Made in Singapore Equipment

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Straits Times said:
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.
h/t to CJ for video and text below:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEpEkcHCJ8k]Singapore Army's Terrex [/ame]

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.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf5VgJeibTY]Terrex simulated engagement[/ame]

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 Picture thread.
 
Last edited:

Ananda

The Bunker Group
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Firn

Active Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #23
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.
 

sunshin3

New Member
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

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

Strategy Page said:
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):

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejbuOLCJ_J4]Terrex at the AOH[/ame]

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

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffc7KG65HuM]Singapore's Use of Technology[/ame]

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

Comments anyone?
 
Last edited:

Chino

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
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.
 
Last edited:

Firn

Active Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #27
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

Active Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #28
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 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 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

Super Moderator
Staff member
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).
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 Shielded Ring Mount (click to see Warthog picture). Thales 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. 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 - 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...
 
Last edited:

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
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).
 
Last edited:

shag

New Member
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
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?
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Got any good details on this howitzer OPSSG?
Please see this Mindef released fact sheet of the 155mm/39-calibre Pegasus howitzer and a prior video below:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDDRQ-WNcY0]Enter the Pegasus[/ame]

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:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb3tfk8dxvU]M777[/ame]

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.
 
Last edited:

shag

New Member
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
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 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 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 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, where both range and accuracy have been improved. See the relevant Future Weapons episode below:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1SxQ0arrSo]Future Weapons - Excalibur[/ame]

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) (see CEP chart over range of different type of munitions) at about US$3,000 per PGK (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).
 
Last edited:

Ananda

The Bunker Group
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

Active Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #37
This file 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.
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
@Ananda and Firn thanks for the above replies and valued added comments to the thread.

Terrex Q&A

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. If you are interested in more info, click here for another DT thread with more Terrex pixs and graphics.
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
AsiaOne said:
Sep 28, 2009 - 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 to see latest Warthog pix (dressed for Afghanistan with slat armour) or here for the DT pix thread (see post #14).

I note that twelve UK Armed Forces trainers are already in Singapore. The official ST Kinetics press release is here and a UK News report is here. 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.
 
Last edited:

shag

New Member
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.
 
Top