Replacement for SAF "Light" Tanks

last SG · 2006-12-13T11:49:07+00:00

This is probably too old. There is another one, the Swedish CV90 105 variant. Using a GIAT 105mm smoothbore gun, mated to the CV90 body. Now, there's an i...

Joe Black SG

Funny statement. SM1 is DEFINITELY NOT good enough. Any IFV with a 25mm armour piercing rounds are going to do SM1 good. DOn't forget that most IFVs' guns are stabalised, and SM1 gun is not. So the IFVs will be able to get the first shot, and probably first kill.

I will take my chances of a moving Bionix II against a moving SM1 anyday.

glock SG

SM1 is definitely outdated. SAF shud not and will not invest further in it. Its simply reached the end of its useful life. Even a Bionix II , although not a LT , with stabilized 30 mm gun, laser rangefinder, thermal sights, BMS and upgraded armor shud be a tougher adversary than a SM1.

CM06 SG

75mm gun can do stuff that 30 mm cant…It might be outdated..but heck it’s what armour will rely on as direct FS any day. Down to Coy /Plt level they are still there. and has very few immediate and cost effective replacement.

Daniel-Lim SG

I am not a fan of the SM-1 for all the reasons already mentioned, especially the non-stabilised gun and thin armour.

But having 300 of them around - assuming they are all operational and we have enough crews - is not something to be scoffed at.

It would be quite expensive to buy/build 300 LT to replace the entire fleet.

The 75mm gun is anytime better than a 25mm or 30mm cannon. It is also more lethal than the 76mm gun found on the Scorpion used by everyone in the region. If our tank gunnery is kilat, then it should still be way cheaper for dispatching enemy bunkers, LT, IFV or APC than using ATGMs.

A tank gun round is also faster than an ATGM, which needs a few seconds' flight time.

After firing a wire-guided ATGM for instance, you still need a few seconds to guide the missile to target. In that time, your vehicle is a sitting duck target. Not much different from an AMX-13 having to stop for a few seconds to aim and fire before moving oiff.

spencer99 SG

the thing is , no other modern army uses a "light tank" anymore in a fire support role. the "Heavy" role is being taken on by MBTs, the "light" roles taken on by IFVs type tracks like M3 Bradleys... with 25mm or Warrior 30mm guns.

so that is why i am wondering why we still need a light tank...

spencer99 SG

UK Warriors do not have ATGWs.... UK's doctrine is to use the MBT or dedicated ATGW armed tracked vehicles.... as Anti Tank platforms.

tankee1981 SG

We need a light tank because o the terrain in our region which is filled with dirt tracks,rubber and oil palm plantations. And ours being a military with a forward defence doctrine need to be able to operate in such terrain.

Other countries military do not face such problem. The US and UK don't need a light tank in the flat plains in Europe against the then Soviet Union. They also don't need a light tank in the streets in Iraq and Afganistan because with lighter armour it is sucidal. Light tanks being smaller and lighter can follow with the IFVs into those tight spaces. The IFV can also keep up with the light tank better than a powerful MBT. What i am trying to say is that different military faces diferent problems and thus require different solutions.

Yes, the ATGM is a good tan killer, no doubt about that but how many of such missiles can an IFV carry into battle? These missiles don't come cheap too, they are much more expensive than the relatively simple tank rounds. And he ATGM launcher can only fire the same type of missile(although some multi-purpose) but the tank gun can definitely fire more more types of ammo for different purposes such as knockng down walls in FIBUA. Very Happy

Fairyland SG

If I understand fellow forumers here, I think it's more a need for larger caliber gun(low velocity?) rather than a light tank.

So probably a 90mm or 105mm ST turret that can be fitted to existing Bionix (.5"/40mm cupola upgrade).

Close enough?

glock SG

Right, there are some targets for which 25 or 30 mm not powerful enough which 75 mm in SM1 is more suitable. However, SM1 needs to be replaced with new LT as SAF doctrine is such that there are many scenarios where only the LT can fit.

I think 105 mm firing standard ammo shud be the right choice of gun. It is more than enough to take out light armor, bunkers, buildings & with latest AT ammo , may even have a chance to take out a MBT in an emergency.

Many countries still use the NATO 105 standard and I think there is still some R & D for this calibre.

tankee1981 SG

That is a good idea too. The BX is a capable platform with reasonable amount of armour and mobility to serve as a mobile gun platform. And it shares common parts with the IFV BX. The troop compartment behind can allow room for modifications such for ammo and fuel storage,maybe evencan carry a few troopers. The ability of th BX to sim is also a benefit.

However, there seems to be the problem that the BX chasis may not be able to withstand the firing of a large calibre gun such as the 105mm. Very Happy

Fairyland SG

From the little I understand, it seems a shorter barrel may alleviate the recoil problem. Probably not good for kinetic rounds and so not quite anti tank, I guess but more for fire support.

Perhaps 76mm (Denel GT4?) maybe still ok. Common ammo with navy. They have the guided DART round too. Don't know if it has more to look forward to in R&D.

Probably this ST turret(OWS?) should have a high elevation angle too for MOUT scenarios.

Should try to keep it in the BX family.

sgf SG

Don't really like the idea of the SM1 replacement being armed with missiles only. As pointed out before, it has several disadvantages. Should probably get a 105mm platform for the replacment. As for missiles, well maybe they should start arming our M113 Ultra, BX & BX2 with Spikes so at least there's something they can use against enemy tanks.

Seriously doubt the 30mm cannon on the BX2 will do much damage to enemy MBTs. Even worst for the 40/50 variants of the BX or Ultra. No doubt no one will be insane enough to send an IFV/APC out specifically to engage a tank but when the sh*t hits the roof, you'll never know when you'll come up against one. Knowing you have an ATGM or two with you will surely make you feel more at ease.

Dr Who SG

Japanese tanks used in invasion of Singapore 1942:

Type95 Light Tank

Type 95 tank destroyed by Aussie gunners at Bakri
(8 tanks were destroyed by a single anti-tank unit comprising only 2 anti-tank guns in this battle)

Order of battle :

1st Tank Regiment under Colonel Mukaida
37 Type 97 Medium Tanks
20 Type 95 Light Tanks

6th Tank Regiment under Colonel Kawamura
37 Type 97 Medium Tanks
20 Type 95 Light Tanks

14th Tank Regiment under Colonel Kita
45 Type 95 Light Tanks

Well, it seems 159 tanks were deem enough in the Japanese invasion of Singapore and Malaya..........

Dr Who SG

Yo Tankee 1981

You really think we got those "engine- in-front tanks" ah ? Smile

tankee1981 SG

You think i thought...(Dr) Who confirm? Mr. Green

Well...lets just say that i have credible sources... Cool

From a point of view using purely common sense, there is no need to buy the Leo2A4 when we are supposed to have the "engine- in-front tanks". After all having these tanks is more than sufficient to replace the Tempests.

However, one must note that for this sales to pull through, the customer must be approached by the German Federal government, not the other way round,as German foreign military sales is highly regulated. So i think this purchase of German tanks is not planned at all, its just a great bargain which comes along that no country can resist. Very Happy

LazerLordz SG

Still, I would rate the LEO purchase as a valuable chance to learn more about European armor developments and doctrines. Not to mention STK being able to improve on their tank R&D with tech transfer and further experience gained.

The LEOs are good and timely for all the right reasons.

Joe Black SG

Folks, I cannot reason why Singapore (or rather ST Engg) not simply buy the blue print of M8 Thunderbolt and build 200+ locally. Sell another 200+ to Taiwan to replace their M41 Walker Bulldog and we will all be laughing. Problem solved.

tankee1981 SG

That is an option but there are problems.

The M8 may have technical problems which is why US did not buy any for themselves.

Singapore almost always produce something which the SAF can use and have export potential. The M8 have been around for some time but there seems to be no potential customers and definitely no users as yet.

If we can export it to Taiwan, that will be best but Taiwan have many political problems, just look at their defence budget. The budget have been delayed over and over again, I don't think that they are very reliable customers. Further more selling tanks to Taiwan will definitely anger PRC.

However, i do think that ST cooperate with the makers of M8 will be a good idea. Much like how ST Marine cooperate with DCN to produce our unique Formidable frigates which differs significantly from the original French La fayette design. This way we will have a 'tailor-made' light tank for our armour and at the same time, learn from an established foreign defence company. Very Happy

Joe Black SG

There was nothing wrong with M8. In fact US Army was about to place an order for the 82nd and 101st Airborne Div before program was cut to save money.

Here is an interesting read about the development of M8 AGS:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-ags.htm

If you do a bit of digging about M8's history and the development, I wonder why Singapore (ST Engg) simply just buy the design from United Defense (BAE Systems) and build some 200 vehicles. Make it so cheap and sell some to US airborne divisions at the same time.

To me, the design of M8 looks like the kind of platform best to replace the SM1. Furthermore, its vehitronics, combat system, fire control, etc align to SAF's 3G concept. Add a local BMS, you have a perfect light tank.

This sounds too easy and a real no brainer. I wonder what is stopping SAF, DSTA, DSO and ST Engg from doing such a thing.

There are a couple of features on M8 that are so nice to have:

1. low recoil gun (105mm or 120mm for Thunderbolt)
2. module level armour (Level 1 to 3 depending on deployment requirements)
3. Fire control is provided by a digital fire control system with microprocessors and a databus similar to that on the M1A2. The gunner's primary sight is a day/night thermal sight and integrated laser range-finder in a stabilized mount
4. Pretty much the same weight as SM1 on empty config. Air droppable from C130.
5. Optional CITV for the tank commander for hunter killer capability. The commander has unsurpassed vision for first-look, first-kill capability.

If only I have some say in the things, I would have SAF/DSTA/DSO to seriously look at taking the entire M8 design over to Singapore, localised it and then produce it, market it to Thailand, Taiwan and heck, even to New Zealand Smile

Fairyland SG

Marder with GDLS MGS turret or others perhaps.

« Previous Page Next Page »