ST Engineering arms export US$1b 2008 & 5 times more in 8 yr

lionnoisy

30 Dec 08, 11:43

ST Engineering arms export US$1b in '08 & 5 times more in 8 year.

The recent Bronco is well known.Few know that UAE bought SARMS and US ordered

Egypt naval ship from ST US ship yard,and much more.

Do u think it is easy to get a contract from Yankess?

Do u think it is easy to get contract from UK?

The ability of ST is beyond your imagination.It can give u a whole range

of weapon from hand held small arms to IFV and armoured SPH!!

http://www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/listing.aspx?pdtypeid=1

Just look at Land System-----

Hand Held---SAR 21 rifle,Ultimax 100 Mk 5,Compact Personal weapon

Crew serve---CIS 50 MG,CIS 40 AGL w/ ABS,120 mm Super Mortar

Combat Vehicles---Bronco ATTC,Bionix IFV,Terrex IFV,Primus SPH

............................Spider LSV,Light Armoured MR Veh.

Artillery---All 155 mm---

.................Towed w SP capabilty --FH 88 39 calibre & FH 2000 52 calibre

.......................................................Pegasus Light Weight 39 calibre

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@222

I dare not say ST is the best,But u can read from records that it strikes

few first in military.Eg first 155 mm 52 calibre--FH 2000.

US M 198 and M 777 is 39 and 38 calibres respectively!!

For a country with 3.5 millions citizens,it is amazing that ST

can make and intergrate so much.

Land System

u can just go to Press release of stengg.com and choose whole years and search

ontract from your Edit.

ST Kinetics' patented 120mm Super Rapid Advanced Mortar System (SRAMS) with delivery to be completed in 2011.

The SRAMS is the world's first and only 120mm mortar system with a recoil load of less than 26 tonnes when firing at maximum charge thus allowing it to be mounted onto a wide range of light weight vehicles. The low recoil force also allows for rapid shoot and scoot missions without the need for an out-rigger. It is equipped with an automatic round loader and has a high firing rate of ten rounds per minute hence enabling missions to be accomplished with fewer mortar systems.--EOQ

ref

ST Engineering's US Shipyard Signs Phase II Of Fast Missile Craft Project Adds A Further US$406.5m To Total Contract Value 29-Sep-2008

ST Engineering's Electronics Arm Awarded S$36.7m Contract By Thales Australia For Air Traffic Control System 24-Apr-2008

ST Engineering's Land Systems Arm Secures US$31.6m Defence Export Contract 20-Feb-2008

ST Engineering's Land Systems Arm Secures S$42.5m 40mm Ammunition Export Contract 20-Feb-2008 (lion note---to UK)

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_319768.html

http://sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/309308?amp%3Bpage=1

hmsg

30 Dec 08, 11:49

so got buy their shares???

Man!x

30 Dec 08, 12:34

Because its cheaper than its competitors? Or because there is less political restrictions in Singapore regarding military hardware sales?

sgstars

30 Dec 08, 13:10

i was hoping can get a 3 day streak of no lionnoisy nonsense. seems like lasted 2 days only.

trust lionnoisy to turn a PATROL VESSEL deal into a contract for egyptian NAVY vessel.

do you think the US would have awarded the contract to VT halter marine if the vessels were built in singapore ? since specs wise they are very similar to our MGB ?

do you see the flaws in your logic ? will anyone believe your rah rah chest thumping ?

you want to compare STK revenue and product lineup with the big boys ? have you any idea how much lockheed martin, Boeing, general dynamics or Bae systems makes ?

what STK earns in revenue in a year, lockheed martin earns 1.5 times that amount in a quarter (after currency exchange factored in)

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/corporate/documents/ir/3Q08-Earnings-Release-Attachments.pdf

http://www.stengg.com/investorelations/financialinformation.aspx

please remember this:

sgstars

30 Dec 08, 13:17

lionnoisy

30 Dec 08, 18:11

Originally posted by sgstars:

i was hoping can get a 3 day streak of no lionnoisy nonsense. seems like lasted 2 days only.

trust lionnoisy to turn a PATROL VESSEL deal into a contract for egyptian NAVY vessel.

do you think the US would have awarded the contract to VT halter marine if the vessels were built in singapore ? since specs wise they are very similar to our MGB ?

do you see the flaws in your logic ? will anyone believe your rah rah chest thumping ?

you want to compare STK revenue and product lineup with the big boys ? have you any idea how much lockheed martin, Boeing, general dynamics or Bae systems makes ?

what STK earns in revenue in a year, lockheed martin earns 1.5 times that amount in a quarter (after currency exchange factored in)

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/corporate/documents/ir/3Q08-Earnings-Release-Attachments.pdf

http://www.stengg.com/investorelations/financialinformation.aspx

please remember this:

Based on your links---,

LM's profits is just 8 times of ST!!

let me answer the profits.the averge of LM 2 years earnings after tax (based on 3 quarters and adjusted to one year) is US 3085 million or US 3 billion a year.

Poor ST Net Operating after tax is S$ 549 million or 378 million US.

LM's profits is just 8 times of ST!!Whats a big deal?

US population is 60 times of SG,military budget is over 600 times

of SG!!

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Without fears and favours to foreigner MNC,i just list out ST products.

I did not say that they are better or poorer than ST.

I dare to line up ST products.Yes.U dare not.Since we are very young,

we have been brain washed that MNC is better than SG companies.

If u look carefully,some of their products are not better than ST's !!

In 21 st century,i see no reason to make a powerless gun!!

Can u convince me by list out the costs,benefits and risks

but incorporating or not equipped a engine to a gun?

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Line up with the big boys?WHY NOT?

lionnoisy

30 Dec 08, 18:58

LM sales is 21 times of ST,but profits is just 8 times of ST

average sales of LM for 2005 to 2007 is US$39500 million or S$59300 m .

ST average sales is 4230 S$ million or US$2800 a year million for the same period.

US defense budget is 400 to 500 b a year,while SG is US$ 7 b!!

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/corporate/documents/ir/LMT1Q08Highlights.pdf

http://www.stengg.com/investorelations/financialinformation.aspx

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

There is no point to compare profits and sales of two companies.

My point is--

Thanks to few decades of hard works of ST ,political will of leaders

and all the tax payers money.Singapore can make or intergrate almost all

military essential weapons and equipments!!Cheers!!x many times.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

We are not keen to operate the biggest conventional subs in the world.

Rather we will get AIP sub very soon----quietest and stay in water much

longer!!

We are not keen to get latest fighters.Rather,we get the war proven F 15!!

(Sg stars like war proven.But BvS 10 is proven to be not suitable in Afghan!!

UK MOD will recall BvS 10 to Uk for future services)

@@@@@@@@@@@@\

ST Marine able to build

Formidable Class Multi-Mission Frigates - Naval Technology!!

Man!x

30 Dec 08, 19:06

Originally posted by lionnoisy:

If u look carefully,some of their products are not better than ST's !!

Will you care enough to post the products you claim "are not better" than ST and do a side by side comparison (eg: cost, rate of fire, ergonomics, battle-tested etc.) Then we judge based on that. And plus some end-user review ie: soldiers, airmen.

If you really think ST stuff is really great, please post at forums like militaryphotos.net or something. See whether they agree with you.

lionnoisy

30 Dec 08, 19:31

Originally posted by Man!x:

Will you care enough to post the products you claim "are not better" than ST and do a side by side comparison (eg: cost, rate of fire, ergonomics, battle-tested etc.) Then we judge based on that. And plus some end-user review ie: soldiers, airmen.

If you really think ST stuff is really great, please post at forums like militaryphotos.net or something. See whether they agree with you.

if i say better,i will be accused of country bashing.

sgstars

31 Dec 08, 02:00

lionnoisy OBVIOUSLY fail reading comprehension in school. probably fail maths in school.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/corporate/documents/ir/LMT1Q08Highlights.pdf

Full Year ($M)
Sales
2008 (YTD) $ 09,983
2007 41,862
2006 39,620
2005 37,213

lockheed martin sales in 2005 to 2007 is 41.8 billion plus 39.62 billion plus 37.213

for those text-challenged like lionnoisy, i shall post here in gigantuan maths equation

41.8 + 39.62 + 37. 213 = 156.073 Billion dollars (USD)

LM sales is 21 times of ST,but profits is just 8 times of ST

average sales of LM for 2005 to 2007 is US$39500 million or S$59300 m .

ST average sales is 4230 S$ million or US$2800 a year million for the same period.

wah lionnoisy, not enough with telling lies, now cooking up numbers too ? you'd make a fine banker lionnoisy. pluck out imaginary numbers and concoct them in your head is it ?

and let me announce to you a new level of lionnoisy stupidity. cannot differentiate between 2/3 of a physical year profit ?

lionnoisy said :

LM's profits is just 8 times of ST!!

let me answer the profits.the averge of LM 2 years earnings after tax (based on 3 quarters and adjusted to one year) is US 3085 million or US 3 billion a year.

Poor ST Net Operating after tax is S$ 549 million or 378 million US.

FYI : no body counts income like based on 3 quarters and adjusted to one year. it is earnings as far as this 3Q that year. if everyone did like you did, means 4Q of the year can anyhow add and subtract figures to economic output ? lol.. wtf was that ? i cant imagine how stupid you can be.

like that singapore can magically have 10 % annual growth and escape recession at the end of the year. you might be incredibly retarded in that sense, or you could be a financial alchemist genius.

the 2007 figures arethere to compare and show improved performance above the previous year at that specific point in time.

SELF-PWN +1
IGNORANCE +1
STUPIDITY OF LIONNOISY +X

and btw, even if i go by your stupid means of accounting, you still add wrongly.

ild prove it right here :

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/corporate/documents/ir/3Q08-Earnings-Release-Attachments.pdf

                                                   NINE MONTHS ENDED

                                               September 28, 2008         September 30, 2007

Earnings before income taxes                3,533                                   3,186
Income tax expense    1,139                                     952

Net earnings                              $ 2,394             $ 2,234

which means by sept 28 2007, lockheed martin earned 2234 million dollars for that calender year (jan 1~ dec31st 2007)in profits after tax

which means by sept 28 2008, lockheed martin earned 2394 million dollars for that calender year (jan 1~ dec31st 2008) in profit after tax.

so if this were a maths problem, the answer would be

2,234 + X + 2,394 = Lockheed martin total profit from period Jan 01, 2007 to sept 28 2008

X being the amount of profit after taxes earned during the period from sept 29 ~ dec31st 2007.

and oh btw, Lockheed martin earned 4, 628 million dollars (4.628 billion) even if using your screwed up method of counting. *

*= revenue from jan 1 to sept 28 2007 + revenue from Jan 1 to sept 28 2008

for those who cant bother to read, this is official. this is big. LIONNOISY CANT COUNT :D

hahahahaha

simple addition also cannot do. i used to think you were a young punkass sec school kid. but now i realize you probably need to go back to kindergarden. your addition FAIL.

sgstars

31 Dec 08, 02:27

gd4u

31 Dec 08, 03:09

Lion,

The difference that LM faces in their local market, is something called competition. There is still Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Alliant Tech and Northrop Grumman.Another pie of the US military budget also goes to a plethora of private contractors that the DoD outsources some of its services to.

However, here in SG, our SAF is relying on on ST. It doesn't make much justice to compare LM n ST on revenue/profits against budget.

And the listed products such as FFG, MCMV, MCV and PVs aren't fully locally designed and built. These had their 1st vessel built in Europe or elsewhere, and the remaining vessels then built in ST shipyards. Even Jane's Fighting Ships list our MCMVs as Landsort Class than Bedok Class.

But does this (listing these products) really prove that STM has the capability to built and design ships totally on its own? I guess, not now.

sgstars

31 Dec 08, 03:47

Originally posted by gd4u:

Lion,

The difference that LM faces in their local market, is something called competition. There is still Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Alliant Tech and Northrop Grumman.Another pie of the US military budget also goes to a plethora of private contractors that the DoD outsources some of its services to.

However, here in SG, our SAF is relying on on ST. It doesn't make much justice to compare LM n ST on revenue/profits against budget.

And the listed products such as FFG, MCMV, MCV and PVs aren't fully locally designed and built. These had their 1st vessel built in Europe or elsewhere, and the remaining vessels then built in ST shipyards. Even Jane's Fighting Ships list our MCMVs as Landsort Class than Bedok Class.

But does this (listing these products) really prove that STM has the capability to built and design ships totally on its own? I guess, not now.

actually i was the one who egged him into making the comparison.

i posted the link on LHM's profits and challenged him to take the bait and reveal his intent.

lionnoisy clearly isnt out for some logical comparion or reasoning. his sole purpose here is to troll and pump out a RAH RAH singapuRAH message.

i baited him and he bought it hook line and sinker by saying that ST engineering is very good,blah-blah competent. etc. and he even tried to forge / spin the numbers (which are complete fabrications on his part btw)

point i wanted to make is, irregardless of how diverse and how complicated STK's product range is, STK is still a kuching kurup in the global defence Pie.

I have no doubts STK have their strengths and weaknesses with stakes distributed across the various defence sectors, its just that STK is still a small fish in a big ocean.

good point about the bit of how much STK's products are actually technology transfers and how much is created or produced by local R&D. but i promise you he wont get it. he'd just continue his rant about how we STK has mastered the art of "integrating weapons systems" or whatever he calls it.

he's quite phathetic really, living in his own little bubble

gd4u

31 Dec 08, 10:20

Originally posted by sgstars:

good point about the bit of how much STK's products are actually technology transfers and how much is created or produced by local R&D. but i promise you he wont get it. he'd just continue his rant about how we STK has mastered the art of "integrating weapons systems" or whatever he calls it.

Hehe, thanks. ... i still have alot to learn ...

lionnoisy

31 Dec 08, 10:58

Originally posted by sgstars:

lionnoisy OBVIOUSLY fail reading comprehension in school. probably fail maths in school.

lockheed martin sales in 2005 to 2007 is 41.8 billion plus 39.62 billion plus 37.213

for those text-challenged like lionnoisy, i shall post here in gigantuan maths equation

41.8 + 39.62 + 37. 213 = 156.073 Billion dollars (USD)

wah lionnoisy, not enough with telling lies, now cooking up numbers too ? you'd make a fine banker lionnoisy. pluck out imaginary numbers and concoct them in your head is it ?

and let me announce to you a new level of lionnoisy stupidity. cannot differentiate between 2/3 of a physical year profit ?

lionnoisy said :

FYI : no body counts income like based on 3 quarters and adjusted to one year. it is earnings as far as this 3Q that year. if everyone did like you did, means 4Q of the year can anyhow add and subtract figures to economic output ? lol.. wtf was that ? i cant imagine how stupid you can be.

like that singapore can magically have 10 % annual growth and escape recession at the end of the year. you might be incredibly retarded in that sense, or you could be a financial alchemist genius.

the 2007 figures arethere to compare and show improved performance above the previous year at that specific point in time.

SELF-PWN +1
IGNORANCE +1
STUPIDITY OF LIONNOISY +X

and btw, even if i go by your stupid means of accounting, you still add wrongly.

ild prove it right here :

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/corporate/documents/ir/3Q08-Earnings-Release-Attachments.pdf

which means by sept 28 2007, lockheed martin earned 2234 million dollars for that calender year (jan 1~ dec31st 2007)in profits after tax

which means by sept 28 2008, lockheed martin earned 2394 million dollars for that calender year (jan 1~ dec31st 2008) in profit after tax.

so if this were a maths problem, the answer would be

2,234 + X + 2,394 = Lockheed martin total profit from period Jan 01, 2007 to sept 28 2008

X being the amount of profit after taxes earned during the period from sept 29 ~ dec31st 2007.

and oh btw, Lockheed martin earned 4, 628 million dollars (4.628 billion) even if using your screwed up method of counting. *

*= revenue from jan 1 to sept 28 2007 + revenue from Jan 1 to sept 28 2008

for those who cant bother to read, this is official. this is big. LIONNOISY CANT COUNT :D

hahahahaha

simple addition also cannot do. i used to think you were a young punkass sec school kid. but now i realize you probably need to go back to kindergarden. your addition FAIL.

tx u really do your home work and i trust u !!

sorry for my mistakes.

lionnoisy

31 Dec 08, 11:22

Originally posted by gd4u:

Lion,

The difference that LM faces in their local market, is something called competition. There is still Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Alliant Tech and Northrop Grumman.Another pie of the US military budget also goes to a plethora of private contractors that the DoD outsources some of its services to.

However, here in SG, our SAF is relying on on ST. It doesn't make much justice to compare LM n ST on revenue/profits against budget.

And the listed products such as FFG, MCMV, MCV and PVs aren't fully locally designed and built. These had their 1st vessel built in Europe or elsewhere, and the remaining vessels then built in ST shipyards. Even Jane's Fighting Ships list our MCMVs as Landsort Class than Bedok Class.

But does this (listing these products) really prove that STM has the capability to built and design ships totally on its own? I guess, not now.

I agree the first ship was built overseas.Whats wrong with that?

U need to copy and learn ,Right?U need hand on experieces to see

how to do things!It is stupid that do every thing on its soil and cant

learn from others.

I stressed many times here that not every bolts and nuts are designed and

built here.

ST is good to intergrate and make decisions pretty fast to roll

our new platforms.Remember Sg population is 3.5 millions of citizens!!

Just like the Frigate,there are many sys from many countries.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Quality of ST

Many here said just SAF bought ST stuff.I dunt think so.

Bionix was one of the 4 finalists and the only foreign vehicle in USA

US$ 4 b Medium Armored Vehicle project.There were more than 50 platforms around

the world to bid for this project!!

Design capability

I think ST has a good say on the design.Of course,ST cant do every thing.

ST is not so stupid to design and build sub on SG soil,for example!!

This will be damn high risks!!

@@@@@@@@@@@

BTW,if u are not happy with ST,then what can u say for your fren down under?

What can they make?The most powerful conventional subs,and two types

of warships.I know lah.Now,not more than 3 of the 6 subs still sail.

BTW,have any of the sub declared reaching Inital Operational Capabilty?

I dunt think so after the first ship commissioned in 1996!!

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

ask your oz call ST fren if they need anythings.

But they die die will not call!

What are their track records in aircraft conversions before

they ask for the jobs of The Wedgetail ?

ST Engg

sgstars

31 Dec 08, 11:43

Originally posted by lionnoisy:

I agree the first ship was built overseas.Whats wrong with that?

U need to copy and learn ,Right?U need hand on experieces to see

how to do things!It is stupid that do every thing on its soil and cant

learn from others.

I stressed many times here that not every bolts and nuts are designed and

built here.

ST is good to intergrate and make decisions pretty fast to roll

our new platforms.Remember Sg population is 3.5 millions of citizens!!

Just like the Frigate,there are many sys from many countries.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Quality of ST

Many here said just SAF bought ST stuff.I dunt think so.

Bionix was one of the 4 finalists and the only foreign vehicle in USA

US$ 4 b Medium Armored Vehicle project.There were more than 50 platforms around

the world to bid for this project!!

Design capability

I think ST has a good say on the design.Of course,ST cant do every thing.

ST is not so stupid to design and build sub on SG soil,for example!!

This will be damn high risks!!

@@@@@@@@@@@

BTW,if u are not happy with ST,then what can u say for your fren down under?

What can they make?The most powerful conventional subs,and two types

of warships.I know lah.Now,not more than 3 of the 6 subs still sail.

BTW,have any of the sub declared reaching Inital Operational Capabilty?

I dunt think so after the first ship commissioned in 1996!!

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

ask your oz call ST fren if they need anythings.

But they die die will not call!

What are their track records in aircraft conversions before

they ask for the jobs of The Wedgetail ?

another epic failure coming up lionnoisy

i give u pan chance. take it back before the MODs catch u for your classic OZ bashing and lock this thread

in any case, collins class is beyond IOC and actually actively deployed. you might wanna do some reading up. IOC is ususally used to refer to the period in which crews are familiarized with the weapons platform and doctrines are put to the test in the initial deployment of the weapons platform. it usually refers to a period of sussing out the kinks and potential failures of a particular weapons system.

and the wedgetail project isnt being handled in Australia. you clearly know this. it is being handled by boeing out of its seattle plant. delays if any, are due to boeing and northop gruman not getting their act together. what does this have to do with australia's technical competency ?

country bashing again ? u really hate australia do you ?

you might wanna do the reading up on your frigates as well. DSTA was responsible for the integeration. NOT STK. STK didnt exactly R&D and create stealth technology as well. STK got a technology transfer from DCNS. the lead ship of the class isnt exactly manufactured by STK as well ainnit.

lionnoisy

31 Dec 08, 11:45

Originally posted by sgstars:

actually i was the one who egged him into making the comparison.

i posted the link on LHM's profits and challenged him to take the bait and reveal his intent.

lionnoisy clearly isnt out for some logical comparion or reasoning. his sole purpose here is to troll and pump out a RAH RAH singapuRAH message.

i baited him and he bought it hook line and sinker by saying that ST engineering is very good,blah-blah competent. etc. and he even tried to forge / spin the numbers (which are complete fabrications on his part btw)

point i wanted to make is, irregardless of how diverse and how complicated STK's product range is, STK is still a kuching kurup in the global defence Pie.

I have no doubts STK have their strengths and weaknesses with stakes distributed across the various defence sectors, its just that STK is still a small fish in a big ocean.

good point about the bit of how much STK's products are actually technology transfers and how much is created or produced by local R&D. but i promise you he wont get it. he'd just continue his rant about how we STK has mastered the art of "integrating weapons systems" or whatever he calls it.

he's quite phathetic really, living in his own little bubble

STK is still a kuching kurup in the global defence Pie.

Can u tell me what are the product lists of oz defense industries?

I heard then they just struggled to roll out M 113 upgrade which ST has done

years ago?Can oz upgraded M 113 fly?

@@@@@@@@@@

how much STK's products are actually technology transfers and how much is created or produced by local R&D

U are right .SG defence R & D cant do anythings!!Full stop.

Chinese say u shall never reveal your real strangths.

Until the products roll out,then we talk about it ---STUPID!!

Dunt talk before u do!!Like Oz naval heli failed upgrade!!

Again,what did Oz roll out in the past 5 years?

Oz is going to complete armoured SPH----Korean Samsung model!!

If oz is so good,then why do Oz need Samsung.

I think u jus need Samsung Hand phone,but not SPH!!

@@@@@@@@@@@2

The following may not be No.1 in the world.This is just a little statement

that this poor red dot is very damn serious in defense!!

Yes,very serious.We are not to bully anyone.Neither we are to be

bullied!!No point to compare with other companies or countries!!

(The oz example just for my learned frens here for a little bit of relections.

SG population is just a city in oz).

Dunt ask me what we can make in defense?

Ask me what we cannot or shall not make.

Dunt tell me other country get this or that.

They are much much bigger then SG.

BTW,there are somethings we make and they have not made yet.

For example,is there any 155 mm 52 calibre in USA?

I dunt think so.SG get it.

Further,is there any powered howitzer in USA and UK?

I dunt think so.SG get it.

So,on the whole,we are just an arm's length behind them!!

@@@@@@@@@

For example,in aircraft conversions ,u need USA FAA approval if your

product need fly to USA!!

ST Engg

lionnoisy

31 Dec 08, 11:59

Originally posted by sgstars:

another epic failure coming up lionnoisy

i give u pan chance. take it back before the MODs catch u for your classic OZ bashing and lock this thread

in any case, collins class is beyond IOC and actually actively deployed. you might wanna do some reading up. IOC is ususally used to refer to the period in which crews are familiarized with the weapons platform and doctrines are put to the test in the initial deployment of the weapons platform. it usually refers to a period of sussing out the kinks and potential failures of a particular weapons system.

and the wedgetail project isnt being handled in Australia. you clearly know this. it is being handled by boeing out of its seattle plant. delays if any, are due to boeing and northop gruman not getting their act together. what does this have to do with australia's technical competency ?

country bashing again ? u really hate australia do you ?

you might wanna do the reading up on your frigates as well. DSTA was responsible for the integeration. NOT STK. STK didnt exactly R&D and create stealth technology as well. STK got a technology transfer from DCNS. the lead ship of the class isnt exactly manufactured by STK as well ainnit.

Collins sub

Any sub declared IOC or FOC?

http://www.asc.com.au/aspx/about_us_history.aspx

The RAN accepted ‘operational release’ of the six Collins Class submarines on 3 March 2004, representing formal acceptance of the Class into naval service and acknowledgement of the submarines’ ability to achieve defined operational outcomes.

Oz is a Commonwealth country and u can see in Wedgetail project that

they still have the concept of IOC and FOC.Dunt tell me Oz Navy

drop these concepts.So what is the fxxxing

‘operational release’?

Wedgetails

Oh u are damn right.When few airplanes under conversions,they recently doubts the

capability of the radars !!What kind of projects management is it

They ask USA MIT to check the radars!!

http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/338511

Wedgetails delayed last slim10

Air Vice Marshal Deeble—I want to further clarify this: the important thing is that we have written to Boeing seeking their understanding that we would be undertaking an independent review. It is my aim that that independent review be effectively run by DSTO, which has significant expertise in this particular area. DSTO
worked closely in the program prior to contract signature, at the point in time that the requirements were developed, and has been engaged in the program sets. MIT Lincoln Lab is a pre-eminent research organisation
in the US. It supports the US government and we will be seeking its services through the US government agencies to support that independent assessment. That will be important for us to understand the baseline performance and any path forward for remediation of any shortfalls of the radar.

FYI more than one Wedgetails are under conversions in Oz,

a country with minimum conversions experiences!!

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

i drag Oz into this thread becos u say ST just so so and....

I need some comparsions lah....

Lets see how a first world country few times big than SG can perform

in defense industries.

sgstars

1 Jan 09, 01:46

Originally posted by lionnoisy:

STK is still a kuching kurup in the global defence Pie.

Can u tell me what are the product lists of oz defense industries?

I heard then they just struggled to roll out M 113 upgrade which ST has done

years ago?Can oz upgraded M 113 fly?

yawn.

lets open this to the floor then lionnoisy. this will get really ugly. who here dosent agree that lionnoisy is country bashing and targeting australia again, please voice you objections.

wah, why you take offence at SG being a kuching kurup ?

why cannot acknowledge that SG is an ANCHOVIE ( ps i forgot your INGRISH not so good, IKAN BILIS) in the global defence market ? wanna compare with ISRAEL ? approximately same size population, but much larger and better defence industry.

Isarel has its fingers in armour (merkava) to UAVs (elbit , IAI) and even aircraft (LAVI project) . WHY SINGAPORE DONT HAVE ?

Israel can even have Popeye cruise missile for a tiny "navy" that defends the dead sea. what about our Formidables ? got any offensive weapon other than the main gun and harpoon missiles ?

how much STK's products are actually technology transfers and how much is created or produced by local R&D

U are right .SG defence R & D cant do anythings!!Full stop.

Chinese say u shall never reveal your real strangths.

Until the products roll out,then we talk about it ---STUPID!!

Dunt talk before u do!!Like Oz naval heli failed upgrade!!

Again,what did Oz roll out in the past 5 years?

wahhah, what have australia done to you to deserve this ?

so SG boleh, australia tak boleh ?

what they screw up with their Kama SH-2 Seasprite has anything to do with me ? must i bear the blame if they screw up their own program ?

FYI, your beloved pegasus only came about after SAF acquired a m777 from BAE for testing and evaluation in the 90s.

our bionix also came about after SAF evaluated several IFV platforms like the bradley and the marder for local needs.

read between the lines and piece the puzzle together yourself. Its an open secret that our Bionix was designed and manufactured based on the thorough evaluation of the best IFVs avalaible to us in the market.

likewise, the Pegasus's appearance in the immediate aftermath of the m777 raise a few eyebrows.

its quite clear even if they are not carbon copies, the engineering for both weapon platforms can be loosely said to have been "inspired" by existing products within the marketplace.

and i m not even going to mention the Bronco , BV206 connection here. Bae Hagglunds thought the Bronco ripped the Bv206 off enough that it sued STK. that alone pretty much explains everything.

and FYI, chinese also have a saying, to know your own limitations and be well aware of your own strength relative to others, is to be of stout character.

The following may not be No.1 in the world.This is just a little statement

that this poor red dot is very damn serious in defense!!

Yes,very serious.We are not to bully anyone.Neither we are to be

bullied!!No point to compare with other companies or countries!!

(The oz example just for my learned frens here for a little bit of relections.

SG population is just a city in oz).

Dunt ask me what we can make in defense?

Ask me what we cannot or shall not make.

Dunt tell me other country get this or that.

They are much much bigger then SG.

yea and so ?

can SG make a submarine ?
can SG design and build a aircraft (like the LAVI project)
can SG produce nukes ?
can SG produce a MBT ?
can SG produce large long endurance UAVs like the Searcher II and heron 450 UAV ?
can SG produce a heavy anti tank missile (like the SPIKE or JAVELIN ?)
can SG produce bunker busing munitions ?
can SG produce EW kits ?
can SG produce SAMs ?

you realize you just self-pwned when you said this ?

Ask me what we cannot or shall not make.
No point to compare with other companies or countries!!

SG cannot make all of the above. either physical limitations or cost limitations.

why stroke your own balls ? because it feels good and prevents you from realizing your massive inferiority complex ?

People like you need a good kick in the balls to wake up you F***** idea ( to borrow a colloquial army term).

SG is not and will not ever become a massive arnament / weapons powerhouse because of a whole host of geopolitical reasons, socioeconomic reasons and military expenditure.

sgstars

1 Jan 09, 02:31

regarding wedgetail.

the first 2 are being assembled and integated in seattle, boeing's plant. the first 2 are the test and initial examples.

once the first two have been completed, the others will be much more straightforward, like car assembly, since the integration problems would have been solved in the assembly of planes 1 and 2

http://integrator.hanscom.af.mil/2007/May/05102007/05102007-21.htm

OFFSET DEAL
Of Australia’s six Wedgetails being modified, work on the first two is being conducted in Seattle, while modification of the remaining four aircraft is being done by Boeing Australia at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Amberley, Queensland. It is the largest and most complex commercial-to-military aircraft modification ever undertaken in Australia.

Aircraft No. 1 is in Seattle and has been modified for upgrade with the mission system. U.S. Federal Aviation Administration certification for the mission system is the next plan, Dougherty said, with flight tests toward that goal scheduled for the middle of this year.

Aircraft No. 2, which is the workhorse for the flight test program, is primarily being used for maturation of the radar. No. 3 is at Amberley and has recently had the radar installed — “a fantastic effort by Boeing Australia,” Dougherty said.

No. 4 is also at Amberley and undergoing the structural reinforcement work; No. 5 arrived in Australia in January ready for modification, and the sixth and final aircraft is scheduled for delivery to Australia in May, she said.

The Australian government says it has been working closely with Boeing to understand what the latest delays mean for the country operationally, and especially when crew training can start. Australia had originally hoped to start training on the Wedgetail simulator, installed at RAAF Base Williamtown, in July.

Customer acceptance of the first two aircraft isn’t planned until March 2009, with the first two aircraft to form the basis for crew training, Deeble said. Australia will declare initial operational capability once the crews are trained, which is typically 18 months after aircraft acceptance, he added.

and why oh why lionnoisy. cite the Australian minister calling in MIT but dont even know why he call in MIT ?

he called in MIT because

“Senior military officers have admitted the prime contractor, US giant Boeing, and its sub-contractors have no idea how to fix the main problem – an unworkable radar system… Air Vice-Marshal Deeble qualified his [2011-2012] timetable by saying it depended on solving the technical issues with the MESA radar built by US firm Northrop Grumman…. In a desperate bid for answers, the Defence Materiel Organisation has contracted the world-leading independent radar house MIT Lincoln Lab to investigate. “That will be important for us to understand the baseline performance and any path forward for remediation of any shortfall of the radar,” Air Vice-Marshal Deeble told the Senate.”

so now you want to blame Australia and attack australia's competency and defence industry because of an problems with the MESA radar being built by northrop grumman ?

MIT was engaged to conduct an independent review of problems with the radar and to explain it to the ADF. which is actually a really smart thing to do. because if ADF finds out that Boeing or Northrop Grumman is screwing up or delaying the integreation process out of their own incompetency, ADF stands to get additional compensation on top of the 200 something million that boeing has paid them.

note the part about DSTO having evaluated the MESA's radar performance up to contract signing

DSTO worked closely in the program prior to contract signature, at the point in time that the requirements were developed, and has been engaged in the program sets

which leads to the following conclusion

(i) MESA radar performance not up to contract requirements set by DSTO
(ii) integreation issues by contractor, BOEING, Northorp grumman and BOEING australia
(iii) MIT's role is to investigate and find out why is the MESA radar not performing up to requirements and who or what is causing the fall in performance.

please learn to read the the article first. It is questioning the efficiency of the integreation process and how it might delay the delivery of the aircraft and affect the radar's performance

LOL. SELF-PWNED +1

oh yeah, collins class sub. dont worry. collins class sub is operational. i cant figure out why only you cant get it.

everyone else does.

you want to quibble over semantics ? over operational release ? FYI, Collins class has been in service since the 1990s and you know that link you provided is the shipyard that produced the collins class right ?

i guess it would be just atypical of you to conveniently leave this out :

The sixth Collins Class submarine - HMAS Rankin - was delivered to the RAN on 26 March 2003. This marked the end of ASC's Submarine Build contract for the Collins Class.

cant see the connection ? RAN commission the last sub in 26 march 2003. with about 1 year for the ship to pass initial operating tests , criteria and familiarization for the crew before the boat can be considered operationally ready.

which is why RAN can declare that ASC is operationally release on the 4 march 2004?

are you that stupid that you cant rationalize ?

they still have the concept of IOC and FOC.Dunt tell me Oz Navy

drop these concepts.So what is the fxxxing

‘operational release’?

cannot rationalize so must use vulgarities like this ?

please lah, dont mock our collective intelligence with your phathetic attempts to smoke us here ? if you want to do, at least put in some effort.

IOC = weapon induction phase

FOC = what ? FREE OF CHARGE ? LOL... using acronymns without knowing ?

their FXXXING operational release (quoting you here) means, ASC has completed the contract for the collins class and is released from any liabilities ensuing or related to the production of the collins class boats.

it is the MANUFACTRER being officialy told by RAN that its released from liability in relation to its duties specified in the collins class contract.

in any case lionnoisy. sadly, this is another case of clear and transparent country bashing. its a new year. make a fresh start.

stop you Oz bashing nonsense if not i will collect and take record of all your Oz bashing post and send in letters and write in to the newspapers to make public your stupidity and bigotry.

your skin too thick here to be shamed, never mind about that, i can understand that. but if you want to be nationally humiliated. i am pretty obliging. so are the local MEDIA.

sgstars

1 Jan 09, 11:47

need count count from sesame street to teach u basic addition lionnoisy ?

lionnoisy

7 Jan 09, 10:26

may i remind u that SG ot STK is not keen to promote that

all defense stuff are designed and made in SG!!

Time is an essence.We dunt have luxury like other countries which dunt have

tight time frame or they get very lenient time frame to roll out products.

Foe them 2009 to complete is ok.2010 also ok.2020 also ok.

SG have to roll out products within a reasonable time frame.

But we never forget the basic knowledge.We just dunt buy off shelf.

We try to transfer technology to our brain!!

#@@@@@@@@@@@

STK has confidences to make decisions and as a intergrator!!

Our frigate program is also progressing well, despite the integration complexities of the platform and combat systems. We are delivering six frigates - one built by DCN in France and the other five locally by ST Marine. This program is one of the most complex naval programs DSTA has undertaken. The frigate has more than 10 different systems from different manufacturers, ranging from radars to missile systems. It is designed by the French with input from DSTA. DSTA is the systems integrator, which means we are responsible for choosing the combat systems and integrating them as a system of systems. The combat management system is indigenously developed by DSTA and DSO engineers. We commissioned one ship last year and three more on Feb. 5.....

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3505451&c=FEA&s=INT

Soh Kong Pheng

CEO, Singapore's Defence Science and Technology Agency,28.04.2008

lionnoisy

7 Jan 09, 10:40

Let us go for some history lessons!!

1974 - The RSN became the first
Navy in the region to successfully fire an
anti-ship missile, when RSS SEA WOLF
fired the Gabriel Surface-to-Surface Missile
(SSM). This marked the Navy's entry into
the missile age.

http://app.sprinter.gov.sg/data/pr/20080513986.pdf

Missile Gunboats Retire after 33 Years of Distinguished Service

with old photos

lionnoisy

7 Jan 09, 11:03

SG took up military skills pretty fast!!

For a no hard feeling comparsions,oz launched and commissioned first guided

missiles naval ship,a destoryer ,in 1963 and 1965 respectively.

The RSN's first MGBs, RSS Sea Wolf and RSS Sea Lion, arrived in
Singapore in 1972 and were commissioned in 1975.

http://app.sprinter.gov.sg/data/pr/20080513986.pdf

http://www.hmasperth.asn.au/Perth_2.html

@@@@@@@@@

i must say our boat cant be compared with OZ destoryer lah!!