Singapore Army Introduces Bionix II Infantry Fighting Vehicl

gary1910 SG

Interesting pt, perhaps add more smoke grenade for thr AFVs to solve the problem.

ditzy SG

When the VC decides to close his side of the hatch, we'll turn on the air con. Laughing

beavan SG

that's what the army eventually wants, but it's kind of expensive. so it'll prolly take some time to properly change all to that variant AND train the crews

beavan SG

it's good, when it's working Wink

can't say much lah

beavan SG

maybe u'll understand when u use the BMS system. all i can say is that it isn't used when vehicles are close to each other. no point

equlus84 SG

4 SRAMS replace 6 120mm mortar? I think it is a msiquote. If u read carefully, the words in Chinese just meant up to now, they managed to put 4 units worth of MTC into the battalion, they din say mortar now is 4 tubes instead of 6 rite?

beavan SG

erm it's true that only 4 MTCs will replace the 6motars in the batt

hloc SG

Hahaha...... all the same Exclamation Mr. Green good only when working But if not working Question

tankee1981 SG

Actually i have heard from my superiors back when i am still in NSF that the Bronco will eventually replace the tonners for troop carrying purposes in combat zones. The advantages are obvious. So when Manager mentioned that Bronco will replace the M113, i thought it may have some connections to this. Very Happy

gary1910 SG

That is given, do we need 600 Bronco(latest estimates) + 300 BV206 for logistics support role????

But the armoured Bronco troop carriier variamt is not to replace BX and Ultra IFVs in the armoured units but to support our infantry units.

I once posted a few years ago abt this here.

This is what I have said then:

Our armoured units will be the mechanised force with BX/Ultras IFV.

Our infantry units with Bronco Armoured troop carriier will be the " motorised" force.

sgf SG

Broncos replacing tonners? But are they a little slow in comparison? No doubt the protection it offers is good, but what about speed?

lionnoisy SG

DSTA 's very good news report and down loading very fast

2.BIONIX 2 loading 4780 kg

Bronco ATTC is 4800 kg for enclosed and 5300 kg for flatted

why cant exceed this range??

bcoy SG

They are faster in off road conditions and amphibious as well. Already many western armies have different armoured, mechanised infantry and foot infantry units. The British royal marine commandos use a smiliar vehicle as well.

This mode of transport will not replace tonners totally, but will compliment and give additional options during operations. Just like using helicopters, boats and ships. It doesn't take much to train infantry units to operate with APCs (wheeled or tracked). Doctrines are different from the amoured units though.
I was from such a unit.

lionnoisy SG

this report stated that cost for each BIONIX 2 is S$2.5 million

2.off the shelf spare parts make logistics cheaper and easier.

tankee1981 SG

Originally posted by bcoy:

They are faster in off road conditions and amphibious as well. Already many western armies have different armoured, mechanised infantry and foot infantry units. The British royal marine commandos use a smiliar vehicle as well.

This mode of transport will not replace tonners totally, but will compliment and give additional options during operations. Just like using helicopters, boats and ships. It doesn't take much to train infantry units to operate with APCs (wheeled or tracked). Doctrines are different from the amoured units though.
I was from such a unit.

I suppose the difference is that AI will fight side by side with their vehicles while for the case of the motorised infantry they will dismount and fight the enemy while the Bronco takes cover? Very Happy

seachfun SG

Mathematic wise is correct BUT do not forget about operation process & how arty work.

1 arty tgt is 200x50M and 120mm mortar bomb effective radius is 15m. As such 6 tube barely enough to cover 1 arty tgt for Sabo fire. If reduce to 4 tube, which mean 2 tube need to fire 1 rd extra to compensate the delta. Which come to: -
Sabo fire for element of surprise effectiveness is gone
Some tube wear rate is excessive
What about the tube sustain rate (not max fire rate)
Come to tgt need to be EN (in come case need to fire 120 rd per tgt), good luck.
How about irregular tgt shape?
Relay the tube to line of fire after fire needs time as well.

Comparing rate of fire(which in perfect condition) is not the solution.

gary1910 SG

Tks for your insight, cos I am no arty expert.

Just want to ask , is it possible for mortar to do a "Time On Target" senario where a salvo of 2~3 rds with different charges and elevation so that all the rds land on the same time like those by 155mm SPH???

SRAMS does come FCS that could such calculation but I am not sure 120mm mortar rds comes with different charges, if it does, it seem possible for ToT.

justcooler SG

I am not very sure of the reduce man power way is the directive to adopt
(despite teh reduce birth rate)

Reduce men per section or per-task, due to automation/higher firepower may not necessary lead to similar effectiveness. Trained with the USMC and they are surprise to see us packing so much load and FP into 7 man section.

1 main point to note, if we are in war, it will be more then 3mths. I mean land warfare. (1 to 11/2 mths main front and the rest is to strenghten defensive position)

So the reduction in manpower effectively decrement our ability to take attritions.

Furthermore the manning readiness will be greatly reduce after 1 mths into the fighting.

?? so question of sustainability is there even with increase in
Automation
network ecentric
greater firepower ---

gary1910 SG

Just read that the AMOS has such ToT or Multiple rounds simultaneous impact (MRSI) capability.

http://defence-data.com/features/fpage52.htm

Not sure abt our SRAMS though.

specfore SG

I agree with your assessment. Higher rate of fire and more intense firepower does not compensate for less men. One of the key factors is attrition. Simple maths.... say the SAF section of 7 men with their firepower can kill the enemy at a ratio of 3:2 , i.e. for each of our troops killed, 1.5 of the enemy is killed. The enemy section of 11 men, will outlast our section of 7 ! Simple maths !

Also, with more troops , in a static battle, your frontage is wider. From historical events, the side with the larger frontage is going to have many options of outflanking ( or turning the flanks) of the narrower side. It's jsut like football. If your flankers are strong, the other side will be forever be forced into a defensive game, always shrinking towards the centre to protect being outflanked and by-passed.

« Previous Page Next Page »