Singapore's procurement blunders

last SG · 2007-02-11T22:04:33+00:00

micro cracks? by visual? well to determine if it really is a crack on the airframe, you would need to do NDI.

gary1910 SG

Actually SAR 80 is easier to clean ( piston driven), and less IA as compare to M-16.

But it is heavier, less ergonomical.

So it does not represent a great improvement over the M-16S1 but certainly not crap, otherwise it would not have any sales.

Shotgun SG

I agree with the staggered purchase points. Its a very common practice even in the private sector when it comes to equipment purchases.

Regarding the Igla and air defense, I differ. An IADS should not be too reliant on one component, (eg in this case, fixed air). We are not like the USAF with a large pool of resource and manpower.

Manpads and Shorads have a sufficiently important role to deny and defend against an air attack to deserve constant upgrades. However, at the moment, I'd think the Igla is a reliable enough to serve that purpose.

What we ought to consider IMO, are mechanised shorads like the Tunguska M1. Perhaps even a locally developed one built out of the BX or BX2 chassis. It should provide a deadlier mobile AA cover for our advancing armored units. A gun system provides versatility against targets with better counter measure systems.

CM06 SG

Yeah try cleaning 8 barrels + vehicle+ mg + missle launcher + engine...nsf/ns men will curse you for your suggestions.

That aside, the igla has good enough coverage for armour ops. 4 missiles ready to fire to engage 2 flying targets + ifv mg fire + tank canister + 25 mm = alot of projectiles in the air while the armour run away and call for CAP.

^Delta^ SG

A reliable basic firearm is the most basic requirement for any army. Take the reliability of the Ak-47 which gave the US troops armed with M16s in Vietnam such a nightmare. We cannot compromise defence just to give our local defence industry more market power. Sadly, in the world nowadays, many of such factors are taken in account when procuring weapons.

And the case of SA-18s being sufficient for our ground troops, it is prudent to note that even a single enemy warplane which gets through the screen of fighters armed with cluster munitions or even no frills HE bombs can kill more then a few of our good men on the ground. There is no excuse for having a top notch air force and a comparatively light SAM coverage for our troops.

Imagine in a shooting war, when some of our comrades are killed by some lucky enmemy aircraft, we would be cursing at why there is no better SAM coverage. SA-18s are good against low flying helicopters and warplanes. They are about as useful as stones when pitted against Su-30s flying at high altitudes equipped with the latest jammers and electronic countermeasures.

tek_koh SG

i agree with some of you guys above
Flop1:Vastergotland
Flop2:F-15Es( we have been talking bout that since u know when)
Flop3:Sar 21( lilttle too heavy and bulky...too short for tall soldier like me)

but dont forget the good buys
1:Leopard(Best perforamce tanks around)
2:Missile Corvette (Small but capable enough vessel)
3.F-16( Something to do everything)

^Delta^ SG

Missiles like these are sealed in canisters and require minimal maintanence. The other components you mentioned exist in just about any SAF vehicle. And no. I know of many dedicated NSFs/NSmen who dun mind spending a few more minutes cleaning the exterior of 4 additional missile tubes. A few minutes to save us all from being chopped to bits by air delivered enemy cluster muntions.

And no. Our armour does not operate like that. CAP is standard in any armoured thrust and it is not called on only when needed.

CM06 SG

Actually i was referring to shotgun's Tung M1..yeah it's a burden and they -will- clean it many willingly...i'm just saying there will be a good number who will curse while doing it. On a note, i thought the Tung M1s AA guns are 4 on each side? Hence what i meant by 8 barrels.

and i know how our armour works hence why i said the igla's good enough in the earlier scenario(it's against helis, less likely vs low flying aircraft) i'm wrong about calling in cap, yes i know what aerial conditions(neutral/clear skies) are set as when we do the "stuff" i mixed up with calling for cas...entirely different thing.

I have seen the igla thingy it aint top notch but i have a feeling it's already an upgrade vs nothing in the past especially to the lower echelons. I do hope we get something better in the future. Yeah i meant since we can make iglas locally and then maybe we can make a much better sam with r&d by ourselves.

Shotgun SG

I don't think a CAP is always around in an armored thrust as suggested. If you have enemy ADA activity, there will be problems. Enemy air activitiy, also will be problems. Severely bad weather and visibility (common in the tropics, and countries around indon.) , also problems operating at lower altitudes.

Relying on CAP as ur sole defense against enemy air activity isn't smart.

CM06 SG

Actually from other forums(ldf), ask tankee, many more experience military-linked forumers believe that the vastergotland and f-15es are very good a choice made by our saf. I forgot what they said about the subs but it's something like almost as good with new tech (aip) and much cheaper, better than anything else in the region. As for the F-15s, it would be the most advance ones in the world when those land on our shores. It's a hi-lo aircraft mix. F-16s for the cap/cas (dogfighting?). F-15s for the air superiority(Aesa, bvvr engagements correct me if i'm wrong) and Deep strikes (very long range + huge payloads) Just imagine a F-16D with TWO engines... heh.

As for the SAR-21 it has it's quirks but it sure fits great in the matchbox! Besides you can rambo with one hand! Anyway the sar debate is on another thread so excuse my ranting!

storm_freaky13 SG

Well thats what my teacher told me about the cracks, not sure if they used X-Rays (or some radiowave thing) to check it out. But its also common knowledge that the F-404 engine was overpowered for the old airframe. Nonetheless, it improved the performance drastically.

Most of the pilots still love the Skyhawk citing its like driving a sportscar. I too love it because of its shape.

storm_freaky13 SG

Im considered a relatively tall fella but i feel that the SAR-21's length is very good. I personally feel that the M-16 is too long. im 1.80m in height.

Well perhaps i prefer compact weapons then again who doesnt? In a modern Urban setting, M-16s are too long for effective room clearing. Its hard to swivel around quickly but of course anyone can argue that it is a formidable weapon in the right hands but for a citizen army such as ours, easy to use is key and thats where the SAR-21 shines.

To me I dont think its as big a flop as retiring the Hueys. The SP pilots are way overworked. With so many choppers gone, the CH-47s and SPs have to cover their work and the pilots fly more hours than any other aircraft a week.

This isnt a procurement blunder but more like a retiring blunder. the RSAF should have gotten replacement choppers first, need not cover 1 for 1 but at least a few would be good.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

There's far more to procurement then simply getting the best and biggest guns at the moment... else you might end up like a certain northern country that has a mess of different weapons systems that is a nightmare to keep up with.

One has to consider the politics, economics and what have you not of the weapons you are buying. You can get the best fighter jet but it ends up costing you a bomb and you realize you lack the skills and manpower to support it... you would find it a lot less useful then if you had used your brains a little and thought through it a little more.

The merits and quirks of the SAR-21 has been discussed quite a lot in another thread, it would make for an interesting read once you get past some of the heated debate.

But AFAIK, there does not seem to be any real reason to consider the weapon a flop once all things have been considered. The additional weight of the weapon comes from the nick nacks that in the standard variant and all things factored it the weapon isn't obese compared to it's other counterparts (in fact it is often lighter). As for bullpup versus conventional it is another debate altogether. I am a bullpup person though, and I like the weapon pretty much.

But going for German rifles? Sure they are popular but given the way things currently are, there is no reason to sub out the SAR-21 for the H&K. I believe one of the things that made the SAR extremely attractive to the SAF was that it was extremely cost effective for the features it provides.

As for the Igla, I think the rationale behind it went that it has a similar preformance envelope to the Stinger (which was also considered) but was a lot cheaper. Hence by using two Iglas together one gets a higher hit rate then the Stinger at a lower cost... but at a cost in mobility though. But Manpads knocking down Su-30s at high altitude and speed? I'm not sure any Manpad in the world can do it reliably.

^Delta^ SG

Yes especially with growing numbers of Su-27 Flankers and their Su-30 counterparts present in increasing numbers in the neighbourhood, we cannot be complacent.

Seth35 SG

Quad SA-18 SAMs on M113 APCs:
A novel, low cost solution indeed. Probably effective against low level air threats but a more effective solution will be needed against higher level threats. A system in the class of the Russian SA-15 will be needed. (Not that I advocate buying Russian arms, but a more capable system with a full range of sensors and 8 missiles per unit is advisable)

Hey i thought they had the IGLAS mounted on top

Shotgun SG

Yeah, I think I've seen those as well.

But I thinking if having mechanised shorads like the Tunguska M1, would be more effective. The IGLA doesn't really have a fantastic pK. A hail of gunfire, with a couple of SA-19s can quickly ruin a CAS sortie.

Better pK, and still retain mobility. Why not?

gary1910 SG

Actually the Mechanised Igla do not operate alone but as a batt perhaps 4~6 with a mixed of IFU (Intergated Fire Unit) and WFU(Weapons Fire Unit) and not neccesary together but spread out to cover the AO.

Weapon Fire Unit (WFU ) has the 4 Igla lanuchers, IRST optronics for targeting ,and network computer....

Next we have the Intergrated Fire Unit (IFU), it's not only have what the WFU have as montioned above but extra thing like the surveillance/search & tracking radar( the dustbin like radardome), IFF and battle management system ( a wireless network computer).

So for example now say a battery of 6, and say 2 IFU and 4 WFUs in that battery and they are operating together with CAD giving air defence cover for the CAD in that airspace sector.

So it represent a great improvement over the RBS-70 on V200 with Giraffe radar.

And the system itself does not mean that it could only operate Igla, if it is neccessary , it could be upgraded with other better VSHORAD missile in the future while retaining the all the other major system like radar, BMS, IRST optronics etc.

In fact , it is quite similar to the German Ozelot.

The PK of Igla is abt 60% and 40& with ECM but when 2 missiles is launched , it will increase by another 50%.

According to what I have heard , Igla was chosen becos it is cheap, in fact very much cheaper than for example the Mistral, one of the VSHORADs in our inventory.

So using surplus hull of M113s with the introduction of BX, Mechanised Igla means great saving for SAF than to buy foreign system.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

If we want to shoot down Sukhois, then we have to turn to the land variant of the Aster, or the Russian S300 or any of the equivalents. I’m not sure if the US has an equivalent though it has mounted AMRAAM on some vehicles.

CM06 SG

No, if we have to shoot down sukhois then our air force has been terminated already.

As gary said our ada is a comprehensive network. Upgrading it wont take lots of time but at the current senario, it's more than sufficient. Perhaps in the future we will get better shorads.

spencer99 SG

Actually, after reading the above post, i tend to agree that the Igla/M113 combi seems to be the best.... u r right, we can always upgrade the missile while retaining the rest of the system....

hmm.. i wonder why they didn't have a gun/missile combi....

justcooler SG

How you classify the procurement as a blunder are totally influence by
1) Personal perspective (the organisation, weapon and seller)
2) understanding of the weapon system
3) what role does the weapon plays, integrate, deploy, etc, etc...
4) How much you know about the whole picture

SAR 21 is a very good example, heard of it, read it on review, not till my 2nd incamp did i really have the chance to play with it.

Personally i found it very accurate (tested in 100m only, never try the run down), easy to handle, versatile. But never used it in under continuous exerices condition. Location of switches are all around the place, and lots of small parts and compartments to clean.

But confidence level with SAR21 is till low. i will still prefer the m16. Does this mean that the 21 is a worst off weapon then 16, NO. It is just perference and confidence level.

Further, one of the many weapon system that is made in singapore and selling worldwide.

What we procure will be tested by us, and in time upgraded to more advance level that suit our need. Else why are we spending so much on defence. It is also another business

« Previous Page Next Page »