Well they have plans for 5/6th gen stealthy Gripen. Whether or not this will see the light of day depends on current Gripen sales I think..

That's Sg's defence budget + Home ministry + diplomatic efforts aimed at improving SG's defence/security. The figure is $22.7 billion in Sg dollars.

Sg's defence budget for 2019 is actually $15.4 billion in Sg dollars or about $11.4 billion in USD dollars. In 2018, Sg's defence budget was $14.76 billion is Sg dollars or $11.2 billion in USD dollars (SG/USD conversion rate at that point of time).

So, Sg has once again risen its defence budget. But there is no large spike, like their Minister says,so as not to inadvertently cause an arms race.

This post has been edited by Mai189: Feb 19 2019, 08:29 PM

On Sg's 2019 defence budget 15.4 to 15.5 billion Sg dollars:

https://www.tnp.sg/news/singapore/budget-20...t-indispensable

This post has been edited by Mai189: Feb 20 2019, 07:45 PM

How does Pakistan’s Thunder fare against contenders in Malaysia’s aircraft competition?
By: Usman Ansari   19 hours ago


ISLAMABAD — Pakistan hopes to sell its JF-17 Thunder aircraft to Malaysia, now that the cash-strapped country is officially looking for such a fighter.

Malaysia was eyeing larger fighters like the Rafale and Typhoon, but that plan was shelved due to budgetary woes, and the country instead turned to fulfill a light combat aircraft requirement. An LCA fleet would support Malaysia’s F/A-18 and Su-30 fighters.

The JF-17 is under consideration alongside the Tejas, produced by India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, and the FA-50 Golden Eagle, made by South Korea’s Korea Aerospace Industries. Pakistan’s offering is the most affordable of the three.

Defense News reported in 2015 that Malaysia was considering the JF-17 as an option for its Air Force modernization program, as signaled by its high commissioner to Pakistan, according to the Associated Press of Pakistan. But Malaysia’s defense minister at the time denied the report.

Pakistan renewed efforts last year, most notably at April’s DSA defense expo in Malaysia and November’s IDEAS defense conference in Pakistan. Pakistan is offering the latest Block III variant.

The 2021-2022 LCA program delivery time frame means a Malaysian order could include some of the first fighters off the production line, with potential industrial offsets.

Analyst and former Pakistan Air Force pilot Kaiser Tufail says the Block III “is quite promising" with an active electronically scanned array radar, helmet-mounted display and sight, electronic countermeasures, and an additional underbelly intake sensor station.

Tufail noted the JF-17 has been operational for the past 12 years and serves in six squadrons at full operational capability, whereas the Tejas was inducted just days ago “and has to go through the usual teething troubles.”
"On cost grounds, the JF-17 has a square chance,” he said.

Ben Ho, an air power analyst with the Military Studies Programme at Singapore’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, said the contenders have “fairly similar” performance, with individual advantages “marginal” or “negated in other areas.”

The JF-17 costs $25 million per unit, and the Tejas and the FA-50 cost approximately $28 million and $30 million respectively. An order of 36 JF-17 fighters would mean “a very substantial amount will be saved,” Ho said.

However, the JF-17’s Russian engine may be problematic, as due to serviceability issues with the related engine of Malaysia’s MiG-29s, potentially requiring “significant after-sales support and maintenance,” Ho added.
The Tejas is powered by the same General Electric F404 engine used in Malaysia’s F/A-18s, and shares weaponry with the Su-30s. However, the Tejas’ Israeli avionics would likely need replaced, which “invariably means additional costs,” he noted.

While the FA-50 is the “costliest prima facie,” it is also powered by the F404, shares weaponry used by the F/A-18, may have “lower downstream costs” and is in service regionally, allowing “interoperability between its major regional counterparts during exercises and operations,” he added.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/02/21/...ft-competition/

This post has been edited by Mai189: Feb 22 2019, 09:12 PM

German documents reveal Singapore received more Leopard 2 tanks (and SG bought Active Protection System for its tanks)

MELBOURNE, Australia — Information from government documents about a delivery of German Leopard 2 tanks to Singapore in 2017 suggest the city-state bought a new batch of tanks for its Army.
According to the register of conventional arms exports released by the German Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, Singapore received 18 Leopard 2 main battle tanks in 2017, adding to the seven tanks the German government said it exported in 2016.

The additional delivery in 2017 brings the total number of tanks received by Singapore to more than 170.

It’s unknown how many tanks were ordered or what variant of was delivered. It is also unknown if this latest batch of tanks are brand new or refurbished secondhand vehicles, although the former is unlikely given production of the Leopard 2A4 has ended.

German media reports say the manufacturer Krauss-Maffei Wegmann was building Leopard 2A7s for Singapore and Qatar.

Germany previously declared it exported 161 Leopard 2 tanks to Singapore between 2007 and 2012 in its reports to the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms database. Singapore declared the receipt of 156 Leopard 2A4s during the same period.

The 2017 delivery forms part of the $93 million worth of conventional arms exported to Singapore from Germany that year, which also included recovery vehicles, parts for tanks, various military vehicles, training and in-flight refueling aircraft, and small arms.

When contacted for comment regarding the 2017 deliveries, the ministry told Defense News to refer to its earlier statement. It had previously said that “no other variants of the Leopard has (sic) been acquired” since Singapore announced it had acquired refurbished Leopard 2A4s from Germany in 2006. Singapore announced at the time that it had acquired 96 tanks, with 66 to be refurbished and put into service, with the remaining 30 to serve as spares.





However, the statement does not deny Singapore increased the number of Leopard 2A4s in its possession. KMW declined to comment about the transfer when asked by Defense News.

The Singapore Army has one active battalion of Leopard 2s, with additional vehicles assigned to training units in Singapore and Germany, where it uses Oberlausitz Military Training Area. Even accounting for those being used as a source for spares, the number acquired so far suggests Singapore has enough vehicles to equip a number of reserve units.

Singapore’s Leopard 2s are also being upgraded to the Leopard 2SG standard with the addition of an IBD Deisenroth Advanced Modular Armor Protection modular composite armor package, El-Op Commander Open Architecture Panoramic Sight and other improvements. Singapore also reportedly acquired Rheinmetall’s ADS active protection system for its Leopard 2 tanks.

Singapore’s Leopard 2s are also being upgraded to the Leopard 2SG standard with the addition of an IBD Deisenroth Advanced Modular Armor Protection modular composite armor package, El-Op Commander Open Architecture Panoramic Sight and other improvements. Singapore also reportedly acquired Rheinmetall’s ADS active protection system for its Leopard 2 tanks.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/02/21...eopard-2-tanks/

This post has been edited by Mai189: Feb 23 2019, 02:03 PM

Mai's note:

1) Parts of the Leopard 2 tank are being produced right now by IBD and other vendors because there are many users. There is no need for spare tanks; not unless SG means assigning these tanks to conscript units.

2) The government of Germany, in the UN Arms transfer regiser, has (by itself) reported a transfer of at leastt 182 Leopard 2 tanks by end-2018.

3) The question as to why SG specially requested for planar or straight armour modules is answered - it is for the quick installation of an Active Protection System. Non planar surfaces may require changes to the shape of the armour modules; for e.g.:







4) What is the Rheinmetall’s ADS active protection system? And possibly why Sg chose it over Trophy?

Tanks are not supposed to operate alone. I think fluffy would know better. I had always thought that infantry needs to do a sweep first or concurrently. APS is awesome certainly.

That said, top-end modern armed forces deploy whole and holistic systems of system of sensors and shooters working in unison against you; UAV, attack helicopters, fighter jets, UAVs, UCAVs, micro uavs, artillery, etc.

Nobody should be having the mindset of deploying missile A versus missile B, tank A versus tank B, etc. against a top-end modern opponent. If you have that mindset, you have already lost.

This post has been edited by Mai189: Feb 23 2019, 11:18 PM

What else can the MAF do? If we have more tanks, we would have thrown them into the fight not grunts. RPG spam occurs only in unique situations. Certainly; difficut when a tank is not unescorted. As said, you do not send in tanks alone. Im not sure what the Russian doctrine is.

And APS offers 360 degrees protection which includes top attack.

If the military brass had lost is faith in tanks, there wont be any now..including light tanks. Tanks are not invincible. But they add monumental value to any military. In fact, newer tanks are on-the-way in the market.

Actually no...networking confers benefits for many types of scenarios. The key thing to note is that you fighting not one unit or equipment but the whole body of equipment e.g. tanks, attack helicopters, UCAVs, etc. all working in unison. The opposition can be destroyed by a variety of shooters vectored by a variety of sensors depending on which one is better suited and at much earlier time, in real-time. That is why militaries are installing e.g. battle management systems around the world. For e.g. a F16V from a more tech-endowed force (Blue force) can destroy an opposition tank from a less tech-endowed force (Red force) which is facing a tank from Blue force because it is more efficient and faster even though the tank from Blue force can engage that Red Force tank. You are fighting one body of force.

This post has been edited by Mai189: Feb 24 2019, 05:59 PM

The latest APS offer 360 degrees protection e.g. Trophy:

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/us-army-tanks-...ncoming-threats


Sawyer I do not dis-agree with you on anti-tank weapons..it is an un-ending situation of developing better weapons and protections for all kinds of platforms.

However, there are a lot of variables involved - quality of tank, APS - installed, how good is the APS; training; doctrines; support to tank, etc.

Tanks are not invincible. But it is also not easy to kill a tank. Especially, a good western tank with good support, training, APS, etc. And because tanks are so valuable, militaries continue to get them. Seriously, you are not going to send your APCs, IFVs, supporting equipment, etc. if you know there is an opposing tank there. It is like sending a bunch of swimmers to a lake when you know there is a crocodile there. You wont do that until you kill the crocodile.

Anyone must be joking to think that it is easy to ambush a tank and kill it. Just as you trying to get a shot at a tank (be it an opposing tank and/or RPG teams), the tank and its supporting screen of infantry, anti-tank infantry, IFVs, artillery, etc. on the ground and UCAVs and aircraft up high are looking for you.

This is the Challenger 2 in 2003 (no APS):

In 2003 Iraq a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and, while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by 14 rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile. The crew survived, remaining safe within the tank until it was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later, after repairs had been done. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by multiple RPGs in another incident.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/2908679.stm

I want to add a caveat. I am referencing western tanks.

There is a lot jelly and angst. At the end of the day, both countries are close economically and have close blood ties, and allied in the FPDA. And the likelihood is that both countries will end up fighting with each other as opposed to against each other. Malaysia wants a strong Singapore, especially now - who do you think has been helping protect the airspace over peninsula Malaysia; vectored by IADs in Butterworth? And Singapore does want a strong and stable Malaysia. The fates of both countries are intertwined.

Politicians will always try to use each other as punching bags in speeches nonetheless.

What Does Singapore’s New Military Budget Say About its Defense Priorities?

A closer look at the city-state’s allocation for defense spending this year.

On February 19, Singapore announced its budget allocation for 2019. Though the focus was primarily on domestic issues amid continued speculation about when the country’s next general election will be held, the country’s allocation for the defense realm also bears careful watching in terms of where the Southeast Asian state is in its security thinking at present as well as what this means for its future outlook.

As I have noted before in these pages, Singapore has consistently spent significant amounts on its defense and possesses one of the most capable and modern militaries in the region, both because of the vulnerability it perceives as a small city-state as well as its economic success, which affords it the resources to do so.

Yet at the same time, a series of trends, including occasional economic challenges increasing domestic scrutiny over the amount of defense spending, have led officials to factor these considerations into how the country allocates and manages defense spending. To take just one example, the 2017 budget had cast defense as one of four ministries where a two percent downward adjustment across ministries would be phased in over several years.

This week, Singapore’s defense budget was announced as being at 15.5 billion Singapore dollars (USD $11.4 billion)*. The figure, disclosed along with a budget speech given by Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat, amounts to about 19 percent of total government expenditures and around 3.3 percent of national GDP. The total amount Singapore is spending on Defense, Home Affairs, and Foreign Affairs ministries – within the wider umbrella term used of “defense, security, and diplomacy” – amounts to $22.7 billion or 28.3 percent of the $80.3 billion total budgeted expenditure.

Relative to last year, the amount budgeted for defense spending constitutes a 4.8 percent increase. This is higher compared to the previous initial increases over the past two years of 1.6 percent and 3.7 percent (the previous two years witnessed higher increases of between 5 and 6 percent), and also a bit higher than the 3 to 4 percent rise range that Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen had mentioned a few years ago that would be needed to keep pace with inflation and to respond to a range of security challenges. In his remarks, Heng provided a justification for this increase building off of previous articulations, noting the security challenges Singapore faces including terrorism and cybersecurity and calling the defense allocation “significant but indispensable.”

While the initial allocation amount gives us a rough sense of where Singapore is relative to previous years, more specific indications will become clearer once we see how the country actually looks to invest it, including in terms of upgrading capabilities and acquiring new ones. This will also be occurring within a changing domestic and international context, with a range of variables including speculation about the date of its next general election which is due by early 2021.

https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/what-does-s...nse-priorities/

* Singapore can spend up to 6% of national GDP on defence, as per its constitution or laws. 6% should be around SG$ 28 billion (USD $ 21-22 billion).

This post has been edited by Mai189: Feb 24 2019, 07:53 PM

Trophy - whether it is 360 degrees? Done-ed.. it is installed on Merkava 4..called the "Wind-breaker" introduced in 2018:

"Trophy provides 360° coverage against anti-tank rockets, anti-tank missiles and tank HEAT (high-explosive anti-tank) rounds. Once Trophy has detected a threat, it is tracked and classified and the optimal intercept point is computed, prior to launching a countermeasure."

https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_def..._the_world.html

Not sure abt older variants of Trophy.

Ditto..for the latest variant of Rheimetall Active Defence System ADS:

"The protection mechanism is complex and demands intelligent interaction between various high-tech components. High-performance sensors (pre-warners) have the vehicle’s surroundings in view at all times as part of 360-degree protection. "

I just noted this - Rheimetall Active Defence System ADS has multiple-hit capabilities:

"Another of its strengths is its “multi-hit capability.” Even multiple projectiles can be countered successfully. This is made possible by the redundantly operating technology. While one sensor is occupied with the first threat, other sensors continue to ensure all-around protection. "

https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rhei...m_ads/index.php

This post has been edited by Mai189: Feb 24 2019, 08:15 PM

When I read the manufacturer of Trophy says 360 degrees., it invariably means all round protection, not horizontal (thats what..90 degrees or more)..not certain elevations, etc. It may be the case with earlier iterations of the Trophy but certainly not the latest variant on the windbreaker. It is silly to not accomodate advances in atgm tech and when other aps like the germans and russians have done so.

Sawyer. Whilst I respect your opinion, I could not agree with you at all. You are using your own set of judgments vis-a-vis what the manufacturer says. And I am talking about the latest iteration of rge Trophy..not previous ones.

Since you are inclined to use the word hemispherical, it means exactly that - coverage all around the tank. You do understand that the issue was previously the position of the counter measures. The sensors had almost always been full hemispherical or 360 degrees or whatever. It is nonsense to have that gap when newer generations of atgm e.g spike nlos if not some variants have a top-down attack profile.

Rheimetall's aps i.e. gen 3 protects against top-down atgms:

http://thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17920/ger...ing-projectiles

I saw a third party assessment of the latest variant of trophy which alludes to the same capability. Ill post it here if i have the time/can find it.

US's Raytheon Quickill aps also has a similar capability as its countermeasures are vertically launched.

Yes. It is a Samson 30 turret. In fact, it is designed like so because of two features....one of which is the installation of Trophy MV (it is designed to integrate Trophy MV)...which is meant to be carried on non-MBT armoured machines like AFV, IFVs, etc. The other feature is the ability to carry Spike missile inside the remote operated turret.



It looks like the customer is Singapore:

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/rafael-trophy-gets-lighter

And because of its ability to carry spike missiles e.g. Spike LR2 or ER2 (more than 10km - surface launched), it can take out a MBT or light/medium tanks from long range:



Internal ATGM launchers in red ^

Sg will be building hundreds of such AFVs and all will be connected and networked to its over arching battle management system. A fleet of heavily armored and mobile AFVs networked and armed with ATGMs is insane.

Well, Australia and Spain (I think) initially bought 2 F35s each for tests. So, I am wondering why 4. I am trying to connect these 4 frames with Minister's statement (as reported) in which he says that Singapore will not be buying the F35C. That leaves the F35A and F35B. I have strange feeling that Singapore will buy both. Afterall, Singapore did inform the F35 program office previously that it wants up to 100 F35s.

Not at all. I am re-stating exactly what the manufacturer states on its web-site. The fact is, there are already APS out there which deals with top-down attacks e.g. the German's Rhiemmetall, Raytheon's quick kill, etc.

The link you are referring to Trophy lite. It is not a mature system yet! There different versions of Trophy!

The version on the "wind-breaker" Merkava is the heavy version. I would hardly think Israel of all countries (which faces an existential threat to its tank force will leave a gaping hole w.r.t. to the active defence of its tank. Afterall, physical changes were incorporated into the wind-breaker to install the latest Trophy launchers.

This was an earlier version of Trophy in 2014 before "wind-breaker":

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/watch-an-...ired-1609196170

"It is rumored that Trophy can also work against air-launched anti-tank missiles, even those that fly a "top down" attack profile."

I will leave it you whether you believe it or not. I know I wont take chances with an evolving tech.

There are quite a number of such decoys or the like for subs out there.

During the budget speech (committee of supply), Singapore released the first pictures of the Multi Role Combat Vessel (MRCV) - its latest stealth frigate design. The MRCVs will replace the Victory class corvettes - likely to be constructed by ST Marine.





Source: Sg's Mindef

Video of MRCV:

https://www.facebook.com/mindefsg/videos/776488942725345/

Initial analysis

Size
This is a big ship. It is bigger then the Formidable. Remember, this ship is a carrier for 14-16 metre USVs (which can be armed), UUVs and large long range VTOL UAVs, helicopter, RHIBS, etc. From the drawings Mindef released, it seems to be 120m-135m long. Tonnage seems to be more than 4000-5000 tons. I will not be surprised if it touches 6000 tons. A lower crew complement may reduce the tonnage a bit. But the resulting higher automation may compensate that..we will see. SG has said the 1st ship will be ready in 2025.

Sensors

The huge and tall mast indicates the presence of fixed faced AESA radars (like SPY-1 (Aegis)). It is a natural development from the Herakles PESA on the formidable*. Since Herakles is french and Sg frigates have a french herigate, I am assuming that the new radar will be the successor to the Herakles i.e. Seafire AESA radar:



Weapons

There are placements for a lot of VLS launchers - I think between 32 to 48 VLS. For commonality, these will most likely be Aster missiles. The medium/long range missile is definitely Aster 30. An interesting thing to watch is the lower layer anti missile missiles. It can be either the Aster 15 or the new MICA VL NG. The MICA VL NG will replace the current MICA VL with double the range and as far as Ive read, it can be quadpacked into A50 Slyver launchers. This will quite literally turn the MRCV into a quasi anti-air destroyer.

The centre weapons platform (between the two masts) looks similar to the Formidable - so up to 24 surface to surface missiles. Question is: will Singapore finally reveal its choice of missile which replaced the harpoons? Kind of odd dont you think? They replaced or upgraded everything else but are still sporting an ancient anti ship missile...

* the formidable will be undergoing a mid-life upgrade and will, for the lack of better way of saying this, become even more formidable.

This post has been edited by Mai189: Mar 3 2019, 12:07 AM