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

Glock,

Do some research before you make all kind factual error.

I will just touch on stuff that are not covered by others.

Terrex was first unveiled in IDEX 2001, then only a picture of it was a computer generated picture and some spec of it, the actual prototype was still being built and not even ready to be unveiled.

Even then STK has announced that the Terrex was being built as a private venture, i.e. never a requirement for SAF or even to meet the need of SAF!!!

If it is to meet the needs of SAF, then the approach will be totally different, for example the BX and Primus, the development was totally in secret and when they officially unveiled, there is already at least one Bn was commissioned into SAF.

As for the FH2000, there are plenty of reports from Jane and official Turkish channel abt the payment of licensing agreement to STK etc, more than enough to treat it as a fact.

glock SG

Hi Shogun,

Bionix

I made no comparison about maintenance between M113 and BX. Anyway, BX being more modern than M113 shud have better vehicle diagnostics for easier trouble shooting & maintenance agreed. We do not make the engines ; so parts will either have to be stocked or sourced from USA ; ditto for the other key sub systems.

What kind of plantations are you suggesting ?
eg Palm oil trees are planted at distances between 7.5 to 9 m.

Primus

I was hoping someone can shed light as to why we do not need 360 traverse when most modern SPHs have it. I guess we cant have a discussion and my points cannot be countered without breaching the veil of secrecy. Are we saying that the reason for not having a 360 degree traverse is a big secret ?

Hi Tyra,

Just because you are 24 / 7 in the forum does not make posts like mine hit and run. I am really wondering what you do in real life.

You are truly taking on a very defensive stance on many issues. Do you have an inferiority complex ? The discussions in this forum surely cannot be a life and death situation for you right ?

You & others are most welcome to tear my views apart if they do not stand up so that all including myself can be enlightened on issues. However, Tyra, you seem so afraid that your views are being torn apart. By the wild rantings displayed here and in other threads, I strongly suspect that Tyra cannot accept opposing & differing views - must be because of your line of work or position.

BX

So it is a fact that BX is much higher than a M113. Being higher means it is a taller target. Of course being taller has other advantages as pointed out ; as are Western tanks compared to Russian ones. There both pros and cons with either a BX or CV90. My take is that CV 90 suits the bill rather well with its small signature , ground pressure etc. Being the best currently selling Western IFV speaks volumes about the CV90.

I am still curious as to the CV90 manuals - can CM06 or others shed light on this ?

Obviously, BXs armor is superior than M113s. I never made the comparison ; you did.

Ha ! We now have exceptions to the rule for MBTs. What rules ? There are no rules. You really need to elaborate or is this also a secret.

Dear Gary,

It was another post in this thread which initiated the idea that Terrex was for SAF - I then stand corrected that Terrex is not designed for SAF a run of the mill battle taxi anyway. Thanks for the correction.

I wait patiently for my other facts to be refuted.

CM06 SG

oh my… i wont say anything anymore…i’m choking from all the blood i’m coughing out. sigh

seachfun SG

[[

Primus

360 traverse when most modern SPHs have it.

[/b][/quote]

Let look at how the gun recoil function as well as how Arty doctrine function.
Do not forget Primus is supporting the Amour & how Amour doctrine work as well.

Shotgun SG

Originally posted by glock:
Hi Shogun,

[b]Bionix

I made no comparison about maintenance between M113 and BX. Anyway, BX being more modern than M113 shud have better vehicle diagnostics for easier trouble shooting & maintenance agreed. We do not make the engines ; so parts will either have to be stocked or sourced from USA ; ditto for the other key sub systems.

What kind of plantations are you suggesting ?
eg Palm oil trees are planted at distances between 7.5 to 9 m.

Primus

I was hoping someone can shed light as to why we do not need 360 traverse when most modern SPHs have it. I guess we cant have a discussion and my points cannot be countered without breaching the veil of secrecy. Are we saying that the reason for not having a 360 degree traverse is a big secret ?

Hi Tyra,

Just because you are 24 / 7 in the forum does not make posts like mine hit and run. I am really wondering what you do in real life.

You are truly taking on a very defensive stance on many issues. Do you have an inferiority complex ? The discussions in this forum surely cannot be a life and death situation for you right ?

You & others are most welcome to tear my views apart if they do not stand up so that all including myself can be enlightened on issues. However, Tyra, you seem so afraid that your views are being torn apart. By the wild rantings displayed here and in other threads, I strongly suspect that Tyra cannot accept opposing & differing views - must be because of your line of work or position.

BX

So it is a fact that BX is much higher than a M113. Being higher means it is a taller target. Of course being taller has other advantages as pointed out ; as are Western tanks compared to Russian ones. There both pros and cons with either a BX or CV90. My take is that CV 90 suits the bill rather well with its small signature , ground pressure etc. Being the best currently selling Western IFV speaks volumes about the CV90.

I am still curious as to the CV90 manuals - can CM06 or others shed light on this ?

Obviously, BXs armor is superior than M113s. I never made the comparison ; you did.

Ha ! We now have exceptions to the rule for MBTs. What rules ? There are no rules. You really need to elaborate or is this also a secret.

Dear Gary,

It was another post in this thread which initiated the idea that Terrex was for SAF - I then stand corrected that Terrex is not designed for SAF a run of the mill battle taxi anyway. Thanks for the correction.

I wait patiently for my other facts to be refuted.

[/b]

Hi Glock,

Regarding the bx, i was referring to your comparison with the CV90, not the M113. Though the CV90 is a respectable AFV, the cost to replace M113s with CV90s would be too high. Then there is upkeep to think about. Of course, unless the swedes decide to sell us the design and allow us to locally manufacture them, then it would be a different story.

Of course, i wasn't suggesting that a palm tree plantation had trees planted 3m apart. Remember that vehicles require a turning radius to make a turn on the move as well. And there is definitely a margin provided given the

And if you do some calculations based on a 9m distancing plantation, you'll realize that when manuevering and approaching from an angle, the narrowest distance apart from tree to tree is only 4.5m. So there is merit to the 3m specification.

360 traverse: Can you tell me why a SPH needs to be able to traverse 360, or even fire its gun away from its front instead? It is an artillery weapon, not an armored fighting vehicle. You say that its has proven its value in combat in vietnam, perhaps you can show us an article or two that an SPH has to consistently make use of its ability to traverse its turret 360? It is like arguing that the aircraft cannon has "real" value in modern air combat when it is only employed in limited situations this day and age.

I don't believe there are much facts to be refuted. What you mention are true but in context of the SAF, they are irrelevant.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

If people who have been in armour can say they are vomiting blood from the "logic" in your posts, one can only wonder how far away from reality you are.

Please refer to the .50cal thread as to what a sensible discussion between sensible people of varying opinions who have all done their own research turns out. Unfortunately your threads and posts have none of the hallmarks of that.

Just because you are 24 / 7 in the forum does not make posts like mine hit and run. I am really wondering what you do in real life.

You are truly taking on a very defensive stance on many issues. Do you have an inferiority complex ? The discussions in this forum surely cannot be a life and death situation for you right ?

LOL, I am just a regular forumite by any measure, HOWEVER I think people in here have more or less the experience to distinguish between who is really being dishonest and illogical, and who are passionate and not having the best bedside manner, but have a consistent case in here.

And a defensive stance? If cutting silly arguments no slack is considered defensive to you, then Im afraid you have a very poor notion of what is. Inferiority complex? I suggest the one who is resorting to increasingly thin and desperate arguments to be the one with the .

Consider all the brickbats and negative feedback you have been getting, and not just from me. I wonder who is really the defensive and one with the inferiority complex in here? Unfortunately I must inform you that you are hardly the person who inspires inferiority in any individual in here actually you inspire more in the way of pity for you.

No these discussions are not a life and death issue for me, but I must say I do enjoy demolishing silly arguments, of which you provide consistently.

You & others are most welcome to tear my views apart if they do not stand up so that all including myself can be enlightened on issues. However, Tyra, you seem so afraid that your views are being torn apart. By the wild rantings displayed here and in other threads, I strongly suspect that Tyra cannot accept opposing & differing views - must be because of your line of work or position.

LOL, not say I want to say you ah but consider the general level of support and acceptance that your views have.

I have no fear my views will be torn apart- if they are logically flawed and inconsistent then I will concede them. But until then I will defend them as robustly as they need be a point which must have caused you must frustration because Glocklogic unfortunately, simply bounces off them.

Unfortunately it seems you are taking your examples of being wild and ranting from another thread which has a starting to be vilified person that is not too far from you except perhaps his English is poorer.

As I said, you really need to buck up if you want to play with the big boys. Dont complain if you get burned because you lack the skill to successfully tangle in here. Don't bring a rifle to a tank fight, and don't bring short ranged missiles to a BVR engagement.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

In that case what is significant then is that you must have made the statement that it is a significant increase from 13 to 23 tons for absolutely no good reason then as an obvious statement that was completely irrelevant to the discussion but put in for some mystery that is only known to you.

Is it any surprise that just about everybody is disagreeing with you?

Heres a tip, stop making such silly statements, they are only hurting you more then hurt anybody else.

My take is that CV 90 suits the bill rather well with its small signature , ground pressure etc. Being the best currently selling Western IFV speaks volumes about the CV90.

Your take apparently seems to have missed out the cost price, running costs, and the sheer numbers of M113s we intend to eventually replace. Being unable to account for such factors speaks volumes about the CV (Curriculum Vitæ) of Glock in here.

I dunno about suiting what bills rather well, but apparently somebody forgot to pay the basic intelligence bill for quite some time liao.

Ha ! We now have exceptions to the rule for MBTs. What rules ? There are no rules. You really need to elaborate or is this also a secret.

Once again, as people already told you many times, do your research before you go about making big hoo has in here.

What rules? I think you ought to be asking What new and interesting way shall I sia sway myself in here right now? Hmm, lets choose Laughing

The explicit requirements for SAF armour are quite well known to any armour dude (or any dude who bothered to do his homework) in here as well as open source. In fact we have had so many threads on this that its a mystery to me why you havent picked up on it. By and far the SAF likes its units to be within these limits.

It is no secret that for some time the SAF was trying to figure out a workable solution to the MBT question by generating units to fit that role within the armour requirements until it was realized that a suitable counterpart counter to the Twardies could not be currently accomplished within these specs... That became clear when even the Yanks were trying to figure out an FCS MBT concept that were similar to the SAF requirements but have yet to make it work.

Hence in this case actually having a useful thing is far better then having something that fit into the traditional requirements, but was far less useful in its intended role. This demonstrates the flexibility in the procurement thinking and efforts of the SAF, however you seem to think that the exception proves the rule or worse, ride them to their illogical extreme.

Do our armour guys in here a favour will you? And actually proper acquaint yourself with SAF armour and procurement before going about your next few points. Laughing

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Take a chill pill dude, once you realize that hes not really a serious contender in any discussion in here you actually find him quite funny.

The SAF must look absolutely terrifying, with all it's mistakes and blunders, to him from his armchair right there. Laughing

« Previous Page