Singapore gets more leopard tanks
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
Must be someone else, my only Guards unit was 3rd Guards BMT in Nee Soon.
Not too familiar with the Magach, the only tanks I’m familiar with that had M48/60 were the American Walker and Patton. Any idea when David served? If he’s very, very old, could it be that we got some surplus Super Shermans from the Israelis?
As for the Centurions, I’m guessing they were either for study, target practice or to scare others off judging from their condition (rusted brown and hull paper thin, missing tracks, roadwheels etc) though that could have been after they were declared scrap. Totally unusable.
Talking about unknown tanks, I was in NS when they were roadtesting the Bionix under dri-clad covers, my unit kept reporting them as Stormers due to their shape. We thought the SAF was going British for a while.
Yup I thought I remembered that. I just thought Guards only conduct mono for their own intake.
Magach are just Israeli-upgraded M-48/60 upgunned to 105mm. Super Shermans as medium tanks would predate the definition of MBT, and probably would be barely serviceable by 1970.
Btw I posted awhile back, if you go to Army Museum at Safti they have AMX-10s with (one IFV and one 90mm) on display in what appear to be Opfor colours (black spots). Perhaps in addition to evaluation, the MBTs served in the Opfor role at one time.
Another possibility: David occassionally alludes to the mystical world of official secrets once in awhile, without giving anything away on his blog. He surely knew it would fuel speculation when he made that cryptic statement "fast landing craft are also needed to ferry the SAF's third MBT type, the Leopard 2SGs" and tersely said the M60 did not count as the second. It's in keeping with his style.
As such, these hypotheses of his may not be 100% precise, to avoid bracketing the secret. If he indirectly lets one out, all his access will be gone. He might have been dramatic for drama's sake, and the vehicle was not strictly an MBT but simply a direct fire system.
The Govt might fuel such speculation for various reason, through its own unofficial channels or by giving selective access to people like David.
-
Originally posted by Bio-Hawk:
Good quality but not designed for a battle!
... right... MBTs are used for roadracing... Get real, the Germans are considered one of the world's best tank makers, say tank manufacturer and the 3 most famous countries that come to mind are US, Russia and Germany. -
Actually, one of the trends worrying me is the increased use of anti-missile systems in tanks. If we can't use missiles to kill tanks anymore, our AT arsenal becomes very limited, no SPIKE, Matador, Milan, Hellfire, what do we have left? MBT vs MBT, but what about the poor infantry? Back to AT mines, abatis and AT ditches?
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
Actually, one of the trends worrying me is the increased use of anti-missile systems in tanks. If we can’t use missiles to kill tanks anymore, our AT arsenal becomes very limited, no SPIKE, Matador, Milan, Hellfire, what do we have left? MBT vs MBT, but what about the poor infantry? Back to AT mines, abatis and AT ditches?
Fire at lower value unprotected vehicles or outside the system's coverage? Most APS are not designed to defeat top attack munitions and for cost reasons only cover the frontal aspect.
In the future, infantry will lose the ability to fight tanks completely and will gain ability to call networked fires from hypersonic long range ATGMs or smart artillery munitions which are not manportable.
When that day comes, tanks will be on the losing end as compared to infantry who are not worth calling in networked fires for. Those hypothetical networked systems can deliver the same effects tanks provide.
Hence tanks can only confer local superiority and will only have a role in counterinsurgency against primitive enemies.
-
Well, don't hold your breath till that day comes, aphoxia's a terrible way to go. :P If what you said is true, I can forsee infantry losing the ability to engage tanks in urban areas, too many obstructions for direct arty fire and you'll need to call in "danger close" fire missions. Not something that fills a spotter with joy. Not to mention shifting ATGMs to an indirect platform has it's own flaws, like getting plastered by counter-arty fire. Now, an infantryman fires a SPIKE from a window, it doesn't go very high above tree-top level, so arty won't have a clue it's there, no counterfire. As indirect fire, fire control radars can backplot the origin point and plaster the area with 155/227s. And open areas where you can launch fire support from are actually rather few in number and usually "booked" by conventional artillery already. Guess it's back to mines and fishing line bombs. :(
-
But think about it, with advancements in airborne, ground-based and esp drone-borne radar or passive sensors, it is inevitable that sensors will proliferate. All kinds of vehicles will become more vulnerable. They will be vulnerable to surface-surface and air-surface missiles of increasingly long range, if the drones are not themselves armed.
At the current rate, these sensors will far outstrip the shooters range. Even the 25km SPIKE NLOS won't come close to exploiting a targeting drone's potential. The reason is it's very inefficient to shoot an ATGM to 25km, if you don't pack multiple munitions into one cargo round.
Probably the artillery units of tomorrow will haul these rounds, and their tube arty and VLS rockets will carry the same AP/AT munitions to different ranges. The further they are from the enemy, the more they will resemble a kind of artillery than an ATGM, like the cancelled FCS NLOS crate of missiles on a soft-skinned truck. The closest cargo rocket equivalent today might be HIMARS. The launcher will just have to displace after firing as conventional arty does today.
Conventional arty relies on too many of these vulnerable vehicles too close to the FEBA, they might just disappear in favour of the smart arty whose single truckload can last a few days.
If a requesting infantryman can ask the munitions to avoid seeking targets in his location, he should be quite safe under cover. If the target is very close, he might be able to turn off the AP ones. Not carrying his own AT rockets should much improve a soldier's performance. More importantly, infantry cannot carry AT weapons in quantity and quality necesary to overwhelm a future tank's Active Protection System.
*The reason I think sensor drones will be unarmed is they need to have very high endurance. Carrying the munitions will cut their loiter times. They can also recon more aggressively if they are stealthier and cheaper when shot down.
-
Actually, if we can laser guide a 120mm motar from a SRAM, it might do the job, don't risk an expensive arty piece, only a Spider Light Strike and it's ammo carrier and more timely fire too (less time lag to round arrival) 8km range. SAF sensors still have some flaws, but they try to use a combined sensor unit (Camera/Motion/Seismic). Results... still need a human's evaluation, the computer can assign really weird identifiers to the readings (ie the "uncle's lorry that drove past is an A-vehicle. lol. Reservist tank? :P ) Still think the best sensor is an infantryman dug in in a camoed shellscrape. No noise, no movement, long endurance, onboard computer (variable processor speeds though. :P) fuzzy logic processors. lol
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
Actually, if we can laser guide a 120mm motar from a SRAM, it might do the job, don't risk an expensive arty piece, only a Spider Light Strike and it's ammo carrier and more timely fire too (less time lag to round arrival) 8km range. SAF sensors still have some flaws, but they try to use a combined sensor unit (Camera/Motion/Seismic). Results... still need a human's evaluation, the computer can assign really weird identifiers to the readings (ie the "uncle's lorry that drove past is an A-vehicle. lol. Reservist tank? :P ) Still think the best sensor is an infantryman dug in in a camoed shellscrape. No noise, no movement, long endurance, onboard computer (variable processor speeds though. :P) fuzzy logic processors. lol
But that guy has to be fed and resupplied and batteries recharged, and he can only laser designate targets quite near him, one at a time. I think for targeting large metal vehicles, drones will be more capable.
Sweden makes such a 120mm AT round called a STRIX, but it seeks targets autonomously like SADARM. They fire it from a high-rate, automatically aimed SP mortar system. They probably use their hidden observers to call it in, which ties nicely with the 10km range. For use with drones, a conventional army will need an arty version.
Back to the point, we might need many of these to overwhelm the latest Active Protection Systems that can counter top attack. The US tested a competing XM395 round using the same technology as the low cost 70mm guided (Hydra) rockets. Which shows that such anti-armour weapons can be practically cheap and should be exploited.
Did you mention the SAF experimented with a combined sensor unit? You mean like the ones dropped on the HCM trail in Vietnam?
-
Originally posted by alize:
But that guy has to be fed and resupplied and batteries recharged, and he can only laser designate targets quite near him, one at a time. I think for targeting large metal vehicles, drones will be more capable.
Sweden makes such a 120mm AT round called a STRIX, but it seeks targets autonomously like SADARM. They fire it from a high-rate, automatically aimed SP mortar system. They probably use their hidden observers to call it in, which ties nicely with the 10km range. For use with drones, a conventional army will need an arty version.
Back to the point, we might need many of these to overwhelm the latest Active Protection Systems that can counter top attack. The US tested a competing XM395 round using the same technology as the low cost 70mm guided (Hydra) rockets. Which shows that such anti-armour weapons can be practically cheap and should be exploited.
Did you mention the SAF experimented with a combined sensor unit? You mean like the ones dropped on the HCM trail in Vietnam?
How about helo-based FOs? The Apaches can laser designate (and at arty ranges). The US also uses the OH-6 and Boeing has come up with the Blk III AH-64 that can control UAVs thru datalinks. Makes me think whether RSAF was too hasty selling off the fennecs.
The hellfire replacement is looking at 16+km ranges (with 25+km for maverick fixed-wing-launched replacement). So increased range is inevitable (though agree with response time issues).
I think 120mm PGM rounds makes sense when spider-armed SRAMs don't carry much rounds. However, there is the cargo 120mm round that is effective and produced locally by ST (AT version at 70mm penetration for top attack. Sufficient for IFV-killing).
Hydra laser seekers aren't cheap. The Talon was touted at 25% of hellfire cost (~US$25k each). The APKWS is now getting slightly cheaper but still around that price range as well. Still not as competitive with cargo rounds incl hydra cargo versions which go at US$1+k each.
-
Did you mention the SAF experimented with a combined sensor unit? You mean like the ones dropped on the HCM trail in Vietnam?" It comes with a laptop sized CPU. Do not recommend dropping THAT. lol It's hand planted. "But that guy has to be fed and resupplied and batteries recharged, and he can only laser designate targets quite near him, one at a time. I think for targeting large metal vehicles, drones will be more capable." Drones do it one at a time too. Though in cases like these, you pick the tank in the center, then call for cluster/self guided submunitions round instead. And men know how to fast, hard to tell an RPV to eat less fuel. :P Also, RPVs are airfield dependent too, who knows if we can find a non-cratered runway nearby. Another possibility I can think of to break an Active System is to mass fire cheap dumb rounds at the tank, let it burn up it's ready stores of anti-missiles, think Raython's Quick-kill only has 16 ready rounds? Maybe we can finally find a use for the STK/Redback Metalstorm system other than area denial. Have it fire a swarm of rounds at RPG speeds at a tank, burn off the AMS ammo, then come in with the real ATGM. But I can just hear the troops cursing the weight already. We definately need to mechanise our infantry to a heavier extent.
-
... or we can just cut the crap and design a LO radar casing for our existing stuff... makes them all valid again. Simplest solution?
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
It comes with a laptop sized CPU. Do not recommend dropping THAT. lol It’s hand planted.
Wah piang, did they expect the commandos to haul a car battery to keep it alive more than a few hours?
-
Battery packs. And it isn't the sensor unit that can kill, though it helps, it's the central processing node, a Toshiba toughbook. Add all together 48kg, divide by 4 man team, extra 12kg per person on top of normal combat load. And hush about the battery, don't give them ideas...
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
Battery packs. And it isn’t the sensor unit that can kill, though it helps, it’s the central processing node, a Toshiba toughbook. Add all together 48kg, divide by 4 man team, extra 12kg per person on top of normal combat load. And hush about the battery, don’t give them ideas…
Haha. All this weight just for ONE sensor, whose value is proportional to the distance those poor guys haul it? Haven't seen this weight/benefit ratio since the SAF's Infantry Rocket Launcher.
Off-route AT mines are hardly new. They provide the same detection functions and fire an EFP into the tank's side.
-
3 sensors, one node. But not sure if it's going to be a permanant item, they're still tweaking. A mine that fires stuff might still trigger the AMS to knock the round down, so it might not work. Best bet I can see is a charge conected to hooked "fishing lines" that get caught in tracks as the tank goes by and reels the charge in. No tank kill, but good chance of a mobility kill if you blow off roadwheels and tracks. OTOH, the SAF might have to AMS it's own fleet of tanks, make it someone elses problem lol.
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
3 sensors, one node. But not sure if it’s going to be a permanant item, they’re still tweaking.
A mine that fires stuff might still trigger the AMS to knock the round down, so it might not work. Best bet I can see is a charge conected to hooked “fishing lines” that get caught in tracks as the tank goes by and reels the charge in. No tank kill, but good chance of a mobility kill if you blow off roadwheels and tracks.
OTOH, the SAF might have to AMS it’s own fleet of tanks, make it someone elses problem lol.
Possibly. The first question is whether the radar and charges are oriented towards the mine's position on the ground.
The other question is whether the EFP fired from a few meters away will give the APS enough reaction time to detect, compute, slew and fire.
-
As far as I know, the German system has a 0.05 sec reaction time. The land line charge won't trigger the AMS as it's moving too slowly to be read as a missile. Interestingly, even sabot gets intercepted as the system identifies it as a high speed missile.
-
I didn't get to reply before the other thread was locked so my answer is"
Depends on who is the general.
-
Looks like Indonesia is shopping for the remaining Dutch L2s ... amongst other things.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1201/S00346/ri-to-spend-big-on-military.htm
-
Indonesia is buying 100, with delivery expected to complete by 2014. However, the deal has to clear approval with the parliaments of the Netherlands and Indonesia, not without some expected controversy.
-
Pity we couldn't grab it ourselves, it was a bargain. Bring it up to Leopard SG standards and it would still be a bargain.
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
How about helo-based FOs? The Apaches can laser designate (and at arty ranges). The US also uses the OH-6 and Boeing has come up with the Blk III AH-64 that can control UAVs thru datalinks. Makes me think whether RSAF was too hasty selling off the fennecs.
This sounds like an insurgency weapon.
In a war, the Apache crew will be too busy looking for threats, looking for targets and trying to survive.
-
Originally posted by alize:
This sounds like an insurgency weapon.
In a war, the Apache crew will be too busy looking for threats, looking for targets and trying to survive.
The AH-64s could do it with a single scan from the longbow radar. Auto-classification of 256 targets within its 8 km range which is why I suspect is the reason for the sale of the Fennecs.http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/longbowradar/assets/longbow.pdf
Blk III/arrowheads is extending the radar range, not surprising as the next attack missiles are 16km ranged and above.
Laser designation of targets for arty by Apache, I think, is practiced for Wallaby or Forging sabre. Seem to have read that somewhere.
-
I'm referring to the Apache's control of UAVs.
-
ah so, I agree. High level, I would assume ground control is a better source than in-flight control. I dun think RSAF will adopt that though radar/extended missile enhancement may be likely at some point in time.
Boeing may be looking from the perspective that sensor-shooter times would be extended if relayed from UAV to ground control to Helo. Might just be easier to take control and see for oneself. Makes sense but the utility vs cost is not so clear cut.