Volvobrick Supersonic February 7, 2015 Share February 7, 2015 Can we protect against that with a big mirror? Reflect the laser straight back to the source and destroy it? ↡ Advertisement 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocus Turbocharged February 7, 2015 Share February 7, 2015 (edited) Jordan and a South African company have been mucking around with that concept for 10 years or so, retrofitting the Challenger 1 with an unmanned turret. It doesn't look like it is complete - it looks weird actually, unlike the Russian version, which looks the business: Posted this before in other thread but will share again. Designer tank, it's only how Apple would design a tank. Edited February 7, 2015 by Pocus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vega Turbocharged February 7, 2015 Share February 7, 2015 Can we protect against that with a big mirror? Reflect the laser straight back to the source and destroy it? can. Provided the mirror don't crack under the rough terrain. Ha.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocus Turbocharged February 7, 2015 Share February 7, 2015 (edited) Would you prefer 6.1kg S.Korean K11 or the SAR-21? K11 is a 5.56mm rifle combined with a semi-auto Grenade Launcher with 20mm grenades. The XL size scope is a ballistic computer for normal shooting and grenade launching with FLIR capabilities. Weight without Ammo 6.1kg, Weight with Ammo and grenades 8kg. The soldier looks "shack" carrying this shet. Edited February 7, 2015 by Pocus 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vega Turbocharged February 7, 2015 Share February 7, 2015 No kidding - you got a source for this? It would be surprising that they would think a second gun (ie. more rate of fire) is necessary. The trend has been towards increased survivability in low-intensity conflicts and unconventional weapons e.g. IEDs. This is the prototype of the leopard 3. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaiyotakamli Supersonic February 7, 2015 Share February 7, 2015 ST Marine's Endurance 160 class concept, helicopter landing tank. The closest thing we might ever have for an aircraft carrier. That's is if the RSN decided to acquire them. Its nice but singapore so small, sending heli from airbase equally effective from.these aircraft carrier. Unless we have big sea and also Have intention to be aggressive during war. Most likely we will be just in defend mode Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocus Turbocharged February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 (edited) This is the prototype of the leopard 3. Kinda reminds me of the Swedish turretless tank, the SV-103 Machiam like back to the WW2 Tank destroyer era. Edited February 8, 2015 by Pocus 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macrosszero Turbocharged February 8, 2015 Author Share February 8, 2015 I highly disagree. The cost of a vessel like this to buy and run is very high. The Peace operations though useful is actually a disguised show of force. It goes no way to ease neighbours' acceptance for sure in this dual use purpose. The spirit of asean and counting it as an asset against threats? how do you frame that? terrorists? China? Believe it in no way will our vessels have approval to operate in their territorial waters unless invited, and only in SAR. if Philippines and China want to slug it out, you can bet not one country will want to get some of the action unless they have something to gain. Given your line of thought, would you have disagreed with Singapore buying and operating AH-64D Apache "Attack" helicopters? Its pretty much understood that the size of Singapore dictates that her defence is likely to be a pre-emptive strike against an aggressor massing for an attack. Unlike Strike Eagles and Joint Strike Fighters which do not have a secondary search and rescue, coordination, communication, or facility provision function, such as the Endurance class of landing platform dock ships have been providing. During the Boxing Day tsunami, RSS Endurance was first into Aceh - sure, we were eager to help, and we also showed that we are always ready when the button is pressed. Though showing no aggression in taking other countries' land, displaying our ability to defend ourselves is a good reminder that we won't be pushovers to anyone. As to your question about threats - we all know it is multi-dimensional. The black-and-white, East-vs.-West clear-cut world of the Cold War has turned grey, the fight can be with organized military forces, or irregulars that require a different sort of weaponry. What is definitely required, however, is logistics to support whatever that mission may be. I'm no MINDEF or Navy strategist, but the logistical advantage of such a ship in bringing a complete array of equipment to wherever it is needed has to be valued highly. In peacetime operations I doubt anything more than a token air wing would be deployed, as rotary aircraft would be more useful. I'd like to think of it in terms of this phrase, "walk softly, but carry a big stick". It doesn't mean we start bullying our way around in the region, and would severely undermine our national image as a trading and economic hub. It just means we have the equipment to put up a good fight if anyone wants to mess with us. P.S: Thank you mods, for correcting the typo in the title! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macrosszero Turbocharged February 8, 2015 Author Share February 8, 2015 This is the prototype of the leopard 3. Thanks for that - if it weren't for you, I wouldn't have known this tank ever existed. I believe it was formally called the VT tank, and featured before twin 105mm rifled guns as well as twin 120mm smoothbore guns but they did not perform favourably compared to the Leopard 2. I assume the one major downfall is the casemate structure that restricted its arc of engagement. The problem with such tanks is that they have to turn the whole tank - and we know that movement is the one thing that our eyes can easily pick up, no matter how well camouflaged the tank may be. Speaking of which, any World of Tank fanatics here? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macrosszero Turbocharged February 8, 2015 Author Share February 8, 2015 While we're on the subject of armour, the reason why it seems like everyone and their uncle is now mounting the Leopard 2 in their order of battle, it has to do with the draw-down of tension in Europe in the past ten years, with several established Leopard operators liquidating their fleet. In particular the Netherlands Army sold over three hundred tanks, and only at the last minute decided to retain a handful. Similarly, the German Bundeswehr sold much of their 2A4 and some of their 2A5/6 inventory overseas, resulting in what has been called the Great German Tank Sale. The business model was pretty sound though - sell the tanks cheap, tack on a refurbishment contract, and continue to have a steady source of income maintaining and upgrading these tanks over the years. Kind of like buying cheap printers and paying shedloads for cartridges. I saw a chart once somewhere that showed unit prices for tanks ranging for $76,000 apiece (to Spain) to $5.9 million apiece (to Greece). The disparity is probably due to upgrading clauses or upgrades. What it does suggest, though, is that Leopard operators had better have the cash to keep the tanks in operation, or develop an indigenous ability to maintain and upgrade them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philipkee Twincharged February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 Are tanks still relevant in today's high tech , precision targeting warfare ? I think yes. It is foolish to think that the next wars will only be fought with nuclear exchange or precision strikes. Wars with defined front lines are still possible though it is unlikely ground wars on the scale of ww2, Korean war and Vietnam wars are likely. The next wars will probably be like operation Iraqi freedom where there is a combination of tanks, soldiers and precision strikes and irregular warfare. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ktglfc Hypersonic February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 Pardon my shallow thoughts... Shouldn't the next tech in warfare be centred on IT cyber? I mean, if the opp can infiltrate the entire IT network with Trojans and viruses, etc, this will be able to cripple the networks where almost of the weapons and armour relied on, surely yes right? If someone can make a mess of the GPS network, then all the missiles would not be able to fire correctly ... Ok lah... just my goondoo thinking Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckduck Turbocharged February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vega Turbocharged February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 Its nice but singapore so small, sending heli from airbase equally effective from.these aircraft carrier. Unless we have big sea and also Have intention to be aggressive during war. Most likely we will be just in defend mode best defend is to attack! esp for a force with small numbers. if not, need some kind of game changer weapons to deter. eg 1 F22 can take on 4 3rd gen fighters.....so they claimed. This is quite successful during WW2 for defend. Kinda reminds me of the Swedish turretless tank, the SV-103 Machiam like back to the WW2 Tank destroyer era. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckduck Turbocharged February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 next gen big weapon... electromagnetic railgun.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vega Turbocharged February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 Thanks for that - if it weren't for you, I wouldn't have known this tank ever existed. I believe it was formally called the VT tank, and featured before twin 105mm rifled guns as well as twin 120mm smoothbore guns but they did not perform favourably compared to the Leopard 2. I assume the one major downfall is the casemate structure that restricted its arc of engagement. The problem with such tanks is that they have to turn the whole tank - and we know that movement is the one thing that our eyes can easily pick up, no matter how well camouflaged the tank may be. Speaking of which, any World of Tank fanatics here? Ya. I don't think turretless tank will work. Germany most probably has squeeze out every drop from the Leo2 platform with A7. Need a Leo3 to stay relevant to compete with the Russian. Talk about VT tank, this is China export version of their VT-4. Take the M1 chassis and the leo turret.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philipkee Twincharged February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 (edited) best defend is to attack! esp for a force with small numbers. if not, need some kind of game changer weapons to deter. eg 1 F22 can take on 4 3rd gen fighters.....so they claimed. This is quite successful during WW2 for defend. http://ourstory.asia1.com.sg/war/headline/church.html Attacking is the best form of defence. We all know that. Even during , ww2. But the thing lacking is, resources. Do you think this is happening today? Military wise and otherwise? We all know what mist be done but we lack resources. Those who served ns before, I ask this. We have the biggest budget. But do we really have enoughr resources? Edited February 8, 2015 by Philipkee 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vega Turbocharged February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 Pardon my shallow thoughts... Shouldn't the next tech in warfare be centred on IT cyber? I mean, if the opp can infiltrate the entire IT network with Trojans and viruses, etc, this will be able to cripple the networks where almost of the weapons and armour relied on, surely yes right? If someone can make a mess of the GPS network, then all the missiles would not be able to fire correctly ... Ok lah... just my goondoo thinking you are right mate. beside cyber war to bring down each other's networks, there will be space war as well....to take down each other's satellites. US is developing a Mach10 missile to strike any part of the world within 1 hour or space satellites. even you can track it, there is no weapon that is fast enough to shoot it down. Russia is developing satellites that has robotic arms that can "grab" another satellite. ↡ Advertisement 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Related Discussions
Related Discussions
Military Talk Thread Part 2
Military Talk Thread Part 2
SAF Day Promotions
SAF Day Promotions
Military things
Military things
SAF eyeing F35 fighter jets & new submarines
SAF eyeing F35 fighter jets & new submarines
NS55
NS55
Aircraft Carrier in SG
Aircraft Carrier in SG
China's Military Has An Achilles' Heel : Low Troop Morale
China's Military Has An Achilles' Heel : Low Troop Morale