You dont seem to see the rather obvious reason why STK has been
designing and developing small arms, as well as other weapons
technologies. Not to mention you take your cases from a very narrow
range of facts.
Looking at it this way, how many of any OTHER of STK creations have
they really managed to sell to other countries? The super
lightweight auto loading mortar? Primus? Pegasus? Flyer? Bionix?
CIS .50? All the recent UAVs? Can you think of any that is in
widespread use?
If export was the main reason STK did weapons, then its entire
history must a dismal failure wasting its own cash (and taxpayers
money) and its a miracle that it even manages to stay afloat
despite such a monumental failure that I doubt even the most
lenient way of looking at it by our government will be willing to
cover up.
It is rather clear they are developing arms primarily for local
use, and have been since the started out as CIS. Have you ever
wonder why Singapore has insisted on going down the route of
locally produced or modified weapons? One is to get weapons suited
for our own needs, and thats not just in numbers but in the cost
of the systems as well. And another is to booster our own
understanding and grasp of crucial war fighting technologies and
R&D.
Economically, it makes sense to give your own arms-manufacturing
capabilities a boost in the arm by being your own customer and
developing the necessary skills, industries and jobs at the same
time. Strategically, it also works to have a weapon on which inner
workings you know to the greatest degree with which the rights are
for you to modify and use at will. And we are hardly the only
country to see this:
Many countries developing their own small arms for their own use-
Israel has the Tavor and Galil, Iran has the Khaybar KH2002, the
Chinese are working on their QBZ-95 family, the South Africans
worked the R4 and CR-21 and what have you not. Some of them have
worked and others not, but yet it seems despite the saturated small
arms market and existence of There are many excellent small arms
designs out there from manufacturers who have long and successful
traditions in building weapons., countries still see the need to
have a locally produced firearm.
The key advantage that locally made systems like the Ultimax and
SAR-21 offer is that they come on the cheap for the capabilities
they offer. The SAR-21 set is cheaper then an equivalent M-16A4
decked out with the same capabilities, and that was one of the
original design specifications for the weapon. As much as some have
this dream of equipping every single Singaporean conscript with a
G36 or what have you not from trusted brands
we need to wonder if
this is really possible or favourable given our circumstances. We
swapped out the Browning .50 HMG, a great weapon with a long and
illustrious history for the C.I.S 50, a locally made firearm. Was
this really a mistake? Or did we have a reason?
Its one thing to get a batch of cool firearms, its another to
actually have the resources and understanding to keep these
firearms in working condition within your army, as Malaysias own
frustrating experience with the Aug has shown. Basically they had
this whole bunch of nice guns that worked in the European context,
but was found to be wanting in the tropics
and they didnt really
have any clue what to do with it.