There's so much light tank discussion in many threads that maybe its good to give this topic a home?

To start the ball rolling ( again ) and provide some basis for discussion

Specifications -
Loaded Weight < 28 Tons ( taking reference from Primus, including MEXAS armour )
Width < 3 metres
Length < 6 metres
Height < 2.5 metres
Crew - 3
Gun - 105/120 mm, autoloading

All of these are gleaned from the many discussions, existing SAF hardware :P


Procurement approach -

1. Off the shelf design
2. procured gun/turret mated to procured chassis
3. procured gun/turret and indigenous chassis, vice versa
4. All indigenous design

Shall we discuss? :D

Alright... a discussion zone...

Think it could be same chasis as the Primus... becos' of cost reduction possibilities in production, maintenance and the production of recovery vehicles would not have take so many different forms... as for the gun size, I think it could very well be a 105mm...I think its sufficient to take out any current existing armour within SEA itself...perhaps with 2MGs ...laser, thermal and infrared sights... autoloading of course...

Am hoping that the tank would be fast and agile like the AMX13 itself... hit and run.. Also if the tank could have amphibious abilities would be nice too...

Article from 2004, about United Defense ( who supplied the Primus Chassis ) studies on mating the Thunderbolt's turret and gun to the UCVP.

United Defense news report

In it, its alleged that ST was trying to match an Oto-Melara 120mm gun/turret with the Bionix chassis but suffered from problems due to weight and recoil

I think thats the O-M Hitfact gun/turret
Oto-Melara Hitfact gun/turret system

The Primus chassis is definitely proven far as weight and recoil is concerned, the 120mm OM turret is 5.8 tons and thats way below the 155mm piece. And the Primus engine is similar but not indentical to that in the Bionix, so easy logistics and maintenance.

But is the SM1's hydropneumatic suspension better than the good ole torsion bar in the UCVP?

Well, if there is a light tank, at least one can expect the engines, transmissions, road wheels, drive sprockets, and tracks to be the same as the BX/Primus series.

A little difficult, since the AMX-13 max out at about 18 tons?
That's lighter than a loaded Bx ...

Anyway, might be difficult to get UCVPs now since United Defense got taken over by BAE systems in 2005? BAE has their own universal chassis under development for the UK FRES program ...Aluminium hulls aren't good for a frontline tank though, light or otherwise...

Primus engine is a tubrocharged version of BX's so overall bigger. Modified and tuned for a higher horsepower due to the heavier weight of Primus.

The Primus chasis is borrowed from the M109 Paladin Chasis, it is not based on the Bionix chasis.

To replace the SM-1 LT series, personally I would prefer a 105mm (or even 120mm) calibre gun on ST's Terrex AV81 Infantry Fighting Vehicle in similar fashion to General Dynamics Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS).

To install a 105/120mm gun on a light IFV (read Bionix) seems to be too ambitious given the recoil strain on chasis that is built around troop-carrying capability vehicle. Whereas the Terrex looks promising and its wheel design definitely offers more 'stealth' (as compared to the rumble given off by tracks of tanks) in its approach, speed in travelling across terrain and comfort to the crew.

But then, that's my opinion.

SAF can always buy off the shelf - might be cheaper even, taking into account development costs and limited production.

The CV90120-T is a mighty fine choice, heavier at 35 tons but faster and better armoured.
http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/groups/p...20tbrochure.pdf

Full under-armour operation huh?
A direct fire support vehicle, but it only carries 18 rounds before a reload. Autoloading though, but thats a real M60 tank gun with all the full recoil; terrex might not be able to handle that

The M8 claims level3 protection with just 23 tonnes in weight. Then lets say the SG LT is 28 tonnes in weight, how much protection will that offer? How much level is needed to stop RPG rds? I hope the new LT will place more emphasis on speed and armour rather than firepower. I think a 105mm gun will suffice as the LT must still retain a "cavalry" nature to keep up with the combine armed divisions. Wonder what are the export potentials..........

I'm still for the CV90 or the M8 platform. The latter.. might be a tad of a gamble if we are to build it ourselves and market it.

The M8 classification is not Stanag, of which the equivalent for 25-30mm would be Level 5.
To defeat comtemporary RPGs ( not your good ole RPG7 )- I think you need to buff up the hull armour to near MBT level

Its true that threats of RPGs are now the "trend"... but what about ATGMs or even simple portable anti-armour rocket launchers? They aren't RPGs, but they constitute a threat too... but then again, to have a Light Tank incorporate so many things, it would make it cost perhaps even more than our 2nd hand Leo 2s...

I feel that a well-balanced platform which allows for additional modifications would suffice in our current threat scenarios.... and also, the Light Tank would be working in conjunction with armoured troopers, so there would be certain level of protection against enemy troops which are armed with RPGs... Most of all, we need to understand that in a confrontation, there is no full proof 100% protection... they only way to counter threats and reduce injuries and death is to have proper and thorough training, well honed skills, good leadership, guts and most of all superior mental fortitude...

I believe that the Light Tank would be simple, much like the AMX13 was when we got it in the beginning.... I mean it would be to us now like it was to us then... only now with the advancement of technologies, it would incorporate much better stuffs... it would not have all the flashy and out of budgets.. but sufficient for us to take on our aggressors...outgun them, out-range them, out-run them, and out-fight them... pound for pound...

I wonder how much punishment can the AMX-13 armour start up to?
:huh:

I guess that would define the NGLT

Yups, sayaret you're right; no point coming up with a hulking frankentank for a essentially for a light direct fire/recce/tank destroyer role....

erm. what about APS, like Trophy? effective solution against RPGs/ATGMs while saving weight.

disadvantage: it would be unsafe for troopers to be close to a tank with active APS, so cannot really work together with armoured infantry.

APS is a possibility
Light tanks/gun platforms today are not amoured for anything heavier than 30-40mm

BlackAce suggested the MGS, the design of which is a good solution.
For example, if a stabilised remote-firing unmanned turret can be designed around Giat's LeClerc 120mm autoloading gun ( has 22 rounds instead of MGS' 18 ); you can save alot of tons for better additional armour and ammo stowage.

The Terrex in its present config, is not a first choice platform. Its heavy@25 tons and underpower at 400hp.
But it was designed to carry up to a 105mm, and its amphibious.
A shortened 6x6 version with a >550hp engine could make a whole lot of difference.

Is the Terrex in operation with SAF now? I mean do we have it in our inventory? I tot we only have strictly 3 - 4 types of armoured vehicles in our inventory for the sake of easy maintenance and cost efficiency....

Not too sure how the MSG/M8 looks like, but am sure for one thing, the Light Tank would have similar chasis, engine as some of the existing armoured vehicles currently in our inventory... doubt it would be installed with fanciful defensive systems like Trophy etc.. it would propbably have simple but effective kevlar "skins" or extensions which would defeat the RPGs or other projectiles... just my tots... it would also rely on more human intervention like troopers to shoot enemy before it can hit the Light Tanks....

It must be economical simply becos' we need to have a couple of hundreds of them.... and if export chances comes along the way then its a bonus....

Whether its wheeled or track... that's really got me stumped becos' not too familiar with the implications of those except for the fact it would bring weight issues into perspective.... maybe wheeled options sounds good, for the transportation aspect.... but it should be amphibious....

Nah, the Terrex has not been chosen for service yet

The chassis must be suitable - ST tried with the Bx before in 2004 and it didn't work then. There were weight and recoil issues - should they force it through regardless for the sake of commonality?
BUT with enough redesign it can work, not sure if they are still working on that though.

Wheel VS Tracks - man, that's an argument that never ends... :blink:
Lets not go into that at all :lol:

2 links for ya, Sayaret

M8 AGS
info on M8 AGS, good product for a off-the-shelf with customization buy

Stryker MGS

Some thing to consider - if the role is more for Direct fire than taking out MBTs, and if SAF is ok with 75mm in the past, why not reduce weight by going for 90mm?

Why not add an ATGM. The so called light tank is basically an armoured support vehicle. Go for thermobaric rounds as well for the ATGM - guided missle thru windows in an urban environment.

I would go for a vehicle - with a combination of MGs,AGL or ATGM mounted on the turret top, in addition to a direct fire gun in the turret. And for this environment, good optical sensors and good gun elevation. Small details such comms at the back of the vehicle in case infantry guys want to talk to the crew.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

In the early year of SAF Armour, (Pre AMX-13) There was such a 90mm beast.

V150/V200 with 90mm (Think that this was a SAF V150/V200, having seen this photo either in Armour museum or some history stuff)

This carries a 90mm Cockerill gun, also used by Indonesian ( in their Scorpions ) and Malaysian (SIBMAS 6x6 ) AMX-13 (AMX-13/90, with LRF been the laser range finder model) has a variance that uses such a gun.

Why did SAF stop using the Gun? I don't know, was told that the 75 mm was better suited to our needs.

If it can Knock Out the Aggressor Tank, and take the Crew back Alive and Well. It is a Good Tank.

Ps if that was Funny, try this fellow, No Turret.


Noted the Back ground of this Stug Tank (it's a T-72 variance)


But the performance of the Stug in WWII was anything but bad, in fact (was reading about it). The Stug carried itself fairly well.

Some data from the web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgesch%C3%BCtz_III

Was thinking of this.......funny how things come back a full circle.

Videos regarding Armour.

If you have seen such video, soory please allow me time (alot of it to gather more)

Firepower Combat Vehicles 24 min
Video Link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3908965816802550694

Firepower Armour Force 25 min
Video Link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2195979446733268488

Firepower Armour Vanguard 25 min (More Historical)
Video Link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=757937320084519395

Firepower War On Wheels 24 min
Video Link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5030171153104155949

Want more Videos?

:lol: :lol: :lol:
hehehe you said it ! :D

hehehe, I was laffing becos what Bcoy talked about, is exactly what the AMX-13 is - might as well just upgrade the little fella further :lol: :lol:

Must be because of all the cheap 75mm ammo that they could buy from the mexicans at firesale price ... :lol: :lol:


SF, what in your opinion would be a good configuration for the NGLT?

Well, how much more upgrades can the AMX13 take...........

Anyways - what is the SAF looking for now, considering the introduction of the Primus and Leo2? Is there a need for a fire support type vehicle still?

Maybe this will help ... The Wheel versus Track Dilemma

Before this discussion goes any further, would someone like to outline the doctrinal role of the LT? Seems strange to be discussing design aspects without first clarifying the roles it is intended to fulfill.

OK, lemme try; but its all speculation without factual info based on SAF doctrines

1. Armour support for MBT-difficult terrain
2. Organic Infantry Fire Support - ala Assault Gun via Direct Fire ( Indirect supplanted by Primus?)
3. Fast and heavily armed for Recce
4. Tank/IFV killer - diminished but still active role, as MBTs/Apaches/ATGMs are the primary weapons for this

Yeap, I agree.... becos' the role of Tank destroyer/Direct fire support etc seems too big a role for the new Light Tank to fulfil becos' originally when the AMX13 came perhaps that was what they were considered for... but today with our Army advancing so rapidly, we have self loading or autoloading motars etc... I don't think it should be fulfilling too much of roles which other armoured vehicles can do... perhaps a simple role would be just.... Light Tank... meaning a tank which is light for the purposes of quick strike and scoot, or for quick raids or advance armoured elements like recce ahaead of a full tank force... actually its quite true that a 90mm gun would suffice for its role as light tank... but for the sake of not having too many different calibre of ammo... I think the 105mm would be a good choice... but I think the quality of the sensors, sights and comms must be good... but the mating of ATGM on it... well I have once been an advocator of this, but it could be over-kill and also putting too much onto a single platform... but then again ST might be able to come up with something good...

For commonality, it would either 90mm or 120mm
Coz SAF uses 90mm on the AMX10PAC90 and 120mm on the Leo2s
AMX10Ps are heading for the scrapyard soon, but there should be a surplus of 90mm ammo, but its the wrong kind of bean counting if thats the main reason :(

Good Attempt, on a tough subject.

SAF General doctrine; on it's defense maybe unknown to some, but widely discussed in over sea (Professionally and in internet forums).

Forward Defence Strategy of Pre-Emptive Deterrence.Some Writers termed it as SINGAPORE’S FORWARD DEFENCE STRATEGY.

Quoting this site Highlighting the key points. http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/aeronews...ia_news_576.htm

The Next Generation Light Tank, like some had wrote, fits in the mobile land component.

Question

What do you mean by support? Logistic, Engineer, Fire support, Close in Protection (Transportation), or the idea of Infantry Tank?

Sorry Typo

Wrong Phrasing I guess

As in providing tank-support to infantry in AOP that are not accessible for MBTs

Correct me if I'm wrong - but wasn't there something from MINDEF not too long ago about the AMX13 replacement and how it may not be a traditional tank - ie. to be armed with ATGMs, etc? Or is that just another statement to throw people off the possible Leo2 purchase?

Are you referring to this Jane's Defence Weekly Vol 35 Issue 26 - 27 - Friday, 22 June, 2001

Reference: http://www.dsta.gov.sg/home/DisplayPage/si...ge10.asp?id=829
Reference in part only.

M8 AGS / Thunderbolt has my vote. I think it is a great platform that should be commercialised. ST Engg can build a few hundreds for SAF and potentially for other smaller nations (and even Taiwan)!!!!

If that's case,
there's a possibility it would be a gun/small unmanned turret on a chassis like the MGS, or a jagdpanzer type vehicle.

A post war bundeswehr design based on an M113 chassis

If going down that route, what about STRV 103 series.

Know of a cheap, surplus tanks, autoloader, two men crew (Possible, thus the "usual" third guy can be the loader for the Leopard)

Cheap sale now, if it can be found.


And it Swims too