Singapore's procurement blunders
-
We were quiet about the MBTs as well...
-
We will still CONTINUE to be quiet about the MBTs and AMX 10....
If interested PM relevant parties. Dont post public lar. -
What, what MBTs? Who said what?
-
No lar Leopard 2A4. Let's talk whether it is a procurement blunder.
-
Nah I think it's a good move on our part. They are nice tanks going for a real bargain, and a good check on the Twardies as well as providing an edge on them.Originally posted by CM06:No lar Leopard 2A4. Let's talk whether it is a procurement blunder. -
The twardies FCS and ammo dun play play...
The armour is thick thick one...ours? so so... up to this point anyway. -
Nothing classified.Originally posted by moca: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?
At least the details in Janes's or Wikipedia aren't.
A total of 24 AMX-10P and 22 AMX-10PAC90 were procured new built from GIAT of France in the early 1990s. -
the amx 10s were showcased in one of the early open army houses then kept out of sight ever since. The unit is the size of a bn(=) anyway. No recovery no support vehicles. It was a trial in a way. That's all i can say.
-
So are the AMX-10 a procurement blunder?
Are they still in service? Do they work well?
Indonesia also operates the AMX-10, so there should be nothing classififed about them. Indonesia had always operated amphibious tanks. They used to operate PT-76, maybe still do.
So if they invade us, we can expect either the PT-76 or the AMX-10 in the mix. -
I believe they were evaluating it as an m113 replacement. But in the end we got the Ultra upgraded i believe Mindef didnt proceed on with more of the AMX 10. Those babies are probably more expensive as well. In the end, we upgraded our SM1 and got the 25mm ows.. it's a much better and cheaper solution. Is it a blunder? Not really.. heh.Originally posted by moca:So are the AMX-10 a procurement blunder?
Are they still in service? Do they work well?
Indonesia also operates the AMX-10, so there should be nothing classififed about them. Indonesia had always operated amphibious tanks. They used to operate PT-76, maybe still do.
So if they invade us, we can expect either the PT-76 or the AMX-10 in the mix.
---
---
--
the rest no comments -
procurement blunder? I know!
the entire LMIS/SMIS/FMIS shebang.....
what a crock of sh*t!
speaking from the Air Farce point of view anyways..... don't know about the other 2 services. -
Here is what I have to say about CM06Â’s references.
1) Bionix.
The weight difference mentioned by CM06 between the CV 90 and Bionix is not significant.
We went from 13 tons in M113 to 23 tons in Bionix – that is significant !
CM06 conveniently forgot to add that the ground pressure of CV 90 is lower than the Bionix .
CM06 also conveniently forgot to add that the Bionix is higher than the CV 90.
CM06 conveniently used the CV9040 for an example of the limited 24 round magazine when he shud have compared it with the CV9030 with the 30 mm Bushmaster II.
CM06 made a sweeping statement that a hydropneumatic suspension is superior to other designs for better cross country ride – this is only one of many criteria in suspension system design & user requirements ; otherwise all armored vehicles will be using hp systems.
What ‘s wrong with the CV90 manual ?
What is thinner in the CV90 ? You mean the width. Wider width gives you a
lower centre of gravity and a more stable firing platform
2) Primus
There is simple reason for wider widths – see above. Why do we need < 3 m widths if Leo2s are >3 m. Twardys widths are > 3 m too remember ?
Not having 360 degrees turret turning ability is being shortsighted. Its like saying we shud then have tank destroyers instead of tanks – tank destroyers and Strv 103s are hampered by the need to turn the whole vehicle. In Vietnam , the ability of SPHs to have 360 degree traverse proved their value in real combat. Again, most modern SPHs have 360 degree traverse.
3) Terrex
The Terrex was used as an example of not needing local design to build equipment to SAF specs.
4 ) FH 2000
So we did not actually sell the FH 2000 ,but is was copied by Turkey ? -
IMOH, the BX is a cheaper and cost effective option for SG. We locally produce it, and parts availabilty and maintenance would be a lesser issue. Remember, the BX has a LOT of M113s to replace, so cost effective is a definite must.Originally posted by glock:Here is what I have to say about CM06Â’s references.
1) Bionix.
The weight difference mentioned by CM06 between the CV 90 and Bionix is not significant.
We went from 13 tons in M113 to 23 tons in Bionix – that is significant !
CM06 conveniently forgot to add that the ground pressure of CV 90 is lower than the Bionix .
CM06 also conveniently forgot to add that the Bionix is higher than the CV 90.
CM06 conveniently used the CV9040 for an example of the limited 24 round magazine when he shud have compared it with the CV9030 with the 30 mm Bushmaster II.
CM06 made a sweeping statement that a hydropneumatic suspension is superior to other designs for better cross country ride – this is only one of many criteria in suspension system design & user requirements ; otherwise all armored vehicles will be using hp systems.
What ‘s wrong with the CV90 manual ?
What is thinner in the CV90 ? You mean the width. Wider width gives you a
lower centre of gravity and a more stable firing platform
2) Primus
There is simple reason for wider widths – see above. Why do we need < 3 m widths if Leo2s are >3 m. Twardys widths are > 3 m too remember ?
Not having 360 degrees turret turning ability is being shortsighted. Its like saying we shud then have tank destroyers instead of tanks – tank destroyers and Strv 103s are hampered by the need to turn the whole vehicle. In Vietnam , the ability of SPHs to have 360 degree traverse proved their value in real combat. Again, most modern SPHs have 360 degree traverse.
3) Terrex
The Terrex was used as an example of not needing local design to build equipment to SAF specs.
4 ) FH 2000
So we did not actually sell the FH 2000 ,but is was copied by Turkey ?
Width issues. 3m is good width for manuoevering in plantations. Anything broader, and it might cause a bit of a jam. And there are a lot of plantations in northland. My feel is this. Plantations offer firm soil for armor vehicles to move on because of the roots of the trees there.
Same for gun length. You really don't want ur gun to have difficulty traversing in a firefight in plantations. But common logic also dictates you need to traverse fast, so tank destroyers are out of the question.
As for Primus, I don't think I can comment much without divulging sensitive information. But if u read the above 2 paragraphs, and apply some open source knowledge of how SPHs operate, you'll get the idea. -
Hit and run posting again? We'll have to wait and see.
Nvm, I leave the rest of you boys to pick him apart (not that there's a need to). But I'll regard some of his sillier ones:We went from 13 tons in M113 to 23 tons in Bionix – that is significant !
Unless somebody wants to ride around an aluminium tin can with 12-38mm of armour, he really needs to reconsider his options.
Can't divulge too much info in here, but let's just say that if you need to stand up to stuff like .50cal SLAP, RPGs and anything short of an ATGM or MBT main gun round... I know which AFV I want to be in.
Yes it's significant, what's significant is that the weight increase was not as much as we'd expect
Consider the Yank replacement for the M113, the M2, which tipped the scales at 30 tons, as well as other systems out there.
All things considered, I think the BX is a reasonable current-gen replacement, unless one feels his backside a little itchy and needs to split hairs over each and every single spec like how somehow 10cm taller is a serious disadvantage... hmmmThere is simple reason for wider widths – see above. Why do we need < 3 m widths if Leo2s are >3 m. Twardys widths are > 3 m too remember ?
AFAIK, the Leo2s were gotten as a specific counter to another unit up north.
Also given we had absolutely no experience in operating modern MBTs, it's no surprise the SAF decided to make exceptions to the rule in this case. Getting another LT system won't exactly cut it as well.
The SAF has shown itself to be flexible in the way it regard it's procurement doctrine and thinking... which is a lot more then I can say for another non-player in this field.The Terrex was used as an example of not needing local design to build equipment to SAF specs.
Ooh... so now it's "going somewhere"? Not having 360 degrees turret turning ability is being shortsighted. Its like saying we shud then have tank destroyers instead of tanks – tank destroyers and Strv 103s are hampered by the need to turn the whole vehicle. In Vietnam , the ability of SPHs to have 360 degree traverse proved their value in real combat. Again, most modern SPHs have 360 degree traverse.
WOOT! Somebody going down the rabbit hole again!
One can only wonder if this will become the "make or break" feature of any SPH in Glockland. In any case, refer to Shotgun's reply once you have read this barb. -
An interesting insight into the CV90's.
In June 2004, Finland ordered 45 CV9030 vehicles for a cost of €120 million. This works out at €2.67 (5.34mil SGD) million per vehicle. In late 2004 Finland made another purchase, bringing the overall quantity ordered to over 100.[1]
Note it's roughly 1 Euro = 2.01680 Singapore Dollar and 1 Euro = 1.32886 US Dollar
In December 2005 Denmark ordered 45 CV9035 vehicles for a cost of €188 million (8.35mil SGD per unit). Info in Danish:[2]
Land Systems Hägglunds announced in December 2005 that the Netherlands ordered 184 CV9035 with a contract value of €749 million (8.14mil SGD per unit). Deliveries will take place between 2007 and 2010
In some cases we might be paying more then the cost of one refurbished M1A1 Abrams tank for each CV90, and comparable to a brand new M1A2 at 8.6mil SGD (assuming the Yanks ever decide to sell them to us). Lame example I know, but I think the underlying premise is clear enough to all of us...
Considering these are the most recent CV90 "happy meal" packages...
Hmm...
I think we'll stick with the Bx. -
Glock,
Do some research before you make all kind factual error.
I will just touch on stuff that are not covered by others.
Terrex was first unveiled in IDEX 2001, then only a picture of it was a computer generated picture and some spec of it, the actual prototype was still being built and not even ready to be unveiled.
Even then STK has announced that the Terrex was being built as a private venture, i.e. never a requirement for SAF or even to meet the need of SAF!!!
If it is to meet the needs of SAF, then the approach will be totally different, for example the BX and Primus, the development was totally in secret and when they officially unveiled, there is already at least one Bn was commissioned into SAF.
As for the FH2000, there are plenty of reports from Jane and official Turkish channel abt the payment of licensing agreement to STK etc, more than enough to treat it as a fact. -
Hi Shogun,
Bionix
I made no comparison about maintenance between M113 and BX. Anyway, BX being more modern than M113 shud have better vehicle diagnostics for easier trouble shooting & maintenance – agreed. We do not make the engines ; so parts will either have to be stocked or sourced from USA ; ditto for the other key sub systems.
What kind of plantations are you suggesting ?
eg Palm oil trees are planted at distances between 7.5 to 9 m.
Primus
I was hoping someone can shed light as to why we do not need 360 traverse when most modern SPHs have it. I guess we cant have a discussion and my points cannot be countered without breaching the veil of secrecy. Are we saying that the reason for not having a 360 degree traverse is a big secret ?
Hi Tyra,
Just because you are 24 / 7 in the forum does not make posts like mine hit and run. I am really wondering what you do in real life.
You are truly taking on a very defensive stance on many issues. Do you have an inferiority complex ? The discussions in this forum surely cannot be a life and death situation for you right ?
You & others are most welcome to tear my views apart if they do not stand up so that all including myself can be enlightened on issues. However, Tyra, you seem so afraid that your views are being torn apart. By the wild rantings displayed here and in other threads, I strongly suspect that Tyra cannot accept opposing & differing views - must be because of your line of work or position.
BX
So it is a fact that BX is much higher than a M113. Being higher means it is a taller target. Of course being taller has other advantages as pointed out ; as are Western tanks compared to Russian ones. There both pros and cons with either a BX or CV90. My take is that CV 90 suits the bill rather well with its small signature , ground pressure etc. Being the best currently selling Western IFV speaks volumes about the CV90.
I am still curious as to the CV90 manuals - can CM06 or others shed light on this ?
Obviously, BXs armor is superior than M113Â’s. I never made the comparison ; you did.
Ha ! We now have exceptions to the rule for MBTs. What rules ? There are no rules. You really need to elaborate or is this also a secret.
Dear Gary,
It was another post in this thread which initiated the idea that Terrex was for SAF - I then stand corrected that Terrex is not designed for SAF – a run of the mill battle taxi anyway. Thanks for the correction.
I wait patiently for my other facts to be refuted. -
oh my... i wont say anything anymore...i'm choking from all the blood i'm coughing out. *sigh*
-
[[
Primus
360 traverse when most modern SPHs have it.
[/b][/quote]
Let look at how the gun recoil function as well as how Arty doctrine function.
Do not forget Primus is supporting the Amour & how Amour doctrine work as well. -
Originally posted by glock:
Hi Glock,
Hi Shogun,
[b]Bionix
I made no comparison about maintenance between M113 and BX. Anyway, BX being more modern than M113 shud have better vehicle diagnostics for easier trouble shooting & maintenance – agreed. We do not make the engines ; so parts will either have to be stocked or sourced from USA ; ditto for the other key sub systems.
What kind of plantations are you suggesting ?
eg Palm oil trees are planted at distances between 7.5 to 9 m.
Primus
I was hoping someone can shed light as to why we do not need 360 traverse when most modern SPHs have it. I guess we cant have a discussion and my points cannot be countered without breaching the veil of secrecy. Are we saying that the reason for not having a 360 degree traverse is a big secret ?
Hi Tyra,
Just because you are 24 / 7 in the forum does not make posts like mine hit and run. I am really wondering what you do in real life.
You are truly taking on a very defensive stance on many issues. Do you have an inferiority complex ? The discussions in this forum surely cannot be a life and death situation for you right ?
You & others are most welcome to tear my views apart if they do not stand up so that all including myself can be enlightened on issues. However, Tyra, you seem so afraid that your views are being torn apart. By the wild rantings displayed here and in other threads, I strongly suspect that Tyra cannot accept opposing & differing views - must be because of your line of work or position.
BX
So it is a fact that BX is much higher than a M113. Being higher means it is a taller target. Of course being taller has other advantages as pointed out ; as are Western tanks compared to Russian ones. There both pros and cons with either a BX or CV90. My take is that CV 90 suits the bill rather well with its small signature , ground pressure etc. Being the best currently selling Western IFV speaks volumes about the CV90.
I am still curious as to the CV90 manuals - can CM06 or others shed light on this ?
Obviously, BXs armor is superior than M113Â’s. I never made the comparison ; you did.
Ha ! We now have exceptions to the rule for MBTs. What rules ? There are no rules. You really need to elaborate or is this also a secret.
Dear Gary,
It was another post in this thread which initiated the idea that Terrex was for SAF - I then stand corrected that Terrex is not designed for SAF – a run of the mill battle taxi anyway. Thanks for the correction.
I wait patiently for my other facts to be refuted.
[/b]
Regarding the bx, i was referring to your comparison with the CV90, not the M113. Though the CV90 is a respectable AFV, the cost to replace M113s with CV90s would be too high. Then there is upkeep to think about. Of course, unless the swedes decide to sell us the design and allow us to locally manufacture them, then it would be a different story.
Of course, i wasn't suggesting that a palm tree plantation had trees planted 3m apart. Remember that vehicles require a turning radius to make a turn on the move as well. And there is definitely a margin provided given the <3m specification. And before you can reply, no, it is not wise for armored vehicles to stop and turn on a the spot.
And if you do some calculations based on a 9m distancing plantation, you'll realize that when manuevering and approaching from an angle, the narrowest distance apart from tree to tree is only 4.5m. So there is merit to the 3m specification.
360 traverse: Can you tell me why a SPH needs to be able to traverse 360, or even fire its gun away from its front instead? It is an artillery weapon, not an armored fighting vehicle. You say that its has proven its value in combat in vietnam, perhaps you can show us an article or two that an SPH has to consistently make use of its ability to traverse its turret 360? It is like arguing that the aircraft cannon has "real" value in modern air combat when it is only employed in limited situations this day and age.
I don't believe there are much facts to be refuted. What you mention are true but in context of the SAF, they are irrelevant. -
If people who have been in armour can say they are vomiting blood from the "logic" in your posts, one can only wonder how far away from reality you are.
Please refer to the .50cal thread as to what a sensible discussion between sensible people of varying opinions who have all done their own research turns out. Unfortunately your threads and posts have none of the hallmarks of that.Just because you are 24 / 7 in the forum does not make posts like mine hit and run. I am really wondering what you do in real life.
LOL, I am just a regular forumite by any measure, HOWEVER I think people in here have more or less the experience to distinguish between who is really being dishonest and illogical, and who are passionate and not having the best bedside manner, but have a consistent case in here.
You are truly taking on a very defensive stance on many issues. Do you have an inferiority complex ? The discussions in this forum surely cannot be a life and death situation for you right ?
And a defensive stance? If cutting silly arguments no slack is considered defensive to you, then IÂ’m afraid you have a very poor notion of what is. Inferiority complex? I suggest the one who is resorting to increasingly thin and desperate arguments to be the one with the .
Consider all the brickbats and negative feedback you have been getting, and not just from me. I wonder who is really the defensive and one with the inferiority complex in here? Unfortunately I must inform you that you are hardly the person who inspires inferiority in any individual in hereÂ… actually you inspire more in the way of pity for you.
No these discussions are not a life and death issue for me, but I must say I do enjoy demolishing silly arguments, of which you provide consistently.You & others are most welcome to tear my views apart if they do not stand up so that all including myself can be enlightened on issues. However, Tyra, you seem so afraid that your views are being torn apart. By the wild rantings displayed here and in other threads, I strongly suspect that Tyra cannot accept opposing & differing views - must be because of your line of work or position.
LOL, not say I want to say you ahÂ… but consider the general level of support and acceptance that your views have.
I have no fear my views will be torn apart- if they are logically flawed and inconsistent then I will concede them. But until then I will defend them as robustly as they need beÂ… a point which must have caused you must frustration because Glocklogic unfortunately, simply bounces off them.
Unfortunately it seems you are taking your examples of being wild and ranting from another thread which has a starting to be vilified person that is not too far from youÂ… except perhaps his English is poorer.
As I said, you really need to buck up if you want to play with the big boys. DonÂ’t complain if you get burned because you lack the skill to successfully tangle in here. Don't bring a rifle to a tank fight, and don't bring short ranged missiles to a BVR engagement. -
In that case what is significant then is that you must have made the statement that it is a “significant increase from 13 to 23 tons” for absolutely no good reason then… as an obvious statement that was completely irrelevant to the discussion but put in for some mystery that is only known to you.
Is it any surprise that just about everybody is disagreeing with you?
HereÂ’s a tip, stop making such silly statements, they are only hurting you more then hurt anybody else.My take is that CV 90 suits the bill rather well with its small signature , ground pressure etc. Being the best currently selling Western IFV speaks volumes about the CV90.
Your take apparently seems to have missed out the cost price, running costs, and the sheer numbers of M113s we intend to eventually replace. Being unable to account for such factors speaks volumes about the CV (Curriculum Vitæ) of Glock in here.
I dunno about suiting what bills rather well, but apparently somebody forgot to pay the basic intelligence bill for quite some time liao.Ha ! We now have exceptions to the rule for MBTs. What rules ? There are no rules. You really need to elaborate or is this also a secret.
Once again, as people already told you many times, do your research before you go about making big hoo has in here.
What rules? I think you ought to be asking “What new and interesting way shall I sia sway myself in here right now? Hmm, let’s choose…”
The explicit requirements for SAF armour are quite well known to any armour dude (or any dude who bothered to do his homework) in here as well as open source. In fact we have had so many threads on this that itÂ’s a mystery to me why you havenÂ’t picked up on it. By and far the SAF likes its units to be within these limits.
It is no secret that for some time the SAF was trying to figure out a workable solution to the MBT question by generating units to fit that role within the armour requirements until it was realized that a suitable counterpart counter to the Twardies could not be currently accomplished within these specs... That became clear when even the Yanks were trying to figure out an FCS MBT concept that were similar to the SAF requirements but have yet to make it work.
Hence in this case actually having a useful thing is far better then having something that fit into the traditional requirements, but was far less useful in its intended role. This demonstrates the flexibility in the procurement thinking and efforts of the SAF, however you seem to think that the exception proves the ruleÂ… or worse, ride them to their illogical extreme.
Do our armour guys in here a favour will you? And actually proper acquaint yourself with SAF armour and procurement before going about your next few points. -
Take a chill pill dude, once you realize that heÂ’s not really a serious contender in any discussion in here you actually find him quite funny.Originally posted by CM06:oh my... i wont say anything anymore...i'm choking from all the blood i'm coughing out. *sigh*
The SAF must look absolutely terrifying, with all it's mistakes and blunders, to him from his armchair right there.