What's the next land Fighting Vehicle?

chino65 SG

SAF now operates (or will soon operate) the following types:

MBT: Leopard A4 & Tempest
LT: AMX-13S1 & AMX-10P
IFV/APC: V-200, Bionix, Bronco & M113
SPG: Primus
MISC: M60CEV, AVLB, Spider FSV, Landrovers, Jeeps, Armoured 5-ton truck etc etc

I probably missed out some so help me fill in the blanks. (I saw a lot of Humvees in a Ex Starlight thread from another forum for instance. Whose are they?)

Manager433 SG

Those belongs to the ROC, not ours.

laurence82 SG

Maybe we lacking on new LT?

I would love the likes of those Humveers, firing ATGMs or SAMs

Pitot SG

waiting for ST to reveal the design…

chino65 SG

So....

OK, it's a blank canvas.

So what do you think SAF will buy next in terms of a fighting vehicle?

First of all, is there a obvious gap that will soon need filling in?

We all know the AMX-13S1 is supposedly going to be completely phased out.

Is it the LT slot that will see SAF spending cash?

Does SAF necessarily need a LT?

Will the LT replacement necessarily be another tank?

Can it be a wheeled platform? Or will SAF keep its track preference?

What will be the role of the LT in the light of recent acquisition of Apaches, Bionix, Primus and Leopards? Even the M113 are now heavily upgunned.

Daniel-Lim SG

The AMX-13S1 was bought at a time when the next best thing we have in large numbers - the M-113 - had nothing more than a HMG.

Now the M-113s and Bionix are quite heavily armed with the lightest being the 40/50. So while it is still very useful to have a Light Tank, we shouldn't take for granted that's what the SAF will definitely go for.

Most armies do not operate any light tanks except those that are amphibious or airborne.

Most armies just have MBT and a whole slew of tracked and wheeled AFVs.

spartan6 SG

Our very own 105mm gun light tank Mr. Green

Arapahoe SG

i was going to say military transport plane. but does not match this topics.

ah_kwang SG

(deleted) sorry posted at wrong thread… haha

tankee1981 SG

The 'Han Ma' as the ma lao soldiers called them are very powerful vehicles! We use one to tow out a 10 tonne truck stuck in mud!

However, being fuel guzzlers they are not very optimal as you probably well know that fuel prices are high up and we don't happen to produce any. Very Happy

LazerLordz SG

Either an indig LT or CV90. I still feel strongly about that one.

Tempest could have been turfed out a while back. The usual rumours about a Merk 3 always come around. Laughing

chino65 SG

What role can the LT fill that our existing anf new assets cannot fill?

Or should the LT be amphibious? - there being so many rivers in the region including a certain Straits?

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

Amphibious tanks do not have a reputation for good armor. Tanks like the PT-76 were largely infantry support vehicles.

chino65 SG

Most LT do not have good armour. Or do they?

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

No they don't. However, an amphibious vehicle is far lighter than a light tank. The PT-76 for example is 14 tonnes. It still is in service with the Russian army.

The CV90 is 26 tonnes. I don't even know if that includes added armor for wartime. It is by no means an amphibious tank.

CM06 SG

Talking about Armoured Ops:

2G SAF

M113 - GPMG, 40/50 (Majority), ChainGun Variant(Least)
Bronco - GPMG
SM1 - LT 75mm Gun
Milan

Support - FH2000

CAS F-16

3G SAF

BX I/II - 40/50, 25mm, 30mm
Bronco - (Supposedly SAF dream to put every infantry squad in one of these)
LT - Currently SM1
MBT Leo2
Spike

Support - Primus 155mm(Replaces FH 2000), Pegasus(Replaces FH-88 InF/Gds)

CAS - AH-64D/ F-16 Blk 52+
------------

As you can see, i still take the stance of not stating the obvious.

I do not put too much hope on the AMX-10 Bn, i -think- the people involved should ROD soon or already did. These people did a great job keeping mum!

Regarding LTs, Its role is something similar to an Up-armoured AFV,
The CV90-120mm variant is an LT. The problems is always there regardless of new technology. It's a lower grade (recoil lessen) tank gun on a reinforced AFV body. It's good firesupport, beats 3/40 mm Chain guns, cheap vs ATGMs as well as cheap overall maintainence compared to MBTs.

A BN of LT and AFVs will definitely move longer than MBTs can. The top-up requirements are also lesser - less combat support elements required.

Pitot SG

we may even operate 2 MBTs.

SpecOps87 SG

Wasn’t it said awhile ago that the new “LT” is gonna be something that is wheeled not tracked and able to have both guns and missiles with the rationale with having a missile is to unlike conventional guns, remain hidden while firing.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

I think so long as this Light tank carries sufficient anti-tank weapons, be it a gun, which is less likely to be countered than a missile rack, or even some top down missile rack, it will suit our purposes. The point of all the light tanks is so that we can fight in heavily forested areas without compromise to our fighting capabilities.

chino65 SG

I agree that the SM1 when retired will definitely be replaced by a gun platform - not missile. You don't need a tank to fire missiles. Infantry or a small light and fast vehicle can fire missiles.

But will the next LT be track or wheel? that's the 500,000 dollar question.

The original theory was that support IFV like Bradleys needed the track and the speed to be compatible with the M1 Abrams.

But a LT's job will not be to support MBT, most of the time. It will have its own job, its own unique role, and in turn be supported by other IFV, AFV.

So what will be the role of the LT in 3G SAF?

The role will determine the type of vehicle. Gun or missile? What calibre gun? Wheeel or track? etc etc

Personally, I don't see the need for a LT with a 120mm gun - unless its job is to be able a tank hunter and be able to take on MBT.

Big 120mm means less ammo - especially for a small vehicle like a LT.

I keep thinking the next LT role would be RDF.

And this means heli-lift or coastal hook our enemies. Or overseas deployment etc.

No point getting another LT that's so heavy it's almost a regular tank and cannot do any of these sea-borne or heli-borne tasks.

Imagine if our Army - not just the Navy and Airforce - has massive sea/air assault capbillities?