Made in Singapore Equipment

[OPSSG]

Hi. I'm starting a new thread on designed/made/integrated in Singapore military equipment news. This will enable me to have a central place to park news such as the Warthog UOR win (as the Bronco thread is closed) (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/singapore-supply-armored-vehicles-u-k-andrew-chuter-defencenews-8459/) for ST Kinetics' Bronco, updates on the French Army's Vehicule Haute Mobilité (VHM - High Mobility Vehicle) programme or latest developments of the Advanced Combat Man System (ACMS) (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/future-weapons-equipment-their-impact-structure-infantry-units-8760-3/).

Bionix Variants In Service (http://www.one35th.com/bionix/bionix_index.html)
1. Bionix 25 (25mm Bushmaster)
2. Bionix 40/50 (cupola with 40AGL + CIS 0.5HMG)
3. Bionix II (30mm Bushmaster)
4. Bionix Armored Vehicle Launched Bridge (for MLC 30 crossing)
5. Bionix Armoured Recovery Vehicle
6. Trailblazer (CMV)

For those of you who remember a variant of the Bionix was one of the losing finalists in the US Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV) contest (http://www.americanreformation.org/policy/Defense/TanklessArmy.htm) for the Interim Brigade Combat Teams, or BCTs.

The growing size and power of IEDs and mines are such a concern that the SAF has inducted a NEW 30 ton class Counter-Mine Vehicle (CMV) called the Trailblazer, which uses a mine flail system. The Trailblazer is built on the Bionix chassis. The Trailblazer offers more protection to the crew and exceptional mobility performance over other commercial off-the-shelf mine clearing vehicles (such as the wheeled Hydrema MCV 910 Series 2, which is also in service with the SAF). In addition to mine-clearing, the Trailblazer is able to mark its trails using a lane marking system with pneumatically fired rods. This enables vehicles to quickly travel behind the Trailblazer safely without losing momentum. Developing the Trailblazer was quite a challenging task, revealed COL Ng Kin Yi, Chief Engineering Officer. He said:

“On one hand, we needed a CMV that would be able to move fast with the other vehicles through a wide range of terrain. Hence, it had to be compact and compatible with the Bionix platforms. At the same time, we wanted a CMV with a flailing system. A lot of people told us that it wasn’t possible, since flailing requires a lot of power, which would sacrifice vehicular speed. Therefore, a separate engine is needed to power the flailing mechanism so that speed is preserved.” *

However, fitting two engines in one small vehicle was clearly not feasible. To overcome this technical impasse, ST Kinetics, conceived a two-in-one engine which enables the Trailblazer to move slowly for flailing purposes, and speedily when travelling with the rest of SAF's armoured forces. BTW, DSTA (see figure 11 at page number 123 for pix) (http://www.dsta.gov.sg/images/stories/DSTA%20Internet/publications/DSTA_Horizons/2009/dh2009_10_MineClearing.pdf) is working on GPS logging on the path cleared and a remote control system for the Trailblazer (for high risk situations).

------------------------
* Footnote: Pg 5 of SAF's Army News issue No. 165, April/May 2009.

[OPSSG]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3478/3703478505_a2a79bbb58_o.jpg

Trailblazer on static display at another event and picture credit to kilroy.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3033/3704287362_10fb486f78_o.jpg

Trailblazer on static display at another event and picture credit to kilroy.

Pictures of the Trailblazer in DT also found here (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/military-photos-videos/us-chief-army-gen-george-w-casey-jr-visits-singapore-9471/#post180167).

[Duffy]

OPSSG
Trailblazer has to be the best design I have seen for a flail style mine sweeper. Very small foot print compared to clearing width . How are they cooling the hydraulic fluid? And who is fielding these If there not for sale yet they should sell like hot cakes.:D

[OPSSG]

Trailblazer has to be the best design I have seen for a flail style mine sweeper. Very small foot print compared to clearing width.

Same here. I like it as it is based on our Bionix platform, which ensures some level of logistics compatibility with our armoured infantry who are equipped with the Bionix II. I also understand that ST Kinetics has tapped on the German firm, IBD (http://www.ibd-deisenroth-engineering.de/index.html) for their MEXAS passive armour protection system (as a technology provider - see IBD's survivability onion (http://www.ibd-deisenroth-engineering.de/concepts.html)) in the Bionix platform. To give you an idea of the relationship, here's a 2008 pix (http://www.ibd-deisenroth-engineering.de/tl_files/resources/content-images/Events/Eurosatory%202008%20Bronco%20auf%20STK-Stand.jpg) of a Bronco with IBD's AMP-ADS.

How are they cooling the hydraulic fluid? And who is fielding these If there not for sale yet they should sell like hot cakes.:D

Sorry, I haven't seen more detailed specifications released by their makers, which is ST Kinetics (It is not even listed as a product on their website). Therefore, I'm not able to tell you more.

I hear from the unofficial grapevine that this is exciting times are the SAF and we are expecting/awaiting more information releases. For more details see this thread on upgrades to Singapore's Leopard 2A4 tanks (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/singaporean-leopard-2a4s-debut-australia-8344-12/) published in the Asian Defence Journal.

I'm hoping that other Singaporean forum members with more information will chime in.

[Tavarisch]

No discounts for your neighbors? :D

[Duffy]

Thanks for the links OPSSG

Looks like its the BIONIX Recovery vehicle with a cab and the drum in place of a crane. Very nice;) The engine spec states a 2 cycle diesel, I assume that a typo.
I really like the Spider LSV on the ST kinetics site that would be fun to have for a weekend:D

keep us posted appreciate the info.

[OPSSG]

No discounts for your neighbors?

Only if Dr M will allow your guys to buy anything from us. He's already enraged enough that your current government is trying to improve bilateral ties. :)

Looks like its the BIONIX Recovery vehicle with a cab and the drum in place of a crane. Very nice;)

Yes.

The engine spec states a 2 cycle diesel, I assume that a typo.

One35th.com is a modeling website run by a Singaporean enthusiast and he has got that bit wrong. I link it because of the line drawings and the trouble he takes to gather the various pixs.

Here's an old pix (http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c58/IOWA_BB61/IBCTBionixICV.jpg) of the Bionix at the US Interim Armored Vehicle contest (in which the ST Kinetics vehicle lost to the Stryker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker)). [H/t to Iowa BB61 for the old pix]

I really like the Spider LSV on the ST Kinetics site that would be fun to have for a weekend:D

With a 2.8 litre engine, it is fun take off-road but in its basic configuration, it has got zero protection against small arms fire or IEDs (as compared to a vehicle like the RG-31).

The Spider LSV (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/spider_light_strike/) was initially developed for our Guards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Guards) Formation, which is a light infantry, rapid deployment, heli-mobile force. The Spider LSV is used by our Spike ATGM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spike_(missile)) equipped anti-tank teams (click here (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3393/3314704479_20c460af93.jpg) and here (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3539/3315531848_49cce3c4dd.jpg) for pixs of NZ live firing) and also to carry a ST Kinetics 120mm SRAMS low recoil mortar (see SRAMS brochure (http://www.stengg.com/upload/919W2DVfEKcZfUCEYDK.pdf)) (click here for the SRAMS mounted on the Spider pix (http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x196/zer0takuher02/Singapore%20Airshow%202008/SA08017.jpg)). In fact, our Chinooks regularly sling load 2 Spider LSVs at one time. Since the Dec 2004 Tsunami, the Guards Formation has also been additionally tasked to be the planning group to any regional humanitarian crisis.

Fyi, ST Kinetics' 120mm SRAMS has been sold to UAE as part of AGRAB (Scorpion) (http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4037.html). The 3 man operated AGRAB (click for pix (http://www.armyrecognition.com/customer/thierry/exibitions/idex_2007_agrab_001.jpg)) is a 120mm SRAMS mounted on a BAE Systems RG-31 (10-ton 4x4 armoured and mine-protected vehicle) and it carries 46 mortar rounds in two carousels and has 2 further racks for another 12 rounds. UAE bought 48 AGRABs and associated ammo from a local manufacturer, International Golden Group in a deal worth 390 million dirham (US$106 million).

[Almaleki]

No Tanks Jets .. something Shiny ??

[OPSSG]

No Tanks Jets .. something Shiny ??

No. Since our independence on 9 August 1965, the SAF has always been willing to shop for good deals and if a good deal happens to be 2nd hand equipment, we are happy to buy them. Our main focus is developing our people and not shiny equipment. Let me explain.

One, the newest tanks that we have are refurbished Leopard 2A4s from Germany and we bought them 2nd hand. In fact our first tanks, the AMX-13 were also bought 2nd hand in 1969. Today, these modernized and refurbished AMX-13 SM1 (http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1199.html) tanks are still in service. Therefore, we have some very old equipment.

Two, it took Singapore 20 years before we placed our first order for brand new, top of the line multi-role fighters. We only placed our first order for 8 F-16A/Bs in 1985, under Peace Carvin (the first of which was delivered in 1988). However, we no longer operate these F-16A/Bs, as we have given these A/Bs to Thailand (to thank them for allowing the SAF to use their bases and to train there). Today, Singapore operates over 70 F-16C/Ds and have placed an order 24 F-15SGs.

Three, currently, Singapore does not make tanks or jets. And this thread is about made in Singapore weapons, which would include infantry weapons (SAR-21 (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_events/nr/1999/sep/11sep99_nr/11sep99_fs.html), Ultimax 100 (http://www.ultimaxsaw.com/Ultimax%20vs.%20M-249.html), and the Matador (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/weapons/matador/techspecs.asp) to name a few), the Bionix range of infantry fighting vehicles and Bionix derived support vehicles, the Bronco (see Warthog UOR win (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/singapore-supply-armored-vehicles-u-k-andrew-chuter-defencenews-8459/) thread) and Singapore's own range of artillery pieces. Keep in mind, local weapons are a means of developing our own engineering expertise (in weapons design and manufacturing). Singapre's defence eco-system employs over 2,000 engineers and we intend to occupy a few specific niches - not bad for a small country.

Finally, people and countries make choices and Almaleki, you, as an individual have to choose. If you and your country choose wrongly, no amount of defence spending will be enough. For example, in relative terms, Oman (~11.4% of GDP), Qatar (~10% of GDP), Saudi Arabia (~10% of GDP), Iraq (~8.6% of GDP) and Jordan (~8.6% of GDP) all spend a larger percentage of their GDP on defence than Singapore (in absolute terms, Iraq and Saudi Arabia spend more on defence than Singapore). Yet, all of the above countries get less security than what we enjoy in Singapore (~5% of GDP). The Arab League countries need to figure out a way to get along with their neighbours and I don't just mean peace with the Jews in Isreal. I also mean the Persians in Iran too. As long as your leaders fail to choose peace, you and your country will be at war. Be it with an external enemy or with another ethic group within your own country.

Likewise, did you think it was easy for Singapore to make peace with Indonesia after the Konfrontasi (http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_62_2004-12-17.html)? The answer is no.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein chose to go to war with Iran, war with Kuwait and finally war with the US. What has war done for Iraq? Some of these choices are hard but if you do not make the right choice - you and your future generations will continue to suffer. Understand that choosing peace is also a choice and your defence spending on shiny weapons are a small sub-set of your country's choices.

[Ananda]

OPSSG this can be an interesting subject. How much a country should invest on the defence industries. As a Banker I'm interest on this since my banks and several other government owned banks in here also being challenge to financed our own Defence industries.

I'm not going to hijack this thread, perhaps should open another thread on the need for countries to maintain her own defence industries, and how big realistically it can go.

[OPSSG]

...on the need for countries to maintain her own defence industries, and how big realistically it can go.

It is hard to talk about the size of a country's defence industry, in part because it's size should be determined by:

(i) the size of domestic defence market for products made by these companies in their relevant market segment (which is affected by a country's defence spending levels); and

(ii) the export potential for the product made (which is determined by how much tech is inside the product).

For example, Indonesia has a fairly big army, so the defence companies should focus on making things for the army (and not the air force or navy). Given the size of Indonesia's army, ammo and rifles should be the next obvious areas (which is also how Singapore got started in defence manufacturing).

It could be high end stuff or even low end stuff. IMO, it is a mistake for Indonesia to focus only on high tech end alone (like the aircraft industry) because your country's low technology base and your country's investment levels in R&D is low - which results in uncompetitive products. They would be so uncompetitive that it would affect your army's capability development if the bought that local made product.

With Indonesia's low cost of labour army clothing, shoes, boots, bullet proof vests and other personal equipment should be an area of research focus. Once you have done it, your country would own the technology and make money from licensing the technology or even better, you can produce the product in Indonesia. Most importantly, Indonesia can manufacture labour intensive products at a competitive price. All technology invested in this area can also be applied to camping equipment and be sold as outdoor gear. However, such unsexy areas are likely to impress politicians and generals.

Alternatively, Indonesian companies should JV with more established defence companies and be a parts manufacturer. This means that Indonesia manufactures a part of a bigger weapons system instead of the whole thing by yourself.

Don't try to compete head-on. Instead seek to carve successive niches of increasing complexity. If you want to take a giant leap, you are more likely to fail. Let's face it, Indonesia can make military transport planes thanks to Habibie's vision and support. But today, which other country would like to buy made in Indonesian military planes (with cash and not just barter trade)?

How much a country should invest on the defence industries.

Perhaps the wrong question.

The main problem with a company focusing on defence alone is the feast or famine business model - it is the inconsistency of defence demand in the economic downturns that destroys the company's ability to retain a capability. Your defence companies must seek to carve niches in complementary civilian markets where the staff can also be employed in, when there are no local defence contracts to be found. For example, ST Marine actually builds tankers, cargo containers and RoRo vessels as well when they are not building navy ships.

ST Kinetics started out in automotive repair but Indonesia has more than the automotive business. You have a vibrant construction, logging and mining market. Your defence industry should look at giving contracts to re-engine your tanks/IFVs/APCs to successful Indonesian companies like PT Trakindo Utama, who are competitive in their respective industry niches. Batam has quite a few ship building companies (who do tug boats very well). Maybe you should be looking there for future companies to groom into defence industry leaders, rather than the existing corrupt bunch.

As a Banker I'm interest on this since my banks and several other government owned banks in here also being challenge to financed our own Defence industries.

BTW, Singapore allocates 4% of our defence budget to R&D (or ~S$400 million a year). Without constant R&D funding and the proper R&D organisations, you cannot build capability in your defence industry.

[OPSSG]

Sep 2, 2009 (http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_424682.html)- The Terrex... can roar across rugged terrain at a top speed of 105 kmh. Also at home in water, it weighs 26 tonnes and can carry 13 soldiers. The Singapore Armed Forces will buy 45 of these for its three combined arms divisions, and troops will start training on them in February. The vehicle is the result of a two-year partnership between the army, defence company Singapore Technologies Kinetics and the Defence Science & Technology Agency.

The Terrex takes foot soldiers away from being moved in lumbering, canvas-topped three-tonners, which are less mobile and still require troops to hotfoot it, sometimes for hours, to get to their destinations... But it is more than just a 'taxi'. Its electronic brain shows troops what is up ahead: On secure touch-screens, soldiers are given updates on troop positions - friendly ones marked in blue and hostile ones in red - in near real-time.

h/t to CJ for video and text below:

Singapore Army's Terrex

First view of a Singapore Army Terrex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrex) Infantry Carrier Vehicle demonstrating its Battlefield Management System (BMS), which improves the situational awareness of the embarked infantry especially during closed hatch operations. The 8-wheeled armoured vehicle and its BMS were developed in Singapore by the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), Defence Science & Technology Agency (DSTA) and defence contractor, Singapore Technologies Kinetics.

Note the onboard cameras which pipe images of the outside world to the colour display in the troop compartment. The gunner (seated, left, up front) shares the same view as the screen in the troop compartment.

Terrex simulated engagement

In the above video, the vehicle is simulating an overwatch of an enemy-held built-up area. [Yes, they are speaking English]

The Terrex was unveiled in Singapore on 3 September 2009 at the Army Open House, organised by the Singapore Combat Engineers.

Notes: These videos and text are also posted in the Gen. Casey Jr. visits Singapore (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/military-photos-videos/us-chief-army-gen-george-w-casey-jr-visits-singapore-9471/#post180439) Picture thread.

[Ananda]

[QUOTE=OPSSG;180436]
For example, Indonesia has a fairly big army, so the defence companies should focus on making things for the army (and not the air force or navy). Given the size of Indonesia's army, ammo and rifles should be the next obvious areas (which is also how Singapore got started in defence manufacturing).

With Indonesia's low cost of labour army clothing, shoes, boots, bullet proof vests and other personal equipment should be an area of research focus. Once you have done it, your country would own the technology and make money from licensing the technology or even better, you can produce the product in Indonesia. Most importantly, Indonesia can manufacture labour intensive products at a competitive price. All technology invested in this area can also be applied to camping equipment and be sold as outdoor gear. However, such unsexy areas are likely to impress politicians and generals.

Opssg, I would not try to hijack your thread on the subjects of developing local defense industries. That's why I'm starting another thread on the subjects. But many thanks for your repply and info.

Sritex is a textile company in Solo Central Java that's products have meet Nato standard and uses by German armed forces. It's not a sexy products in such many armed forces brass has not reallize for some time that substantial part of German Armed forces uniformed (even for specialized conditions) supply from here.

Don't try to compete head-on. Instead seek to carve successive niches of increasing complexity. If you want to take a giant leap, you are more likely to fail. Let's face it, Indonesia can make military transport planes thanks to Habibie's vision and support. But today, which other country would like to buy made in Indonesian military planes (with cash and not just barter trade)?

In other thread, I already mentioned that banks will be very reluctant to finance that kind of ventures. However this's the thing that those dim witted in parlements trying so hard to developed again in the name of nasionalistics pride.

BTW, Singapore allocates 4% of our defence budget to R&D (or ~S$400 million a year). Without constant R&D funding and the proper R&D organisations, you cannot build capability in your defence industry

Well that's the problem. With only less that 1% of GDP submitt to defences, the government try to coax the banks chipping in for defense industries development. Still no banks in right mind wants to finance R&D of defense industries.

[Firn]

With a 2.8 litre engine, it is fun take off-road but in its basic configuration, it has got zero protection against small arms fire or IEDs (as compared to a vehicle like the RG-31).

The Spider LSV (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/spider_light_strike/) was initially developed for our Guards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Guards) Formation, which is a light infantry, rapid deployment, heli-mobile force. The Spider LSV is used by our Spike ATGM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spike_(missile)) equipped anti-tank teams (click here (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3393/3314704479_20c460af93.jpg) and here (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3539/3315531848_49cce3c4dd.jpg) for pixs of NZ live firing) and also to carry a ST Kinetics 120mm SRAMS low recoil mortar (see SRAMS brochure (http://www.stengg.com/upload/919W2DVfEKcZfUCEYDK.pdf)) (click here for the SRAMS mounted on the Spider pix (http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x196/zer0takuher02/Singapore%20Airshow%202008/SA08017.jpg)). In fact, our Chinooks regularly sling load 2 Spider LSVs at one time. Since the Dec 2004 Tsunami, the Guards Formation has also been additionally tasked to be the planning group to any regional humanitarian crisis.

Fyi, ST Kinetics' 120mm SRAMS has been sold to UAE as part of AGRAB (Scorpion) (http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4037.html). The 3 man operated AGRAB (click for pix (http://www.armyrecognition.com/customer/thierry/exibitions/idex_2007_agrab_001.jpg)) is a 120mm SRAMS mounted on a BAE Systems RG-31 (10-ton 4x4 armoured and mine-protected vehicle) and it carries 46 mortar rounds in two carousels and has 2 further racks for another 12 rounds. UAE bought 48 AGRABs and associated ammo from a local manufacturer, International Golden Group in a deal worth 390 million dirham (US$106 million).

The SRAMS seems to be an excellent mean to give light vehicles the ability to deploy a source of heavy firepower. If it is usuable mounted on the bed of the light Spider than the mitigation and management of the recoil must be truly highly effective and interesting. In an configuration like the AGRAB it seems to be a brilliant way to get a cost-effective firesupport for light units. It might find good use in places like Afghanistan, where forces sometimes are forced to operate quite far away from supporting artillery, if it all. Such a mobile piece of "artillery" could stay much closer and thus increase the intrinsic accuracy of the firesupport.

[sunshin3]

The SRAMS seems to be an excellent mean to give light vehicles the ability to deploy a source of heavy firepower.

Yes.

If it is usuable mounted on the bed of the light Spider than the mitigation and management of the recoil must be truly highly effective and interesting.

While the recoil management mechanism on the SRAMS is innovative, the Spider actually needs to lower an additional 'recoil damper' (I'm not sure what it is called) onto the ground before firing. With the AGRAB's heavier chasis, there is no need for to lower an additional 'recoil damper'.

It might find good use in places like Afghanistan, where forces sometimes are forced to operate quite far away from supporting artillery, if it all. Such a mobile piece of "artillery" could stay much closer and thus increase the intrinsic accuracy of the firesupport.

There are currently only 2 users of the SRAMS, UAE and Singapore. So we are unlikely to see this motar in action in Afgahnistan.

[sunshin3]

Extract of another report on the Terrex (I've not provided a link as I need permission from the Webmaster/Mods to do so):

Terrex The Terrific

September 12, 2009: Singapore is buying 135 Terrex Infantry Combat vehicles (ICV). The first infantry units will receive them in February 2010. The 25 ton Terrex is optimized for urban environments. The U.S. Army’s use of the Stryker ICV and its success on the battlefield influenced the selection of Terrex, and subsequent modifications.

Costing $1.5 million each, the vehicle is externally similar to the Stryker, with 8 wheels and a remote controlled weapons turret atop the hull. The hull has a V shape for mine protection. The vehicle is 7 meters long (22.96 feet), 2.7 meters wide (8.85 feet), and 2.1 meters high (6.88 feet). The vehicle carries 13 soldiers and 2 crewmen (driver and commander), in its armored personnel carrier (APC) role... More ballistic protection is available in the form of bolt on or welded armor (slat, cage type), which is fitted alongside the hull for defense against Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPG’s)... Top speed is 110 kilometers per hour with a range of 800 kilometers. The vehicle is amphibious, using water jets mounted on either side of the rear hull to propels the vehicle at 10 kilometers per hour in the water.

Electronics a Battlefield Management System (BMS) which permits full awareness of a battlespace providing sharable information to other vehicles or soldiers. A Weapon Detection System (WDS) is provided to spot enemy fire. All information is displayed on colored screens in the commander’s position just aft of the driver.

Indonesia expressed the desire to acquire 420 vehicles with a license to produce it locally. Turkey has also licensed the vehicle for production...

-- Mike Perry

The 135 intial Terrex order will enable Singapore to equip 3 infantry battalions and there are 7 variants in the 135 vehicle order:

(i) troop carrier,
(ii) command post,
(iii) pioneer (or armoured engineer) vehicle,
(iv) armoured ambulance,
(v) ATGM,
(vi) STORM (strike observer mission), and
(vii) RSTA (recce, surveillance, target acquisition).

This purchase will enable each of these 3G infantry battalions to get 45 of their own Terrexs. This looks to me as if Singapore is moving towards motorised infantry and seems to be following the US BCT concept closely. The Terrex is equipped with a 40mm/7.62mm RWS and there's also a 12.7mm HMG version. Here's another video from the recent Army Open House (AOH):

Terrex at the AOH

I like the fact that they have integrated a weapons location system that automatically turns the RWS to the approximate direction of the enemy firng. There's also a video by CJ below on Singapore's use of unattened sensors, UAVs and remote controlled vehicles

Singapore's Use of Technology

Note: The above video has not been edited for sound, and there's some irrelevant backgound noise.

Comments anyone?

[Chino]

Ten years ago when I was still a reservist, my unit were among those used to test the concept of (returning to)* wheel AFV.

The platform we used was of course the ancient V-200 reverted back to troop carrier role.

Our training concentrated mostly on FIBUA (MOUT). So if I hazard a guess, I would say that the Terrex will be employed as a quick reaction - but mainly FIBUA - role?

* "returning to" because the V-200 were initially procured as a wheeled APC. But when it was found they sometimes topple over or cannot climb inclines etc, they were turned over to airbase security and AA roles. All armoured troop carriers, AFVs etc since then were tracks. And now the Terrex marks the return to wheels after more than 20 years, maybe more.

[Firn]

While the recoil management mechanism on the SRAMS is innovative, the Spider actually needs to lower an additional 'recoil damper' (I'm not sure what it is called) onto the ground before firing. With the AGRAB's heavier chasis, there is no need for to lower an additional 'recoil damper'.
.

Quite understandable. IIRC the suspension of the carrier vehicle can too absorb part of the recoil. There is of course a limit to that for a light platform which a corrisponding suspension, but a heavier vehicle means that the recoil must move far more suspended mass.

[Firn]

The 135 intial Terrex order will enable Singapore to equip 3 infantry battalions and there are 7 variants in the 135 vehicle order:

(i) troop carrier,
(ii) command post,
(iii) pioneer (or armoured engineer) vehicle,
(iv) armoured ambulance,
(v) ATGM,
(vi) STORM (strike observer mission), and
(vii) RSTA (recce, surveillance, target acquisition).

This purchase will enable each of these 3G infantry battalions to get 45 of their own Terrexs. This looks to me as if Singapore is moving towards motorised infantry and seems to be following the US BCT concept closely. The Terrex is equipped with a 40mm/7.62mm RWS and there's also a 12.7mm HMG version.

My post 123 (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/military-strategy-tactics/best-strategy-defending-singapore-island-8563-9/#post172310) about the best strategy to defend Singapore "validates" this transformation. Given that manpower is relative scarse compared to the other assets of the state (wealth, education, technology) mechanized infantry becomes a very efficient and suited way to achieve a high levels of military capability.


I like the fact that they have integrated a weapons location system that automatically turns the RWS to the approximate direction of the enemy firng. There's also a video by CJ below on Singapore's use of unattened sensors, UAVs and remote controlled vehicles


I made a smiliar point in the thread about a mortar fire-support vehicle (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/turret-mounted-mortar-afv-direct-indirect-fire-support-unit-8666-3/) and before in the British army thread. SA and responsivness are key elements in any successful defense, especially so in ambushes. The acoustic WLS will enable the crew to supress the enemy much more quickly, while greatly increasing the SA of all members by putting the location of the attacker on the digital map, thus enabling also to call in the joint fires far more rapidly.

[OPSSG]

Hi. I'm starting a new thread on designed/made/integrated in Singapore military equipment news. This will enable me to have a central place to park news such as the Warthog UOR win (as the Bronco thread is closed) (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/singapore-supply-armored-vehicles-u-k-andrew-chuter-defencenews-8459/) for ST Kinetics' Bronco, updates on the French Army's Vehicule Haute Mobilité (VHM - High Mobility Vehicle) programme or latest developments of the Advanced Combat Man System (ACMS) (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/future-weapons-equipment-their-impact-structure-infantry-units-8760-3/).

Here's an update on the Warthog UOR. It looks like the Warthog is sightly heavier and better armoured than the baseline Bronco. I like the fact that the Warthog is also equipped with a Platt (http://www.plattmounts.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16&Itemid=4) Shielded Ring Mount (click to see Warthog picture (http://www.plattmounts.com/images/plattimages/mr550/1/website%204a.jpg)). Thales (http://kn.theiet.org/news/aug09/thales-warthog-contract.cfm) will install UK-specific equipment to the vehicles, including additional armour, specialist electronic counter-measure equipment and communication tools, to bring them in line with UK theatre-entry requirements. The contract includes a support package for the Thales-supplied systems and equipment, as well as assistance to ST Kinetics as the UK point of contact for Warthog warranty support matters. Other UK suppliers include Gallay for the air-conditioning system, and Permali Gloucester for the appliqué armour (http://www.asd-network.com/press_detail/21960/Permali_Supplies_Armour_for_UK%27s_%27Warthog%27_A rmoured_Vehicle.htm). SELEX Galileo of Finmeccanica will equip the Warthog with both thermal and daylight cameras, which is already in service on Mastiff, Wolfhound, Ridgeback, Challenger II, and Viking.

According to Janes, an extract of which is cited below:

10 September 2009 (http://www.janes.com/events/exhibitions/dsei2009/sections/daily/day3/warthog-on-track.shtml) - ST Kinetics is on schedule to deliver the first three Warthog armoured all-terrain tracked vehicles later this month and all 115 vehicles are due to be delivered in 2010... The UK MoD placed the £150 million-plus contract for the Warthog programme late last year... with four versions being procured – troop carrier, command post, ambulance and repair/recovery. In order to de-risk the programme prior to production, ST Kinetics built a Warthog testbed, which incorporated many improvements. This underwent a successful 2,000km-plus trial in the United Arab Emirates this year, where it operated in temperatures of up to +47°C.

Warthog is a further development of the Bronco, which has been in service with the Singapore Armed Forces since 2001 in many configurations and has a typical gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 16 tonnes. The Warthog has a Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) of up to 19 tonnes, with a total internal volume of 13m3.

To meet the demanding UK Warthog requirement, the Bronco has been upgraded in many areas, including installation of airconditioning in front and rear units, and a new armour package that includes spall liners, appliqué armour and bar armour...

[Askarpencen]

Admin:

Text deleted.

[Sandhi Yudha]

It

For example, Indonesia has a fairly big army, so the defence companies should focus on making things for the army (and not the air force or navy). Given the size of Indonesia's army, ammo and rifles should be the next obvious areas (which is also how Singapore got started in defence manufacturing).

It could be high end stuff or even low end stuff. IMO, it is a mistake for Indonesia to focus only on high tech end alone (like the aircraft industry) because your country's low technology base and your country's investment levels in R&D is low - which results in uncompetitive products. They would be so uncompetitive that it would affect your army's capability development if the bought that local made product.

With Indonesia's low cost of labour army clothing, shoes, boots, bullet proof vests and other personal equipment should be an area of research focus. Once you have done it, your country would own the technology and make money from licensing the technology or even better, you can produce the product in Indonesia. Most importantly, Indonesia can manufacture labour intensive products at a competitive price. All technology invested in this area can also be applied to camping equipment and be sold as outdoor gear. However, such unsexy areas are likely to impress politicians and generals.

Alternatively, Indonesian companies should JV with more established defence companies and be a parts manufacturer. This means that Indonesia manufactures a part of a bigger weapons system instead of the whole thing by yourself.

Don't try to compete head-on. Instead seek to carve successive niches of increasing complexity. If you want to take a giant leap, you are more likely to fail. Let's face it, Indonesia can make military transport planes thanks to Habibie's vision and support. But today, which other country would like to buy made in Indonesian military planes (with cash and not just barter trade)?


ST Kinetics started out in automotive repair but Indonesia has more than the automotive business. You have a vibrant construction, logging and mining market. Your defence industry should look at giving contracts to re-engine your tanks/IFVs/APCs to successful Indonesian companies like PT Trakindo Utama, who are competitive in their respective industry niches. Batam has quite a few ship building companies (who do tug boats very well). Maybe you should be looking there for future companies to groom into defence industry leaders, rather than the existing corrupt bunch.

.

Yes, we already make our own uniforms, shoes, boots, bullet proof vests and other personal equipment like helmets, assault rifles, pistols, revolvers, sniper rifles.
We also make armoured personal carriers.

But we also need (high-tech)stuff for our navy and airforce.
Thats why we build our own patrol boats and LPDs, transport helicopters, transport and maritime patrol aircrafts...
And of course we make aircraft parts for other aircraft manufacturers....


As far as i know the only Singaporean weaponsystems we use are a small amount of SAR-21 (i really like this rifle, its in use by Den Bravo 90 of the special forces of the airforce) and FH-2000 houwitzers (in use by TNI-AD).

[shag]

Until the allegations of kickbacks came in the Pegasus 155mm ultra light howitzer from ST kinetics was one of the two contenders to supply Indian Army with chopper-portable howitzers for use in himalayan regions. ST kinetics is not out of the deal yet but pending investigation the deal probably can't be closed. Got any good details on this howitzer OPSSG?

[OPSSG]

Yes, we already make our own uniforms, shoes, boots, bullet proof vests and other personal equipment like helmets, assault rifles, pistols, revolvers, sniper rifles.
We also make armoured personal carriers.

@Sandhi Yudha and Ananda, many thanks for the explanation and further details on the weapons/equipment that Indonesia makes.

As far as i know the only Singaporean weapon systems we use are a small amount of SAR-21 (i really like this rifle, its in use by Den Bravo 90 of the special forces of the airforce) and FH-2000 howitzers (in use by TNI-AD).

Now that Indonesia has it's own small arms industry, there is less scope for additional SAR-21 sales (but it is good for Indonesia to be more self reliant :) ). I like the SAR-21 too, as it has a built in-optics, is factory zeroed (making zeroing of the weapon unnecessary) and has a translucent magazine casing (telling you how many rounds are remaining in the mag). As compared to the M-16, the weapon is better suited to our smaller Asian body frame and it is designed to tolerate dirty better (you can dip the SAR-21 in the river, take it out and shoot).

Can you identify the TNI-AD unit or command that uses the FH-2000? And do you have any idea of the number of FH-2000s (155mm/52 calibre towed howitzer, with APU) in TNI-AD service?

[OPSSG]

Got any good details on this howitzer OPSSG?

Please see this Mindef released fact sheet (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_events/nr/2005/oct/28oct05_nr/28oct05_fs.html) of the 155mm/39-calibre Pegasus howitzer and a prior video below:

Enter the Pegasus

As with most Singapore weapons, they are designed with the smaller Asian body frame in mind. The Pegasus used by our army comes with an Ammunition Loading System (ALS) and the ALS automatically loads ammunition (in particular, pay attention to the ammo loading) to reduce crew fatigue. This allows the gun crew to operate the Pegasus for a longer period while maintaining a burst rate of 3 rounds in 24 seconds and a sustain rate of 2 rounds per minute. For contrast, you should take a look at a video of the M777 in action below:

M777

BAE's offering to India is actually about a ton lighter and has a with a small footprint than the Pegasus but the design considerations are different. If you took at the above video, there is a guy holding a stick, on the right side of the screen. His role has been replaced by the flick rammer on the Pegasus, which is an attempt to automate certain tasks (and has it's own corresponding pros and cons). Please note that the flick rammer does not make the Pegasus a 'better howitzer', it just reflects a different design consideration.

@shag, are the above link, information and videos - what you wanted to know?

Until the allegations of kickbacks came in the Pegasus 155mm ultra light howitzer from ST kinetics was one of the two contenders to supply Indian Army with chopper-portable howitzers for use in himalayan regions. ST kinetics is not out of the deal yet but pending investigation the deal probably can't be closed.

I believe that ultimately, the Central Bureau of Investigation investigation on the former director-general of the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) is unrelated to ST Kinetics. I previously posted more details here (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/indian-army-news-discussion-4114-44/).

[shag]

Thanks,
That was great info, one more question though, whats the difference between maximum range(conventional) and extended range. the extended range is same as that claimed as range by FH-77B. whats the deal with these figures?

[OPSSG]

shag, I'm a former conscript grunt (ie. foot solider). While I have a basic understanding of some relevant artillery concepts, IMO, I'm not the best person to explain these concepts. If another member of the forum would be so kind, I would appreciate if they could supplement or correct my explanation of some artillery basics below.

the extended range is same as that claimed as range by FH-77B.

IIRC, the FH-77B in Indian service is a 39-calibre 155mm howitzer, the same gun calibre (and similar range) as the Pegasus. See para 1 below for more details.

That was great info, one more question though, whats the difference between maximum range(conventional) and extended range.

Some artillery basics:

1. The longer the gun barrel, the longer the range and the calibre of a howitzer relates to the barrel length of the howitzer. In other words, the barrel of a 155mm/39-calibre howitzer is shorter than that of a 155mm/45-calibre howitzer. And the barrel of a 155mm/45-calibre howitzer is shorter than that of a 155mm/52-calibre howitzer. Let me give you two examples below:

(i) the G5, 155mm/45-calibre howitzer can shoot a normal/conventional projectile further at max charge than a 155mm/39-calibre howitzer (like India's FH-77B or Singapore's Pegasus); and

(ii) a 155mm/52-calibre howitzer, like the FH-2000 (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_events/nr/2004/nov/01nov04_nr/01nov04_fs.html) can shoot the same normal/conventional projectile further than the 155mm/45-calibre G5 howitzer.

2. So when the Mindef fact sheet talks about extended range - we are talking about extended range projectiles. Unless you are using advanced munitions described in para 5 below, the further you fire, the less accurate the normal 155mm artillery projectile will be. Let's give you some numbers in the trade-off between range and accuracy. At 15 km range, you may have a circular error probable (CEP) of 95m and at 30 km range, you might have a CEP of 260m (see CEP chart over range provided in para 5 below). The smaller the CEP number the more accurate the projectile.

3. Conceptually, there are two main ways to change the range of an artillery projectile. You can either change the amount of propellant/charge used OR you change the fight characteristics of the projectile (with an extended range projectile). See sub-para 4 (i) below for a more detailed explanation on the extended range projectile.

4. To understand para 3 above, I need to explain the basics how a howitzer works. When you load an howitzer, you will need to put in 2 items (one, a projectile; and two, a propellant/charge):

(i) When you modify the artillery projectile to give it greater than normal range, it is called an extended range projectile. There are a number of ways to modify the projectile to give it extended range. I'll just list two different US made extended range projectiles below, to give you an idea:

(a) the M549A1 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m549a1.htm) is rocket assisted, extended range projectile (in the past, there was a significant trade-off in accuracy in older rocket assisted artillery projectiles, when extending the range of 155mm artillery fires); and

(b) the M864 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m864.htm) is base burn, extended range projectile. The M864 uses a non-propulsive base drag reduction system. Base burn reduces drag on a projectile, to achieve increased range. After firing, the combustible material attached to the base of the projectile is exhausted through holes in the base of the projectile thereby increasing pressure in the base region and increasing the range of the round. To put it in layman's terms, the M864 bleeds hot air on it's butt to travel further. Basically, the hot air released causes the flow of air at the base of the projectile to be less turbulent and to enable the projectile to fly further (BTW, there is less trade-off in accuracy in using a base burn projectile and these type of projectile is in Singapore's artillery inventory).

(ii) Modern propellant/charge is called a Modular Artillery Charge (MAC) (or in the past called propellant bags). When you change the amount of propellant/charge use, you change the range of a projectile. When using a max propellant/charge, you are maximizing the range of an artillery projectile.

5. Today, the most famous guided extended range projectile is the US made XM982 Excalibur (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m982-155.htm), where both range and accuracy have been improved. See the relevant Future Weapons episode below:

Future Weapons - Excalibur

However, Excalibur with its CEP of 10m is very expensive and the Americans are developing a good enough and cheaper solution with the XM1156 Precision Guidance Kit (PGK) (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m1156.htm) (see CEP chart over range of different type of munitions (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/pgk-image5.gif)) at about US$3,000 per PGK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/ARMY042507.xml) (for each Excalibur round, you could buy over 20 PGKs). If you click on the CEP chart, it shows a CEP of 50m for the PGK. That is old information. IIRC, in late 2008, the US Army has announced that the CEP of the prototype PGK fuzes have already demonstrated their ability to steer projectiles to within less than 20m of their intended target. For PGK entering production soon, US artillery makes the trade-off a little range, for a large increase in accuracy (all at a much lower price than the Excalibur).

[Ananda]

Can you identify the TNI-AD unit or command that uses the FH-2000? And do you have any idea of the number of FH-2000s (155mm/52 calibre towed howitzer, with APU) in TNI-AD service?

Forgot the unit number. But as far as the Army tends to admit FH 2000 in our arsenal only equip one baterry. However there's rumours that's it actually two baterries. All with APU.
Seems the army taking FH 2000 to acquantience them with 155 mm. The largest calibre before was 122mm.

From what I heard when ST get the order of 155 mm (FH 2000), they offered join development of 155 mm with Pindad. But seems the support from the army more on light weight 105 mm. Thus Pindad acquaired license from Oto Melara with 105 light weight field howitzer.

With that, I don't see our army will get more 155 mm soon. However from unconfirmed sources, the Army also submit replacement for the self propelled french originated 105 mm Mk 61. The army already take a look on Primus, however also got a look with Samsung K 9 Thunder.
But again seems the focus now on the artillery are more light weight 105 mm and more MLRS 122mm which now under development (taking cues from Russian design).

[Firn]

This file (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009fuze/IIIApergolizzi.pdf) about the PGK helps to understand some additional basics. OPSSG has certainly made a very nice overview. I will just add some simple thoughts.

As outlined in the file the increase in accuracy of a GPS guided projectile over a conventional round becomes ever more pronounced as range increases. While the latter might have twice the CEP at 15 km it is five times greater at 30km.



An example:

The opposing forces tend also increasingly to attack in close proximity to civilians and to "hug" the coalition forces. To reduce civilian (collateral) casualities and the likelihood of friendly fire the use of heavy artillery in AFghanistan is object to increasingly stringent ROE. This greatly decreases the massive advantage in firepower and increases greatly the need of more accurate support fire.

If your supporting battery/gun is 25 km away a CEP of 150 m might mean that it can not support the Troops in contact with conventional projectiles as the enemy position is too close to your troops. But a gun with an 155/52 barrel could deliver effective fire support from 50 km away if the PKG delivers the constant minimum 50m CEP. If we assume that such precision is needed than the second gun/projectile combination covers an area 25 times larger than the first gun/prjectile combination!



P.S: This might touch one of the reasons why the GMLRS fired from the MLRS or HIMARS has become such a great success.With a range of 70km and a CEP of 10m it can support troops in an area of roughly 15000 km^2 regardless of the complexity of the terrain and the condition of the weather. This corrisponds to the size of Connecticut. Note that Singapore has become the only country which has only guided rockets for the HIMARS in it's arsenal.

[OPSSG]

@Ananda and Firn thanks for the above replies and valued added comments to the thread.

Terrex Q&A (http://www.dsta.gov.sg/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7699&Itemid=401)

Question: Why is an infantry carrier vehicle still needed when there’s already the Leopard 2A4 Main Battle Tank and Bionix infantry fighting vehicle?

Answer: Tanks are the main assault weapon for ground combat and the vehicle for armour formation troops. Therefore, it cannot be too bulky and large. With half of its already limited cockpit size taken by a reinforced protective casing and filled up by ammunition and equipment for the barrel, there is barely any space left, much less have enough space to transport infantry troops.

However, after the front line troops have destroyed enemy tanks, infantry troops are needed to wipe out any remaining enemy forces and secure the field. Therefore, the infantry fighting vehicle needs to be right behind the armour formation troops with the infantry troops for a coordinated battle effort. This positional warfare is characteristic of an armour formation troop battle. The infantry fighting vehicle are thus equipped with 25mm to 40mm cannons.

On the other hand, not only does the Terrex ICV transport troops, it can also cover the troops with its offensive, defensive and mobility capabilities. This allows the troops to motorise and send small units of infantry troops to launch surprise attacks on the enemy’s non-armour troops while under the Terrex’s covering fire. This is especially useful for urban battles where high-powered ammunition is not required since a heavy-machine gun or a grenade launcher would suffice. As such, turrets are not needed and the vehicle has more space for transporting troops.


Question: The SAF already has the M113 tracked vehicle, so why was the Terrex ICV purchased?

Answer: Tracked vehicles are good at off-road driving, but this requires more power and slows down the vehicle, limits mobility and burns more fuel. On the other hand, a wheeled armour vehicle is fuel-efficient, vibrates less, easy to control, highly mobile on roads, and also has strong deployment capabilities.

As it is swift and silent, the Terrex ICV is most suitable for urban battles in cities with well-developed roads, especially during anti-terrorist attacks and peacekeeping duties. This makes it the ideal motor vehicle for troops that need to react swiftly.


Question: With the failed experience of the V-200, why another wheeled infantry vehicle?

Answer: The V-200, which was used more than 40 years ago, only had four wheels. Each wheel had to carry a massive amount of weight, resulting in low mobility and causing the vehicle to get stuck in muddy areas frequently. In the last few decades, technology for wheeled vehicles have improved tremendously and the vehicles are now equipped with wading capabilities and improved mobility. Moreover, with the increase in the number of wheels, the vehicle can now be larger and bulkier and this increased space could translate into reinforced armour protection for the troops within. All the wheels are also fitted with driving capabilities to enhance vehicle speed.

With eight wheels, the Terrex ICV can go from zero to 50km/hr in just 13.5 seconds and has a turning radius of merely 8.5m. More wheels also mean a neat axle arrangement and the ability to cross ditches over 2m wide. Furthermore, even if a wheel or two are hit and punctured, the other wheels will still be able to function.


Question: What will happen if the wheels are hit?

Answer: As specially produced low-pressure wheels, the wheels will not explode immediately even if hit by a bullet and will still be able to travel some distance. The Terrex ICV is equipped with an automatic wheel pressure adjustment system, which allows the wheel pressure to be adjusted and inflated from within the vehicle to adapt to any terrain or compensate for punctured wheels.


Question: Does that mean that tracked vehicles will become obsolete?

Answer: A wheeled vehicle does not perform as well as a tracked vehicle in off-road conditions and terrains where the ground is soft. The experience of having a V-200 stuck in mud and causing a break in formation with the AMX-13 tanks in front showed that different weapons are required for different terrains and environments. Having both the tracked and wheeled platforms will give the SAF a more well-rounded ability to handle different types of battles.

Above is a translated Terrex Q&A that appeared in the Chinese language Singapore newspaper, Lianhe Zaobao on 3 September 2009. Your can read the original article in Chinese here (http://www.dsta.gov.sg/images/stories/090903_zb.pdf). If you are interested in more info, click here for another DT thread (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/military-photos-videos/us-chief-army-gen-george-w-casey-jr-visits-singapore-9471/) with more Terrex pixs and graphics.

[OPSSG]

Sep 28, 2009 (http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20090928-170440.html) - The Warthog will make its way to the UK Ministry of Defence this year.

ST Kinetics, the land systems arm of ST Engineering, today unveiled the agile, versatile and armoured "beast of a vehicle" that will be delivered on schedule to the UK from the end of the year. British soldiers in Afghanistan will be receiving better protection against mines, increased operational mobility, and higher payload when the Warthog All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) enter service. More than 100 vehicles worth over 150 million pounds (about S$330mil) have been bought by the UK MOD in response to an Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR).

...

Brigadier Ian Simpson, DE&S Head of Combat Wheels Group, UK MOD, said: "The WARTHOG itself has proven itself to be a very capable vehicle in tests and trials. I am impressed by the high standards of engineering applied to this vehicle and the quality of the support package; providing our deployed forces with the higher levels of protection and mobility."

Twelve UK Armed Forces trainers have already begun operation and maintenance training in Singapore to allow them to start bringing the vehicles into service shortly after delivery.

Click here (http://www.stengg.com/upload/1027cm3WnK3fHLHa781K.jpg) to see latest Warthog pix (dressed for Afghanistan with slat armour) or here for the DT pix thread (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/military-photos-videos/us-chief-army-gen-george-w-casey-jr-visits-singapore-9471/) (see post #14).

I note that twelve UK Armed Forces trainers are already in Singapore. The official ST Kinetics press release is here (http://www.stengg.com/pressroom/press_releases_read.aspx?paid=1446) and a UK News report is here (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/warthog-tank-unveiled-in-bid-to-cut-afghanistan-deaths-1794950.html). As previously discussed, the Warthog is sightly heavier and better armoured than the baseline Bronco but this should be no problem, as it is engineered to cater for weight growth as a result of up-armouring. Further, to ascertain the vehicle's performance in extreme heat and dust conditions, ST Kinetics also put a 19 tonne Warthog test-bed vehicle through desert trials in UAE.

[shag]

The vehicle looks impressive, that grill on the side seems to be becoming more popular these days.
The profile of the vehicle seems to be a little to big though, dont you think? It would make a nice large target. In Indian army they made a big fuss about the taller profile of Arjun MBT compared to russian equivalents(they are still making a fuss :P ). though Arjun's profile is closer to most western tank designs I am told. How big is the profile issue in ICVs and IFVs?
I might be wrong here.
btw thanks for your detailed explanation on artillery pieces OPSSG. That was very kind of you.

[Firn]

The profile of the vehicle seems to be a little to big though, dont you think? It would make a nice large target. In Indian army they made a big fuss about the taller profile of Arjun MBT compared to russian equivalents(they are still making a fuss :P ). though Arjun's profile is closer to most western tank designs I am told. u.

There are conflicting experiences about how important a small profile is. The very low profile German Stug III was greatly feared by Soviet tankers as it was a very good vehicle which heavy armor in front and a powerful cannon which chould be camouflaged with relative ease. Desert Storm seems to indicate that at least in large open spaces a small profile is not overly effective to protect a tank against accurate weapons with excellent optics, an experienced mirrored by ex-tankers (Waylander?) on this board.

Personally I think that the - considering it's role rather small - tradeoffs of the Terrex 's taller profile is outweigh by the advantages of greater protection against mines and IEDs and more space.

[Firn]

BAE's offering to India is actually about a ton lighter and has a with a small footprint than the Pegasus but the design considerations are different. If you took at the above video, there is a guy holding a stick, on the right side of the screen. His role has been replaced by the flick rammer on the Pegasus, which is an attempt to automate certain tasks (and has it's own corresponding pros and cons). Please note that the flick rammer does not make the Pegasus a 'better howitzer', it just reflects a different design consideration.


The triple 7 was designed with weight foremost in mind. The finished product reflects that pretty well, for example the lack of a flick rammer, the liberal use of titanium and the relative short barrel lenght. It enjoys a lot of success but has some understandable limitations. If deployability is not the key issue the Pegasus offers a interesting alternative.

[Waylander]

At least in the terrain of northern/middle germany it is not really harder for our gunners to detect and hit a smaller target.
For example a Marder IFV is not harder to hit than a Leopard II MBT. The same applies for APCs like the M113 or Fuchs.

Up to a certain size I think many vehicles certainly gain more from the bigger size than they loose.
For example be it the better protection against RPGs, HMGs and IED for APCs or a better gun depression, internal room for electronics and crew space for MBTs.

[OPSSG]

btw thanks for your detailed explanation on artillery pieces OPSSG. That was very kind of you.

You are welcome.

I might be wrong here.

Try to read more before you ask about what you don't understand. That way, we can focus our answers/responses on what you don't understand.

The vehicle looks impressive, that grill on the side seems to be becoming more popular these days.

That's called slat or caged armour. It's used to protect the passive armour underneath from certain threats, like RPGs. You should read up on that basics on how it works (and it's limitations) for yourself. It is important to remember that modern armour protection engineering is about providing different layers of protection (the analogy is that of an onion - when one layer is defeated, the next layer provides protection/mitigation of effects). Hence, it is common to talk about the survivability onion (http://www.ibd-deisenroth-engineering.de/concepts.html) (please read post #4 of this thread and it's associated links for more info).

The profile of the vehicle seems to be a little to big though, dont you think? It would make a nice large target. In Indian army they made a big fuss about the taller profile of Arjun MBT compared to russian equivalents(they are still making a fuss :P ). though Arjun's profile is closer to most western tank designs I am told.

With regards to Indian media/blog reports on the Arjun, there's quite a bit of misinformation. Or at least there is an attempt by individuals to twist information (without regard to context) to best support their arguments. Some of these individuals are more interested in trying to 'win' an argument rather than provide a balanced view point (as engineering is about making compromises work). I've learnt over time that I do not want to comment on such matters - there is already a old thread (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/arjun-tank-6612-50/) on the topic. I've had more than enough of unproductive discussions on forums, so I will not wade in on the Arjun.

How big is the profile issue in ICVs and IFVs?

I agree with what was written by Waylander and would add the following additional comments:

An APC like the Warthog/Bronco (as a troop carrier) have different characteristics from an IFV (or Infantry Fighting Vehicle), which are used by armoured infantry (and are engineered accordingly to different requirements).

In a conventional battle, an IFV will typically operate with MBTs as part of an armoured brigade / division / corp. Typically, an IFV carries a turreted automatic cannon of 20mm or more and it will stick around once it has dropped off its armoured infantry to support them. Basically, IFV equipped armoured infantry, working with MBTs are called armoured or heavy ground forces. Armoured forces are ideal for offensive operations or for counter-attacks in mobile defensive operations. However, traditionally structured heavy forces are not ideally suited for fighting insurgencies and certain types of terrain (as their heavy equipment could get bogged down by certain types of terrain). This is not to say that MBTs cannot be used as direct fire support for light infantry (which are being used by the Danes and the Canadians in Afghanistan).

IMO, the dividing line between IFVs and APCs is not the thickness armour but the presence or absence of offensive armament (which affects your dismounted infantry tactics). The Israeli Namer has tracks and more armour than any IFV on the planet, but it is classed as an APC due to the lack of offensive armament. APCs are armoured taxis, usually with machine guns for self-defence. After it has dropped off its infantry it will retreat to cover. Therefore APC equipped infantry will have slightly different tactics and roles. APC or ICV equipped infantry, working with light tanks tend to be called medium ground forces. An ICV is for motorised infantry and they play a slightly different role from armoured infantry.

Now for the all important context, below:

(i) Singapore actually has armoured infantry, who are mostly carried in Bionix II IFVs and they are meant to function as part of a heavy or armoured spearhead (along with our Leopard 2A4 MBTs and supported by tracked self propelled howitzers) to seek gaps in against a broad enemy front in a conventional war. We often use the Bronco (hence the horse reference in the Bronco name) as a logistics support vehicle and as a 120mm mortar carrier (as part of our armour spearhead). Please see the relevant videos below:

Bronco All Terrain Tracked Carrier

CGI of the 120mm SRAMs

(ii) The Royal Marines are currently using the British made Viking in an unconventional war against insurgents in Afghanistan. The Royal Marines are an elite light infantry force (with a particular focus on ship to shore maneuver) and the key characteristic of light infantry is mobility. By virtue of the Viking's smaller size, it can carry less troops and less armour. And the Warthog is purchased as a UOR to replace the Viking in Afghanistan (they have lost a few guys to IEDs in the Vikings, including a LTC). Like the Viking (IIRC, about 50 Vikings are in Helmand and 27 of these have been damaged by mine or IED explosions), the Warthog is an All-Terrain-Tracked-Carrier (ATTC) is designed to travel off-road. ATTC enable the Royal Marines to navigate Afghanistan’s difficult, mountainous terrain (which would defeat other wheeled vehicles like the American made MRAP (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/mrap.htm)s). In Afghanistan, support fires (scoped rifles, machine guns and bunker busters) are available at company and platoon level, which means that the troops are heavily laden. ATTCs give the Royal Marines mobility over difficult terrain that would defeat other wheeled protected vehicles. Further, the Warthog, with it's armour, HMG mount and smoke generators enables continued tactical movements by infantry over difficult terrain, when in contact with the enemy (it is especially useful when deployed in an over-watch position to support dismounted troops). This is crucial in terrain where cover and concealment may not be available. So it is important to understand the context and role of the equipment. Click here (http://www.d-n-i.net/dni/2009/09/30/about-light-infantry-tactics-and-the-tactical-challenges-in-afghanistan/) for more on 'light infantry tactics' and I'm sure the British members of our forum will be able to tell you more about the Royal Marines in Afghanistan.

The best way to explain is this. You can use knife to open a tin can but a can opener will do a better job. Because the Singapore army fields both light heli-mobile light infantry (our Guards units) and armoured or heavy infantry we have a mix of tools to respond to different threat scenarios. The Terrex ICV bridges the gap between light infantry and armour, with a medium force, thereby giving us more tactical choices.

For some less intelligent commentators, the 'best' is often defined as 'whatever the Americans are using.' However, I believe that that is the wrong yard stick. The correct yard stick is the equipment's suitability for your specific tactical considerations. IMO, people who like to make the 'best' equipment arguments generally do not understand how appropriate tactics can save lives.

[OPSSG]

@Waylander and Firn, thanks for the responses. :)

The triple 7 was designed with weight foremost in mind. The finished product reflects that pretty well, for example the lack of a flick rammer, the liberal use of titanium and the relative short barrel lenght. It enjoys a lot of success but has some understandable limitations. If deployability is not the key issue the Pegasus offers a interesting alternative.

Since 2002, ST Kinetics has been working to perfect a Low Weight Self Propelled Howitzer (LWSPH (http://www.stengg.com/pressroom/press_releases_read.aspx?paid=300)) which is an advance over the Pegasus concept (click to see pix (http://www.stengg.com/upload/153HOUbl74IYhLThD2U.jpg)). The LWSPH has a maximum speed of 80 km/h, cruising range of 600 km and a slope-climbing capability of 60%. I think that is more interesting but not quite ready for prime time.

[Sandhi Yudha]

Forgot the unit number. But as far as the Army tends to admit FH 2000 in our arsenal only equip one baterry. However there's rumours that's it actually two baterries. All with APU.
Seems the army taking FH 2000 to acquantience them with 155 mm. The largest calibre before was 122mm.

From what I heard when ST get the order of 155 mm (FH 2000), they offered join development of 155 mm with Pindad. But seems the support from the army more on light weight 105 mm. Thus Pindad acquaired license from Oto Melara with 105 light weight field howitzer.

With that, I don't see our army will get more 155 mm soon. However from unconfirmed sources, the Army also submit replacement for the self propelled french originated 105 mm Mk 61. The army already take a look on Primus, however also got a look with Samsung K 9 Thunder.
But again seems the focus now on the artillery are more light weight 105 mm and more MLRS 122mm which now under development (taking cues from Russian design).
122mm calibre? Do you mean howitzers or MLRS like the RM70 Grad from Kormar?
As far as i know we only have 76mm, 105 mm (M101A1/M2A2 and LG-1) and a couple of FH-2000s (according a book about the biggest armies of the world, with full of errors and wrong information, just 5 pieces of FH-2000)

[OPSSG]

15 October 2009 (http://www.stengg.com/pressroom/press_releases_read.aspx?paid=1457) - A US subsidiary of ST Engineering, VT Miltope has won a US$500m contract (about S$710m) to supply the At Platform Automatic Test Systems (APATS) Maintenance Support Device - Version 3 (MSD-V3) system, comprising rugged laptops, test equipment and instruments, to the US Army....

Teamed with subcontractor, Science and Engineering Services, Inc. (SESI), VT Miltope is expected to perform 70% of the programme and SESI the remaining 30%. VT Miltope will supply the MSD-V3, based on the TSC V3-GM45 Rugged Convertible Laptop Computer, the next generation of its TSC-750 computer. The TSC-750M is a militarised laptop designed and qualified to withstand the harshest tactical environment for computer systems and is being used in forward areas under extreme weather and handling conditions.

More than 40,000 of the TSC-750-based MSDs have previously been supplied to the US Army. Many of these systems are already successfully deployed with US troops in active missions. In the five production programme years (2010-2014) of MSD-V3, the US Army may order up to 39,460 MSD-V3 Kits, 12,500 ICE Test Adapter Kits, and peripheral accessory hardware such as PC cards and cables...

Technically, the above mentioned products may not be made in Singapore but I've included it here anyway. Defense News has also reported on it here (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4325915&c=ASI&s=LAN). [h/t to weseal1962]

[Sandhi Yudha]

Impressive system the 120 SRAMS, OPSSG! Really inovative!
Thanks for posting

[OPSSG]

Impressive system the 120 SRAMS, OPSSG! Really inovative!
Thanks for posting

You are welcome. It is my pleasure. BTW, the 120mm SRAMS has been mounted on:

(i) the Bronco and the light strike vehicle (LSV) - see post #7 in this thread for more info; and
(ii) the RG-31 (10-ton 4x4 armoured and mine-protected vehicle) and sold as to UAE as the AGRAB (Scorpion) (Click here for more AGRAB pixs (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/military-photos-videos/us-chief-army-gen-george-w-casey-jr-visits-singapore-9471-2/#post183822)).

[aaaditya]

The triple 7 was designed with weight foremost in mind. The finished product reflects that pretty well, for example the lack of a flick rammer, the liberal use of titanium and the relative short barrel lenght. It enjoys a lot of success but has some understandable limitations. If deployability is not the key issue the Pegasus offers a interesting alternative.

another advantage that the pegasus has is that it is equipped with an auxillary power unit ,which gives it a limited mobility(shoot and scoot capability),this is not available in the m-777 and also explains the additional weight of the pegasus howitzer,

i believe that the lighter weight advantage of the m-777 is negated by the pegasus's higher degree of automation and superior mobility.

[shag]

Don't you think calling pegasus a Self Propelled Gun is stretching the term a little, by that benchmark even FH77B would be a SPG due to its mercedezs APU.
That's called slat or caged armour.
I am aware of what it it for. it was just a reflection of thought :P

[Ananda]

122mm calibre? Do you mean howitzers or MLRS like the RM70 Grad from Kormar?
As far as i know we only have 76mm, 105 mm (M101A1/M2A2 and LG-1) and a couple of FH-2000s (according a book about the biggest armies of the world, with full of errors and wrong information, just 5 pieces of FH-2000)

Sandhi..sorry just getback to this thread, so it's onemonth old repply (hopefully OPSGG doesn't mind I derived a liitle bit on his thread).
The 122 mm that I'd mentioned was the old 122 mm ex yugo howitzer used by the marrines. Those actually being replaced by the light weight 105 mm.

The FH 2000, like I said are conflicting reports. One said only one baterry (standard in TNI was 6 - 8 but for FH 2000 seems 6 more likely). The other said two batteries. So at most only a dozen,but my self seems inclined more on the 6 numbers.

[OPSSG]

Don't you think calling pegasus a Self Propelled Gun is stretching the term a little, by that benchmark even FH77B would be a SPG due to its mercedezs APU.

I see you did not click on the links provided in my earlier post (quoted below again for your benefit). :(

Since 2002, ST Kinetics has been working to perfect a Low Weight Self Propelled Howitzer (LWSPH (http://www.stengg.com/pressroom/press_releases_read.aspx?paid=300)) which is an advance over the Pegasus concept (click to see pix (http://www.stengg.com/upload/153HOUbl74IYhLThD2U.jpg)). The LWSPH has a maximum speed of 80 km/h, cruising range of 600 km and a slope-climbing capability of 60%. I think that is more interesting but not quite ready for prime time.

There is a wheeled self propelled version that was developed in 2002 (which is based on light strike vehicle chassis) and has not entered service in Singapore. I hope the above clarifies. :)

BTW, Singapore also has tracked Self Propelled artillery in operational service. It is called the Primus (click to see brochure (http://www.stengg.com/upload/934MbMkBL5D2UYjKi6F.pdf)) and a video is enclosed below:

The Primus

another advantage that the pegasus has is that it is equipped with an auxillary power unit ,which gives it a limited mobility(shoot and scoot capability),this is not available in the m-777 and also explains the additional weight of the pegasus howitzer,

i believe that the lighter weight advantage of the m-777 is negated by the pegasus's higher degree of automation and superior mobility.

Thanks for the kind words. I usually try to be cautious in praise on Singapore made equipment, as I strive not to be blindly nationalistic over made in Singapore equipment (and I'm happy to discuss their limitations too). :D

[OPSSG]

Sandhi..sorry just get back to this thread, so it's one month old reply (hopefully OPSGG doesn't mind I derived a little bit on his thread).

As long as the Mods are also happy, I'm very easy going on slight detours.

The 122 mm that I'd mentioned was the old 122 mm ex yugo howitzer used by the marines. Those actually being replaced by the light weight 105 mm.

The light weight 105mm howitzer is still in active service in a number of armies and it has a slightly smaller foot print compared to a 155mm howitzer, which is important for Indonesia, given your country's limited heli-lift and sea lift. As they say 'different strokes for different folks'.

To simplify our logistics and ammo versatility reasons, Singapore has chosen to standardize on the 155mm howitzer - a calibre that allows for fairly decent range (howitzers are also used for counter battery work) and the standardization of ammunition. The 155mm howitzer has a good range of sub-munitions (or otherwise known as cluster munitions/cargo rounds), pretty good fragmentation efficiency and adequate high explosive power. From a conventional warfare planning standpoint, the 64 sub-munitions of a cargo round can cover a larger area and potentially hit more targets at once than a single unitary round. Basically, fragments from unitary rounds lose velocity quickly, so it's much more efficient to use many small diameter fragmenting sub-munitions than a single large one. The conceptual downside for sub-munitions is the slightly elevated potential for blinds, which can pose a danger to your own troops (moving into the affected area/objective after the artillery barrage). However, this potential danger posed by sub-munitions can be mitigated with proper technology (via the use of advanced fuses) and stringent quality control. See the relevant ST Kinetics brochure on Singapore made cargo rounds here (http://www.stengg.com/upload/819iE0RQZJP675Q4S3P.pdf).
The FH 2000, like I said are conflicting reports. One said only one battery (standard in TNI was 6 - 8 but for FH 2000 seems 6 more likely). The other said two batteries. So at most only a dozen,but my self seems inclined more on the 6 numbers.

I'm also inclined to believe that Indonesia has 6 FH-2000s (a 155mm/52 calibre towed howitzer, with APU). For Singapore, the FH-2000 is a divisional artillery asset and until the acquisition of the US made HIMARS (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/himars/) by Singapore artillery, the FH-2000 was the longest range artillery piece in our inventory. HIMARS will provide a leap in the capabilities of Singapore artillery and augment our existing 155mm howitzers and 120mm mortars.

BTW, I may not be able to be prompt in my replies over the next two weeks.

[aaaditya]

As long as the Mods are also happy, I'm very easy going on slight detours.



The light weight 105mm howitzer is still in active service in a number of armies and it has a slightly smaller foot print compared to a 155mm howitzer, which is important for Indonesia, given your country's limited heli-lift and sea lift. As they say 'different strokes for different folks'.

To simplify our logistics and ammo versatility reasons, Singapore has chosen to standardize on the 155mm howitzer - a calibre that allows for fairly decent range (howitzers are also used for counter battery work) and the standardization of ammunition. The 155mm howitzer has a good range of sub-munitions (or otherwise known as cluster munitions/cargo rounds), pretty good fragmentation efficiency and adequate high explosive power. From a conventional warfare planning standpoint, the 64 sub-munitions of a cargo round can cover a larger area and potentially hit more targets at once than a single unitary round. Basically, fragments from unitary rounds lose velocity quickly, so it's much more efficient to use many small diameter fragmenting sub-munitions than a single large one. The conceptual downside for sub-munitions is the slightly elevated potential for blinds, which can pose a danger to your own troops (moving into the affected area/objective after the artillery barrage). However, this potential danger posed by sub-munitions can be mitigated with proper technology (via the use of advanced fuses) and stringent quality control. See the relevant ST Kinetics brochure on Singapore made cargo rounds here (http://www.stengg.com/upload/819iE0RQZJP675Q4S3P.pdf).


I'm also inclined to believe that Indonesia has 6 FH-2000s (a 155mm/52 calibre towed howitzer, with APU). For Singapore, the FH-2000 is a divisional artillery asset and until the acquisition of the US made HIMARS (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/himars/) by Singapore artillery, the FH-2000 was the longest range artillery piece in our inventory. HIMARS will provide a leap in the capabilities of Singapore artillery and augment our existing 155mm howitzers and 120mm mortars.

BTW, I may not be able to be prompt in my replies over the next two weeks.

hey guys,great news here,it seems that the indian army has amended its decision against backlisted firms,allowing them to participate.

i guess this puts singapore kinetics back in the race to sell the pegasus howitzer to india.

here is the link and the article:

The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Nation | Govt eases arms firm blacklist rules (http://telegraphindia.com/1091112/jsp/nation/story_11730661.jsp)

Two banned companies — a Singaporean firm vying for a billion-dollar order for artillery guns and an Israeli arms supplier — are hoping for a reprieve after the government today said it has amended the rules under which they were blacklisted in June.
The defence ministry has amended the rules that may allow the companies to participate in trials and tests but not to conclude contracts before the CBI completes its investigation.

[OPSSG]

hey guys,great news here,it seems that the indian army has amended its decision against backlisted firms,allowing them to participate.

i guess this puts singapore kinetics back in the race to sell the pegasus howitzer to india.

here is the link and the article:

The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Nation | Govt eases arms firm blacklist rules (http://telegraphindia.com/1091112/jsp/nation/story_11730661.jsp)

Many, many thanks for the update. :D

[Sandhi Yudha]

I'm also inclined to believe that Indonesia has 6 FH-2000s (a 155mm/52 calibre towed howitzer, with APU). For Singapore, the FH-2000 is a divisional artillery asset and until the acquisition of the US made HIMARS (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/himars/) by Singapore artillery, the FH-2000 was the longest range artillery piece in our inventory. HIMARS will provide a leap in the capabilities of Singapore artillery and augment our existing 155mm howitzers and 120mm mortars.

BTW, I may not be able to be prompt in my replies over the next two weeks.

"The extended-range MLRS rocket (ER-MLRS) improves the basic M26 range of 32km to more than 45km and the area of influence by 107%.

The extension of the rocket motor has resulted in a reduction in the payload to 518 M85 grenades, but the dispersion of the grenades is improved for better effectiveness with fewer grenades.

In April 2004, HIMARS successfully test fired the new extended range guided rocket GMLRS, with a range of more than 70km.
HIMARS is capable of firing the long-range ATACMS (army tactical missile system) guided missile. The ATACMS family includes the Block 1, Block 1A and Block 1A Unitary missiles. The block 1 missile delivers 950 anti-personnel anti-material (AP/AM) baseball-sized M74 submunitions to ranges exceeding 165km.

The block 1A missile range exceeds 300km by reducing the submunition payload to 300 bomblets and adding GPS guidance."

Even more than an Iskander-E (280 km)