Singapore only buys military technology doesn't invent any

last SG · 2004-02-09T00:07:57+00:00

Hmm another Singapore collabaration. I m not against the re-fining of weapons system as long as it suits our operational req. http://www.quarry.nildram.co....

damienthedevil SG

Just wondering which military weapons, did SG invent.

Singapore just buys technology transfers from other countries and modified it to local use, such as Israel ( SAR21, 155mm howitzer, 120mm advanced mortar, typhoon 25mm navalised guns etc..), Frances ( DCN Delta frigates etc.. ), Germany ( Victory Class Corvettes, LAW etc..), America ( Endurance class LST, Primus, etc..), Australia ( LCV ), Sweden ( Bedok Class MCM), Ireland ( Terrex81 ), Russia ( Igla1 and 155mm assisted round ) etc..etc..

NathanG5 SG

so wats your point?
are u assuming TAR21 n SAR21 are the same?

sgFish SG

weren't the LSTs locally designed and built?

laurence82 SG

Tot the FH200 and assisted round copied from South Africa G5, also developed by Dr Gerald Bull (?)

Terrex AV81 from Ireland?

kopiosatu SG

and.... does it matter?

i don't care even if they buy it from malaysia, as long it works! Cool

laurence82 SG

No mah, must yin sui shi yuan, acknowledge our benefactors...

Kekekekekeke

sgboy2004 SG

just buy and modify...no need to spend so much $$$, it will be more economical, but one will not hav that added advantage that first movers enjoy

wuming78 SG

why reinvent the wheel?

alwaysdisturbed SG

haiya…let others do the research…save $$

wuming78 SG

yup yup.. jus like the japs. Mr. Green

Moonstriker SG

design is the same... just a little deviation in the scope and the frame. Besides, they unveil at almost the same time

Atobe SG

In the SAF, 7 out of 10 NSF Men are wearing glasses.

The scope added to the SAR-21, certainly will be a great help for the NSF Men, otherwise all the shots will go wo-wo; now almost 90 Percent will score full points, and close grouping too.

Atobe SG

Even if the FH2000 is a 'copy', it is nothing similar to the South African G5 piece - the G5 is a 155mm 42calibre, while the FH2000 is a 155mm 52calibre

Furthermore, it was reported in Jane's Defense that the SAF is the first army in the WORLD to field a 155mm/52 calibre howitzer.

Singapore Technologies had bought itself a 25% ownership of the Irish Defense Contractor - Timoney Holdings, which has subsidiary defense design and development company named Timoney Technology.

By holding a 25 percent stake in the parent company of Timoney, it becomes a moot point if the Terrex AV81 is a design purchased from Timoney Technology of Ireland, and its development is funded by Singapore Technologies.

In any case, there is synergy in the investment into Timoney, as our local Automotive Engineering Group has the local expertise with armored and commercial vehicles, tracked and wheeled undercarriage.

Without the funding, the design will probably remain on the drawing board.

South Africa G5-155mm/45cal.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rsa/g5.htm

ST Kinetics - FH-2000 155mm/52cal.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/fh2000.htm

Singapore's Overseas Investment - stake in Irish Defense Company.
http://portfolio.pacfusion.com/clients/usembassy/ep/2002/Investment%20-%20January%202002.html

Timoney Technologies
http://defence-data.com/dsei/pageds1044.htm

Theory SG

Hmm... "either SG invented x or SG bought x"--that doesn't sound like an obviously true statement. Consider the Ultimax 100: originally designed by a British fellow James S. Sullivan (who was also on the design team of the--American--AR-15 and AR-18...), design bought by SG, locally produced and further improved upon in SG. Did SG invent the Ultimax? No. Did SG just "buy" Ultimaxes? No.... What about about "SG built x with the help of, say, the Americans", where x =, say, the Primus...is this also the same as "SG bought x"?

[Incidentally, as far as Charles Cutshaw of Janes was concerned, "STKinetics... develop[ed] a new rifle that [was]... an indigenous project from start to finish...Although the SAR-21 bears superficial resemblance to other bullpup assault rifles, such as the Steyr AUG and IMI Tavor, it is a unique design that is similar to its cousins only in that it is of bullpup configuration." (See: http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/idr/idr000531_2_n.shtml)]

As Kopiosatu asks so aptly: "does it matter?" Perhaps we really don't need to care "if they buy it from malaysia, as long it works!" That sounds right--SG "being able to invent stuff" may have little connection with "SG is militarily effective".

But more than that, I am glad that SG doesn't just buy weapons: we produce them locally under licence, we develop versions of foreign designs that are uniquely suited to our needs, we buy advanced platforms but also assemble them in our own yards (think ships) and build new stuff with the help of foreign companies who are more advanced (think SP and LST); in the process "leapfrog into technologies" (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/Archive-2000/me-singapore-09-12.html) that we would have taken decades (if ever possible) to "invent" on our own.

Cheers!

RussianPower SG

Yes it does matter, this means that if a military technology we need so badly and yet no one is willing to sell it to us, or that no one else shares that particular problem, we're stuck. Just like the AIM-120s.

I would have junked the AMRAAMS if there was an indigenous missile available...

Theory SG

I agree you you! There is obviously a sense in which "it" matters--except that your "it" is not the same "it" that got this thread started. We hardly need to invent--from scratch, as it were--the required item. We need to know the technology, to be able to apply it, to be able to manufacture stuff locally, i.e., to have access to stuff without having to be at the mercy of a foreign supplier. But that's quite different from having to invent something totally new--at least not in every case.

Cheers

Moonstriker SG

kewl... but still prefer m16... Razz

Moonstriker SG

just a side question… did we receive any of our amraams?

NathanG5 SG

i was skeptical abt SAR 21 too during my NS day..
but SAR 21 is a much better weapon then M-16..
M-16 is gd for training..SAR 21 is gd for killing..

laurence82 SG

My bro was one of those who was asked to test the SAR21 in it early days. He commented to me he prefers the M16, i asked him why, since SAR21 seems to be better.

He replied that SAR21 have tendency to break down, after some time of shooting. Heard this also from some other people too, so is the material used fror SAR21 improved now?