@CheeZe , based on the
timeline released by Mindef, the next Army project to be unveiled is likely to be either Next Generation Howitzer or Next Generation Infantry Battalion.
For the MBT, beside considering the technical perspective, there are also opportunity/market perspective (@OPSSG covered extensively), procurement perspective (cost effectiveness) and operation/strategic perspective.
IMO, Hunter, given its drive-by-wire design, fully digitized platform with open architecture allowing new capability to be added with ease, is more sophisticated than the original Leo2A4 that the SAF has acquired. S
hould there be a long term requirement for MBT; Singapore is likely and able to come up with one that is decent, given the level of industry collaboration that Singapore Defence Tech Community can muster. Hence the challenge is more on establishing the needs and requirement of the SAF, ie
is there a real need for MBT or is MBT the Armour's future?
Let assume there is a requirement or need, the next consideration will be which is the most cost effective options available to the SAF? Commercial-of-the-Shelf (new/upgrade) or in-house development? Taking the Leo2A4 “fire sale” from Germany as an example, my take is, it provides the SAF with a low cost opportunity to bring up Armour’s capability and maintain its deterrence posture while buying time for the SAF to develop the Armour Next Generation - one that can take advantage of the digital space.
Now let takes a look at the trend for AFV in general. By comparing the new MBT model vs new IFV model in the Western world, we can have a rough picture, ie there is no new MBT introduced since the 90s (other than Russian’s) but for IFV, there are CV90, ASCOD, Puma, Ajax, Lynx, and not to mention the 8x8s. This tells us Armour doctrine is changing and IFVs are likely the main stay, why put resources in area whereby everyone (if not most) are cutting back. Just my 2 cents.
Lastly, Singapore Armour is basically an IFV heavy formation, not tank or MBT heavy. This can also be noted from one of the
Hunter’s introduction video, Chief Armour Officer said, "the Hunter AFV, the centerpiece of our Army Next Generation transformation…..", i.e. to say Hunter, not a MBT or Leo2SG, will form the main thrust of the Army.
However, should there be extra resources and a need for big calibre gun to provide low cost demolition capability, instead of MBT, I would like the SAF to look into Fire Support Vehicle that share the same weight class as Hunter. Having 2 difference weight-classes in a manoeuvre formation is not ideal; especially if the support group is heavier than the main body.
My 2 cents.