2000 ( at least 2 nations, but the prominent part is that Turkey is licensed producing at least 700 of them)
4) CIS 40 GL (at least 6 nations, surprise!!!, this is popular for police and special force of some nations)
5) SAR80/SR88A This is not so obivous at least 6 nations are using them and we keep seeing them popping up in conflict of third world nations.
6) Armbrust (at least 4 nations)
7) Upgrade of F-5s ( 4 nations, mostly with collaboration with Elbit)
8 ) This is main eanrer I think , exports of small arms ammo, mortar rounds,large cal ammo and used to be one of the top exporter of APM etc.
ST Engg is the major player here.
There are many other not as successful , but I could be wrong due to lack of info. -
Let's take the Primus SPH example.
Let's talk about the gun first.
FACT: WE ALREADY BUILD EXCELLENT 155MM HOWITZERS.
The STK family of 155mm 52 calibre guns are pretty impressive performers.
Since we already have very competent 155mm howitzers, is there still a huge R&D cost for the "gun" part of the Primus? I don't think so.
And if we had bought the M109, we'll be introducing a 155mm gun into the SAF arty system that require different training, and different spare parts. A waste for a country that already produces superb 155mm howitzers.
The chassis next.
FACT: WE ALREADY BUILD TRACKED CHASSIS.
We've already built at least 2 very successful tracked vehicles like the Bionix and the ATTC. So with the gained experience, it must've been no rocket science to develop a chassis for the SPH from M109 blueprints.
The next generation.
So what if SAF's neext requirement of SPH calls for a 52-calibre 155mm gun? Are we again going to look for another off-the-shelf 155mm SPH? If we do, we're gonna end up with many different types of gun and chassis with absolutely no parts commonality.
But since we built the Primus, we can simply build a longer chassis and put int a longer 52-calibre gun that WE BUILT OURSELVES.
The parts commonality, reduced training hours, no lack of parts and support, in the end will be "priceless".
Besides, we are not so poor we can't splurge a bit of money to build our own toys. Furthermore, there is always a chance of foreign sales to offset the R&D costs.
None of this would've been possible if we did not start, mantain and support our own defense industry. It is because right from the start, we built our FH88 instead of buying an off-the-shelf gun that made it possible for us to build world-class weapons instead of waiting for someone else to build it and then sell it to us. -
Please do not be of the illusion that you do not deserve what you get in here... but I see you have improved the general quality of your posts as well as quietly backed off some of your more dead-end positions despite offically claiming to stick to your guns so that's an improvement I guess.
For the sake of everyone, use quote tags. I mean if you expect your posts to be answered at the very least you have a duty of sorts to make it readable. If not well... let's just say it's pretty obvious who it reflects on.Nice touch about Gardenia, sushi, aunties at kopitiams, and of course the now infamous ba chok meeÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…. these titbits really add some good taste to this forum, although I really donÂ’t see their relevance in this forum. Please use better examples.
Is it any surprise that you don't see their relevance given you found economics boring and hence no surprise demostrated an appaling lack of skill in them currently. Apparently you have forgotten even your most basic lessons.
And a nice try to dismiss Gardenia, sushi and what other simple examples I brought up to illustrate the point as irrelevant... are you trying to imply that you lack the ability to understand how simple examples like this relate to your inherently flawed questions?
I think you actually do, but prehaps are hoping to sidestep the issue. But it seems that any honest fellow here can see their relevance to many of the things you raised, for had they been truly irrelevant or bad points, they would hardly be explored in real world hard examples in the posts by others that followed.
Why do you insist on shooting yourself in the foot?However, I also think that an off the shelf rifle manufactured locally cud have achieved the same result of having a excellent weapon and having an assured supply of rifles.
Same physical results prehaps, but then again I think others have already mentioned the numerous other advantages of local procurement for such a bread-and-butter piece of equipment that ultimately makes the option... given we already have the experience and means, quite a bit more attractive then merely manufacturing some elses' design.
And of course, one also mentioned some time back that as it went by our recent history, even manufacturing an off-the-shelf system presented issues that were often out of our hands to manage, ending with us having to suck thumb.
There are many ways to skin a cat, but either way about it the SAR-21 is a pretty decent solution to our small-arms upgrading requirements. Should the SAF implement the issuing of various different variants to suit the various needs? It seems to be part of the idea of the 3G transformation, so it's a wait and see thing.
At the end of the day, it only makes sense to take the course of action that brings the most benefits to you.Oh, Tyra you think that Primus or CIS .50 are may be primarily flawed ? How so ? I personally think we shud have got off the shelf M109A5s or 6s and upgrade them. After all, the Primus is already half a M109 because of its chassis. I donÂ’t know anything about the CIS 50.
You seem to make the same misake of misreading points, making the same error as the "exploding barrels" post. That aside no I do not think the Primus or CIS .50 are primarily flawed in any way. Please take the effort to comprehend before posting.
And it's also quite apparent you did not do any homework on the Primus before going about what you "personally" think... the SAF did consider getting M109s and many other SPH systems off the shelf before the decision was made to develop the Primus.
The story goes like this:
"The idea for a self-propelled howitzer within the SAF was developed in the early 1990s, with the aim of providing better fire support to the armour brigades in the Combined Arms Divisions. This new weapon system would require the ability to keep pace with the high tempo of armoured operations, while providing the range, firepower and accuracy that the artillery is renowned for. The 155mm self-propelled howitzer was seen as the obvious choice.
The decision to develop the Primus was made after a market survey in 1995 and 1996 of some of the world's best self propelled guns from the United States (M109 Paladin), Britain (AS90 Braveheart), Japan (Type 75) and Russia (2S3M1) found them either too heavy or too wide for local terrain. They were known to have a lot of fire power, were highly mobile and very survivable but they were also very heavy, mostly in the range of 50 tons, and the SAF needed something lighter. The SAF needed the Primus to weigh less than 30 tons and be no wider than 3 metres, for it to move across bridges and through the local vegetation. Hence the decision was made to develop a completely new self-propelled howitzer.
Leveraging on its experience with designing, developing and producing various towed artillery systems (the FH-88 and FH-2000) for the SAF, ST Kinetics, together with DSTA began the development of the Primus in earnest in 1996."
The SAF was looking for a "pocket" SPH of sorts that could fight closer to the front then conventional SPH units as well as keep within the rather stringent size and weight class requirements of the SAF (a rule we made an exception for their Leo2s in response to the northern MBTs).
As it went there is currently no SPH system in the world that neatly fits this bill and hence the Primus was born.
The C.I.S .50 was also born in a smiliar way... the SAF decided the M2HB used back then was getting a tad unwieldy.
Does that answer your questions?
Anyway good points by Moca on ST arty, given ST makes some of the best arty pieces in the world and it's only another step to expand those competencies to SPH systems.
In many ways one should be able to see the Primus coming from ways off, given ST's ability in making great arty pieces it would be only logical for them to expand into the SPH role when the time comes to it. -
5) SAR80/SR88A This is not so obivous at least 6 nations are using them and we keep seeing them popping up in conflict of third world nations.
I remember reading somewhere the Yanks found themselves on the wrong side of those rifles in Somalia... so it's interesting how it got into their hands. -
Okay i must put in my two cents worth in reply too but some of the stuff already mentioned by SGTR and Gary and Moca
1) SAR 21: Developing our own line of AR will eventually move on to the idea that all infantry weapons of our army will be locally produced and locally design including GL. I think this is an aim by SAF.
Not only does it have economic advantages but also that the firearm is ergo enough for Asian users. IE Trigger pull, length, recoil, dimension are -ideal- for smaller size asian vs larger size angmoh.
Eg running around with M249 will shack us out...hence we have the lighter gpmg and ultimax.
It will also us achieve total independence from small arms manufacturers. Why even bother to keep paying them money for license? I'm sure you dont want it to be like Steyr and Malaysia. They withdrew the license and our neighbour has to source for another weapon. (correct me if i'm wrong but that's how i remembered it being)
2) CIS 50. Our hmg is very reliable. Yeah it sucks during training but that's because of the lousy training ammo that we are giving. Our CIS has a unique ability and that is we designed a unique ammo SLAP to go along with our local gun. You cant do that equally well if you just buy an off the shelf weapon license. Worst still, you make an ammo you cannot sell because it is tailored to a gun that you do not own.
3) Primus. We indeed trialed all the world famous SPH...but they all have something in common - too big, too heavy and with that fuel guzzler. SGtyran mentioned about this abit but i elaborate more. US vehicles are famous for being this(fuelburner). We indeed locally produce the M109chassis. I'm very sure we didnt import the body cause i check the right sources heh. We bought systems from all over and put it into one custom vehicle. The obvious reason is that we get the best stuff from each specialised manufacturer and intergrate them into our own. This is what makes it so good.
One more thing our DSO, DSTA are not sleeping. I bet you that it's more than it meets the eye for our primus. It's a 155mm 39 cal gun..its mobile.small and yet it's damn accurate. I have seen the thing up close. We build that thing here(external) the rest we most definitely installed and upgraded by ourselves. So what's the diff between buying M109 and installing/upgrading?
-easier to replace attrition losses
-easier to upgrade / troubleshoot
-external requirements fits our bill entirely
-secrecy in real capabilities and numbers.(Very important)
To add in. The gun for Primus is very similar to the Pegasus. It's pretty obvious we made it to be almost identical. (ToT without any legal issues)
For Glock, yes it might be said we purchased FCS, and parts from other places. I'm very sure however, we only bought a few to study/copy and manufacture the real parts ourselves and then say yeah it's this company's part blah blah. Our DSTA/DSO has been meddling with such stuff for decades already(read their published book to celebrate their anniversary). I dont believe we cannot make something top of the line ourselves. Dont forget, FCS and other high-tech stuff are only sold to others when they become second grade. That's what our R&D are for. To make and keep up with top-line equipment. -
4) BX - when the bx first came out everyone jumped. It's the pride of Armour. It still will be and even myself i hope i get to convert into that machine. Dont forget BX is a leap from our ultra which is ALUMINIUM heh. BX is a good solution to replace enmas at low cost. It is definitely not feasible to keep buying new armour vehicles if we have condemned ones.
We can see the BX is a testing platform from where our ST side gain a plethora of experience in armour vehicle production. Hence why you have BX2. It's clear sign of where SAF is confidently heading.
5) Terrex. SAF has not made any plans to make use of the terrax so far. So i dont see a need to speculate how good/bad it performs for us. After all it's for export up to this point. SAF may purchase an improve/modified terrax in the future to replace the aging V200s and as well as a general vehicle for the PDF to boost their defence capabilities.
6) Ammo we make our own Ammo. This is a very important and crucial fact. Only us truely knows what comes out from our barrels when it's warshots being fired. We make everything from 9mm to 155mm. With that we have QC and reliability.
Look at our varied 40mm series. We are even making the ammunition for Metal Storm and look at what that thing can do. I'm sure we are developing Xmm ammo to suit our future LT and more varied ammo to suit our IFVs 25/30mm.
CV90 was a damn good IFV and i wonderd when we didnt purchase that but got BX instead. Now, i feel our BX is a very good student for its class. I'm most impressed by CV90's ammo series. I drool over those and i am very sure ST will come up with something equally *smart* and be able to intergrate it into our BXs simply because we make everything ourselves.
Regards -
Actually CIS 50HMG is a much better design than the old M2HB.
Advantages:
1) Lighter( 30kg vs 38kg)
2) double feed ( better use of ammo)
3) Quick Change Barrel (See below)
4) semi and full auto firing mode( full auto only)
M2HB has a problem with barrel change where it need time-consuming procedure of headspace and timing ajustment, only recently came out with QCB (Quick Change Barrel) kits were introduced.
So if I am current user of M2 and thinking of getting the QCB (Quick Change Barrel) kits for my old M2HB, I would rather buy a brand new CIS 50HMG.
So far, I only see that it was exported to Indonesia, perhaps current M2 users dun see a need for replacement or perhaps ST Engg has not fully established in their mind especially in the west.
I do hope that US army will choose the Ultimax 100 Mk 4 for their Minimi replacement, then ST Engg will be more established as a arms producers instead of just providing arms mainly to 3rd world nations.
PS: Lastly I want add is that why we are successful in selling to 3rd world nations is I believe becos our weapons is cheap compared to western equivalent.
So when Glock said that Locally produced weapons is more expensive than off the self weapon, I wondered ST Engg so stupid to sell those weapons at a loss!!!
-
Well.. I agree with lots of stuff u guys said.. but our locally produced arms cheaper? I dun think so leh..Originally posted by gary1910:PS: Lastly I want add is that why we are successful in selling to 3rd world nations is I believe becos our weapons is cheap compared to western equivalent.
So when Glock said that Locally produced weapons is more expensive than off the self weapon, I wondered ST Engg so stupid to sell those weapons at a loss!!!
-
It's not cheaper....if you consider the whole cost of such an ecosystem. The number of people tied down in this endeavour....Originally posted by siaokao:Well.. I agree with lots of stuff u guys said.. but our locally produced arms cheaper? I dun think so leh..
The next generation of tracked chassis, howitzers will require even more resources because the competitors(the ones our neighbors buy from) are way ahead in R&D with their comparative and competitive advantages.
Compare the technology in AHED 8x8 with Terrex.
Also the counters to other ways of bypassing these conventional weapons/methods.
Difficult for me to reconcile strategic objectives for an island nation with small population. Of course immigration will help. -
Let's say SAF is deciding whether to buy TAR-21 from Israel or get STK to develop an equivalent - the SAR-21.
Here's the maths:
Assuming each TAR-21 cost USD 1,000. We buy 100,000 units. SAF would have spent USD100 million with an Israeli company. That money is gone, kiss goodbye. Adios.
If let's say making the SAR-21 costs TWICE as much as buying the TAR-21, SAF would have spent USD 200 million for the same number of rifles.
BUT THAT MONEY STAYS IN SINGAPORE.
And STK will use that money to R&D more stuff that will benefit SAF. And Singaporeans will have jobs. And Singapore's technological edge will remain sharp.
And if we get an order from overseas, not only did we keep that initial USD 200 million in Singapore, we may generate even more money into Singapore from the sales.
I didn't study economics, but studying sometimes makes people stupid as they can only see the obvious and completely lack imagination.
Anyway, the fact that producing at home is definitely more expensive than buying needs to be proven, so please don't just repeat it mindlessly like a mantra.
Even if producing at home is 100 times more expensive, the money stays at home. -
Bravo for moca's post.
But if you want to know the per-unit cost of the SAR-21... one of the original design requirements was that it had to be cheaper then an M-16 fitted out with the same capabilities (scope, LAD).
Hence expensive MARS sights (which cost almost as much, if not more then the gun they are mounted on) that the Isrealis are willing to spurge on their standard battle rifle are certainly out of the question for our standard infantry rifle requirements... though of course this rule has been broken with the other specialized variants of the SAR, which can mount anything.
But in terms of equipping the average conscript population with a weapon providing scope and LAD capabilites, the SAR is quite a bargain.
Why are you comparing an advanced technology demonstrator with a current conventional design? Do you seriously think AHEDs are going to become widespread anywhere in the near future? How long did it take for the M1 tank to be finally sold?Originally posted by Fairyland:It's not cheaper....if you consider the whole cost of such an ecosystem. The number of people tied down in this endeavour....
The next generation of tracked chassis, howitzers will require even more resources because the competitors(the ones our neighbors buy from) are way ahead in R&D with their comparative and competitive advantages.
Compare the technology in AHED 8x8 with Terrex.
Also the counters to other ways of bypassing these conventional weapons/methods.
Difficult for me to reconcile strategic objectives for an island nation with small population. Of course immigration will help.
Or is it not better to learn what we need from this, and incorporate the relevant parts to our own needs instead of importing the whole system instead of waiting for them to hatch their egg?
You are missing out entirely the regenerative advantages of local procurement efforts. As it had been pointed out before, the money that you spend on local procurement ends up within your economy, as well as providing for local employment, technological advancement, security and what have you not.
On the flip side, getting all your stuff just to get the latest toys off the shelf means that the money is sunk into foreign companies. At the same time the thing you got does not benefit you much beyond its sheer function, and it might not even be a perfect fit for your needs.
Imagine Ah Seng and Ah Beng are both looking for a new PC. Ah Seng decides to buy the latest branded model from courts while Ah Beng decides to learn how to D.I.Y a PC. Two years later, they both need a new PC again, but Ah Beng, having known how the PC works and what exactly he needs has the knowledge to get the best deal for what he really wants to do, while Ah Seng is stuck with buying the latest branded model from courts again with a lot of features he does not even use.
Also, when the PCs both break downÂ… Ah Beng is able to get it back up faster because he knows what exactly to do to fix it while Ah Seng is stuck with having to send it for servicing, or worse, even pay for service charges and other stuff when the warranty expires.
Of course this is not to knock buying off the shelfÂ… but by and by I think the SAF has been rather shrewd about their arms procurement. What that is better to make, we makeÂ… and what that is better to buy we buy. You donÂ’t see them getting stuck in a rut and saying that each and every system needs to be entirely homemade or either bought off the shelf.
Case in point, when the MBT requirement became pressing ST didnÂ’t decide to launch into an indigenous MBT project before looking into what we could get off the shelf. Also given that we have had no experience with MBT building and technologies, such a move to go indigenous would be risky at best (like IndiaÂ’s own failed adventure) and we ended up getting refurbished Leopard 2s.
Same for our ships and subsÂ… we didnÂ’t launch into an ambitious ship building project until we were sure we knew what we were doing, and we certainly didnÂ’t try an Australian adventure with sub building because we knew we still had a lot to learn.
If anything it seems ST has been rather conservative and prudent with what they had developed. All the systems developed were already those that they had considerable confidence in making them work uniquely for Singaporean needs after having learnt the ropes form established systems. If anything their creations have more been innovations of existing concepts to fit our contexts and needs rather then outright inventions for national pride. -
Most of the time when one is abnormally defensive on something, one is likely to have a vested interest in it.
-
But it always beats not making sense at all or relying on ignorance-as-defence I suppose.Originally posted by qpicanto:Most of the time when one is abnormally defensive on something, one is likely to have a vested interest in it.
All men have causes and vested interests... just that some positions are more worthy then others -
Aiyah It is better for us to buy some and make some.
Most of you advocating purchasing off the shelf only look at stats and videos *wah say, so zhai!* Have already shiok ah and brag around.
Local R&D is very good. How many times must i stress. You can never buy top-rated stuff. (F-22) You will always procure 2nd grade.
That's what SAF=DSO=DSTA is for. To make top grade stuff fitted for our needs. Let me ask you how much do you know about the Primus vs how much do you know about the Pzh2000 and Paladin?
Go read about the DSO 30 year anniversary book in your nearest library THEN come talk here about how "lousy" our R&D are. I'm not kidding.
Pish. -
Originally posted by glock in Terrex-What's up?:
Members shud not suppress the genuine feedback about the weight of the SAR 21 - there are many who do not have the opportunity to handle other fine weapons offered. One just has to handle a G36, F2000, Tavor, SCAR L etc to know that the SAR 21 is heavy. If it is heavy, it is heavy.
We shud keep an open mind and criticize with the view to improve our lot in the SAF. We cud do with a lighter SAR 21 especially when we make an honest comparison with what is available in the market.
I think no one can really admit that the SAR 21 is really much better than the other modern rifles on offer. As to it being cheaper , no one really knows as any accountant can tell you - there are liars, damned liars and ............
As to keeping the money in Singapore , again really how much we do not know as many components & parts are sourced from foreign companies.....Again, my belief is that we can live without having to design our own small arms................it is almost certain that the resources spent do not commensurate with the benefits derived. The SAR 21 can easily be substituted with any of the modern rifles such as the G36 which can be locally manufactured especially if some think that cost is not an issue, if iit is really more costly in the first place. -
How come you like to bump up old threads? Nvm, let's try to tone down hostilities for everyone's sake.
Also, most of what you posted is more apporiate in the "procurement blunders" thread... why did you post there (lack of incriminating counter-posts?) I'll help you shift your posts.
I do not think people in here are supressing the genuine feedback. A lot of the members here are indeed giving their own feedback from their own handling of the weapon, having used it, shot it, and lived with it outfield.Originally posted by glock:Members shud not suppress the genuine feedback about the weight of the SAR 21 - there are many who do not have the opportunity to handle other fine weapons offered. One just has to handle a G36, F2000, Tavor, SCAR L etc to know that the SAR 21 is heavy. If it is heavy, it is heavy.
We shud keep an open mind and criticize with the view to improve our lot in the SAF. We cud do with a lighter SAR 21 especially when we make an honest comparison with what is available in the market.
As it stands, the weight issue is not a big highlight for many of us here and the current batches who train with the weapon. The weight issue was highlighted heavily in the early batches of troops who converted from heavy use of the M-16S1 to that weapon.
So I'm not sure removing kevlar plates, reducing barrel lengths, using lightweight (but very expensive) MARS sights and what have you not is really reflective of the current opinion of the SAF grunt. As it stands even reviewers of firearms who have handled plenty of weapons in their day don't really have an issue to pick with the SAR-21's weight (certainly not the Jane's reviewers)... most of the talk about the weight has an indeed has, come locally, and even that is being reversed by the opinion of the current batch.
So is the SAR-21 really heavier? Only if you choose to compare it against the most lightweight of designs but in terms of 5.56mm ARs is of an average weight.
Weight reduction was not one of the main issues highlighted by the ADF when they tested the first few marks of the weapon... they highlighted a lot of issues which were fixed in the current mark that is in widespread use, but weight apparently never made the list as a big issue.
If you want an idea of an needlessly heavy infantry battle rifle, try the British SA80 that ended up with its weight because of inherent design flaws that required counterbalances and renforcements that jacked up the weapon weight with no utility to its function at all.I think no one can really admit that the SAR 21 is really much better than the other modern rifles on offer. As to it being cheaper , no one really knows as any accountant can tell you - there are liars, damned liars and ............
Nobody in here has any illusions of the SAR-21 being a super-rifle as if its sheer use would determine death or victory. But what its long-time users know (as opposed to those who just converted to learning the weapon) that it is a reliable and capable piece of kit that gets the job done.
If I really had to make a choice as to what rifle to go into battle with, it would certainly make my list and more then ready to be considered by our armed forces.
So you are telling us that our accountants cannot be trusted either way... if they are saving money they won't tell us and if they are losing money they won't tell us either.
But what a lot of people are saying, LOGICALLY, unless something really extraordinary happens it is highly UNLIKELY that the SAR-21 would be more expensive then its counterparts. In the same vein we don't really know how much those chinese AK clones really cost to make, but what we do know seems to point to them being a lot cheaper then say your... G36C.
Hence I believe the onus of proof the determine that the SAR-21 is really more expensive really lies on you then on the opposition.
Firstly, no matter how you add it up... having components sourced from other companies in your own design certainly still does not make a local unit more expensive then bying the whole thing piecemeal from a foreign developer.
As to keeping the money in Singapore , again really how much we do not know as many components & parts are sourced from foreign companies.....Again, my belief is that we can live without having to design our own small arms................it is almost certain that the resources spent do not commensurate with the benefits derived. The SAR 21 can easily be substituted with any of the modern rifles such as the G36 which can be locally manufactured especially if some think that cost is not an issue, if iit is really more costly in the first place.
I think you have made your belief clear, but I'm not sure how many of your points involve wishful thinking then actually cold hard facts.
What do you mean that "it is almost certain that the resources spend do not commensurate with the benefits derived"? Do you actually have the facts and figures to prove that or are you really going by your gut feel?
And you have to do a lot of homework to prove that... given a lot of people here have posted literally overwhelming evidence as to why local arms procurement (even small arms) are beneficial. We have yet to see anything of that sort in your posts except a lot of "i think", "it is my opinion", "it is almost certain", "it is my belief"... fair enough... now prove them.
I think moca put forward some rather convincing points as to why no matter how we add up, a locally manufactured design is still more economically viable then a license manufacture.
I think you have to do a lot more then say that accountants proving facts in favour of your opposition are "liars and damned liars" to really present anything in here... other then that your beliefs as much as we know what they are are just that: a religious statement of faith.
Indeed what is stopping others from assuming that you are just what you say accountants to be- a liar and a damned liar. At least we have the assurance that accountants will be taken to task and law if the numbers finally mistally too much, certainly decades of local arms procurement would have bled our nation much worse then the NKF... but a single person on the internet stating his beliefs without supporting them with proper facts and arguments I suspect... is far less trustworthy.
So we are still waiting... after so many posts... for you to really demostrate your beliefs convincingly. We know what you are saying... you have been saying it for countless posts but as it remains you have yet to seriously justify any of them on local arms procurement. -
If Turkey is license producing 700 of our 155s, its great news. When was this announced ? Please send the link or news clip. I have not come across this piece of news.
The Armbrust is not a local design. It is German and is licenced produced in Spore.
If we are already building chassis for armored vehicles, why stop at the Bionix ? Why not build a chassis for the Primus ? The simple reason is that it is cheaper and more cost effective to purchase an off the shelf M109 chassis which has been built in large numbers - economies of scale. It makes no sense to develop , design and build 50 odd units - the accountants are at work here.
How can the Primus be more compact than alternative SP guns when it shares the same chassis with the M109 ? The M109 with 39 calibre barrel weighs 27.5 tons and has 360 degree turret traverse. Our Primus has a limited turret traverse & is no lighter or smaller than a M109. The Primus offers no major advantage over an updated off the shelf M109. It wud be better to buy off the shelf & modify.
The CV90 cud easily have satisfied the SAF requirement for a AIFV instead of the Bionix. It is a world wide best seller. As explained , all major & critical systems in the Bionix are sourced overseas. The local portion was overall design, prototyping , integration, testing & finally manufacturing. It wud be a stretch to say that the Bionix is far superior to the CV90.
The Terrex is a good case of not needing a weapons system to be developed or designed locally to meet a so called " unique " SAF requirement. It is after all a rear echelon battle taxi at best.
An example cited was our F5s which were substantially modified with capabilities no other F 5 possesed. But the hardware such as radar & ECMs all come from foreign companies. We had the systems integration part only. The program gave the RSAF a real edge, not to mention the experience gained for local industry. But who made the big money ? The ones selling the hardware of course. This is not a procurement blunder. The point is that the bulk of the money does not really stay in Singapore anyhow for programs like this. Clearly many do not know the very substantial profit margins made by specialist hardware manufacturers. -
Glock, you never fail to amaze the rest of us with your logic. You simply ignore most of our points. Here's what i can say to your armoured vehicles references.
1) Bionix.
--We need a smaller, lighter vehicle than CV90. Yes it's a great AIFV, but the export version is still a 30mm cannon,we have this. We can easily get a larger cannon if we want to since we make our own.
--The bionix is lighter combat loaded(23 tons) than a CV90 (26 tons load/unloaded).
--It's shorter(<6m) by 50 cm compared to CV90of 6.47m . Thinner(<3m) by 30 cm of Cv90's 3m and has an equally powerful engine (550 hp). Bionix's range is longer (80 km).
--CV9040 has a 24 round magazine
--hydropneumatic suspension for better cross country rides.
--We write its instruction manual vs (we read the manual for CV90)
2) Primus
--You already said that our FCS is comparable to the M109A6 so that's nothing to complain about.
--The paladin is more than 3m wide. SAF requirement is <3m wide Chassis. Asking them to build 54 modified Paladin Chassis is definitely more expensive than us getting the blueprints and building our own.
--we do not need a 360 degree turret when we can simply turn the vehicle. SPHs fires their gun/rounds best facing forward anyway we arent mlrs.
-- It has the SAME power plant as the Bionix = ECS, cheaper to maintain + less training.
-- Most importantly, it uses only FOUR crew to run the whole machine. Paladin A6 needs SIX. THe older (upto A5) needed EIGHT. We use an auto loading system versus manual loading.
3) Terrax, we arent using the Terrax. I think we should stop bringing that up as how good/bad the terrax is.
If you ask why SAF needs less than 3m width and lighter AIFVs, you really arent in the field that requires it.
Turkey's FT-2000 howitzer is copied from our FH-2000 howitzer. -
...
I can't believe Glock actually posted all that...
Aiyoh Glock, can you at least do your homework before posting?
Not say I want to say you, but if you can get your Primus width and lengths mixed up... it shows that you are really going in blind, firing blindly, and hoping any round connects.
Maybe you can learn from Sun Tzu:
So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will win hundred times in hundred battles. If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you win one and lose the next. If you do not know yourself or your enemy, you will always lose.
In you case it could be:
So it is said that if you know your facts and know yourself, you will win hundred times in hundred [i]posts. If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you win one and lose the next. If you do not know yourself or your enemy, you will always lose. [/i] -
An example cited was our F5s which were substantially modified with capabilities no other F 5 possesed. But the hardware such as radar & ECMs all come from foreign companies. We had the systems integration part only. The program gave the RSAF a real edge, not to mention the experience gained for local industry. But who made the big money ? The ones selling the hardware of course. This is not a procurement blunder. The point is that the bulk of the money does not really stay in Singapore anyhow for programs like this. Clearly many do not know the very substantial profit margins made by specialist hardware manufacturers.
How come you are only relating to the R part of R&D and not the "D" part?
A lot of a weapons systems cost effectiveness also comes from its production run, which is crucial in justifying if it can recoup its development costs or not.
That said, we recoup a lot of our costs producing our own legal designs as opposed to license manufacture (of which the contract costs a bomb), and certianly more so then buying off the shelf.
For the systems we cannot yet manufacture like MBTs or fighter jets, we suck thumb have to by. But the advantages of being able to produce whatever we can legally produce without all the license haggling are immediately and dramatically obvious.
Hence each Primus and Bx.(assuming it is not even apples and oranges to begin with) certainly costs our currency a lot less then trying to procure a M109 or CV90.
Unless of course you want to accuse our accountants of being "liars and damned liars".
As I said, the SAF is quite smart about what it spends on equipment. Those that you have to buy, buy. Those that can make, make. Those that cannot make and cannot buy, for now put outside. They knew exactly what they were doing with the F-5s and Super Skyhawks, as well as the SAR21 and Bx.
The only real upgrade I question is our SM1 "tanks"... of which many felt should be tossed out entirely. But in retrospect it appeared they were waiting for the region to aquire proper MBTs before leapfrogging them properly... as opposed to us getting something and then they get something better.
You on the other hand, seem to have only one idea on how to do things, and ride it to the death. -
special post
-
Interesting. I didn't know that one of the design brief for the SAR-21 was for it to be cheaper than the M16S1 ... if they really did manage to do that than kudos to them. It certainly does put some design sacrifices into perspective.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Bravo for moca's post.
But if you want to know the per-unit cost of the SAR-21... one of the original design requirements was that it had to be cheaper then an M-16 fitted out with the same capabilities (scope, LAD).
Hence expensive MARS sights (which cost almost as much, if not more then the gun they are mounted on) that the Isrealis are willing to spurge on their standard battle rifle are certainly out of the question for our standard infantry rifle requirements... though of course this rule has been broken with the other specialized variants of the SAR, which can mount anything.
But in terms of equipping the average conscript population with a weapon providing scope and LAD capabilites, the SAR is quite a bargain.
Just as a comparison, India just purchased 3,070 Tavors for about US$20 million ... that works out to be about US$6,500 per piece, bloody expensive if one takes it that the deal is not a life cycle (incl. spares, training, etc) package but rather just plain purchase.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/02/tavor21-rifle-headed-into-service-with-indian-special-forces/index.php -
Interesting. I didn't know that one of the design brief for the SAR-21 was for it to be cheaper than the M16S1 ... if they really did manage to do that than kudos to them. It certainly does put some design sacrifices into perspective.
Indeed, when it was first announced... the SAF made it rather clear that it wanted a weapon that was cheaper per-unit-cost for it's M-16S1 replacement.
But it's not really hard to see how they managed to do it, by making the LAD and the scope internal to the design, they managed to save a lot on production costs. For the M-16 solution you have to get your sights and LAD seperate and doing things in that way cost more. In many ways this was a very unique solution for saving costs while equipping a conscript force with usually optional systems- by making them basic.
Of course there were the costs we saved from not having to wrangle with colt anymore. That was unpleasant for everyone.
How much does each SAR-21 cost the SAF? From my source in the DSTA, the SAF made a killing in savings as compared to if they had to consider other options, and that's why they green-lighted many other projects as well... any more then that he wasn't allowed to say anymore.Just as a comparison, India just purchased 3,070 Tavors for about US$20 million ... that works out to be about US$6,500 per piece, bloody expensive if one takes it that the deal is not a life cycle (incl. spares, training, etc) package but rather just plain purchase.
That's why I realize to a lot of Glock's posts it's useless to engage him in discussion because he fails to do a lot of his homework before walking into the forum with his case.
What's worse is that not only does he often ignore the points people make that are compelling, he sometimes totally misreads the posts to begin with... I wonder if he passed basic english sometimes, or if he's just trolling. In any case he's only building his opponent's position with his contuined antics, really if I were him I would just cut my losses and find a better thing to talk... but some people are simply badgers.
I'm not sure if each Tavor costs 6.5K piecemeal, as much as it is an expensive rifle that takes a no-holds-barred approach to its design. However once you factor in profit margins, support elements and what have you not each weapon can become an expensive piece of kit. License manufacturing comes with its own laws as well, and they are not cheap. The SAF isn't silly or hung up when it comes to small arms, having tried all of the options before.
By and by I also wonder why he's so hung up on the G36, considering the SAF looked at it some time back and more or less said to H&K "what's so great about it?".
Exactly, what's so "excellent" about it? At the end of the day I.J.A.R.- It's Just Another Rifle. -
HEY, nobody mentioned the AMX-10.
Is that piece of equipment still operational? How come they don't show it much on websites adn parades etc?
How many did we buy, and are they any good?
Are they classified?