What's the next land Fighting Vehicle?
-
Hmm... I suppose that we're going to use the Terrex now?Originally posted by SpecOps87:Goodness...Stryker platform. I don't know why...but why is it that our good ol' SAF is mimicking the US Armed Forces? -
Does anybody have any indication of the Stryker Bde performance? The initial introduction was met with severe criticism but that seemed to have died down with mods made to the initial batches of Stryker.
I guess the main debate was over:
1. the wheel vs. track platform
2. the ability to sustain ops in urban warfare given the new tactics - vehicular bombs, IEDs, bombing and then attacking rescue teams (a la black hawk down scenario)
-- in that sense ability to take hits from IEDs
-- in the sense of ability to provide enough firepower to defend against post-IED attacks. (missiles vs. cannon -- how many missiles can you have to repeatedly deal with guerilla tactics -- how to coordinate foot units, armored units, and air units (preferably not heli0borne troops -- sustain more casualty, instead use of attack UAVs)
The alternative is the whole slew of modded vehicles from IDF.
So anyone of us arm-chair generals want to take a stab at analyzing this? -
More interoperatibility, possibly moving our ally status up a notch.Originally posted by SpecOps87:Goodness...Stryker platform. I don't know why...but why is it that our good ol' SAF is mimicking the US Armed Forces? -
A new UAV?
-
I want to throw in a piece of observation here.
The IDF, it seems, does not operate any LT since giving up on the AMX-13.
Nor do they operate any wheeled AFV.
They do have some patrol-type armoured vehicles like armoured trucks or Landrover-types but no real AFV like a V-200 or Stryker genre, if you know what I mean.
And I have seen many pics of Merks driving off cliffs or when sand banks collapse etc to know that heavy weight is a problem over there as much as here. Yet they persist with heavy MBT. Probably for the firepower and armour protection.
Anyway, with all the fighting the Israelis do in urban areas, they use no wheeled AFVs...why? Apparently they trialed the Stryker but did not accept it for service.
Not did they try to produce any wheeled AFV of their own other than light patrol vehicles mentioned above.
I don't know if they operate any of the captured Russian BTRs, though.
Other Arab armies use plenty of Russian wheeled armoured vehicles, so you can't say that wheels don't work in that terrain. -
The fights that are gonna happen here is gonna be diff. frm the arab region, yes? What is needed here, is actually something that is light, hits hard, moves fast and is able to be mass produced efficiently to do a swarming sorta defensive or assault maneuver. However, light doesn't mean light in armour, but probably some where in between protection strong enough to protect troops inside from IEDs and RPGs yet light enough for the gross weight to be below 10-13 tons excl. Reactive Armour if any. This is perhaps achievable in using advanced composite armour. Hits hard with say a 25mm or 30mm rapid-firing gun and AT missiles. Come to think of it...if Terrex is actually used, they might have to up gun and fit AT missile firing capability.
Just my humble 2 cents. -
Our SAF will be on the wrong track if they look towards an ALL- Wheel only "Main Gun" LT or even AFV. It will look good but they forget, right now the conflicts are all in the desert - hot windy cold sandy and dry.
Wheels are great for road/track. I am not sure wheels can really go fast in the sand if we talking about off road 20-25T vehicle
We are in the Jungle terrain here. The last time US is in one it's a few decades back. Naturally they will hence overlook certain restrictions.
Here we have mud, water, tall trees, dense jungle, swamp, mud, plantations, mountain, hill, knoll, river, mud, sand, no road, thin, jungle, bush, mud, etc
Wheels = urban great. Wheels off road bashing trees?
Regarding the slow phasing out of SM1 without replacement. If we do that we need to have a more heavy AFV. 66 Leos aint ever going to win a conflict. if the next biggest calibre you have is 30 mm. The Americans can have whatever vehicle because everywhere they go they bring the Abrams along.
In regards to combat, building around ONE Leo2 armoured brigade isnt enough to win any conflict on a fully mobilised scale conflict. They need more like 3-4 more. -
Actually its some sort of hammer and anvil approach the way i see it. Hammer being the Leo 2s and the anvil being the fast striking LTs. Besides...in this day and age...you do not need tank to kill tank. In our inventory, we've got the Apache, Flyer LSVs with Milan/Spike, Milan, Spike ATGMs mounted on jeeps, these are all ways to kill a tank grossing many times their weight. By having a LT, it would hopefully be able to load troops deployable from it.
-
Just saw this about the Strykers. Now the US is beginning to question if they made the right choice of going on all wheels and not track.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,135721,00.html?wh=news -
SpecOps, i think u mean the Hammer being the fast striking LTs and the Anvil being the Leos rite?
I think the situation in our region requires dynamic systems. While the Stryker (sad to say its wheeled) may not have worked for the US, might actually work for us as quick response force with heavy firepower.
Amphibious capable systems such as Strykers, or LAV series, though not heavily armored, are able to perform coastal hook-type of missions, and provide the extra firepower. Whether totally viable, will really depend on the amount of logistic support required to support them. My 2 cts. -
Yes, the calssic hammer and anvil trap. But I venture to add once more that the "anvil" has to somehow get there before the quarry, and via another route.Originally posted by SpecOps87:Actually its some sort of hammer and anvil approach the way i see it. Hammer being the Leo 2s and the anvil being the fast striking LTs. Besides...in this day and age...you do not need tank to kill tank. In our inventory, we've got the Apache, Flyer LSVs with Milan/Spike, Milan, Spike ATGMs mounted on jeeps, these are all ways to kill a tank grossing many times their weight. By having a LT, it would hopefully be able to load troops deployable from it.
That's why I say the new AFV will have to be able to be deployed rapidly, either by Air or Sea. By air it is likely to be heliborne, like out new 155 howitzer. i would expect RSAF to be getting a lot more heavy lift Chinooks or something as the main RDF asset. -
Bashing trees off road may not actually be required.Originally posted by CM06:Here we have mud, water, tall trees, dense jungle, swamp, mud, plantations, mountain, hill, knoll, river, mud, sand, no road, thin, jungle, bush, mud, etc
Wheels = urban great. Wheels off road bashing trees?
I would like to cite the example of WW2 Japanese invasion with their small little tanks.
Their tanks were no bigger than the Scorpion and could certainly fit very well into a plantation.
Yet, they kept to the road, as all the fighting took place on the roads.
There was little occasion for their use inside jungles and plantations as both sides kept to the roads.
It's very simple theory - the Japs need to move fast to achieve their objectives, surprise, surround and cut off the enemy from reinforcements, supplies and escape. If they didn't own the roads, they wouldn't have achieved that.
The Allies kept to the roads cos they also needed to move fast to withdraw and set up blocking positions etc.
So you can say that down the Peninsula, all the tank action was about the capture and defense of roads, brdges and other choke points.
The jungles and plantations actually saw less major action than we would like to think. -
Yeah, haha, my bad. Its precisely that...LTs/LSVs for harassment, with the Leos as the final solid wall, sorta like a breakwater.Originally posted by Shotgun:SpecOps, i think u mean the Hammer being the fast striking LTs and the Anvil being the Leos rite? -
Actually it can be either way.Originally posted by SpecOps87:Yeah, haha, my bad. Its precisely that...LTs/LSVs for harassment, with the Leos as the final solid wall, sorta like a breakwater.
The main force drives the enemy backwards. A block force stops the enemy's retreat long enough for the main force to continue forward and smash the trapped enemy.
Not trying to be a tactician here but reading history, it is usually a lighter airborne or seaborne force that is inserted into a flank or the enemy's rear for such a purpose.
This was certainly the case in Malaya WW2. The Japs did a few coastal hooks to entrap Allied forces retreating down the Peninsula. Meanwhile the main force comes in with their tanks and artillery to finish the job. -
These vehicles were originally the Mowag Piranha. I believe there's a newer successor to this vehicle.Originally posted by LazerLordz:More interoperatibility, possibly moving our ally status up a notch. -
Actually...the key here for such a doctrine/tactic to work is actually the use of rapidly deployable and highly mobile forces. By converting whatever "fat" ie. static forces which are highly reliant on the network infrastructure to engage into self-contained, self-sustaining pardon the pun "Splinter Cells" which carry all their equipment and tech. capability with them wherever the conflict leads. Actually,if we do adopt the US's "Air Mobile" deployment force, no doubt it gets their troops there faster, the essential weak link is that they have to have a 110% Air Supremacy to ensure that. For ours, I did say a rapidly deployable and highly mobile force on the land and out in the water with adequate air cover is the key.Originally posted by chino65:Actually it can be either way.
The main force drives the enemy backwards. A block force stops the enemy's retreat long enough for the main force to continue forward and smash the trapped enemy.
Not trying to be a tactician here but reading history, it is usually a lighter airborne or seaborne force that is inserted into a flank or the enemy's rear for such a purpose.
This was certainly the case in Malaya WW2. The Japs did a few coastal hooks to entrap Allied forces retreating down the Peninsula. Meanwhile the main force comes in with their tanks and artillery to finish the job.
We have to stop kidding ourselves...there's no way we can do a "shock & awe" the way the Americans or the Chinese do.The best we can do is a blitzkrieg style assault, hard, fast, deep. Such that the enemy does not know they are being hit and go WTF? Thus the whole SAF should look towards integrating 100% mobile combat teams with "semi-mobile" support teams, to hold and base support outposts to be effective. And seriously...increase the number of Leos. -
True...
If our doctrine of Forward Defense is applied, we need to be able on one hand to push back the resistance across the Straits and simultaneously land a block force to prevent further enemy reinforcement and to entrap the resisting forces.
So maybe MBT will constitute the main force but not the inserted force as I don't think we have the capability to transport them for a seaborne or airborne insertion. -
I don't suppose we'll see a made-in-singapore light tank any time soon ....
I suspect one of the reasons why we got those leopards was cos the development of a domestic tank hit a snag .... -
But is there irrefutable proof that we ever did try to produce a tank?Originally posted by Fatum:I don't suppose we'll see a made-in-singapore light tank any time soon ....
I suspect one of the reasons why we got those leopards was cos the development of a domestic tank hit a snag .... -
some people could probably tell you .... but then they'll have to kill you ....Originally posted by chino65:But is there irrefutable proof that we ever did try to produce a tank?
-
Well, the closest thing we have is the Bionix.Originally posted by chino65:But is there irrefutable proof that we ever did try to produce a tank?
But that said, building a tank poses problems specifically in armor technology. No doubt we could run to the Israelis for help though. -
Everything we produce locally is actually eyeing to fill a gap internationally.
Some meet with success, some not.
If we did try to produce a tank, I wonder what the unique requirements would be? In the business this is called a unique selling point or USP.
Most of the time it is simply "cheaper than the leading brand"!! -
Either that, or too frakking heavy.Originally posted by chino65:Everything we produce locally is actually eyeing to fill a gap internationally.
Some meet with success, some not.
If we did try to produce a tank, I wonder what the unique requirements would be? In the business this is called a unique selling point or USP.
Most of the time it is simply "cheaper than the leading brand"!!
But that said, I am not sure if MBTs function well in forested muddy environments like the ones we have. -
Haha...AGREED!Originally posted by chino65:Everything we produce locally is actually eyeing to fill a gap internationally.
Some meet with success, some not.
If we did try to produce a tank, I wonder what the unique requirements would be? In the business this is called a unique selling point or USP.
Most of the time it is simply "cheaper than the leading brand"!! -
1) WWII - The Scots go to war with bag pipes. Armour doctrine or even just war doctrine has changed with time/technology.Originally posted by chino65:Bashing trees off road may not actually be required.
I would like to cite the example of WW2 Japanese invasion with their small little tanks.
Their tanks were no bigger than the Scorpion and could certainly fit very well into a plantation.
Yet, they kept to the road, as all the fighting took place on the roads.
There was little occasion for their use inside jungles and plantations as both sides kept to the roads.
It's very simple theory - the Japs need to move fast to achieve their objectives, surprise, surround and cut off the enemy from reinforcements, supplies and escape. If they didn't own the roads, they wouldn't have achieved that.
The Allies kept to the roads cos they also needed to move fast to withdraw and set up blocking positions etc.
So you can say that down the Peninsula, all the tank action was about the capture and defense of roads, brdges and other choke points.
The jungles and plantations actually saw less major action than we would like to think.
2) If we are aggressor, i sure wouldnt want to walk into a block force face to face. We will flank strike them or simply go around them and hit them from the rear. That's the hammer and you use their anvil back against them.
3) Armour doctrine: Keep to roads for speed. Keep to roads for ATGM and crew-serve AT-weapons ambush + scouts radioing you are coming.
4) If you see a 100m deep lay of concrete obstacles + 10- coil conc + abe(something) the chopped trees obstacle + tank ditch + metal pivots( they look like a triangle shaped bar think its dragons teeth) + All these boobied trap+ 1 coy of troops defending, you wont want to stay on the tracks either.
5) You do know pretargetted kill boxes are laid along roads mainly right?
6) Mines they plant in a swamp is it?
Now Imagine points 3 - 6 are ALL along that one track you have to go. Trust me on that sometimes there is only one track for you to go from your current position to target location. Would you want to go on the road?
Got tracks can bash? Y Got wheels can bash? N. Firepower difference? None diff. So that's what i mean by dont remove an option.
Wheels are great for urban though.
No offense ah. I bad mood. All these talk remind me i have to go back in july for ICT
Oh edit: You will realised that It makes perfect sense for the Japs to use the tracks since you already mention -both sides- agreed to fight it out on the tracks. Since the Japs are the ones with the Bigger gun its obvious to duke it out with infantry when you are the armoured force.
Not to mention, you are the one with the ability to move quicker. Fast enough that you simply out pace defenders that you punch right through and leave behind. Hence why they stay on the tracks.
If the British park any armour, has a good anti-armour doctrine + at- weapons and put up conc wire with reinforced barriers, the japs will have a much harder time rolling them over.