Singapore plans multiple rocket launcher, IFV acquisitions
-
As discussed by who? The Chief of Defence? Does SAF know what you consider thinkable or unthinkable..?Originally posted by Arthas79:As discussed, it would be unthinkable for the SAF to not target the Astross at the start of any conflict.
You have this on what authority? We know a lot, true. But only you believe we know absolutely everything.Originally posted by Arthas79:To the contrary, Singapore`s huge intelligence gathering capability(air, satellites, singnit, etc) would make it very hard for the Malaysians to move anything around without being seen.
Suffice it to say, Singapore has a real-time picture on the ground.
Absolutely none? Wah... very impressive theory.Originally posted by Arthas79:Conversely, Malaysia does not have this capability. How many Astross launchers would survive our initial lightning strike? Most likely none.
How do you know all these things? Especially when they have not even happened yet.
Everyone is talking about possible scenarios but you are talking absolutes.
You mean absolutely not one single rocket will get through? Wow... so powderful one...Originally posted by Arthas79:Concievably, these unguided rockets would be easy to shoot down even with our current SAM assets.
Don't mean to rib you but it is hard to just let you continue spouting all these absolute victory scenarios without reminding you that in this world, nothing is guaranteed or black and white like you imagine it. -
Haha. After reading your reply, it would seem that the gist of your comment is that you were irked that i quoted you and hate what you are reading. Much less than what you are saying, this is in fact a discussion in a forum. Feel free to refute them even if the poster feels strongly about them.
As discussed by who? The Chief of Defence? Does SAF know what you consider thinkable or unthinkable..?
Go read the thread. It is made within the context of the SAF targetting key structures and equipment. Are you telling me that it would not be unthinkable for us not to have targetted them in our initial strikes. Perhaps, you have a better idea. Then, let`s hear them.You have this on what authority? We know a lot, true. But only you believe we know absolutely everything
What are you rambling about?
Did i say that? I say that it `would' be very hard for the Malaysians to move thier forces around. Conceivably, our current surveillance assets and the fact that we are very close would make it very hard for them to move around. That is factually correct. Especially equipments large equipments like tanks, armoured vehicles, etc.Absolutely none? Wah... very impressive theory.
And how do you know they would not be? Given our ability to see first and strike first. And where on earth is the `absoluteness' part of my post. Either you are hallucinating or you simply do not like hearing possibilities of that nature and based on our current capabilities.
How do you know all these things? Especially when they have not even happened yet.
Everyone is talking about possible scenarios but you are talking absolutes.You mean absolutely not one single rocket will get through? Wow... so powderful one...
Having trouble reading are we? Where did i say that? But it may well be the case since cheap unguided rockets are are relatively easier to shoot with sophisticated SAM systems
-
The gist of what I am saying remains the same:Originally posted by Arthas79:Haha. After reading your reply, it would seem that the gist of your comment is that you were irked that i quoted you and hate what you are reading. Much less than what you are saying, this is in fact a discussion in a forum. Feel free to refute them even if the poster feels strongly about them.
Having trouble reading are we? Where did i say that? But it may well be the case since cheap unguided rockets are are relatively easier to shoot with sophisticated SAM systems
"Don't mean to rib you but it is hard to just let you continue spouting all these absolute victory scenarios without reminding you that in this world, nothing is guaranteed or black and white like you imagine it."
And, no, "hate" is too strong a word. -
Cool it la ppl.
The gist is, we can't make sweeping statements on capabilities and outcomes of battle.
The ball is round. Believe me when I say I agree that SAF possesses very expansive Intelligence capabilities. Even so, there is no such thing as a transparent battlefield where there are no unknowns.
Reducing uncertainties doesn't mean all unknowns are eliminated.
I believe Mindef is aware of the damage the Astros can cause. Examine the Israeli encounters with katushyas and other forms of unguided rockets, and you will realize that if those weapons were manned by properly trained personnel, the damage would have been more extensive. -
Nothing is garanteed at all. If there is, we will just all convert to artillery since we know where all their troops are and dont need to bother fighting them since we can just put a 155mm or a 250pound jdam where they stand.
Saying this as someone in my POV, is that while we have enhance battlefield sensors, the conflict will have to be fought on the ground. It's real and information is still lacking. Just because you know the guy is standing in that place doesnt mean you wont die trying to reach him.
There's no such thing as garanteed destruction from pretargetted/firststrike plans. By that same measure, Taiwan should just give up since everything they own is already targetted
Not to draw that into conflict but stated as a clear example.
Perhaps, Astros2 may be fitted with a crude tradjectory correction device? It might not even have to be announce since it's not an arms purchase. Always remember, if you have a sniper rifle, to kill a person you have to aim..if you have a suicide bomber strapped on nails+ballbearings+TNT, no aiming is required.
War is dirty, the person who can walk away from the Geneva Convention in a war is the one who won the war (Can clean up all evidence mah). -
Btw, since it is more or less confirm that 8x8 IFV will be introduced into the army, why not we make alittle guess on wad possible variant will be introduced for this new "stryker formation".
My guess is.........
1) vanilla variant with 30mm BXII turret.
2) Mortar carrier
3) armoured ambulance
4) command or intelligence vehicle with 7.62mm GPMG
5) 25mm OWS with SPIKE ATGM
What do you think are the chances of Terrex AV-81 for this competition? What are the other rival models? -
Based on Stats drawn from army-technologies.com
Here's an overview base on show specs: (Recommendation from what i see)
I would say Candidates have to qualify for the following:
Engine/transmission:
8X8 AWD 4 steering wheels,
400Kw Diesel engine(or 350 Hp est)
Propellor(covered) in baseline model with 10km/h water crossing.
more than 700Km range
more than 100km/h road speed
Low engine mantainence(duh)
Body specs:
Width no more than 3meters
Height about 2 meters
Length about 7 metres
V shape hull for increase mine blast resist
Combat load of over 22 tons
Payload of at least 8 tons
C-130 transportable with minimal removal of parts
Self inflate tyres , able to run on flat tires..blah blah blah
Armour specs:
Modular add-on armour/slat armour/era
minimal 40mm agl/0.5inch hmg resistant.
Add on armour up strength to 25/35 mm?
NBC + AIR CON *muahaha*
Low thermal signature
Weapons/payload:
Up to 9 combat troops seated.
Driver/ VC
ROWS up to 30mm Chaingun / 40 mm agl / 0.5inh HMG / 7.62mm (Typhoon!)
LG config of 105mm
Mortar 120mm (AMOS)
ATGW * 4
dual side GPMG mounts
combat load of 2 * contact rate
Ambulance/ recovery/engineer/bridging variants
Smoke
PradurII 8X8, Patria 8x8, Piranha III/IV , Stryker, Terrax -
wah a dream vehicle?Originally posted by CM06:Based on Stats drawn from army-technologies.com
Here's an overview base on show specs: (Recommendation from what i see)
I would say Candidates have to qualify for the following:
Engine/transmission:
8X8 AWD 4 steering wheels,
400Kw Diesel engine(or 350 Hp est)
Propellor(covered) in baseline model with 10km/h water crossing.
more than 700Km range
more than 100km/h road speed
Low engine mantainence(duh)
Body specs:
Width no more than 3meters
Height about 2 meters
Length about 7 metres
V shape hull for increase mine blast resist
Combat load of over 22 tons
Payload of at least 8 tons
C-130 transportable with minimal removal of parts
Self inflate tyres , able to run on flat tires..blah blah blah
Armour specs:
Modular add-on armour/slat armour/era
minimal 40mm agl/0.5inch hmg resistant.
Add on armour up strength to 25/35 mm?
NBC + AIR CON *muahaha*
Low thermal signature
Weapons/payload:
Up to 9 combat troops seated.
Driver/ VC
ROWS up to 30mm Chaingun / 40 mm agl / 0.5inh HMG / 7.62mm (Typhoon!)
LG config of 105mm
Mortar 120mm (AMOS)
ATGW * 4
dual side GPMG mounts
combat load of 2 * contact rate
Ambulance/ recovery/engineer/bridging variants
Smoke
PradurII 8X8, Patria 8x8, Piranha III/IV , Stryker, Terrax -
I have a feeling we will see a rather special variant of this terrex... oops i mean (8x
, with a firestorm turret capable of full autonomous mode. -
Firestorm or metal storm? What's firestorm BTW?Originally posted by Shotgun:I have a feeling we will see a rather special variant of this terrex... oops i mean (8x, with a firestorm turret capable of full autonomous mode. -
Apparently the Turks are using the Terrex albeit under another name.
-
OOOPs my bad. Metalstorm.Originally posted by chino65:Firestorm or metal storm? What's firestorm BTW?
Ha! Play too much CnC liao.
Yeah, metalstorm. -
Recent IDEF 2007 in Ankara Turkey showcased a new upgraded version of Terrex, the Turkish Yavuz.
From here I can see more armour at the sides, perhaps more armour at the top as well as there are thicker armoured hatches, a new trim vane perhaps to maintain it's amphibious capability due to higher weight and lastly what look like Israeli RCWS 30 with Spike ATGM. -
Assuming that these new Terrex is for developing light and rapid reaction mechanized infantry troops,will definitely love to have the greater mobility, armour and firepower. Maybe these light and fast troops will come in for the sweep up after the initial heavy armoured strike force which consist of the Leo2 MBTs and the BX2.Originally posted by gary1910:Recent IDEF 2007 in Ankara Turkey showcased a new upgraded version of Terrex, the Turkish Yavuz.
From here I can see more armour at the sides, perhaps more armour at the top as well as there are thicker armoured hatches, a new trim vane perhaps to maintain it's amphibious capability due to higher weight and lastly what look like Israeli RCWS 30 with Spike ATGM.
-
Terrex looks pretty. Maybe we might just use that after all. We do need a new 8x8 wheeler.
-
what are the chances between stryker vs Terrex?Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Terrex looks pretty. Maybe we might just use that after all. We do need a new 8x8 wheeler. -
Stryker is a piece of under armoured chunk of metal
maybe you can look at this as well
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/media/video/2_PLT_IED.wmv -
Having trouble reading are we? Where did i say that? But it may well be the case since cheap unguided rockets are are relatively easier to shoot with sophisticated SAM systems
I'm sure the Israelis had no problems with shooting down cheep unguided rockets with their sophisticated SAM systems also...
Of all the armies in the world, the Yanks probably have the best intellgence gathering abilities, but even that that was not enough to render their battlefields completely transparent.
Frankly do you think we are at the level of the Yanks yet, don't even talk about 3G. Not saying the Malaysian assets are invisible, but thinking that we will have no problems trying to find out where they are in the fog of war is a tad too optimitic... I would not certainly want to fight a war with your kind of optimistic "projections" about our abilities. -
Sure reminds me of your signature.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I'm sure the Israelis had no problems with shooting down cheep unguided rockets with their sophisticated SAM systems also...
Of all the armies in the world, the Yanks probably have the best intellgence gathering abilities, but even that that was not enough to render their battlefields completely transparent.
Frankly do you think we are at the level of the Yanks yet, don't even talk about 3G. Not saying the Malaysian assets are invisible, but thinking that we will have no problems trying to find out where they are in the fog of war is a tad too optimitic... I would not certainly want to fight a war with your kind of optimistic "projections" about our abilities.
"Our initial assessment is, they will all die!" Baghdad Bob. -
I absolutely agree.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I'm sure the Israelis had no problems with shooting down cheep unguided rockets with their sophisticated SAM systems also...
Of all the armies in the world, the Yanks probably have the best intellgence gathering abilities, but even that that was not enough to render their battlefields completely transparent.
Frankly do you think we are at the level of the Yanks yet, don't even talk about 3G. Not saying the Malaysian assets are invisible, but thinking that we will have no problems trying to find out where they are in the fog of war is a tad too optimitic... I would not certainly want to fight a war with your kind of optimistic "projections" about our abilities.
I know we're good but I really worry when people ...
a) start thinking we're super
b) start thinking the enemy are idiots
And we've not even been to battle - where all the best-laid plans can instantly go out the window. Heck, there are some excercises where the lunch tonner couldn't find us. And we're in a little patch of forest in little Singapore.
And BTW, MY has just announced another Astros purchase to set up a second regiment. So it is 18 + 18 = 36 Astros launch platforms and 22 G-5 South African 52 cal 155mm howitzers. And you can bet these SA 155 are top quality stuff with a similar +/- 40km range.
And these are the publicised figures. We mustn't assume that only SAF has secrets. Having spent time in S2 branch, I can only say - what you don't know CAN hurt you..
...
Actually, besides the Yanks, the Israelis probably have the next best intel in the world and they can also rely on US intel to supplement what they are already capable of.
Yet, Israel got whacked by big a.ss Iraqi SCUDs fired from big a.ss mobile launchers. And the Middle East is a desert with no jungles to hide in.
If I remember correctly, the US had to rush Patriots to Israel to counter Iraqi SCUDs.
Even then, there are a lot of people who are convinced today that the Patriot had only a very low success rate and it was all hype.
So if the specialised Patriot had trouble intercepting a big a.ss missile like the SCUDs, what chances will the Patriot stand against a barrage of rockets? Probably none.
"The Israeli Defense Force calculated they'd destroyed just 2 percent. William Cohen, Bill Clinton's secretary of defense, admitted upon leaving office in January 2001, "The Patriot didn't work." (http://www.slate.com/id/2080615)
...
Let's not even talk about SAMs.
That SAMs can "shoot down missiles/rockets" is the first time I heard of.
If SAM can, why is Taiwan pleading for Patriots even though their effectiveness is in question? This is because there is practically no other affordable options currently that can shield you from missiles and rockets.
That's why it continues to be a threat to us especially if its use on civilian is a possibility. -
I'm not too sure of a match up. Either way, it depends on how we armour the Terrex. Trouble with the Stryker was weight requirements and how they really did their best to squeeze it on board a C-130. Then on the ground, they had to refit it with a host of passive defences to guard against RPG rounds etc. No doubt the Terrex has to receive the same treatment. So it boils down to how the Terrex takes the added load.Originally posted by Arapahoe:what are the chances between stryker vs Terrex? -
Damn hell agree. Some of the scenarios posted here have been too darned hard to believe whatsover.Originally posted by chino65:I absolutely agree.
I know we're good but I really worry when people ...
a) start thinking we're super
b) start thinking the enemy are idiots
And we've not even been to battle - where all the best-laid plans can instantly go out the window. Heck, there are some excercises where the lunch tonner couldn't find us. And we're in a little patch of forest in little Singapore.
And BTW, MY has just announced another Astros purchase to set up a second regiment. So it is 18 + 18 = 36 Astros launch platforms and 22 G-5 South African 52 cal 155mm howitzers. And you can bet these SA 155 are top quality stuff with a similar +/- 40km range.
And these are the publicised figures. We mustn't assume that only SAF has secrets. Having spent time in S2 branch, I can only say - what you don't know CAN hurt you..
Question, when did M'sia buy the G-5 52 cal 155mm howitzer? Did they buy the self-propelled version or just the gun? Those are good weapons with range up to 70-80km with the right ammunition. -
Only the towed version with APU, 28 of them, plus another 12 FH-70, total 40 155mm howitzers.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Damn hell agree. Some of the scenarios posted here have been too darned hard to believe whatsover.
Question, when did M'sia buy the G-5 52 cal 155mm howitzer? Did they buy the self-propelled version or just the gun? Those are good weapons with range up to 70-80km with the right ammunition.
And the max effective range of G5 is abt 50km with the special Denel's VLAP projectiles.
http://www.denel.co.za/Landsystems/LS_ArtillerySysG5.pdf -
I heard ppl say that the yanks beseeched the Israelis not to attack the Scud sites as they didn't want Israeli involvement in the conflict. The Patriots were supposed protect Israel from the Scud launches, in exchange for Israel's non-intervention.Originally posted by chino65:I absolutely agree.
I know we're good but I really worry when people ...
a) start thinking we're super
b) start thinking the enemy are idiots
And we've not even been to battle - where all the best-laid plans can instantly go out the window. Heck, there are some excercises where the lunch tonner couldn't find us. And we're in a little patch of forest in little Singapore.
And BTW, MY has just announced another Astros purchase to set up a second regiment. So it is 18 + 18 = 36 Astros launch platforms and 22 G-5 South African 52 cal 155mm howitzers. And you can bet these SA 155 are top quality stuff with a similar +/- 40km range.
And these are the publicised figures. We mustn't assume that only SAF has secrets. Having spent time in S2 branch, I can only say - what you don't know CAN hurt you..
...
Actually, besides the Yanks, the Israelis probably have the next best intel in the world and they can also rely on US intel to supplement what they are already capable of.
Yet, Israel got whacked by big a.ss Iraqi SCUDs fired from big a.ss mobile launchers. And the Middle East is a desert with no jungles to hide in.
If I remember correctly, the US had to rush Patriots to Israel to counter Iraqi SCUDs.
Even then, there are a lot of people who are convinced today that the Patriot had only a very low success rate and it was all hype.
So if the specialised Patriot had trouble intercepting a big a.ss missile like the SCUDs, what chances will the Patriot stand against a barrage of rockets? Probably none.
"The Israeli Defense Force calculated they'd destroyed just 2 percent. William Cohen, Bill Clinton's secretary of defense, admitted upon leaving office in January 2001, "The Patriot didn't work." (http://www.slate.com/id/2080615)
...
Let's not even talk about SAMs.
That SAMs can "shoot down missiles/rockets" is the first time I heard of.
If SAM can, why is Taiwan pleading for Patriots even though their effectiveness is in question? This is because there is practically no other affordable options currently that can shield you from missiles and rockets.
That's why it continues to be a threat to us especially if its use on civilian is a possibility.
One reason was that the US needed a lot of Arab support, esp in terms of jump off bases etc. Hence Israeli involvement in an "arab-affair" would have complicated the situation.
And yes, the patriots weren't successful against the Scuds. They probably needed to park an Aegis Destroyer on sand to be of any worth in providing a somewhat credible anti missile umbrella there. Fortunately, the Scuds were worthelessly inaccurate as well. -
Yes, you're correct there. The US begged Israel to sit tight and accept the SCUD strikes so they (US) can continue to whack Iraq without the rest of the Arab world launching Jihad.Originally posted by Shotgun:I heard ppl say that the yanks beseeched the Israelis not to attack the Scud sites as they didn't want Israeli involvement in the conflict. The Patriots were supposed protect Israel from the Scud launches, in exchange for Israel's non-intervention.
One reason was that the US needed a lot of Arab support, esp in terms of jump off bases etc. Hence Israeli involvement in an "arab-affair" would have complicated the situation.
And yes, the patriots weren't successful against the Scuds. They probably needed to park an Aegis Destroyer on sand to be of any worth in providing a somewhat credible anti missile umbrella there. Fortunately, the Scuds were worthelessly inaccurate as well.
And that's why they rushed the Patriots and claimed the high success rate.
And the Israeli just kept quiet until afterwards and now they are saying the Patriots ain't worth shxt.
Sigh... the price of friendship.