Its kinda ironic that we have replaced our 20 year old A4 and are even talking about replacing the F-16 when there we have the AMX-13 (first produced in 1953) which is a bloody old 53 yr old grandfather.

Yes its been upgraded to SM1 standard but so what? All that adds is a better engine, transmission, running gear and electrical system. No improvement to armour or firepower. And honestly, how much can you improve a 53 year old platform?

I know there are many rumours flying around. One was that the former COA supposedly said the SM1 replacement may not be another tank but could be a rocket launched platform. Another rumour is that ST Kinetics will be building a tank based on the Bionix chassis. Yet another rumour claims that we'll probably buy ST Kinetic's Terrex and fit it with a 90mm main gun.

Personally I think a mixture of MBT & light tanks would be good. Perhaps the Merkeva 4 or LeClerc combined with the Terrex 90mm vehicle?

Terrex is a wheeled vehicle and it is design for urban, peacekeeping or rapid deployment (in a c-130) operation.

SAF light tank replacement will definitely be a tracked vehicle.

He needs to keep up with the tracked bionix, bronco, m-113, primus etc

a wheeled vehicle tactical mobility can never be as good as a tracked vehicle.

Therefore a 90mm gun terrex as SAF light tank replacement is definitely a no no.

There was a 105mm/120mm gun on a BX chasis in one of the SAF commercials...
That tank on one of those FCU transports and was landing on a beach along with the infantry..

Our Primus also featured in commercial way before they announce it..

Originally posted by Moonstriker:

There was a 105mm/120mm gun on a BX chasis in one of the SAF commercials...
That tank on one of those LCU transports and was landing on a beach along with the infantry..

Our Primus also featured in commercial way before they announce it..

it is not a BX. it is a AMX 10P tank. 90mm tank. v old also.
our new tank will come soon. don't worry. don't ask so much.. just be patient, it will be revealed soon. need to do trials in singapore first lah...

I cannot wait to see the faces of some ppl yet again.

Originally posted by saline:

it is not a BX. it is a AMX 10P tank. 90mm tank. v old also.
our new tank will come soon. don't worry. don't ask so much.. just be patient, it will be revealed soon. need to do trials in singapore first lah...

You mean its been chosen already?

Told u we all got GUNDAM to replace our light tanks already wad...
101SAR. Where the tankee needs pilot wings also. =D

This topic repeats itself at least twice every year. May should just read up from the other forum -

http://militarynuts.com/index.php?showtopic=687

I am really getting very frustrated over this matter! They seem to me to be dragging their feet on this, even the NGF is finally decided but not the SM1 replacement. I am really concerned about this because even though i know that the SM1 tanks we use in war is not what is announced in public, they are still very old! Many tankee's lives are at stake here! I just hope they are using all this time to do a good job!

...eh...

Outgoing Chief of Amour Bernard Tan announced last year that developement of the SM-1 replacement will take another few years (5 yrs?).

....probably to wait for tank protection technology to mature further
or maybe a simple case of money no enough . (dont flame me pse )

my point is..... dont hold your breath waiting to see it soon...

Cheers

Originally posted by teddy123:

...eh...

Outgoing Chief of Amour Bernard Tan announced last year that developement of the SM-1 replacement will take another few years (5 yrs?).

....probably to wait for tank protection technology to mature further
or maybe a simple case of money no enough . (dont flame me pse )

my point is..... dont hold your breath waiting to see it soon...

Cheers

Do we die die have to develop our own tanks? There are tons of tanks out there be it light, medium or MBT available off the shelf. Surely not every single one of them is so ex that we can't afford right? And surely they're all not so crappy until none of them meets our "operational requirements".

We're pretty chummy with the French wat with the La Fayette frigate project & Cazaux airforce base. Maybe we can arrange to buy some second hand AMX-30 (old as it may be) as a stop gap measure.

After all, if RSN can blow over $200 million buying 40 year old Sjoormen class subs as a stop gap measure, what's the big deal in getting 40 year old AMX-30?

Buying 2nd hand DECENT tanks to tahan until SAF finally makes up its mind is better than nothing wat. Anything is better than those 57 year old pieces of junk which belong in a museum.

Yes the AMX-13 may outnumber the PT-91s but seriously how much damage can that pathetic 75mm do to a MBT? And I seriously doubt that thin armour can withstand a shot from the PT-91's 125mm gun.

Yes we have Apaches but attack helicopters aren't omnipotent. If they are, all the tank manufacturers can close shop liao.

guys,
y worry? the time will come when the new tank gets revealed. as i've said, we need to do trials. eg: training areas (see if our training area is wide enough and if the soil can handle the abuse), L/F areas, weapon safety templates, logistics, etc.
than need to get some guys to be trained in it first, than can start teaching the newbies.
mindef is not so gong as to not "up" our armour capabilities lah.
FYI, me last time in HQ armour.
cheers!!!

These are some of the info I gathered from other military forums..

As what saline mentioned in the previous post.
A small unit was raised equipped with the newly developed LT tank.

They exercised with different units to test the effectiveness of this new tank but the expensive tank did not do well against relatively cheap LSV armed with Spike.

Upper echelon decided not to accept the ST prototype and the design team went back to the drawing board again .

And thus, the delay......

Hi Sgf,

Maybe you can do a search for these few old threat if you have the time.

1. Replacement for our light tanks or MBT ?
2. Tank Tactics
3. A new tank for the SAF
4. SAF MBT(Main Battle Tank)

It will answer most if not all of your question.

Cheers

Originally posted by sgf:

Do we die die have to develop our own tanks? There are tons of tanks out there be it light, medium or MBT available off the shelf. Surely not every single one of them is so ex that we can't afford right? And surely they're all not so crappy until none of them meets our "operational requirements".

We're pretty chummy with the French wat with the La Fayette frigate project & Cazaux airforce base. Maybe we can arrange to buy some second hand AMX-30 (old as it may be) as a stop gap measure.

After all, if RSN can blow over $200 million buying 40 year old Sjoormen class subs as a stop gap measure, what's the big deal in getting 40 year old AMX-30?

Buying 2nd hand DECENT tanks to tahan until SAF finally makes up its mind is better than nothing wat. Anything is better than those 57 year old pieces of junk which belong in a museum.

Yes the AMX-13 may outnumber the PT-91s but seriously how much damage can that pathetic 75mm do to a MBT? And I seriously doubt that thin armour can withstand a shot from the PT-91's 125mm gun.

Yes we have Apaches but attack helicopters aren't omnipotent. If they are, all the tank manufacturers can close shop liao.

It's because of all that,that's why there is a lack of funds!!

While I am also dying to see what new tanks we can get - it is a fact that it is a very low priority item in terms of national security.

First line of defense remains air and sea and in there we have spared no effort or money and we have definitely the finest air and naval forces this part of the world. This will ensure that any one coming over will suffer great manpower and material losses before they reach our soil. And most armies in this region do not have the capacity to absorb that kind of destruction.

However, if a tank on tank occasion does occur, even our 105mm Centurion will be of no match for a modern PT-91. So gone case.

But, continued good relations with our neighbours mean we are not going to war next week. So no need to hurry.

I am continually puzzled by our ultra-modern SAF still operating two 60-year old vehicles: Centurion and AMX-13 and I do look forward to SAF getting something NEW at least "for show" at National Day Parades. These grandfather tanks are a bit of an embarassment - though I must say the AMX-13 is rather cute with that very "retro" look. Makes me think of a Citroen 2CV.

One of the most modern army in the world but with the most obsolete tank force. Surely this can not go on. I'm sure Bangladesh or Congo got better tanks than we do. Well, at least we are not operating Sherman tanks

Originally posted by tvdog:

While I am also dying to see what new tanks we can get - it is a fact that it is a very low priority item in terms of national security.

First line of defense remains air and sea and in there we have spared no effort or money and we have definitely the finest air and naval forces this part of the world. This will ensure that any one coming over will suffer great manpower and material losses before they reach our soil. And most armies in this region do not have the capacity to absorb that kind of destruction.

However, if a tank on tank occasion does occur, even our 105mm Centurion will be of no match for a modern PT-91. So gone case.

But, continued good relations with our neighbours mean we are not going to war next week. So no need to hurry.

I am continually puzzled by our ultra-modern SAF still operating two 60-year old vehicles: Centurion and AMX-13 and I do look forward to SAF getting something NEW at least "for show" at National Day Parades. These grandfather tanks are a bit of an embarassment - though I must say the AMX-13 is rather cute with that very "retro" look. Makes me think of a Citroen 2CV.

One of the most modern army in the world but with the most obsolete tank force. Surely this can not go on. I'm sure Bangladesh or Congo got better tanks than we do. Well, at least we are not operating Sherman tanks

Most countries in the world are still using so called "old tank", for example IDF just recently retired their own Centurion and still have many M60( upgraded of course) in svc.

Most important is whether these so called old tank are upgraded to perform in modern warfare especially against their perceived threats.

The most modern tanks in SEA other than what SAF have is the PT-91 which is a actually an upgraded T-72M1( 30 y.o. tanks), so any old tank with proper upgraded FCS, armour, powerpack etc , a old hull could still performed, that is why there are still so many "old tank"around in most armies.

Having a new tank in any armed forces is no easy task especially a large qty, let's say qty of 300 tanks, the army will need to train at least 300 set of crews, large group of maintenance specialists, instructors, logistics etc.

Then there is cost incurred above plus the actual cost of modern tank, a light tank today could easily cost at least USD2mil, if it's include modern FCS with TI, BMS , composite armour, APS etc, it could be as high as USD3~5mils!!!!

Therefore it is very large investment and it is not simple decision to make especially when it will be used for at least 2~3 decades.

Lastly, there is this notion that some believe that tanks are obsolete becos of modern land based ATGM, precision ATGM from attack helos and fighters etc, some army are actually moving away from having any tanks and instead using low cost wheeled fire support AFV etc.

That is becos it was well demontrated in GW1, where most of the Iraqi armour were actually decimated by fighters and attack helo, way b4 the actual ground war started.

For example the Apaches itself destroyed 800 vehicles including 500 AFVs!!!

One thing tank for fire support role, tank is still needed, but for tank vs tank senario, is it still neccessary????

I dunno, becos with longer range ATGM as compare with tanks, attack helo etc, it could still decimated a large armoured force, that is why the SAF Gen was saying last year that SAF might be looking having a light tank replacement using missile only , instead of a tank gun!!!

Originally posted by gary1910:

...

Having a new tank in any armed forces is no easy task especially a large qty, let's say qty of 300 tanks, the army will need to train at least 300 set of crews, large group of maintenance specialists, instructors, logistics etc.

Then there is cost incurred above plus the actual cost of modern tank, a light tank today could easily cost at least USD2mil, if it's include modern FCS with TI, BMS , composite armour, APS etc, it could be as high as USD3~5mils!!!!

Therefore it is very large investment and it is not simple decision to make especially when it will be used for at least 2~3 decades.

Lastly, there is this notion that some believe that tanks are obsolete becos of modern land based ATGM, precision ATGM from attack helos and fighters etc, some army are actually moving away from having any tanks and instead using low cost wheeled fire support AFV etc.

That is becos it was well demontrated in GW1, where most of the Iraqi armour was actually decimated by fighters and attack helo, way b4 the actual ground war started.

For example the Apaches itself destroyed 800 vehicles including 500 AFVs!!!

One thing tank for fire support role, tank is still needed, but for tank vs tank senario, is it still neccessary????

I dunno, becos with longer range ATGM as compare with tanks, attack helo etc, it could still decimated a large armoured force, that is why the SAF Gen was saying last year that SAF might be looking having a light tank replacement using missile only , instead of a tank gun!!!

I agree. Using tanks to kill another tank is very expensive and silly. Tanks can be killed in many other less risky ways, such as using ATGMs. Tanks are probably relevant today only in an armored infantry role.

Originally posted by gary1910:

Most counties in the world are still using so called "old tank", for example IDF just recently retired their own Centurion and still have many M60( upgraded of course) in svc.

Most important is whether these so called old tank are upgraded to perform in modern warfare especially against their perceived threats.

The most modern tanks in SEA other than what SAF have is the PT-91 which is a actually an upgraded T-72M1( 30 y.o. tanks), so any old tank with proper upgraded FCS, armour, powerpack etc , a old hull could still performed, that is why there are still so many "old tank"around in most armies.

But the question is whether our "upgraded" AMX-13 can take on enemy armour. Although we may not send our tanks out specifically to destroy enemy tanks BUT there's no guarantee that its not gonna meet one on the battlefield. And if it should meet one, what are its chances of survival? Can it outrun the PT-91? Questionable. Can it outgun the PT-91? Definitely not. Can its armour withstand a shot from the PT-91? Highly unlikely.

The difference between our AMX-13 and the tanks you quoted is that our's did NOT have any upgrades to armour or firepower. It just got a "faster" engine.

Talking about old tanks, even the AMX-30 MBT is considered old at over 40 years old. But the AMX-30 would surely stand a better chance against the PT-91 then our AMX-13.

Originally posted by sgf:

But the question is whether our "upgraded" AMX-13 can take on enemy armour. Although we may not send our tanks out specifically to destroy enemy tanks BUT there's no guarantee that its not gonna meet one on the battlefield. And if it should meet one, what are its chances of survival? Can it outrun the PT-91? Questionable. Can it outgun the PT-91? Definitely not. Can its armour withstand a shot from the PT-91? Highly unlikely.

True, LT are not meant for against MBTs but it does the fire support role well.

As for anti- tank role , we still have Spike ATGM on LSV, Apaches and many other way to do the job, not neccessary using a tank.

And even with a new LT replacement, the armour protection will still not good enough against 125mm rds.

Let's say our new LT come with a 120mm gun, then with APFSDS could possibly knock out the frontal of a MBT, so it is matter who fire off the first rd against the enemy.

Originally posted by sgf:

The difference between our AMX-13 and the tanks you quoted is that our's did NOT have any upgrades to armour or firepower. It just got a "faster" engine.

That 's not totally true.
It was rumoured that some frontal uparmoured, but it is still light tank and could not be compared with a MBT.

In term of firepower, there is the APFSDS developed and new FCS etc.

Originally posted by sgf:

Talking about old tanks, even the AMX-30 MBT is considered old at over 40 years old. But the AMX-30 would surely stand a better chance against the PT-91 then our AMX-13.

SAF is looking for new light tank, not new MBT.

Both of them in SAF inventory play different role, thus having different requirement.

Originally posted by teddy123:

These are some of the info I gathered from other military forums..

As what saline mentioned in the previous post.
A small unit was raised equipped with the newly developed LT tank.

They exercised with different units to test the effectiveness of this new tank but the expensive tank did not do well against relatively cheap LSV armed with Spike.

Upper echelon decided not to accept the ST prototype and the design team went back to the drawing board again .

And thus, the delay......

I wonder which tank in the world can than ATGM? I think the upper echelon is being impractical to the demands of a LT. Also why die die must have 120mm gun, judging from the the MBT of the northern chappies as onli somewat like a T-72M1, shouldn't the 105mm with sabot be ok?

Originally posted by equlus84:

I wonder which tank in the world can than ATGM? I think the upper echelon is being impractical to the demands of a LT. Also why die die must have 120mm gun, judging from the the MBT of the northern chappies as onli somewat like a T-72M1, shouldn't the 105mm with sabot be ok?

Actually , I read a report that new Israeli 105mm rds is comparable with some 120mm rd in term of penetration.

But the reason for SAF might not be in term of penetration but maybe for ammo commonality!?!

If they’re looking for a LT, isn’t the max a 90m gun? I can’t imagine a LT with a 105 or 120mm gun.

Originally posted by sgf:

If they're looking for a LT, isn't the max a 90m gun? I can't imagine a LT with a 105 or 120mm gun.

that's bcos you can't imagine a 105/120mm gun on a LT doesn't mean its not possible.

Originally posted by sgf:

If they're looking for a LT, isn't the max a 90m gun? I can't imagine a LT with a 105 or 120mm gun.

There are many new light tank in the market with 105/120mm gun.

Stingray Mk 1 & 2 : 105mm
CV90105 : 105mm
CV90120-T :120mm
M8 AGS : 105mm
M8 Thunderbolt :120mm

There are also many wheeled AFV which housed a large gun as well.

The reason is the introduction of low recoil guns that could be used in light weight vehicle.

Edit: another is ths Ascord 105 with 105mm gun.