prospect of starting a defense company like Raytheon in sg
-
-
currently we have Singapore Technologies. Is there a need for another company like Raytheon if it seems like singapore made weapons are less favoured? countries seldom choose SG made products are their mainstay weapon. .e.g Although the SAR 21 is a good weapon, it is only used widely by the SAF. same for all the other weapons. So i dont see a demand for Singapore made weapons.
What we can do is to improve the way ST markets its weapons and build up a good reputation before we consider setting up another company. And private ownership/setting up of such a company is definitely a big no no as the govt will definitely want control over arm sales. -
I doubt that SG Govt. will approve such a setup. First of all, the control of explosives and research / building of any type of military and tactical equipment is very controlled and sensitive to them.
Secondly, it will be hard to compete with ST for the local market, since they have a close tripartite relationship and special trust. ST and DSTA share SAF's secrets and special needs, that SAF will NEVER share their secrets with anyone else, not any commerical contractor. Every ST and DSTA engineer is specially selected and security screened. To compete with ST on this is impossible.
On the international market, its worse, how do you compete against ST, Raytheon and much larger competitors with billions to burn for R&D?
In Singapore, you can't do firings and tests without using SAF's range. How do you do that in the first place as a private contractor?
Its extremely remote chance that it can ever be approved, not even having to study the commercial viability. -
Flop. Already got DSTA.
-
(At any rate)Unless you are a good company with an established base of customers to grow, you will be in a hard position to compete. Many of these companies serve thier own domestic markets before venturing off-shore. Same with Raytheon and US ones. i think Singapore is good enough for one big company.
It is not eveyday that you get orders for items like IFV, tanks, etc locally or overseas. If Singapore is to have more defence companies, they will probably engage in small military goods, munitions, etc. They can be sold more readily. But there is a big gap between such companies and big firms like ST and Raytheon. -
think ST will ever be able to venture overseas on a large scale?
-
Temasek holdings might want a share in it.
-
Actually ST products and weapons are on-par if not better in some ways or another to Western weapons.Originally posted by beavan:think ST will ever be able to venture overseas on a large scale?
It's an Asian vs Western thing...they won't want to use our stuff.
Eg. the Ultimax, better on every specification, but nobody wants it....same with our vehicles and stuff. -
Big-ticket tenders are few. And ST will usually be pitted against the usual big boys. But because ST already has an established presence in Singapore, we can at least compete for these tenders. Also, it depends on the components inside our stuffs and whether the real owners are happy with it. I think we have had some succeses. The Turks use our FH-2000 guns; probably built under license although it`s probably hush-hush. We are also offering them the Terrex. But I think the real fight is in smaller items like munitions, SRAMs, etc. We can make more money in those than the infrequent tenders that take long to be resolved anyway.
-
Actually ST products and weapons are on-par if not better in some ways or another to Western weapons.
the modified Bionix won the competition but lost out on the deal because the US army wanted a wheeled vehicle in the end. Lots of politics too. -
yup its alot of politics involved. Our weapons are not inferior.
But to develop your own weapon research in Singapore is first of all illegal, govt. will never approve it, and there' no market for it. -
i thought there is already a susidiary company in the US as a sales front.
-
[quote]Originally posted by Arapahoe:
[b]i thought there is already a susidiary company in the US as a sales front. but what is certainly true is that it required testing area.