What's the next land Fighting Vehicle?

last SG · 2007-06-07T23:37:35+00:00

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...

bigballs11 SG

According to my insider spy network Cool

The so call tracked Light Tank (SM1 replacement) has long been scapped. Too bad for those LT fans.

In preference, the new doctrine is closely based on experience drawn by recent US conflict and new thinking in networkcentric 3G army.

The traditional role of an armour core will rest on the recently acquired Leopard 2A4. A brigade will be sufficient as the role of heavy armour take a back seat in network centric 3G army.

The role of SM1 will be replaced by a variant of 8x8 armour vehicle similar to US stryker concept. Likely a new RDP brigade/division will show case the formation of this new light armour, highly transportable/manuverable network centric strike force.

The current combined division will stuck with their current tracked Bionix/Ultra mixed organic brigade.

Mr. Green

chino65 SG

Pretty much what I guessed. But before MSD (MINDEF Security Department or something) come and drag you away never to be heard from again... where did you hear this?

BadzMaro SG

Gentlemen.. welcome to the future of land based fighting vehicles..

Passengers: 2

Primary Position Weapons: Dual Gatling Guns/ SWARM Missiles

Secondary Position Weapons: Mini Guns/EMP Guided Missiles

Defence Mechanism: Active Defence

SpecOps87 SG

Goodness…Stryker platform. I don’t know why…but why is it that our good ol’ SAF is mimicking the US Armed Forces?

^Delta^ SG

A sad piece of news indeed.

Disappointing to say the least if its true.

fudgester SG

Hmm... I suppose that we're going to use the Terrex now?

vaxjunior SG

Does anybody have any indication of the Stryker Bde performance? The initial introduction was met with severe criticism but that seemed to have died down with mods made to the initial batches of Stryker.

I guess the main debate was over:
1. the wheel vs. track platform
2. the ability to sustain ops in urban warfare given the new tactics - vehicular bombs, IEDs, bombing and then attacking rescue teams (a la black hawk down scenario)
-- in that sense ability to take hits from IEDs
-- in the sense of ability to provide enough firepower to defend against post-IED attacks. (missiles vs. cannon -- how many missiles can you have to repeatedly deal with guerilla tactics -- how to coordinate foot units, armored units, and air units (preferably not heli0borne troops -- sustain more casualty, instead use of attack UAVs)

The alternative is the whole slew of modded vehicles from IDF.

So anyone of us arm-chair generals want to take a stab at analyzing this?

LazerLordz SG

More interoperatibility, possibly moving our ally status up a notch.

soulwinner SG

A new UAV?

chino65 SG

I want to throw in a piece of observation here.

The IDF, it seems, does not operate any LT since giving up on the AMX-13.

Nor do they operate any wheeled AFV.

They do have some patrol-type armoured vehicles like armoured trucks or Landrover-types but no real AFV like a V-200 or Stryker genre, if you know what I mean.

And I have seen many pics of Merks driving off cliffs or when sand banks collapse etc to know that heavy weight is a problem over there as much as here. Yet they persist with heavy MBT. Probably for the firepower and armour protection.

Anyway, with all the fighting the Israelis do in urban areas, they use no wheeled AFVs...why? Apparently they trialed the Stryker but did not accept it for service.

Not did they try to produce any wheeled AFV of their own other than light patrol vehicles mentioned above.

I don't know if they operate any of the captured Russian BTRs, though.

Other Arab armies use plenty of Russian wheeled armoured vehicles, so you can't say that wheels don't work in that terrain.

SpecOps87 SG

The fights that are gonna happen here is gonna be diff. frm the arab region, yes? What is needed here, is actually something that is light, hits hard, moves fast and is able to be mass produced efficiently to do a swarming sorta defensive or assault maneuver. However, light doesn't mean light in armour, but probably some where in between protection strong enough to protect troops inside from IEDs and RPGs yet light enough for the gross weight to be below 10-13 tons excl. Reactive Armour if any. This is perhaps achievable in using advanced composite armour. Hits hard with say a 25mm or 30mm rapid-firing gun and AT missiles. Come to think of it...if Terrex is actually used, they might have to up gun and fit AT missile firing capability.

Just my humble 2 cents.

CM06 SG

Our SAF will be on the wrong track if they look towards an ALL- Wheel only "Main Gun" LT or even AFV. It will look good but they forget, right now the conflicts are all in the desert - hot windy cold sandy and dry.

Wheels are great for road/track. I am not sure wheels can really go fast in the sand if we talking about off road 20-25T vehicle

We are in the Jungle terrain here. The last time US is in one it's a few decades back. Naturally they will hence overlook certain restrictions.

Here we have mud, water, tall trees, dense jungle, swamp, mud, plantations, mountain, hill, knoll, river, mud, sand, no road, thin, jungle, bush, mud, etc

Wheels = urban great. Wheels off road bashing trees?

Regarding the slow phasing out of SM1 without replacement. If we do that we need to have a more heavy AFV. 66 Leos aint ever going to win a conflict. if the next biggest calibre you have is 30 mm. The Americans can have whatever vehicle because everywhere they go they bring the Abrams along.

In regards to combat, building around ONE Leo2 armoured brigade isnt enough to win any conflict on a fully mobilised scale conflict. They need more like 3-4 more.

SpecOps87 SG

Actually its some sort of hammer and anvil approach the way i see it. Hammer being the Leo 2s and the anvil being the fast striking LTs. Besides…in this day and age…you do not need tank to kill tank. In our inventory, we’ve got the Apache, Flyer LSVs with Milan/Spike, Milan, Spike ATGMs mounted on jeeps, these are all ways to kill a tank grossing many times their weight. By having a LT, it would hopefully be able to load troops deployable from it.

cairocks SG

Just saw this about the Strykers. Now the US is beginning to question if they made the right choice of going on all wheels and not track.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,135721,00.html?wh=news

Shotgun SG

SpecOps, i think u mean the Hammer being the fast striking LTs and the Anvil being the Leos rite?

I think the situation in our region requires dynamic systems. While the Stryker (sad to say its wheeled) may not have worked for the US, might actually work for us as quick response force with heavy firepower.

Amphibious capable systems such as Strykers, or LAV series, though not heavily armored, are able to perform coastal hook-type of missions, and provide the extra firepower. Whether totally viable, will really depend on the amount of logistic support required to support them. My 2 cts.

chino65 SG

Yes, the calssic hammer and anvil trap. But I venture to add once more that the "anvil" has to somehow get there before the quarry, and via another route.

That's why I say the new AFV will have to be able to be deployed rapidly, either by Air or Sea. By air it is likely to be heliborne, like out new 155 howitzer. i would expect RSAF to be getting a lot more heavy lift Chinooks or something as the main RDF asset.

chino65 SG

Bashing trees off road may not actually be required.

I would like to cite the example of WW2 Japanese invasion with their small little tanks.

Their tanks were no bigger than the Scorpion and could certainly fit very well into a plantation.

Yet, they kept to the road, as all the fighting took place on the roads.

There was little occasion for their use inside jungles and plantations as both sides kept to the roads.

It's very simple theory - the Japs need to move fast to achieve their objectives, surprise, surround and cut off the enemy from reinforcements, supplies and escape. If they didn't own the roads, they wouldn't have achieved that.

The Allies kept to the roads cos they also needed to move fast to withdraw and set up blocking positions etc.

So you can say that down the Peninsula, all the tank action was about the capture and defense of roads, brdges and other choke points.

The jungles and plantations actually saw less major action than we would like to think.

SpecOps87 SG

Yeah, haha, my bad. Its precisely that...LTs/LSVs for harassment, with the Leos as the final solid wall, sorta like a breakwater.

chino65 SG

Actually it can be either way.

The main force drives the enemy backwards. A block force stops the enemy's retreat long enough for the main force to continue forward and smash the trapped enemy.

Not trying to be a tactician here but reading history, it is usually a lighter airborne or seaborne force that is inserted into a flank or the enemy's rear for such a purpose.

This was certainly the case in Malaya WW2. The Japs did a few coastal hooks to entrap Allied forces retreating down the Peninsula. Meanwhile the main force comes in with their tanks and artillery to finish the job.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

These vehicles were originally the Mowag Piranha. I believe there's a newer successor to this vehicle.

« Previous Page Next Page »