Made in Singapore Equipment

Firn

Active Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #41
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

Active Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #42
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 His role has been replaced by the flick rammer on the Pegasus, which is an attempt to automate certain tasks (and has it's own corresponding pros and cons).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

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
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 (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 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:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja6s4sZ6t_g]Bronco All Terrain Tracked Carrier[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQdsUlr1674"]CGI of the 120mm SRAMs[/ame]

(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 MRAPs). 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 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.
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
@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) which is an advance over the Pegasus concept (click to see pix). 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.
 
Last edited:

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
15 October 2009 - 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. [h/t to weseal1962]
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
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).
 
Last edited:

aaaditya

New Member
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

New Member
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

The Bunker Group
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
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). :(

OPSSG said:
Since 2002, ST Kinetics has been working to perfect a Low Weight Self Propelled Howitzer (LWSPH) which is an advance over the Pegasus concept (click to see pix). 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) and a video is enclosed below:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bicJjG4MY4]The Primus[/ame]

aaaditya said:
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
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
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.
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 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.
 
Last edited:

aaaditya

New Member
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.


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 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

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.​
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
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 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)
 

SGMilitary

New Member
"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)
As of now the SAF is operating 18 HIMARS launchers.Does anyone have information if
there are plans to procure more HIMARS?
What is the actual Leopard 2A4 MBT that SAF has?

Cheers!
 

DavidDCM

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Plain Leopard 2A4 so far. They are planning to upgrade them, but so far did not do it.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
The French government has finally selected the latest version of the BAE Systems BvS10 MkII Viking all-terrain tracked vehicle over the Singaporean variant. Have to admit it does make sense, the UK and Dutch Marines use the same vehicle plus it was specifically designed to fit inside the current batch of landing craft / LSD's. I understand the Warthog is bigger reducing the number, which can be stored inside the current French amphib assets.

The UK plans to transfer it's batch of larger Warthogs to the army orbat and return the BvS10's (including recently ordered battlefield replacements) back to the RM ARG for the same reason as stated above.
 
Top