Aircraft Vs Thread 3

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Su-30Mk2V with much zoom:

The finishing on that bird does look 'coarser' then the latest US aircraft.

[Noyhauser]

Yikes, they must really want the Typhoons. I'm getting a bit confused though, it seems like there is a political faction within UK that wants to see this deal fall through. But heck, BAe is a british company. I wonder if those politicians have some axe to grind somewhere. Most people would think that BAe maintianing the contract would be a good thing for the Brits.

Oh well.

this might explain this to you. Not that the US doesn't have scruples about exporting to authoritarian countries, just that Britain has a very strong tradition of a peace movement and the labour used to practice what was called an "ethical foreign policy"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,3949940-103516,00.html

[David Hingtgen]

Fit and finish is a lot better than an F-14.

Which brings me to my next point---looks like we may finally have a good/accurate 1/72 diecast Tomcat. Look at this one:

http://www.flyingmule.com/products/CW-586420

Yes, it's expensive, but I'd rather have 1 really good one, than a bunch of "A's with D cockpits and B nozzles". There is also a "catapult lauinch" variant of that one, kneeling with flaps and slats down: http://www.flyingmule.com/products/CW-586437

Would like other people to look/evaluate in case I missed something, but it seems correct for that block/year so far. Of course, those are sample pics, not the final product---Dragon's VF-111 F-14 went from an A to a D from sample to final.

Also, someone is finally getting around to the most obvious F-16--the Thunderbirds: http://www.flyingmule.com/products/WT-WTW72010-13 I'll need plenty of pics before I buy one though, I won't buy it unless it's got a small intake. (I don't have any Witty F-16's, so I don't know if they have both types, or only big, etc---Dragon has both types, but seems to think all F-16C's have the big one)

[Apollo Leader]

Where did it say they saved it from an onboard fire before they landed? Sounds to me like they CAUSED the onboard fire with that landing.

I kind of speed read through that so I got some of the chronology mixed up. Anyway, the crew on that Bone really screwed up...

[kalvasflam]

this might explain this to you. Not that the US doesn't have scruples about exporting to authoritarian countries, just that Britain has a very strong tradition of a peace movement and the labour used to practice what was called an "ethical foreign policy"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,3949940-103516,00.html

Ah I see... "ethical foreign policy" hmmmm, ok. Well, as long as they know that they'll still get the Typhoon order at the end of the day, the rest is not that relevant.

Edited December 19, 2006 by kalvasflam

[David Hingtgen]

Latest news: Australia wants 2 dozen F-model Super Hornets to cover for JSF delays, USN wants 200 for the same reason.

Read on another forum Australia really should have gone for some Strike Eagles---great F-111 replacement, and would have filled the gap nicely.

[kalvasflam]

Latest news: Australia wants 2 dozen F-model Super Hornets to cover for JSF delays, USN wants 200 for the same reason.

Read on another forum Australia really should have gone for some Strike Eagles---great F-111 replacement, and would have filled the gap nicely.

The Australian thing is interesting, they need the strike capability, at the same time, they're after monitoring capability, namely maritime surveillance. I've read that they've been looking at UAVs and possibly in conjunction with the P-3 replacement (based on a Boeing 737 frame). I guess they do have a lot of grounds to cover. It's going to really stretch their defense budgets.

Do they have more coastline to cover than the US? I can imagine that one thing UAVs will enable is complete ariel coverage at some point on the borders. I believe Homeland supposedly has a predator on the Meixcan border somewhere doing surveillance.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Latest news: Australia wants 2 dozen F-model Super Hornets to cover for JSF delays, USN wants 200 for the same reason.

Read on another forum Australia really should have gone for some Strike Eagles---great F-111 replacement, and would have filled the gap nicely.

Guess thats why Singapore went for the F-15. The Hornet wasn't even in the running.

Since Australia doesn't have carriers, would their Shornets be carrying unecessary weight meant for carrier ops?

BTW, beside from presumably 'more-stealth', would the Shornet have any other performance advantage over the F-15E/K/T? I suppose easier maintenance?

[David Hingtgen]

Re: extra weight--yup. Every non-US Hornet is carrying unnecessary weight around. But it does lead to added strength, so the airframes last a lot longer than they do in carrier service. Recently, the US Navy has actually been pulling F-18C's out of frontline service and giving them to the reserves, and taking the reserves' F-18A's and upgrading them to the F-18A+, and re-equipping that way. Why? Due to such heavy use in Afghanistan and Iraq, a lot of F-18C's are starting to "run out of traps"----carrier planes are life-limited by number of carrier landings, not hours. The reserves' Hornet have "lead easy lives" comparatively--so while they may have more hours on the airframes, they have far fewer carrier landings. And the reserves get the F-18C's which don't have many carrier landings left, but have plenty of hours to use up.

An F-18A+ has electronics as good as a late F-18C (which makes it better than any early/mid F-18C), weighs less, and has the late F-18C engines. It's now the best Legacy Hornet out there. Much like the F-16C, the main reason for the new model being physically different never materialized, so with some avionics/engine tweaks, you can make the old ones just as capable as newer ones.

I'd guess Australia would want Super Hornets mainly for compatability (what there is) with their Legacy Hornets.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

I can understand the weight penalty of the stronger airframes etc. But do they at least remove stuff like the arrestor hook?

BTW, how many carrier landings are these planes rated for?

[David Hingtgen]

All jets have arrestor hooks, no point in redesigning and attaching a weaker one just to replace the carrier-rated one. There's a slight change in the mounting system on non-US ones though. Australian ones originally didn't have a launch bar on the nose, but since the nosegear was designed to operate with one attached, serious vibrations resulted due to the changed natural frequency of the nosegear so they had to go design a non-functional one and add it back on!

Number of landings? I think about 1,000. Hooks are designed for 100 landings. That's the basic number for most modern Navy jets AFAIK.

[Nied]

Guess thats why Singapore went for the F-15. The Hornet wasn't even in the running.

Since Australia doesn't have carriers, would their Shornets be carrying unecessary weight meant for carrier ops?

BTW, beside from presumably 'more-stealth', would the Shornet have any other performance advantage over the F-15E/K/T? I suppose easier maintenance?

The RAAF mainly uses thier Aardvarks in a maritime strike and recon role. The F/A-18F was designed to do that from the begining, while only the newer (and more expensive) Strike Eagle versions have clearance to carry the Harpoon. The F-15K/SG/FX might have slightly better range and more payload options, but the Aussies aren't really going to use those. At roughly $40 million a pop cheaper, the Rhino is a better deal, and it lets them buddy tank their Baby Hornets to boot.

[joseph]

The last week, the Russia Air Force received two new Su-27ib/Su-34 of series production, these are the first absolutely new fighter-bomber that the aviation of Russia comes receiving from 1992.

Edited December 21, 2006 by joseph

[drifand]

From wiki:

The Su-34's most distinctive feature is the unusually large flight deck, which not only provides side-by-side seating, but includes space for a galley, a latrine, and a bunkbed. It was joked that "It's got a bigger cockpit than the Tu-160". Much of the design work went into crew comfort, which resulted in novel features such as pressurization provided by the air conditioning system, rather than with oxygen masks and a massage function in the K-36 ejector seats.

Niiiiiiiiice. :-)

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

So, SIA is buying 9 more A380s? First good news for Airbus for months.

edit: Seems like its not 9 more. Just final confirmation on 9.

Edited December 21, 2006 by Retracting Head Ter Ter

[Noyhauser]

Ah I see... "ethical foreign policy" hmmmm, ok. Well, as long as they know that they'll still get the Typhoon order at the end of the day, the rest is not that relevant.

thing is though, it is. google up the Hawk and look at its sales history. Its been marred by repeated problems in the UK where opposition parties and the Labour Back Benchers fight a possible sale.

I believe one was successfully scuttled. Its not something you can explain away ... its an important part of its political culture. Look at germany. Its been begging to sell off its Leo-2s but it can't because of its constitution. There would literally be thousands of buyer across the middle east for the tank but they are prohibited from doing so.

The only saving grace in the Typhoon's case was that the probe was about a series of deals that started in the late 1980s... far before the typhoon itself, and that KSA was going to place some pretty serious sanctions on Britian if it didn't.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Look at germany. Its been begging to sell off its Leo-2s but it can't because of its constitution. There would literally be thousands of buyer across the middle east for the tank but they are prohibited from doing so.

Didnt Singapore just buy a bunch of Leopard2s?

[Lynx7725]

Didnt Singapore just buy a bunch of Leopard2s?

Refurbished Leopard 2A4s, 66 of them with 30 more as parts IIRC. I think it's more a case of "what else can we buy?" rather than "what do we want to buy?"...

Edited December 22, 2006 by Lynx7725

[kalvasflam]

Didnt Singapore just buy a bunch of Leopard2s?

Hmmm, call me dumb, but why does Singapore need tanks?

[Lynx7725]

Hmmm, call me dumb, but why does Singapore need tanks?

Try fighting enemy tanks without tanks of your own? As good as infantry AT weaponry has became (even with the benefit of urban terrain), MBTs are still best engaged with MBTs, IMO.

[kalvasflam]

Try fighting enemy tanks without tanks of your own? As good as infantry AT weaponry has became (even with the benefit of urban terrain), MBTs are still best engaged with MBTs, IMO.

No... think in terms of geography and terrain.

Every military is primarily bound by their mission and the piece of land they occupy. Example: US army is horrible at garrison duty. On the other hand, tell them to blitz someone, and well... see Iraq I and II.

In the case of Singapore, I would have thought the better investment being in highly mobile infantry units and a lot of maritime capabilities.

[Lynx7725]

No... think in terms of geography and terrain.

Every military is primarily bound by their mission and the piece of land they occupy. Example: US army is horrible at garrison duty. On the other hand, tell them to blitz someone, and well... see Iraq I and II.

In the case of Singapore, I would have thought the better investment being in highly mobile infantry units and a lot of maritime capabilities.

I live in SG. Heck, I served in the army under the conscription, though not in a combat arm (logistics).

We're 42KM wide and 21KM deep. That's distances easily reached on foot in, at most, 2 days of marching. There is little of such thing such as rolling hills or forests. Those are either in army training grounds, or have been bulldozed and replaced. We do have rainforests though, but mechanization suck there. We got a decent amount of mechanized infantry and heliborne infantry, but truth to be told, if we are really only interested in defense, there isn't much great need for it; the area's highly urbanized, with the few rural areas either being on islands offshore or relatively small and flat, and better served with basic foot infantry. We generally have enough truck mobility that we can move sufficient of our active infantry at any time; the reserves walk if they have to.

Maritime capabilities we have. Our navy is quite good (at least in terms of hardware), though I'm not really an expert in the area.

The crux of the issue here is this. Our previous tanks, the SM-1, is a local derivative of the AMX-13 (IIRC). These are nearly 40 years old, and are really obsolete, especially with the neighbours buying Soviet Bloc hardware. The problem here is that there are very few MBT types nowadays -- the market is dominated by M1s (overkill), Challengers (overkill and not sure how the production would be like), Leopard 2 (overkill, but at least it's cheap), and Soviet Bloc tanks (which creates logistical problems because of our ties with Western nations). There are few other choices available, including light vehicles mounting heavy weaponry, but most of them are built for hit-and-run engagements which is difficult to pull off in our urban canyons.

And talking about urban canyons.. if an enemy ever gets into our residential or our commercial districts, woah, defensive tanks rule there; the sight lines there are arrow straight and funnels movement into predictable lines. From a purely defensive point of view, a tank unit with infantry support would be very hard to dig out from the area.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Singapore needs tanks because the geography of our nation (yeah I was a conscript too) doesn't allow us any strategic (heck even tactical) depth in defence.

So the doctrine is to strike first, fast and hard into the other guy's land and secure a buffer zone the moment conflict looms. By the time the other guy is in our residential/commerical urban areas, its already GAME OVER.

To strike into the other guy's land, tanks are good to have. Along with AH-64s. And the F-15T/SG.

p.s. As a side note, the British Empire thought that tanks would be useless in the tropical terrain. Then Yamashita brought a bunch with him.

Edited December 22, 2006 by Retracting Head Ter Ter

[Noyhauser]

Didnt Singapore just buy a bunch of Leopard2s?

ITs not an undemocratic state (though its not exactly a shining tower of democracy either), however it is stable and has a fairly happy populace. It doesn't change the fact that German Export controls are among the most stringent in the world, and the sale of Leopards have engendered controversy before, particularly with the sale to the middle east.

[Noyhauser]

No... think in terms of geography and terrain.

Every military is primarily bound by their mission and the piece of land they occupy. Example: US army is horrible at garrison duty. On the other hand, tell them to blitz someone, and well... see Iraq I and II.

In the case of Singapore, I would have thought the better investment being in highly mobile infantry units and a lot of maritime capabilities.

But thats changing though. I'll say this now that due to Iraq and Afghanistan, the US probably has some of the best counter-insurgency minds in the world. Reading the new Counterinsurgency field manual and the latest edition of the Military Review you can see how quickly the US has made this transition. Thomas Ricks' book Fiasco details this quite well. The learning curve has been steep but it is happening.

As for Tanks, you need them. Canada just sent its Leopard 1s into Afghanistan, for a counter-insurgency campaign. Normally I'd be hesitant to agree with such a move, but here I agree, purely on the military merits of it. Why? Because airpower, ATGMs, and 20mm rounds from the LAV doesn't cut it... you can't do without tanks on the modern battlefield. Direct fire support from a 120 or 105 is a extremely valuable tool, especially when facing an entrenched enemy sitting in a strongpoint. Its a target that is largely invulnerable to 20mm rounds. MBT's cannons are far more accurate, can sustain fire direct for quite some time, does less collateral damage, and it gives a company (COY) commander a direct fire ability he can count on... Airpower even in the US case isn't reliable... a fighter may come in anywhere from 5 to 45 minutes, and it gives you two 2000lbs shots... its not really timely or proportional to what you need, which is to take out the strong point. That would be extremely true for somewhere like Singapore, where the need for such an ability within a built up environment would be useful. ATGMS are just insanely expensive compared to tanks as well.

I used to be a huge proponent of Ground Aided Precision Strike (GAPS) as a new doctrine. Now I think its useful to give a Coy commander the ability to do some devastating damage, but its far from being the universal tool that everybody initially made it out to be. Tanks play an extremely useful role on the battlefield, one that I believe has not diminished in the past decade and a half.

Edited December 22, 2006 by Noyhauser

[kalvasflam]

But thats changing though. I'll say this now that due to Iraq and Afghanistan, the US probably has some of the best counter-insurgency minds in the world. Reading the new Counterinsurgency field manual and the latest edition of the Military Review you can see how quickly the US has made this transition. Thomas Ricks' book Fiasco details this quite well. The learning curve has been steep but it is happening.

As for Tanks, you need them. Canada just sent its Leopard 1s into Afghanistan, for a counter-insurgency campaign. Normally I'd be hesitant to agree with such a move, but here I agree, purely on the military merits of it. Why? Because airpower, ATGMs, and 20mm rounds from the LAV doesn't cut it... you can't do without tanks on the modern battlefield. Direct fire support from a 120 or 105 is a extremely valuable tool, especially when facing an entrenched enemy sitting in a strongpoint. Its a target that is largely invulnerable to 20mm rounds. MBT's cannons are far more accurate, can sustain fire direct for quite some time, does less collateral damage, and it gives a company (COY) commander a direct fire ability he can count on... Airpower even in the US case isn't reliable... a fighter may come in anywhere from 5 to 45 minutes, and it gives you two 2000lbs shots... its not really timely or proportional to what you need, which is to take out the strong point. That would be extremely true for somewhere like Singapore, where the need for such an ability within a built up environment would be useful. ATGMS are just insanely expensive compared to tanks as well.

I used to be a huge proponent of Ground Aided Precision Strike (GAPS) as a new doctrine. Now I think its useful to give a Coy commander the ability to do some devastating damage, but its far from being the universal tool that everybody initially made it out to be. Tanks play an extremely useful role on the battlefield, one that I believe has not diminished in the past decade and a half.

Good points, but not all of them apply that well to Singapore. Singapore isn't in the business of shipping off battlions into foreign lands. The local geography is not well suited for tanks at all. The best points about the tank is its mobility and its firepower. While the latter is still useful in any situation, the mobility becomes quite restricted given Singapore's geography. That usefulness is dimished by the urban setting, tanks are best used in open country, places like Iraq are perfect for the most part. Or if the mission is a gun run where your objective is to wipe out everything along the city streets, that works too. (I'm thinking of the thunder runs in Baghdad)

I think better solutions might be found in AFVs like a M2, or something else that can be used more easily in the mostly urban environment. Giving the ability to transport infantry quickly and maintain support over time. The main cannon of the tank is somewhat replaced by the chain gun and ATGM on an equivalent like the M2. Once you have strong points like that, odds are you need infantry to dig them out, tanks can be useful in a supporting role, but AFVs are probably even better in terms of providing good infantry protection and mobility.

Singapore's best defense though I think is keeping everyone out of the country in the first place, which means good maritime survelliance and air strike capabilities. Tanks are somewhat secondary to that mission. Overall, the land based missions for Singapore armies should be more along the lines of quelling local insurgents, and tanks aren't the best tool for that.

Edited December 22, 2006 by kalvasflam

[Coota0]

To strike into the other guy's land, tanks are good to have. Along with AH-64s. And the F-15T/SG.

Ya'll using A models or have you upgraded to D's?

[Lynx7725]

Ya'll using A models or have you upgraded to D's?

Longbows IIRC. Aren't those D models?

Oh, we got a locally built/ modified APC with a 25mm Bushmaster IIRC. It doesn't look like much, but for what you are thinking, mobility is more important than armour. So we got that aspect covered.. I think.

At any rate, there's really only 66 Leopard 2s; that is roughly only a over-strength battalion's worth of tanks. It's not really a lot of military might. If we are talking about 200+ Leopards, then yeah, it doesn't make sense. A single battalion of heavy armour though, isn't that astonishing, and IMO, it's great for covering a few well-known choke points that have clear line of sights.

I'll contest the geography though. The natural geography isn't that good -- a lot of swampy land and hilly terrain -- but we've since rebuilt most of those and covered it with asphalt and concrete. While it's true tanks don't function well in urban settings, the mobility afforded by an excellent road system coupled with local knowledge makes a MBT unit quite an interesting thought. Who knows how effective they would be..

[Noyhauser]

Good points, but not all of them apply that well to Singapore. Singapore isn't in the business of shipping off battlions into foreign lands. The local geography is not well suited for tanks at all. The best points about the tank is its mobility and its firepower. While the latter is still useful in any situation, the mobility becomes quite restricted given Singapore's geography. That usefulness is dimished by the urban setting, tanks are best used in open country, places like Iraq are perfect for the most part. Or if the mission is a gun run where your objective is to wipe out everything along the city streets, that works too. (I'm thinking of the thunder runs in Baghdad)

I think better solutions might be found in AFVs like a M2, or something else that can be used more easily in the mostly urban environment. Giving the ability to transport infantry quickly and maintain support over time. The main cannon of the tank is somewhat replaced by the chain gun and ATGM on an equivalent like the M2. Once you have strong points like that, odds are you need infantry to dig them out, tanks can be useful in a supporting role, but AFVs are probably even better in terms of providing good infantry protection and mobility.

Singapore's best defense though I think is keeping everyone out of the country in the first place, which means good maritime survelliance and air strike capabilities. Tanks are somewhat secondary to that mission. Overall, the land based missions for Singapore armies should be more along the lines of quelling local insurgents, and tanks aren't the best tool for that.

No thats all just plain wrong. My comments specifically refer to being IN an urban environment or a built up area. Guided missiles on an M-2/3 are not the be all and end all. They are expensive, have limited in its ammunition, and even not that effective in built up terrain. You get maybe 8 Tow missiles (or whatever number). Do you think you might waste it against 3 guys hiding out behind a second floor window, because your bushmaster ain't going to cut it? Would you use an ATGM to breach a wall you need down now? If you have a tank with dozens of cheap rounds, you don't give any of it a second thought. ATGMs are not that effective against hardened positions either or have the same flexibility as a tank with different ammunition types.

For most of our operations in Afghanistam Canada only AFVs, operating almost exclusively urban or semi urban with plenty of walls and buildings and they worked well... just that they lacked the punch needed in all cases. Their 20mms were useless, ATGMs too expensive and not effective, and airstrikes were unreliable and often overkill. the Leopard C-1s gave us that direct fire capability to more effectively conduct urban operations. Without it, Coy commanders were faced with a choice of sending infantry to take a hardend urban position without fire support or be forced to wait for it. The former was quite a scary proposition, especially when they were forced to do it over and over again in the terrain, and the latter would give the enemy a chance to flee. It would be no different in any other Urban/semi-urban combat setting.

I'm not saying that Tanks are the be all and end all, or that they replace AFVs. I think combat operation after combat operation has shown that tanks do have a very useful role at very least as a direct fire support vehicle as part of a balanced unit.

Edited December 22, 2006 by Noyhauser

[Coota0]

Longbows IIRC. Aren't those D models?

Yup they're the D.

While an overstrength Battalion may not be much fire power, it's still a lot, especially when being reinforced by Apaches, Infantry Anti-Tank Teams, and I'm guessing some sort or IFV, not to mention the Singapore AF. Besdies, no offense intended, Singapore most likley only needs to withstand the first assault until its allies can get their units in gear and deployed to Singapore's defense.

[Lynx7725]

Besdies, no offense intended, Singapore most likley only needs to withstand the first assault until its allies can get their units in gear and deployed to Singapore's defense.

None taken. We can read a map like everyone else.

All that hardware and deathware and training, are really to bleed any invaders white and to buy time. The real defense of Singapore lies in the political arena.

Anyway, to get back to the thread. RSAF is buying F-15s; I've always wondered why. The F-15 isn't exactly cutting edge and might in fact suffer from a technological gap from the more recent European offerings. I'm sure the logistics of supporting an F-15 arm is a consideration, but how does the F-15 stack up against its competitors?

[Nied]

None taken. We can read a map like everyone else.

All that hardware and deathware and training, are really to bleed any invaders white and to buy time. The real defense of Singapore lies in the political arena.

Anyway, to get back to the thread. RSAF is buying F-15s; I've always wondered why. The F-15 isn't exactly cutting edge and might in fact suffer from a technological gap from the more recent European offerings. I'm sure the logistics of supporting an F-15 arm is a consideration, but how does the F-15 stack up against its competitors?

IIRC Singapore went with the F-15E over some of the other eurocanards because it's cheaper, and it can do what the RSAF wants right now. The Eurocanards (Rafale and Typhoon) could only promise that their offerings would have the capabilities that the RSAF wanted by the time they got the planes (I believe neither plane has AG capability in service at the moment). Given the delays that have plagued both the Typhoon and Rafale it appears Singapore went for a less capable sure thing rather than gamble on more capability that might or might not appear.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Good points, but not all of them apply that well to Singapore. Singapore isn't in the business of shipping off battlions into foreign lands. The local geography is not well suited for tanks at all. The best points about the tank is its mobility and its firepower.

Singapore's best defense though I think is keeping everyone out of the country in the first place, which means good maritime survelliance and air strike capabilities. Tanks are somewhat secondary to that mission. Overall, the land based missions for Singapore armies should be more along the lines of quelling local insurgents, and tanks aren't the best tool for that.

This require some understanding of our local and regional political situation. Look at the map of South East Asia.

The Australians are not going to attack us. The Chinese or the Indians are not going to attack us. Thailand is also not likely to attack us. And countries further away like Ukraine/South Africa etc is of course not in the picture.

That leaves only certain states, uhm, where the majority of the population are of a certain, uhm, faith.

That bigger one with lots of population has effectively ZILCH long distance (as in from there to singapore) strike capability. No meaningful maritime assault or amphibeous forces, weak air force with most planes down. Its F-16As are grounded by spare parts shortage. The soon to be 6 Flankers will be overwhelmed by several tens of F-16C/Ds backed by F-5 interceptors and soon the Strike Eagle.

So that leaves the one which does not need naval/air assets to strike hard into our land. And as already mentioned, the small land mass doesn't give us space to defend. We need to STRIKE first and create a buffer zone. Tanks are needed in such a land based assault scenario.

p.s. And as Coota0 said, if it gets any bigger scale, we have to hold until the Cavalry *cough*pacific*cough*fle...*cough arrives.

Edited December 23, 2006 by Retracting Head Ter Ter

[joseph]

The 2007 bring new helicopter Mi-38:

For 2009 Eurocopter and Corporation Industry Aviation Harbin developed the Z-15 / EC-175

[kalvasflam]

No thats all just plain wrong. My comments specifically refer to being IN an urban environment or a built up area. Guided missiles on an M-2/3 are not the be all and end all. They are expensive, have limited in its ammunition, and even not that effective in built up terrain. You get maybe 8 Tow missiles (or whatever number). Do you think you might waste it against 3 guys hiding out behind a second floor window, because your bushmaster ain't going to cut it? Would you use an ATGM to breach a wall you need down now? If you have a tank with dozens of cheap rounds, you don't give any of it a second thought. ATGMs are not that effective against hardened positions either or have the same flexibility as a tank with different ammunition types.

For most of our operations in Afghanistam Canada only AFVs, operating almost exclusively urban or semi urban with plenty of walls and buildings and they worked well... just that they lacked the punch needed in all cases. Their 20mms were useless, ATGMs too expensive and not effective, and airstrikes were unreliable and often overkill. the Leopard C-1s gave us that direct fire capability to more effectively conduct urban operations. Without it, Coy commanders were faced with a choice of sending infantry to take a hardend urban position without fire support or be forced to wait for it. The former was quite a scary proposition, especially when they were forced to do it over and over again in the terrain, and the latter would give the enemy a chance to flee. It would be no different in any other Urban/semi-urban combat setting.

I'm not saying that Tanks are the be all and end all, or that they replace AFVs. I think combat operation after combat operation has shown that tanks do have a very useful role at very least as a direct fire support vehicle as part of a balanced unit.

Ok, somehow, I think you managed to move my argument from Singapore to armies in general. That's plain wrong. I started off with the comment that it makes very little sense for Singapore with its geography to have tanks. I stand by that statement. In theory, if the defense budget of Singapore was indeed infinite, then tanks make sense, after you buy a bunch of other stuff up to and including AFVs. So, the first argument is its a matter of how you use your money. Unless Singapore intends to launch offensive operations, tanks don't make as much sense in their overall defense budget requirements. In that case, you'd go with maritime assets first. Read, the argument here is not about suitability of MBT in urban environment, it's about the need given other requirements.

Now, for the second argument. Tanks (espcially Main Battle Tanks like the leopards) have a very specific mission in mind. They are used to run things over. They are designed to operate in non-urban environment. Note, this is very different from saying that tanks are not useful in urban environment. They can provide a lot of good fire support. However, in an urban environment, if you're fighting house to house, a MBT is not as much an asset because

a) it can't easily maneuver in an urban environment.

b) it doesn't carry its own infantry to work in house to house situations.

c) if you pull infantry along, they'll be exposed outside of the tank armor. Unlike AFVs/

I understand your point about having a large gun, but the solution is not a MBT. A better solution might be a Stryker with a mobile gun system, I think those are operational. Those will provide the firepower you need to get the job done, but are probably nimble enough to fight in an urban environment.

Ok, onto the next customer....

Retracting Head Ter Ter

"That leaves only certain states, uhm, where the majority of the population are of a certain, uhm, faith.

That bigger one with lots of population has effectively ZILCH long distance (as in from there to singapore) strike capability. No meaningful maritime assault or amphibeous forces, weak air force with most planes down. Its F-16As are grounded by spare parts shortage. The soon to be 6 Flankers will be overwhelmed by several tens of F-16C/Ds backed by F-5 interceptors and soon the Strike Eagle.

So that leaves the one which does not need naval/air assets to strike hard into our land. And as already mentioned, the small land mass doesn't give us space to defend. We need to STRIKE first and create a buffer zone. Tanks are needed in such a land based assault scenario.

p.s. And as Coota0 said, if it gets any bigger scale, we have to hold until the Cavalry *cough*pacific*cough*fle...*cough arrives."

Yep, the geography dictates who your enemies are. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, to get to the main island, the neighbors would have to somehow transport enough troops over water to be a big threat right? The worst case scenario is a bunch of psychos in small craft all trying to make it across at once. There what is needed is not MBT, cause if these suckers make it ashore, Singapore is in big trouble. What is needed instead is martime assets to blow the suckers out of the water before they land. In this case, those assets would be attack choppers armed with rocket pods and ATGMs, (really good against small craft), back up with a survelliance set up, probably UAVs if possible, and the -16s can be equipped with Penguines to take out larger vessels.

Singapore's best first strike capabilities are aerial. It has range and capability. If they run a land base scenario, it's going to be a nightmare. Singapore tanks (if my understanding of geography is correct) has to be transported over water, then if they land somewhere, they'd have to have a logistical tail to support them. All of which are going to be extremely vulnerable. And what targets can the tanks reach that the -15s and -16s can't? Now, the tanks might be able to do more damage, but they would be hugely exposed all the way through.

Apologies for the detour into non aircraft related territory here. But it's an interesting discussion.

Edited December 25, 2006 by kalvasflam