Made in Singapore Equipment

[Firn]

Adrian and Chino, thanks for the pixs.

I understand that ST Kinetics sent two Bronco hulls to the UK for the UK squids to blow them up to their heart's delight (to test their resistance to IEDs).

With the size of the IEDs being found in Afghanistan (and that the IEDs used seem to be growing bigger over time), I'm a little worried about survivability for the Warthog. I understand that the Warthog variant produced for the UK is even heavier than the version of the Bronco (which stands at 18 tons) inducted into the SAF. When asked just how much heavier by the local press? The ST Kinetics spokesman refused to comment. Anyway, the growing size and power of IEDs and mines are such a concern that the SAF has inducted a 30 ton class Counter-Mine Vehicle (CMV) called the Trailblazer, which uses a mine flail system.

As I wrote before the very intrinsic qualities of the Bv206 undermine the efforts to greatly increase the protection against IEDs and mines. It was designed to provide unrivaled mobility in the most difficult terrain (swamps, snowclad slopes and so on). I like to refer to it as chamois on stamina.

The Bronco was the logical consequence, as you simply need a very strong chassis to carry a heavy cell designed with IEDs in mind to provide very high levels of protection. If the Bronco was constructed in such a way than it could be magnitudes safer than the Bv206.

 

[Sea Toby]

Thailand has been wanting to order such a ship. I thought the South Korean LPDs would have won the order, but these LSTs from Singapore are wonderful ships as well. One or more should do Thailand well. Keep in mind their often criticized mini-carrier was very useful after the Boxing Day disaster.

 

[Red]

The Indonesian navy went for a South Korean design. The Phillipines has indicated interest in the Endurance class ship as well though they might have funding issues currently. Thier officers visited the ship not too long ago.There is also a report recently where it is stated that India is looking at ships from Singapore and South Korea.

I wish they could have shown an artist`s impression of how the ship will look like plus specifications? It might not be an Endurance class ship afterall; i.e an evolved design or a totally new one. SingTech Marine has show-cased a few designs in the past.

I distinctly recall the Thais needing more space for troop and vehicle conveyance. I also wonder if they would not opt for more autmotation(like the current RSN ships) in favour of more crew.

 

[SGMilitary]

The RTN could be purchasing Endurance class LPD but with lesser automation.

I recall sometime ago that there is an article stating that the RSN will most

probably procured two LHD with strengthened deck to support more heavy

lift helicopters landing and operating from the platform.

The most recent update was that the RSN MCMV will be upgraded.

Two will be fully modified, the other two partially modified and am just

pondering why not all four fully modified.

They will be procuring UUV as well for mine counter measure warfare.

The RSN is also looking at platforms to replace the 11 PVs.

Any info the type of ships? Could be the ST Marine so called stealth LCS?

The RSN is also evaluating to replace her 5 FK50 MPA and they are looking for

longer range aircraft and is also considering Global Hawk UAV to support this

new MPA platforms.

Any other updates RED?

Cheers!


Best Regards.

 

[Red]

Perhaps, the minesweepers are being upgraded in stages. The first two ships are probably prepared for expanded "mothership" roles with respect to remote UUVs which the RSN currently uses and future ones as well.

What the RSN does not have now is a multi-role support/logistic ship. The Endurance class Lpds are modular enough to play that role however. But that depends on exactly the kind of scenarios the RSN wants to be involved in.

The advent of the Formidables would mean that the RSN is expanding thier range of patrol right up to the Spratlys and Paracel islands(i.e Chinese zone of influence). The latter will be supported by the replacements for the Victory class corvettes sometime next decade which I assume will be frigate hulls and new submarines to replace the Challenger class submarines.

In that sense, a support ship might be necessary for extended deployments. The next question would be the type of ship the RSN wishes to acquire. A traditional support ship? Or a multi-role vessel capable of performing a variety of tasks such as heli-borne operation facilities for disasters and expanded anti-submarine and anti-surface capabilties.

 

[Skyman]

I wish they could have shown an artist`s impression of how the ship will look like plus specifications? It might not be an Endurance class ship afterall; i.e an evolved design or a totally new one. SingTech Marine has show-cased a few designs in the past.

I distinctly recall the Thais needing more space for troop and vehicle conveyance. I also wonder if they would not opt for more autmotation(like the current RSN ships) in favour of more crew.

I wish too. Today the official words from Goverment is just 'a Singaporean LPD' which can be something like Endurance or not. Waiting for it also.

And I think for sure RTN's LPD will contain less automation since RTN got no manpower shortage problem. (In fact the problem is the overloading of manpower )

I recall sometime ago that there is an article stating that the RSN will most

probably procured two LHD with strengthened deck to support more heavy

lift helicopters landing and operating from the platform.

Do you refers to this article in my blog?

http://thaimilitary.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/rtn-launch-rfp-for-its-new-lpd/

The old requirement said RTN want its LPD to operate with 22,000 pounds helicopter. Maybe because they want to put MH-60S in.

And normally they want 2 ships but, you know, economic kill everything. 1 ship is the best hope for now until all those crisis has pass. :vamp

 

[OPSSG]

BAE vs STK - Round 2

In Dec 2008, BAE Systems Global Combat Systems (previously BAE Systems Hägglunds) BvS 10 Mk2 lost to the Bronco made by Singapore Technologies Kinetics (STK) in the Warthog UOR.

According to Jane's, BAE and STK are now competing for the French Army's Vehicule Haute Mobilité (VHM - High Mobility Vehicle) programme.The initial requirement is for 53 VHM units (this could increase to 129) for the French amphibious and mountain units. A contract award for the much delayed VHM programme is expected later this year or in early 2010.

[h/t to YF for the news]

 

[Chino]

...BV-206...BVS-10...license produced in Finland, Norway and Singapore.

I don't think so... Far as I know we produce a similar-looking version called the Bronco, but it is not under license. In theory, it is a different vehicle.

 

[Chino]

Time for some tank porn, my favourite pic of the Bronco:

 

[OPSSG]

Hi. We are renaming and merging info into a new thread on designed/made/integrated in Singapore military equipment news.

This will enable me to have a central place to park news such as the Warthog UOR win (as the Bronco thread is closed) for ST Kinetics' Bronco, updates on the French Army's Vehicule Haute Mobilité (VHM - High Mobility Vehicle) programme or latest developments of the Advanced Combat Man System (ACMS).

Bionix Variants In Service
1. Bionix 25 (25mm Bushmaster)
2. Bionix 40/50 (cupola with 40AGL + CIS 0.5HMG)
3. Bionix II (30mm Bushmaster)
4. Bionix Armored Vehicle Launched Bridge (for MLC 30 crossing)
5. Bionix Armoured Recovery Vehicle
6. Trailblazer (CMV)

For those of you who remember a variant of the Bionix was one of the losing finalists in the US Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV) contest for the Interim Brigade Combat Teams, or BCTs.

The growing size and power of IEDs and mines are such a concern that the SAF has inducted a NEW 30 ton class Counter-Mine Vehicle (CMV) called the Trailblazer, which uses a mine flail system. The Trailblazer is built on the Bionix chassis. The Trailblazer offers more protection to the crew and exceptional mobility performance over other commercial off-the-shelf mine clearing vehicles (such as the wheeled Hydrema MCV 910 Series 2, which is also in service with the SAF). In addition to mine-clearing, the Trailblazer is able to mark its trails using a lane marking system with pneumatically fired rods. This enables vehicles to quickly travel behind the Trailblazer safely without losing momentum. Developing the Trailblazer was quite a challenging task, revealed COL Ng Kin Yi, Chief Engineering Officer. He said:

“On one hand, we needed a CMV that would be able to move fast with the other vehicles through a wide range of terrain. Hence, it had to be compact and compatible with the Bionix platforms. At the same time, we wanted a CMV with a flailing system. A lot of people told us that it wasn’t possible, since flailing requires a lot of power, which would sacrifice vehicular speed. Therefore, a separate engine is needed to power the flailing mechanism so that speed is preserved.” *​

However, fitting two engines in one small vehicle was clearly not feasible. To overcome this technical impasse, ST Kinetics, conceived a two-in-one engine which enables the Trailblazer to move slowly for flailing purposes, and speedily when travelling with the rest of SAF's armoured forces. BTW, DSTA (see figure 11 at page number 123 for pix) is working on GPS logging on the path cleared and a remote control system for the Trailblazer (for high risk situations).

------------------------
* Footnote: Pg 5 of SAF's Army News issue No. 165, April/May 2009.

 

[OPSSG]

Trailblazer on static display at another event and picture credit to kilroy.

Trailblazer on static display at another event and picture credit to kilroy.

Pictures of the Trailblazer in DT also found here.

 

[Duffy]

OPSSG
Trailblazer has to be the best design I have seen for a flail style mine sweeper. Very small foot print compared to clearing width . How are they cooling the hydraulic fluid? And who is fielding these If there not for sale yet they should sell like hot cakes.

 

[OPSSG]

Trailblazer has to be the best design I have seen for a flail style mine sweeper. Very small foot print compared to clearing width.

Same here. I like it as it is based on our Bionix platform, which ensures some level of logistics compatibility with our armoured infantry who are equipped with the Bionix II. I also understand that ST Kinetics has tapped on the German firm, IBD for their MEXAS passive armour protection system (as a technology provider - see IBD's survivability onion) in the Bionix platform. To give you an idea of the relationship, here's a 2008 pix of a Bronco with IBD's AMP-ADS.

How are they cooling the hydraulic fluid? And who is fielding these If there not for sale yet they should sell like hot cakes.

Sorry, I haven't seen more detailed specifications released by their makers, which is ST Kinetics (It is not even listed as a product on their website). Therefore, I'm not able to tell you more.

I hear from the unofficial grapevine that this is exciting times are the SAF and we are expecting/awaiting more information releases. For more details see this thread on upgrades to Singapore's Leopard 2A4 tanks published in the Asian Defence Journal.

I'm hoping that other Singaporean forum members with more information will chime in.

 

[Tavarisch]

No discounts for your neighbors?

 

[Duffy]

Thanks for the links OPSSG

Looks like its the BIONIX Recovery vehicle with a cab and the drum in place of a crane. Very nice The engine spec states a 2 cycle diesel, I assume that a typo.
I really like the Spider LSV on the ST kinetics site that would be fun to have for a weekend

keep us posted appreciate the info.

 

[OPSSG]

No discounts for your neighbors?

Only if Dr M will allow your guys to buy anything from us. He's already enraged enough that your current government is trying to improve bilateral ties.

Looks like its the BIONIX Recovery vehicle with a cab and the drum in place of a crane. Very nice

Yes.

The engine spec states a 2 cycle diesel, I assume that a typo.

One35th.com is a modeling website run by a Singaporean enthusiast and he has got that bit wrong. I link it because of the line drawings and the trouble he takes to gather the various pixs.

Here's an old pix of the Bionix at the US Interim Armored Vehicle contest (in which the ST Kinetics vehicle lost to the Stryker). [H/t to Iowa BB61 for the old pix]

I really like the Spider LSV on the ST Kinetics site that would be fun to have for a weekend

With a 2.8 litre engine, it is fun take off-road but in its basic configuration, it has got zero protection against small arms fire or IEDs (as compared to a vehicle like the RG-31).

The Spider LSV was initially developed for our Guards Formation, which is a light infantry, rapid deployment, heli-mobile force. The Spider LSV is used by our Spike ATGM equipped anti-tank teams (click here and here for pixs of NZ live firing) and also to carry a ST Kinetics 120mm SRAMS low recoil mortar (see SRAMS brochure) (click here for the SRAMS mounted on the Spider pix). In fact, our Chinooks regularly sling load 2 Spider LSVs at one time. Since the Dec 2004 Tsunami, the Guards Formation has also been additionally tasked to be the planning group to any regional humanitarian crisis.

Fyi, ST Kinetics' 120mm SRAMS has been sold to UAE as part of AGRAB (Scorpion). The 3 man operated AGRAB (click for pix) is a 120mm SRAMS mounted on a BAE Systems RG-31 (10-ton 4x4 armoured and mine-protected vehicle) and it carries 46 mortar rounds in two carousels and has 2 further racks for another 12 rounds. UAE bought 48 AGRABs and associated ammo from a local manufacturer, International Golden Group in a deal worth 390 million dirham (US$106 million).

 

[Almaleki]

No Tanks Jets .. something Shiny ??

 

[OPSSG]

No Tanks Jets .. something Shiny ??

No. Since our independence on 9 August 1965, the SAF has always been willing to shop for good deals and if a good deal happens to be 2nd hand equipment, we are happy to buy them. Our main focus is developing our people and not shiny equipment. Let me explain.

One, the newest tanks that we have are refurbished Leopard 2A4s from Germany and we bought them 2nd hand. In fact our first tanks, the AMX-13 were also bought 2nd hand in 1969. Today, these modernized and refurbished AMX-13 SM1 tanks are still in service. Therefore, we have some very old equipment.

Two, it took Singapore 20 years before we placed our first order for brand new, top of the line multi-role fighters. We only placed our first order for 8 F-16A/Bs in 1985, under Peace Carvin (the first of which was delivered in 1988). However, we no longer operate these F-16A/Bs, as we have given these A/Bs to Thailand (to thank them for allowing the SAF to use their bases and to train there). Today, Singapore operates over 60 F-16C/Ds and have placed an order 24 F-15SGs.

Three, currently, Singapore does not make tanks or jets. And this thread is about made in Singapore weapons, which would include infantry weapons (SAR-21, Ultimax 100, and the Matador to name a few), the Bionix range of infantry fighting vehicles and Bionix derived support vehicles, the Bronco (see Warthog UOR win thread) and Singapore's own range of artillery pieces. Keep in mind, local weapons are a means of developing our own engineering expertise (in weapons design and manufacturing). Singapre's defence eco-system employs over 2,000 engineers and we intend to occupy a few specific niches - not bad for a small country.

Finally, people and countries make choices and Almaleki, you, as an individual have to choose. If you and your country choose wrongly, no amount of defence spending will be enough. For example, in relative terms, Oman (~11.4% of GDP), Qatar (~10% of GDP), Saudi Arabia (~10% of GDP), Iraq (~8.6% of GDP) and Jordan (~8.6% of GDP) all spend a larger percentage of their GDP on defence than Singapore (in absolute terms, Iraq and Saudi Arabia spend more on defence than Singapore). Yet, all of the above countries get less security than what we enjoy in Singapore (~5% of GDP). The Arab League countries need to figure out a way to get along with their neighbours and I don't just mean peace with the Jews in Isreal. I also mean the Persians in Iran too. As long as your leaders fail to choose peace, you and your country will be at war. Be it with an external enemy or with another ethic group within your own country.

Likewise, did you think it was easy for Singapore to make peace with Indonesia after the Konfrontasi? The answer is no.​

Iraq under Saddam Hussein chose to go to war with Iran, war with Kuwait and finally war with the US. What has war done for Iraq? Some of these choices are hard but if you do not make the right choice - you and your future generations will continue to suffer. Understand that choosing peace is also a choice and your defence spending on shiny weapons are a small sub-set of your country's choices.

 

[Ananda]

Interesting Subject

OPSSG this can be an interesting subject. How much a country should invest on the defence industries. As a Banker I'm interest on this since my banks and several other government owned banks in here also being challenge to financed our own Defence industries.

I'm not going to hijack this thread, perhaps should open another thread on the need for countries to maintain her own defence industries, and how big realistically it can go.

 

[OPSSG]

...on the need for countries to maintain her own defence industries, and how big realistically it can go.

It is hard to talk about the size of a country's defence industry, in part because it's size should be determined by:

(i) the size of domestic defence market for products made by these companies in their relevant market segment (which is affected by a country's defence spending levels); and

(ii) the export potential for the product made (which is determined by how much tech is inside the product).​

For example, Indonesia has a fairly big army, so the defence companies should focus on making things for the army (and not the air force or navy). Given the size of Indonesia's army, ammo and rifles should be the next obvious areas (which is also how Singapore got started in defence manufacturing).

It could be high end stuff or even low end stuff. IMO, it is a mistake for Indonesia to focus only on high tech end alone (like the aircraft industry) because your country's low technology base and your country's investment levels in R&D is low - which results in uncompetitive products. They would be so uncompetitive that it would affect your army's capability development if the bought that local made product.

With Indonesia's low cost of labour army clothing, shoes, boots, bullet proof vests and other personal equipment should be an area of research focus. Once you have done it, your country would own the technology and make money from licensing the technology or even better, you can produce the product in Indonesia. Most importantly, Indonesia can manufacture labour intensive products at a competitive price. All technology invested in this area can also be applied to camping equipment and be sold as outdoor gear. However, such unsexy areas are likely to impress politicians and generals.

Alternatively, Indonesian companies should JV with more established defence companies and be a parts manufacturer. This means that Indonesia manufactures a part of a bigger weapons system instead of the whole thing by yourself.

Don't try to compete head-on. Instead seek to carve successive niches of increasing complexity. If you want to take a giant leap, you are more likely to fail. Let's face it, Indonesia can make military transport planes thanks to Habibie's vision and support. But today, which other country would like to buy made in Indonesian military planes (with cash and not just barter trade)?

How much a country should invest on the defence industries.

Perhaps the wrong question.

The main problem with a company focusing on defence alone is the feast or famine business model - it is the inconsistency of defence demand in the economic downturns that destroys the company's ability to retain a capability. Your defence companies must seek to carve niches in complementary civilian markets where the staff can also be employed in, when there are no local defence contracts to be found. For example, ST Marine actually builds tankers, cargo containers and RoRo vessels as well when they are not building navy ships.

ST Kinetics started out in automotive repair but Indonesia has more than the automotive business. You have a vibrant construction, logging and mining market. Your defence industry should look at giving contracts to re-engine your tanks/IFVs/APCs to successful Indonesian companies like PT Trakindo Utama, who are competitive in their respective industry niches. Batam has quite a few ship building companies (who do tug boats very well). Maybe you should be looking there for future companies to groom into defence industry leaders, rather than the existing corrupt bunch.

As a Banker I'm interest on this since my banks and several other government owned banks in here also being challenge to financed our own Defence industries.

BTW, Singapore allocates 4% of our defence budget to R&D (or ~S$400 million a year). Without constant R&D funding and the proper R&D organisations, you cannot build capability in your defence industry.