Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks replied by CM06 @ Sun, 30 Sep 2007 13:37:06 +0800

CM06 — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 13:37:06 +0800

Wow thread necro bad but at least it’ relevant info. The number is the weight of the vehicle in tons. So the M113 is 13 and SM1 is 18. BX 23/6. It’s also used to calculate how many vehicles can fit on a low loader for transport.

Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks replied by specialOps @ Fri, 28 Sep 2007 01:31:14 +0800

specialOps — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 01:31:14 +0800

Its the MLC...it is a unit to calculate the max weight in tons.

Most western armies in the world have this.

Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks replied by m113apc @ Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:53:45 +0800

m113apc — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:53:45 +0800

if i am not wrong..it refers to the tonnage of the vehicle…

Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks replied by MBHawke @ Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:47:34 +0800

MBHawke — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:47:34 +0800

Hi all, not sure if i'm posting this coorectly.

Pls help advise what's the intention for the numbers on yellow circles found at front of all MID vehicles. Thanks.

Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks replied by ghanz @ Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:55:11 +0800

ghanz — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:55:11 +0800

Not sure if this was pointed out b4, but IMHO the SAF should have considered using the Russian BMP3 with a 125mm gun as a replacement light tank for the SM-1. Heck, even in it's IFV version, the 100mm cannon combined with 30mm automatic cannon would have offered much more firepower than the SM1's 75mm vintage cannon. It is also amphibious & at less than 19 tons(loaded), I think it might be possible to transport it via C130. Its internal might be pretty packed, as are most Russian armored vehicles, but then again, so is the Bionix II. If Russian reliability is an concern, STK could perhaps assemble the machines locally under license.

If a heavier armored "light" tank is required, the German TAM should fit the bill, provided that it's upgraded with better Fire control & sights. At 30.5ton, it's just slightly heavier than the Primus SSPH.

Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks replied by aikchongtan @ Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:39:55 +0800

aikchongtan — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:39:55 +0800

Development of Bionix MBT has been terminated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bionix_AFV

The procurement of Leopard MBTs has, finally, upgraded our present SAR units into true armoured units. SM-1 is not a MBT, per se.

But are we going to phase out light battle tank from SAF orbat entirely?

Would it make sense to upgrade some infantry brigades/division into mechanized units? ie., equipe them with, say, light battle tank and Bronco? Overall firepower and mobility will be improved for the Army. With the introduction of network-centric warfare doctrines into the tri-service, all army assets need to be able to keep up with rapidly developing battle scene. I doubt 3-tonner laden infantry units can keep up with the battle management system commands.

Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks replied by soulwinner @ Sat, 28 Apr 2007 02:19:15 +0800

soulwinner — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 02:19:15 +0800

Perhap we should get the best tank in the world..

Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks replied by aikchongtan @ Sat, 28 Apr 2007 02:16:53 +0800

aikchongtan — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 02:16:53 +0800

Hi,

whet your appetite in the meantime. Video clip of Leo II going through it's pace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uVXZS6oEhgce.

Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks replied by CM06 @ Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:28:20 +0800

CM06 — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:28:20 +0800

See SM1 until sian. Count until sian.

I want to see something else!

I want to see the L2A4 lehz...they better chop chop ship them over.

Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks replied by Urroh @ Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:56:05 +0800

Urroh — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:56:05 +0800

Originally posted by lionnoisy:

We have close to some 300 SM1.

[b][url=http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_events/nr/2007/mar/05mar07_nr.html]

I think most of us know about this already..

Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks replied by lionnoisy @ Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:24:47 +0800

lionnoisy — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:24:47 +0800

We have close to some 300 SM1.

The SM1 tanks which are now being gradually retired, were bought as second-hand AMX 13 tanks from various countries in the late 1960s and refurbished. In the late 1980s they were upgraded to the SM1 standard and only now are we beginning to phase them out after over 40 years in the SAF. We have close to some 300 SM1s. We are replacing the first batch of the SM1s with the refurbished Leopard 2A4. We recently bought 66, with 30 spare tanks, from German Army stocks. We will replace the remainder in the coming years. But not on one-for-one basis as the Leopards are more capable.

Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks replied by tankfanatic @ Thu, 01 Mar 2007 00:32:07 +0800

tankfanatic — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 00:32:07 +0800

hi guys new here,

does the army possesed the 'chariot'? merkava means chariot, bcoz the engine were at the front. personally i dont think so. But i will be really surprise if the army didnt test drive it yet. its just too heavy.

but then again the army buy the leo. is it safe to say these heavy tanks were not intend for deep offensive?

Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks replied by lionnoisy @ Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:18:01 +0800

lionnoisy — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:18:01 +0800

It has been asssumed that Singapore has been developing a new direct-fire weapon/light tank for many years.

--Christ F Foss,JDW 20.12.2006.

2.will SG use Compact Kinetic Energy Missile (CKEM) in the light tank under development?

this article says that there is no explosive in this missiles.

pl share more here.

http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/

Two key advantages of CKEM are its deployability and tremendous overmatch in lethality. The CKEM Weapon System provides increased countermeasure effectiveness and survivability while allowing the soldier to engage the toughest and most sophisticated targets.

CKEM’s ATD demonstrated a path forward for a smaller, lighter KE missile that can be integrated on to both current and future combat platforms and has the ability to fill current lethality gaps against enhanced reactive armor and active protective systems.

CKEM will be particularly effective in bridging the Army’s capability gaps identified for the Infantry Brigade Combat Team and the Stryker Brigade Combat Team by ensuring lethality at both close and extended ranges.

The Compact Kinetic Energy Missile (CKEM) is 60 inches long, weighs less than 100 pounds, and has an extended range for direct fire, line-of-sight and beyond line-of-sight engagements. Its hit-to-kill technology provides the warfighter with near fire-and-forget capability, overwhelming lethality and a high probability of first-round kill.

--http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_products/antiarmor/CKEM/product-CKEM.html

Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks replied by glock @ Tue, 06 Feb 2007 21:27:42 +0800

glock — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 21:27:42 +0800

Problem in war is that the original intended role for a weapon system ( such as a wheeled armored gun system ) is never what the weapon will be actually used for.

After expending its role for strategic mobility, a wheeled armored gun vehicle still needs to wait for the heavily armored tank ( when & if it finally arrives at the battlefield ) to do real battle.
If the heavy armor does not arrive in time, it will be called upon to do the job with nasty consequences. What I am saying is that really, its role is very limited.

Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks replied by Fingolfin_Noldor @ Tue, 06 Feb 2007 04:48:17 +0800

Fingolfin_Noldor — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 04:48:17 +0800

Originally posted by glock:

Looks like we ar gonna hv a wheels vs track debate.

If we are to have a LT it wud be tracks since tanks are fitted with tracks and not wheels. Otherwise we cant call it a LT.

I will go for tracks as they are more versatile than wheels. Although great improvements have been made for wheels , there is a price to pay - they get even more complex with all the improvements.

There are still terrain where wheels can never outperform tracks.

My ideal LT for Spore will be a new Bionix based chassis designed specificallly for a LT - stabilised 105 mm gun with new APFSDS rounds, hunter killer fire controls with latest thermal sights, ERA, 7.62 co axial chain gun, autoloader, front engine, active armor protection system ........................

There is a Swedish solution (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/) where they mounted shorter calibre 120mm cannon onto an AFV. That would have been a great solution with the added advantage of using the existing 120mm ammunition. There is also the newer Israeli 105mm rounds which are supposedly as good as the 120mm rounds.

With regard to Japanese WWII tanks, it is safe to say that they are essentially quite useless and the Soviets found killing them to be target practice and the Jap tanks couldn't leave a dent on the T-34.

Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks replied by moca @ Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:36:08 +0800

moca — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:36:08 +0800

No, I am not going into a WHEEL vs TRACK debate.

Though I speculate that the next LT will be a WHEEL platform, this does NOT mean I favour WHEELS over TRACKS or vice versa.

I am merely trying to guess what direction the experts at ST and SAF are going.

I emphasise again that I specualte the new LT will have a new role in RDF doctrine that cannot be fulfilled by a TRACK vehicle. For RDF, the LT must be lightweight for air deployment and also be fast and agile on roads.

All this points towards WHEELS.

Just because we develop a new LT doesn't mean we have to REPLACE the existing ones. (We have the Bionix, but we didn't get rid of the M113 or V200, for example.)

The AMX-10 & 13 will still soldier on for a while. But they DO NOT fit the RDF concept of being deployable by air and fast on roads.

Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks replied by SingaporeTyrannosaur @ Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:42:24 +0800

SingaporeTyrannosaur — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:42:24 +0800

One needs to take the recent popularity of wheels into prespective... note that in FIBUA, where there are plenty of chances to make use of paved roads or otherwise forgiving terrain, wheels give you the mobility that is such a great asset in battle...

However once you go off road, the mobility of wheels start to take a big hit... so it depends on the kind of war you expect to fight... if there's a ton of FIBUA and road travelling... wheels are a good choice. But if you expect to go offroad and what have you not... tracks still provide the best solution.

This is not to mention that the amount of protection you can mount is limited on a wheeled unit. And while a wheeled unit is more resistant to mobilty kills due to its redundancy, it is more vulnerable to damage to begin with.

But I think ST would be on the right track to develop both the tracked and wheelED options for our FSVs.

Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks replied by glock @ Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:17:07 +0800

glock — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:17:07 +0800

Looks like we ar gonna hv a wheels vs track debate.

If we are to have a LT it wud be tracks since tanks are fitted with tracks and not wheels. Otherwise we cant call it a LT.

I will go for tracks as they are more versatile than wheels. Although great improvements have been made for wheels , there is a price to pay - they get even more complex with all the improvements.

There are still terrain where wheels can never outperform tracks.

My ideal LT for Spore will be a new Bionix based chassis designed specificallly for a LT - stabilised 105 mm gun with new APFSDS rounds, hunter killer fire controls with latest thermal sights, ERA, 7.62 co axial chain gun, autoloader, front engine, active armor protection system ........................

Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks replied by moca @ Mon, 05 Feb 2007 15:47:28 +0800

moca — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 15:47:28 +0800

WHAT CHASSIS?

Now that I am certain it will be a gun platform, the million dollar question would be ....drum roll.... WHEELS OR TRACKS?

Because of the RDF consideration, it is very likely to be wheels. Why this is so will take another thread so we will not talk about "why?"...

But the global trend is now clearly in favour of wheels and any new LT purchase by foreign armies is likely to be in the WHEELS category.

Everyone keep saying it will be a Bionix chassis. No denying there is a big chance it would be, but it is not a sure thing.

The Primus is an indication SAF may not necessarily base everything on the Bionix chassis.

My final conclusion is that the new LT will primarily be a WHEELED GUN PLATFORM of 105mm calibre or less, and a unmanned turret.

Air deployable by C-130 and Chinook without modifications. Amphibious.

There might also be APC or IFV versions using the same chassis.

Finally, this new LT will compliment existing LTs and not necessarily replace them completely.

Just my uneducated guesstimation opinion that also reflect what many are already saying...

Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks replied by moca @ Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:17:52 +0800

moca — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:17:52 +0800

WHAT ARMAMENT?

The primary role of the LT during battle would be to fire support infantry or spearhead infantry assaults etc.

So it will NOT be ATGM platform. It will be a GUN platform.

Besides, you can mount an ATGM on any amount of SUPPORT VEHICLES like Land Rovers, Spyder etc - You can man-pack ATGM or even mount ATGM on a modified bicycle theoretically - so why waste a LT chassis for this role?

I emphasize SUPPORT VEHICLES as no one type of weapon fight alone.

Guns are FAST, accurate and versatile. You can blow up different things with different ammo like HEAT, HE or flechettes etc.

Though deadly on tanks, ATGMs need some kind of fiddly guiding system and takes a longer travel time. And ATGMs are EXPENSIVE so you won't be firing them at enemy MG posts now, would you?

So in my opinion the new LT will definitely be a GUN platform that can fit into a C-130 or airlifted by some giant helicopter. What calibre I wouldn't speculate though 105mm sounds reasonable.

Finally, I suspect the turret could be completely unmanned.

Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks replied by moca @ Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:06:57 +0800

moca — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:06:57 +0800

ROLE OF NEW LIGHT TANK

What role will these Light Tanks of the future will have?

The new LT may in the long run replace the AMX-13, but this may not be the primary consideration.

The AMX-13 were bought during the 70's when doctrines were completely different.

So the new LT may have a completely new role to fit new doctrines instead of just being a replacement for the AMX-13.

I think the new LT role will definitely be the mailed fist of the RDF of the future.

So it would be important for the new LT to get there quickly either by air, sea or by land to before the bigger punch i.e. MBT, regular inf units, etc arrive later.

Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks replied by tankee1981 @ Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:05:10 +0800

tankee1981 — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:05:10 +0800

I am quite surprised that they didn't do this earlier. Afterall a few capable and close to brand new AGS are sitting and rotting in storage so might as well take them out and start using them.

Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks replied by equlus84 @ Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:41:52 +0800

equlus84 — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:41:52 +0800

Inside The Army
March 15, 2004
Pg. 1

Army To Transfer Four Armored Gun Systems To 82nd Airborne Division

The Army last week approved the transfer of four M8 Armored Gun Systems from contractor storage facilities to the 82nd Airborne Division at Ft. Bragg, NC, sources say, marking the first time the vehicles will be used by the service since the program was terminated in 1996.

Proposed in the 1980s as a lightweight combat vehicle that could fit aboard a C-130, the AGS was canceled as the Army struggled to pay for other priorities. Contractor United Defense LP, which fought the cancellation decision, has five M8 AGS vehicles in stock -- four in York, PA, and one in San Jose, CA.

The 18th Airborne Corps at Ft. Bragg recently passed along an "operational needs statement" to Army Forces Command that spells out the division's need for a rapidly deployable vehicle with firepower that could be dropped from an aircraft (Inside the Army, Feb. 16, p1). The Army's operations and plans office, or "G-3," has been reviewing the requirement with Training and Doctrine Command.

TRADOC completed its analysis on Feb. 19, and the G-3 approved the needs statement on March 8, authorizing transfer of the existing vehicles to the 82nd Airborne Division, sources say. By press time (March 11), the Army had not released a copy of the approval documents.

According to one source, officials made it clear in the documents that the transfer in "no way should be construed as support for an AGS program." Instead, it is an attempt to meet the immediate requirement with an interim solution and allow the division to begin developing and refining tactics, techniques and procedures.

The unit expects to receive the vehicles by the end of March, the source said.

Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC), a member of the House Armed Services Committee whose district includes Ft. Bragg, said he is pleased with the decision, but does not want the transfer to be misconstrued as a move to revive the terminated program.

"To be clear, I am not endorsing one system over another," Hayes told ITA in a March 12 statement. "I simply believe that, if these existing AGS are combat-worthy, then they should be fully utilized while we await the future technologies that are already in production.

"My priority on this matter is simple -- what can we do to help our soldiers in the field the fastest?" he added. "If our soldiers can utilize these existing systems, then I want these systems in Baghdad rather than in a manufacturing facility in Pennsylvania."

Hayes asked the Army last December to provide him information on the matter, including how much the transfer would cost and whether spare parts are available to maintain the gun systems. Last week, a spokesman for Hayes said the congressman was told government and contractor costs are estimated at approximately $1 million for one year of support for AGS.

The funding, however, is not as much of a concern to the Army as the availability of parts for a system that was terminated eight years ago. Sources say UDLP can sustain the systems for a limited amount of time, but many of its components are now obsolete or unavailable. Supporting the system beyond one year poses high risk, sources said.

Herb Muktarian, a spokesman for UDLP's ground systems division in York, said the systems are ready to go.

"We have not received any official requests from the Army regarding AGS, but the four AGS vehicles stored in York remain in excellent condition and we're ready to provide support if asked to do so," Muktarian said.

Maj. Rich Patterson, a spokesman for the 18th Airborne Corps, said officials at Ft. Bragg have been notified and are assembling the necessary manning documents, additional equipment and training plans, "with the intent to integrate the AGS into division operations as soon as possible."

The vehicles will go to the 1st Battalion of the division's 17th Cavalry Squadron, Patterson said. AGS will provide its assault teams "mobility, firepower and shock effects" within the "drop zone," he added.

"It gives us a capability we could deploy if we need it," Patterson said.

AGS features a 105 mm cannon, an ammunition autoloader and options for armor protection.

The division's requirement for an air-droppable platform has existed at least since the 1990s, when the division disbanded one of its battalions -- the 3rd Battalion of the 73rd Armored Regiment, which was equipped with an aging armored reconnaissance vehicle called the Sheridan. At the time, service officials thought other capabilities would become available to the paratroopers once the M551 Sheridan was retired.

When the division deactivated the armored battalion in 1997, however, then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Dennis Reimer had already terminated AGS, which had been regarded as the Sheridan's replacement. Eliminating AGS freed more than $1 billion over the service's outyear funding plan -- money that was badly needed for other cash-strapped programs, officials said at the time.

Two years after the program was canceled, service officials said they continued to review options for all light forces that wanted more firepower. Vehicles reviewed included AGS, the Marine Corps' Light Armored Vehicle, the Pandur lightweight vehicles used by the Kuwait National Guard and a variant of the M113 armored personnel carrier (ITA, Oct. 4, 1999, p1; Sept. 27, 1999, p1).

That effort, however, went nowhere, and the 82nd Airborne Division resubmitted its request for such a vehicle, eventually attracting Hayes' attention.

"Let's find out as soon as possible if AGS can serve effectively as a short-term solution for an immediate operational need," Hayes told ITA last week.

-- Anne Plummer

something interesting i got from defencetalk.com

Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks replied by Pitot @ Sat, 30 Dec 2006 08:49:35 +0800

Pitot — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 08:49:35 +0800

The Original M8 was slated to be in the US army until it got canned and replaced by the strykers...

THe thunderbolt design was only developed after it got canned...

Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks replied by glock @ Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:19:51 +0800

glock — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:19:51 +0800

If I am not wrong the XM 8 project was killed because the unit cost of this LT wud have been in the same price range as an M1A1.

Recent Posts in 'Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks' | sgForums.com