This is a discussion on Made in Singapore Equipment within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Hi. I'm starting a new thread on designed/made/integrated in Singapore military equipment news. This will enable me to have a ...
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) 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).
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 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) 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.
Last edited by OPSSG; July 11th, 2009 at 04:32 AM.
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.
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 for their MEXAS passive armour protection system (as a technology provider - see IBD's survivability onion) in the Bionix platform. To give you an idea of the relationship, here's a 2008 pix of a Bronco with IBD's AMP-ADS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffy
How are they cooling the hydraulic fluid? And who is fielding these If there not for sale yet they should sell like hot cakes.
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 published in the Asian Defence Journal.
I'm hoping that other Singaporean forum members with more information will chime in.
Last edited by OPSSG; September 2nd, 2009 at 01:31 PM.
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
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffy
Looks like its the BIONIX Recovery vehicle with a cab and the drum in place of a crane. Very nice
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffy
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 of the Bionix at the US Interim Armored Vehicle contest (in which the ST Kinetics vehicle lost to the Stryker). [H/t to Iowa BB61 for the old pix]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffy
I really like the Spider LSV on the ST Kinetics site that would be fun to have for a weekend
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 was initially developed for our Guards Formation, which is a light infantry, rapid deployment, heli-mobile force. The Spider LSV is used by our Spike ATGM equipped anti-tank teams (click here and here for pixs of NZ live firing) and also to carry a ST Kinetics 120mm SRAMS low recoil mortar (see SRAMS brochure) (click here for the SRAMS mounted on the Spider pix). 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). The 3 man operated AGRAB (click for pix) 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).
Last edited by OPSSG; September 1st, 2009 at 04:15 AM.
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 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, Ultimax 100, and the Matador to name a few), the Bionix range of infantry fighting vehicles and Bionix derived support vehicles, the Bronco (see Warthog UOR win 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? 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.
Last edited by OPSSG; September 2nd, 2009 at 05:12 AM.
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.
...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)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ananda
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ananda
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.
Last edited by OPSSG; September 2nd, 2009 at 11:27 AM.
Sep 2, 2009 - 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.
First view of a Singapore Army 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.
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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 was initially developed for our Guards Formation, which is a light infantry, rapid deployment, heli-mobile force. The Spider LSV is used by our Spike ATGM equipped anti-tank teams (click here and here for pixs of NZ live firing) and also to carry a ST Kinetics 120mm SRAMS low recoil mortar (see SRAMS brochure) (click here for the SRAMS mounted on the Spider pix). 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). The 3 man operated AGRAB (click for pix) 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.
________________
"The first criterioun in war remains decisive action. Everyone, from the highest commander down to the youngest soldier, must constantly be aware that inaction and neglect incriminate him more severely than any error in the choice of means.
The SRAMS seems to be an excellent mean to give light vehicles the ability to deploy a source of heavy firepower.
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firn
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'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firn
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.
The engine spec states a 2 cycle diesel, I assume that a typo.
