Made in Singapore Equipment

[Lone Ranger]

@OPSSG , agrees with you. There is no need for the SAF to rush and jump into the APS pie, but it is definitely a nice assurance from ST Eng, knowing that Hunter is ready for the future capability upgrade if need arises.

Potential Terrex 4 - interesting. I am also been thinking about this. We have this gap to be filled for a long time. It will be nice to see what they can bring on board with their experience gained from Terrex 2.

For the SMART PROTech, can you share more on the reserve you have? I am keen to hear your opinion on it. Many thanks in advance.

 

[OPSSG]

The SAF has many capability gaps that we are not spending money on yet. Given a choice, I would rather:

• speed up and complete the development of the Advanced Mobile Gun System to enable the timely phase out the 155mm/52calibre FH-2000 (introduced in 1993);
• increase the size of the all professional Army Deployment Force (ADF) that provides specialised capabilities for the SAF in peace-time contingency operations (from 1 battalion to 2 before the SAF commissions the 1st JMMS);
• upgrade the ADF and commando formation rifle to the ambidextrous and Picatinny rail equipped BR18 series and move away from the dated SAR-21 (with its 18.5” barrel). The first production batch of SAR21s in 1998. It is essential to develop and modify TTPs for the BR18 series of rifles, as part of military experimentation and testing, prior to the launch of the Next Gen Infantry Battalion.

The BR18 AR is 64 cm / 25” long, sporting a 14.5” barrel, weighing 2.9 kg is much lighter than the SAR-21. The BR18 Sharpshooter Rifle with a longer 20" barrel, at 80 cm long (just short of 30") and weighing 3.2 kg has a maximum effective range of 800 meters, which is superior to the SAR-21 sharpshooter.​

• upgrade and change all Ultimax 100 mk.3 in all infantry units to the mk. 8; and
• lastly, phase out the 25 lb / 11.4 kg GPMG and upgrade to something like the Sig Sauer, SLMG (that weighs in at under 20 lb / 9 kg including bipod);

For the SMART PROTech, can you share more on the reserve you have? I am keen to hear your opinion on it. Many thanks in advance.

Tactically, infantry on dismount will use their vehicles to shield them from small arms fire (esp. in urban warfare, street movement).

Similar to ERAs with a kill zone around the vehicle, this visibly distinctive protection system will trigger an action, reaction cycle by the enemy.

SMART PROTech is more expensive solution than passive armour and may be small arms resistant but once the enemy knows our troops are dismounted, they would want to fire a low-end RPG from a blind side (with no intention of trying to penetrate the vehicle), so that the jet from SMART PROTech will rain down on our troop dismounts or into the surrounding buildings containing civilians. Or worse still trigger an EFP chain to do the same at predicable choke points. IRCG have shared their tactics with insurgent groups and the solution is found in MRAPs in service with the SAF, which includes the 17,500kg Peacekeeper Protected Response Vehicle (PRV). The 6x6 PRV entered service with 2PDF, in July 2015, is a derivative of the Higuard MRAP made by Arquus (formerly known as Renault Trucks Defense).

With APS systems, the Hunter crew can elect to turn the system off, for a few minutes — during critical periods of dismounted support. And rely on passive armour to soak up damage. The AI trooper of a Hunter IFV equipped battalion have to understand safety distances from the vehicle when the APS is active. This changes our dismount tactics.

At this time, there is no simple substitute for passive armour. See this DSTA article on Passive Armour.

 

[swerve]

The Japanese Type 10, which you referenced earlier, can stand as an example - the Japanese know they're not going to be exporting it because of (to my knowledge) existing laws prohibiting arms sales.

Japan has no laws prohibiting arms sales. It has a long-standing law which requires permits for arms exports. For many years Japanese government policy was very restrictive, pretty much issuing permits only for transfer to the USA of weapons, components & technology which were part of joint ventures with the USA. But that policy was relaxed some years ago. Since then, Japan has tried, for example, to sell submarines to Australia.

 

[Lone Ranger]

@OPSSG, again thanks for your sharing. Agrees that the ability to temporary shut down the APS does provides more flexibility for both armoured vehicle and troops deployment. If not mistaken, SMART PROTech is run by electric current and is triggered by incoming impact. If its power source is centralized, we may be able to cutoff its power supply and temporary shut the system when troops are deployed? I guess this is not an issue for IBD, possibility is there.

As SMART PROTech is action triggered, it does seem like this system is designed to answer the concern on one of the IBD's ASEAN customers - the reliability of ADS's trigger mode (despite its very low failure rate). Luckily there is no rush for the SAF to apply system similar to this and we can give it more time & room for development as you pointed out.

Given SMART PROTech is simpler, cheaper and required smaller safety zone compared to other APS, it is good to occupy the space between ERA and APS (in the AFV protection protocol) . However it cannot provide 100% coverage,. Nevertheless we can apply it to the sides of an AFV (on top of the passive armour) which collateral damage is a potential concern. Sector where collateral damage is of limited concern, we can apply APS to protect the AFV, especially from top attack munition, like smart arty rounds, top attack ATGM, loitering munition and etc. This creates a layered defence system for an AFV - just an idea for discussion.

Protection aside, I also noted the Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) of Hunter is 1/2 a ton shy of 30. This is relatively low when compared to similar AFVs (by size and capability) like Ajax (38 ton), Lynx KF41 (est 44 ton) and Hanwha's Redback (42 ton). Although Hunter's 29.5 ton GVW might not be the final or combat GVW, but this does implied that Hunter's protection or survival kits will go beyond passive armour protection (which is usually weight intensive), like via the design of hull, distribution of ammunition, and non-passive protection system/s.

Traditionally, AFV's armour structure and lay out is sensitive information, and closely guarded by Armour Formation due to its inflexibility to reconfigure. Once it is compromised, the cost to rectify can be high in term of time and monetary. With DSTA sharing their passive armour study (and much of it is still applied to current vehicles), I believe this reflects that SAF's passive armour protection system is no longer a crucial part of the AFV's survival system but as you rightly pointed out, there is still no simple substitute-just not as crucial as before.

The above is just my opinion and for what it may worth.

 

[OPSSG]

The above is just my opinion and for what it may worth.

My assumption is that you know more about the defence industry than me; I hope to learn more from you. Please bear with me.

If not mistaken, SMART PROTech is run by electric current and is triggered by incoming impact. If its power source is centralized, we may be able to cutoff its power supply and temporary shut the system when troops are deployed?

I read your link and it just says "sensor." Therefore, I suspect the senor is an electro-mechanical chip (similar in concept the sensor in air bags - which can be toggled on and off), which would give the sensor a high reliability or high MTBF. If the chip or system design is purely electrical, if the electrical circuit is cut mechanically, SMART PROTech will fail to activate because of a loose wire.

With your new info, I suspect it is more workable than I initially thought. But no one else has bought it, right?

As SMART PROTech is action triggered, it does seem like this system is designed to answer the concern on one of the IBD's ASEAN customers - the reliability of ADS's trigger mode (despite its very low failure rate). Luckily there is no rush for the SAF to apply system similar to this and we can give it more time & room for development as you pointed out.

IBD is a supplier and understands the SAF's requirements. I suspect that the concept is so new, they may lack actual data on likely MBTF that Singapore's defence science will accept (as they need to do aging studies).

Given SMART PROTech is simpler, cheaper and required smaller safety zone compared to other APS, it is good to occupy the space between ERA and APS (in the AFV protection protocol). However it cannot provide 100% coverage.

Conceptually, yes. But the Trophy APS radar does more than trigger a hard kill response to a projectile. It also calculates the point of origin of launcher and shares this over the ARTEMIS BMS.

Sector where collateral damage is of limited concern, we can apply APS to protect the AFV, especially from top attack munition, like smart arty rounds, top attack ATGM, loitering munition and etc. This creates a layered defence system for an AFV - just an idea for discussion.

Let me think a bit more on this top attack point but thanks for explaining.

Protection aside, I also noted the Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) of Hunter is 1/2 a ton shy of 30. This is relatively low when compared to similar AFVs (by size and capability) like Ajax (38 ton), Lynx KF41 (est 44 ton) and Hanwha's Redback (42 ton). Although Hunter's 29.5 ton GVW might not be the final or combat GVW, but this does implied that Hunter's protection or survival kits will go beyond passive armour protection (which is usually weight intensive), like via the design of hull, distribution of ammunition, and non-passive protection system/s.

Over time, the weight will increase but this also means bridging engineers and associated support to the Hunter IFV battalion will have to be upgraded to beyond MLC-30. Which is why the Bionix AVLB will need to be eventually replaced and there are plans for a Hunter AVLB.

Traditionally, AFV's armour structure and lay out is sensitive information, and closely guarded by Armour Formation due to its inflexibility to reconfigure. Once it is compromised, the cost to rectify can be high in term of time and monetary. With DSTA sharing their passive armour study (and much of it is still applied to current vehicles), I believe this reflects that SAF's passive armour protection system is no longer a crucial part of the AFV's survival system but as you rightly pointed out, there is still no simple substitute-just not as crucial as before.

Agreed but I would say that passive armour is just one of the survivability onion layers.

 

[Lone Ranger]

My assumption is that you know more about the defence industry than me; I hope to learn more from you. Please bear with me.

Oh please don't say that. I am here to learnt from you guys and to verify some of my understanding and thinking about the SAF (mainly) with all your kind input.

I read your link and it just says "sensor." Therefore, I suspect the senor is an electro-mechanical chip (similar in concept the sensor in air bags - which can be toggled on and off), which would give it high reliability or high MTBF. If the system design is purely electrical, if the electrical circuit is cut mechanically, SMART PROTech will fail to activate because of a loose wire.

I think you are right to say that it has a sensor unit similar to air bags system. Sorry I have limited knowledge in this area. Do you think there can be a centralized system to active/deactivate the senors?

But no one else has bought it, right?
IBD is a supplier and understands the SAF's requirements. I suspect that the concept is so new, they may lack actual data on likely MBTF that Singapore's defence science will accept (as they need to do aging studies).

So far have not heard of any sale on ADS nor SMART PROTech. Not sure if you have came across this article. Rheinmetall involvement in ADS was motivated by "an Asian nation has decided to protect its military vehicles in future with the "Active Defence System". ADS can now move from the development and trials phase to full-scale serial production, which is to commence in 2011." Together with other ADS related article, it isn't difficult to link up who this Asian nation is.

I believe Rheinmetall/ IBD has done lot of works for this low profile Asian/ASEAN client in the field of protection and survivability.

Conceptually, yes. But the Trophy APS radar does more than trigger a hard kill response to a projectile. It also calculates the point of origin of launcher and shares this over the ARTEMIS BMS.

Yes. And that is also the main reason I believed SAF will not give up the idea on APS, mainly due to the ability to autonomously detect and locate target for "double-quick" respond in both closed and urban terrain. This capability is crucial for close hatch operation going forward due to the lost of situation awareness by the commander as compared to open hatch ops.

Let me think a bit more on this top attack point but thanks for explaining.

Hope to hear more from you on your thought for this idea.

Over time, the weight will increase but this also means bridging engineers and associated support to the Hunter IFV battalion will have to be upgraded to beyond MLC-30. Which is why the Bionix AVLB will need to be eventually replaced and there are plans for a Hunter AVLB.
Agreed but I would say that passive armour is just one of the survivability onion layers.

Sorry, Maybe I wasn't clear on my explanation. From the GVW of Hunter, we can see that the thinking of SAF's Armour survival concept has moved away from "armour plate" concept of the cold war. Now they are looking at shape and space of hull design, moving explosive away from (or even outside of) crew compartment and etc. Ie their focus are now less on "penetration" but more on "survival". And much of these comes from the survivability onion layers concept which also very commonly seem on Rheinmetall's site .

Lastly, thanks for your quick respond.

 

[OPSSG]

Do you think there can be a centralized system to active/deactivate the senors?

Yes and it can even be sector specific deactivation. But that is not the issue. The bigger issue is reliability for toggling on/off and battle damage to the wiring.

Not sure if you have came across this article. Rheinmetall involvement in ADS was motivated by "an Asian nation has decided to protect its military vehicles in future with the "Active Defence System". ADS can now move from the development and trials phase to full-scale serial production, which is to commence in 2011." Together with other ADS related article, it isn't difficult to link up who this Asian nation is.

I believe Rheinmetall/ IBD has done lot of works for this low profile Asian/ASEAN client

I was not aware of the sale of the company to Rheinmetall until you told me. Lost track of this acquisition by Rheinmetall. Below is a 2017 Jane’s video on AMAP-ADS.

I have also assumed that Singapore is the buyer of a modular German APS System, since I saw a picture of a Bronco with a German APS system at an European trade show a few years ago — AMAP-ADS with a reaction time of approximately 560 microseconds is one of the fastest active protection systems, while having low power requirements. The prior Breaking Defense link you provided had a particularly telling quote:

​

“You have to have imagine different ways to confuse the system,” said Ronald Meixner, Rheinmetall’s lead engineer on the project, an electronic warfare expert and a former German naval officer. The company drove the system (disarmed) through a car wash to see if the system would mistake a deluge of water droplets for an attack: It didn’t. (This was a major concern for an unidentified Southeast Asia customer who has to deal with monsoons). They took a leafblower and blasted the sensors with dead leaves. They attacked the system with phosphorous grenades. They mounted the system’s radar on the outside of a building and left it running for three years to see if it ever got fooled by a false positive, say mistaking a bird for an incoming missile: It didn’t.”​

Below is a Rheinmetall video explaining how it works and it’s low electromagnetic signature compared to other APS systems, which explains Singapore’s interest in integrating such systems to protect our vehicle fleet.

Yes. And that is also the main reason I believed SAF will not give up the idea on APS, mainly due to the ability to autonomously detect and locate target for "double-quick" respond in both closed and urban terrain. This capability is crucial for close hatch operation going forward due to the lost of situation awareness by the commander as compared to open hatch ops.

Targeting by radar and sound triangulation, at medium range is the latest trend.

 

[OPSSG]

More important than the front-line fighting vehicles, the progressive upgrading and customisation of SAF's vehicle fleet holds important clues of actual defence science and operational capability — including the weight, space and power reserves on the platform to add the SAF’s selected APS system (choice made in 2011) — the use of DSO’s locally developed transparent armour (at a materials science level) in the windows and windshield to provide multi-hit resistance capability.

Paramount Group's Marauder design (and manufactured as Belrex in Singapore) was first launched in February 2007, with 50 sold to Jordan in 2008 and 30 delivered to Azerbaijani in 2012. Singapore's customisation and order of 10 variants of the Belrex Protected Combat Support Vehicle (PCSV) in 2016, has resulted in a vehicle that is heavier and better protected.

• The PCSV comes in three basic crew compartment sizes: 4, 8, and 10, ensures that there is local testing, qualification and integration capability to meet the various STANAG 4569 protection levels. "Fitted for but not with" may be applicable to the PCSV for its APS system.
• Beyond local usage, ST has an agreement to market these 10 variants with their customised protection levels due to trusted testing rigour. The ten variants are: (1) combat engineer, (2) fuel, (3) logistics, (4) maintenance, (5) medical, (6) mortar, (7) mortar ammunition carrier, (8) security, (9) signal, and (10) reconnaissance. For instance, the logistics variants are equipped with shelves to carry stores to resupply the combat forces and as a result, have smaller cabins to accommodate the larger rear cargo area; the signal variants are equipped with antenna mast to establish communication links.

Sorry, Maybe I wasn't clear on my explanation. From the GVW of Hunter, we can see that the thinking of SAF's Armour survival concept has moved away from "armour plate" concept of the cold war. Now they are looking at shape and space of hull design, moving explosive away from (or even outside of) crew compartment and etc. Ie their focus are now less on "penetration" but more on "survival". And much of these comes from the survivability onion layers concept which also very commonly seem on Rheinmetall's site

Yes, distance from blast matters — it is like dropping an uncooked egg in Tupperware analogy with regard to IED blasts. The Tupperware is fine but the egg inside cracks. The Bronco 2/Warthog UOR sale to UK (with 17 blown up by IEDs in Afghanistan but no deaths), gave ST a lot of data that led to the design of the Bronco 3.

 

[CheeZe]

Do you have any information about the planned introduction of the BR18? And potential sales?

 

[OPSSG]

Do you have any information about the planned introduction of the BR18? And potential sales?

None actually. But ST is trying hard to flog-off old stocks of SAR-21 (which is not ambidextrous) to the North America market. If they can sell old war reserve stocks, transition to new would be good.

 

[CheeZe]

What will happen to the stocks of old M16s? Are those going to be kept, sold off, or something else?

 

[CheeZe]

So, this isn't technically a "Made in Singapore" thing but I was looking for a model kit closest to the Leopard 2SG. I think this fits the general outline pretty well, but I was wondering if anyone knew of a better kit or what changes I might need to make so as to make it as accurate as possible. TIA!

German Main Battle Tank Revolution I Leopard II

This is an injection-plastic military vehicle model kit.

www.hlj.com

 

[OPSSG]

Ghana to procure armored vehicles from Elbit

Sources in Ghana reported that Ghana’s parliament approved $86.1 million in government loans to fund acquisition of 19 armored vehicles from Israel’s Elbit Land Systems. The company will supply nine 8×8 Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs) equipped with Elbit Systems UT30 30 mm remotely operated...

www.israeldefense.co.il

Not clear if the nine 8x8 platform selected by Elbit for the Ghana tender is the Terrex 3. Will need to wait for more details to emerge. Pretty certain that the ten 6x6 platform selected is not from Singapore.

 

[OPSSG]

Yes, distance from blast matters — it is like dropping an uncooked egg in Tupperware analogy with regard to IED blasts. The Tupperware is fine but the egg inside cracks. The Bronco 2/Warthog UOR sale to UK (with 17 blown up by IEDs in Afghanistan but no deaths), gave ST a lot of data that led to the design of the Bronco 3.

On 5 Apr 2021, American firm Oshkosh Defense said that it had been selected by the National Advanced Mobility Consortium (NAMC) – along with its partner ST Engineering – to participate in the prototype phase for the US Army’s Cold Weather All-Terrain Vehicle (CATV).

The Oshkosh CATV, which is yet to be built for the NAMC through a Request for Prototype Project (RPP), is derived from the 16.5 ton Bronco 3, which is “a member of the proven, highly effective, and reliable Bronco family of vehicles by ST Engineering”, said Wisconsin-based Oshkosh.

Pat Williams, vice president and general manager of US Army and US Marine Corps programmes at Oshkosh said:

​

“We are confident that the Oshkosh CATV will enable soldiers to efficiently move personnel and supplies in the most extreme conditions, and we look forward to getting them into the hands of the end user for testing and evaluation.”​

I will be very surprised if Bronco 3, powered by the compact MTU 6R 106 (providing 325 hp at 2200 rpm) engine does not win the RPP, as a lot of the risk reduction was done at ST Engineering’s own dime to retain its swim capability and concurrent high protection levels when trials were first conducted in 2012-2013 — where it has undergone more than 1,860 miles of performance testing in arctic conditions as well as covered over 200,000 miles in Afghanistan.

Defense News reported that two vendors in the competitive prototyping effort was selected: the team from Oshkosh Defense and ST Engineering versus BAE Systems, which will offer its BVS-10 Beowulf. It also reported that extreme cold-weather testing and evaluation is set to take place in Alaska at the Cold Regions Test Center from Aug to Dec 2021. Oshkosh said the prototypes will be evaluated on payload, mobility, crush resistance, swimming, and transportability. The US Army plans to buy around 110 in the 1st order in FY2022 and acquire an initial fleet of 163 vehicles; whose numbers can grow to over 200, if the US Marines also decide to acquire CATVs.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

On 5 Apr 2021, American firm Oshkosh Defense said that it had been selected by the National Advanced Mobility Consortium (NAMC) – along with its partner ST Engineering – to participate in the prototype phase for the US Army’s Cold Weather All-Terrain Vehicle (CATV).

The Oshkosh CATV, which is yet to be built for the NAMC through a Request for Prototype Project (RPP), is derived from the 16.5 ton Bronco 3, which is “a member of the proven, highly effective, and reliable Bronco family of vehicles by ST Engineering”, said Wisconsin-based Oshkosh.

Pat Williams, vice president and general manager of US Army and US Marine Corps programmes at Oshkosh said:

​

“We are confident that the Oshkosh CATV will enable soldiers to efficiently move personnel and supplies in the most extreme conditions, and we look forward to getting them into the hands of the end user for testing and evaluation.”​

I will be very surprised if Bronco 3, powered by the compact MTU 6R 106 (providing 325 hp at 2200 rpm) engine does not win the RPP, as a lot of the risk reduction was done at ST Engineering’s own dime to retain its swim capability and concurrent high protection levels when trials were first conducted in 2012-2013 — where it has undergone more than 1,860 miles of performance testing in arctic conditions as well as covered over 200,000 miles in Afghanistan.

Defense News reported that two vendors in the competitive prototyping effort was selected: the team from Oshkosh Defense and ST Engineering versus BAE Systems, which will offer its BVS-10 Beowulf. It also reported that extreme cold-weather testing and evaluation is set to take place in Alaska at the Cold Regions Test Center from Aug to Dec 2021. Oshkosh said the prototypes will be evaluated on payload, mobility, crush resistance, swimming, and transportability. The US Army plans to buy around 110 in the 1st order in FY2022 and acquire an initial fleet of 163 vehicles; whose numbers can grow to over 200, if the US Marines also decide to acquire CATVs.

I find it rather odd that Oshkosh/ST Engineering is offering the armored Bronco 3 while BAE is offering the unarmored Beowulf
IIRC the US Army RFP did not specify small arms protection or Beowulf wouldn't even be considered. And I believe I remember a requirement to be lifted by CH-47. Bronco 3 would need to be separated & be transported as two loads. That has to be seen as a serious drawback.

 

[OPSSG]

I find it rather odd that Oshkosh/ST Engineering is offering the armored Bronco 3 while BAE is offering the unarmored Beowulf

ST Engineering does sell an unarmored version — but that will not be offered as a prototype for CATV testing.

The Oshkosh CATV (which is yet to be built), is derived or based on (but NOT the same as Bronco 3); which leads me to suspect they will try to shed some weight but retain the same external mold-lines.

But I acknowledge that there will be a weight difference between the offerings, which may be a factor. Oshkosh Defense and ST Engineering will deliver two prototypes – one General Purpose and one Cargo vehicle for testing and Soldier evaluation in Q3FY21. The prototypes will be evaluated on payload, mobility, crush resistance, swimming, and transportability.

Up-armouring will be on customer demand.

 

[CheeZe]

From the front page of the forum: BAE Chosen to Provide Beowulf Prototypes for US Army's CATV Program | DefenceTalk

Does this mean that the Oshkosh CATV has been rejected?

 

[Lone Ranger]

Does this mean that the Oshkosh CATV has been rejected?

I noted the article was provided by BAE, hence it is more of a marketing piece, announcing their involvement in this project. This project requires the selected companies to deliver two prototypes - one General Purpose and one Cargo vehicle for testing and soldier evaluation - by the end of this year, according to a press release from Oshkosh. Hence we can safely say that the test has not been conducted and not likely there is any announcement of winner for this project.

 

[BskrCrew]

Can't help but join in the discussion about the Bronco 3. Am a newbie still so I'm still learning the ropes. Been interested in the Bronco 3 for a while now.

As we know, the Bronco is a multitool, capable of being customised for the mission at hand. Battlefield machines often served multiple purposes, providing adaptability and cost efficiency across different theatres. Armoured carriers naturally have the innate ability to safely transport troops and supplies to the frontlines.

APCs, like the Bronco ATTC, have often been modified as ammo resupply vehicles and mortar carriers. It seems to me that one of the overriding concerns for the development of these vehicles would be the safety of its crew – with the future of such systems very much defined by the ability for unmanned, autonomous missions.

This then begs the question: With the rise of autonomous technology on the battlefield, how much will its potential become a double-edged sword for both defence operations and rogue actors?

This does sound like a rather dystopian future first predicted by sci-fi movies, but it clearly does signal higher safety standards for troops. Do you see this tech as more of a boon or bane for the future of warfare?

Attached is a photo of modified Bronco ATTCs.

 

[BskrCrew]

Not exactly Singaporean in origin, but Singaporean in modification. What do you think of the L2SG (Singaporean variant of the L2A4 MBT)? Could it stand a chance against other MBTs in a wartime scenario?