Sad to hear that.

Apparently it seems that to be the best, an air force must always be throwing money at new equipment every year, isn't it, lionnoisy?

There are variants of the SAR 21 with Picatinny rails, so Singaporean soldiers would theoretically be able to equip and use the same quality accessories as the Americans, in order to compensate for the design flaws and screw-ups.

Unfortunately...

It seems not even 1 Cdo has them. So what's the use?

We've come closer to midnight before, and while the possibility of a new world war is never far away, this isn't one of those times when you would start imagining of a situation. I believe the appropriate term for it is 'damn random'.

True enough, Russia does have a greviance with its de facto predecessor's territories having been chopped up and thrown free, while it had to sit and watch them leave. They also had to endure several secessionist attempts - in their opinion, at least - successfully put them to shame, with the western bloc expressing support for all these breakaways. So far Russia has been testing the limits of the threats from the western world, who so far come nowhere close to resorting to military action. However, it seems that Russia's only interest for the near future is to simply keep its borders where the Federation believes it should belong. There is no thirst for great conquest, and Russia shows itself to be more of a 'fixing' mood. Its economy may be growing, but it's far from being robust enough to survive anything more than minor theatres of war without falling apart. In a time of rising energy prices, it is more than obvious that it has more to gain from sitting put and maximising its profits from exploiting this turn of fortunes and newfound market power. Its future military power will stand to benefit from extra spending on research and upgrades while America's slows down from having to deal with the Middle East and their economic crisis.

America is no state to get involved into any more military activities. It currently has its hands full with Afghanistan and Iraq, and the political sentiment at home is overwhelming against any future military action. Furthermore, with the two presidential candidates focusing on a progressive foreign policy, it is unlikely to take that step in the future. Its economy is furthermore in shambles and in no state to endure another major conflict. With rising prices, rising unemployment, massive slowdowns, and a series of stock market crashes thus far, the government is currently too busy trying to stabilise the economy and restore it to a steady, healthy state. If anything, I believe the defense budget is likely to be cut in favour of spending elsewhere. The current suffrages demand it, and in the case of a demoncracy, it is only a matter of time before the government gives in to their interests of dealing with the situation at home before going abroad.

Europe is far too divided to act decisively as a single bloc, so we should not expect unified action. However, EU, or even NATO for that matter, do seem to agree on not intervening on the situation thus far, and have been actively looking for diplomatic solutions without any sabre-rattling. It has been clear so far that while Europe does heavily worry about Russia's rise to power, they know their sovereignty is not what is at stake as yet. What they do fear, however, is the amount of influence Russia will be able to wield as it gains in stature and presence. It may be able to greatly hinder their own political and economic strength, but not so to the point of destruction.

China? Even more unlikely. It has come out from the 2008 Olympics with a new, clean image that it has no interest in tarnishing. It furthermore has stable political relations all round, even with both Koreas and Japan, and it is poised to further its economic reach rather than engage in any military conflict. Granted, of course, it is perfectly capable of doing so, but why choose expand, when there is so much of your own resources you have yet to exploit?

Another one?

Any of you can take a picture of your new and post it up here? Pretty please? You don't have to be in it. =D

There are M16/M4 replacements out on the market that solve its direct impingement problem by replacing it with a short-stroke piston system, but that's about the most major of the fixes they've done. Others of course include hammer-forged barrels, free-floating barrels, structural redesigns, and the such, but these so far only prove that the original design needs improvements, not complete replacement.

Contrary to popular belief, it's perfectly fine to be an introvert. What should matter is that you should not be excessively concerned about your level of social presence or lack thereof. While you may see it as a having fewer people to talk to, it also allows you to be less tied down by peer pressure and more free to think about real things that matter to this one life you get to live.

Don't be too bothered with the current mainstream notion that being 'anti-social' is a bad thing, when at a very fundamental level, opinions do not equate to knowledge. And don't get dragged into other subcultures in an effort to conform and give in to a merely-perceived social vacuum, like that of the bimbos you mentioned. Remember, being an introvert can mean less airtime and more braintime.

But I ought not to be lecturing an elder. =]

Originally posted by elmertan39:

that is why i am wondering if anyone here knows the real reason. not just mere speculation.

Nono, I'm just rationalising my decision not to comment. I know it sounds rather aggressive. Relax. =p

Not true. The novena service is only a devotion, the Mass is wholly separate liturgical service, which may also be celebrated after a novena service. Nonetheless, I believe the threadstarter is talking about both the service and church.

I'm not inclined to speculate on the cause of this disturbance when you are unable to provide any further information that can allow us to even begin consideration. Baseless opinion is not knowledge, and when inconsequential it should be none of our concern.

Originally posted by kenn3th:

digi camo not out yet as of ndp

Well, duh. They're still in the process of rolling it out.

Originally posted by crimsontactics:

Well, quite true. But why hasn't the government been able to successfully control inflation rate? You have to ask that question 1st.

Wrong on two counts. The government has stabilised the inflation rate, but you are also asking for far too much to stop inflation entirely. There is always a low rate of inflation in all healthy economies, and when events happen on a global scale that drive or pull up general price levels, it's impossible for a small and open economy like Singapore's to not be affected.

Originally posted by crimsontactics:

How do you define a " knockout punch"?

If nukes can't even "knockout" a country, what makes you think a carrier can?

And btw i don't think any country would be without a proper defence system to detect any attacks.

More planes, ships and newer technology would be more practical than having a carrier group around.

Also, wars are never over. Although offically it may be, there will still be resistance fighters all around causing trouble, so why even bother to start one?

What leads you to presuppose 'nukes can't even "knockout" a country'? Nuclear weapons are very much a threat to the stability and even survival of any country, hence the furore over Iran and North Korea concerning their alleged possession of nuclear weapons. Think over it yourself - wouldn't you consider Singapore to be especially vulnerable to such a weapon?

You don't think "any country would be without a proper defence system to detect any attacks"? You couldn't be any further from the truth. You may simply be ignorant, but a lot of countries do not have comprehensive early warning systems.

Also, you think that the only method of defense conceivable is to merely ward off everything that is being thrown at us. However, Shotgun is talking about pre-emptively striking at the enemy's heartland, to hinder the progress of their invasion. If this enemy is distant but possesses carriers to attack us, and we have no such assets to strike at their country, it is our loss, after all.

And I'm amused when you simply generalise a carrier group as not practical. If we're going to perform a pre-emptive strike, "more planes, ships and new technology" will not be more practical when they have neither the range nor passage to perform such an operation. A carrier group, on the other hand, allows us to extend the reach of our military power as long as there is deep water for the carrier to travel over.

What are you talking about with "wars are never over"? I don't think we regard the Vietnam War as current, do we? And why are you talking about resistance fighters when the topic is on Singapore's defense? Nobody ever said that Singapore was going to invade a country. Irrelevant.

Originally posted by ktk:

so... still no pic?

 

i reckon they will show it off during NDP.

nationl pride mah.

when better to show off new stuff ?

Oh, sure, they show off a pattern that's supposed to be hard to see. That's real smart of them.

No, it's more likely that they'll probably mention the new patterns or something, but there won't be much focus on it.

Originally posted by Man!x:

i rather they give us Taiwanese uniform. So soft like pyjamas... anyway all this pixelated shite is wasted on us, Israeli Army from the beginning until now wear the same temasek green style uniform. The money could be spent giving us some fancy gear or increasing our allowance.

Oh, sure. And the Israeli Army fights in jungles, too, doesn't it?

Originally posted by Miracles&Prophecies:

By becoming part of it? LOL

Eeer I think it is the rich Indonesians or other country's tourists who are indulged in shopping spree every holiday not just on Christmas and whether they are celebrating it or not too. But they are helping the economy by doing that. Singapore great sale anyone?

Tourists always buy more...than locals.

 

I sense a break in logic there.

Originally posted by spencer99:

Maybe in year 2025, we will upgrade our F-35A to F-35(S) for Solar powered!

When they developed alternate fuels, i don't think they are so concerned about the 'environment', but rather if they have 'lighter' fuel, potentially can build better performing combat platforms.

Lighter fuels? My friends, how are they supposed to help? A lighter fuel means a lower hydrocarbon density and hence a lower density of stored energy. In order to store and output the same amount of energy a vehicle or aircraft will require a larger tank and routing. Completely counter-productive. If anything, a denser fuel should be pursued.

Solar-powered F-35? That's plain silly. You can't convert sunlight into jet exhaust. I hope you were kidding about it.

Have you all actually ignored some of the less glamourous alternative fuels like biodiesel? It's not remarkably cutting edge, which is probably why you all fail to take that into account, but the truth is that it's one base already covered for the diesel engines, which power a large proportion of any armed forces.

False analogy.

A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid.

Urgh. Military nutcases.

There is no F-35S, F or R. The designations are A, B and C. F-35 is a multirole aircraft anyway, so the designations you gave have no meaning since it is capable of all that. The F-35Bs and Cs are designed as naval-based aircraft, so it is almost certain that Singapore will only be buying F-35As if at all, because we do not have aircraft carriers, or the organisational framework to operate naval-based air assets, or even the plans to do so.

Please remember, that when militaries (or any organisation, for that matter) quote an upper limit on the purchase of equipment, it is just an upper limit. They have no obligation to buy exactly that number of units, so don't be expecting 100+ F-35As around in Singapore. Besides, there will invariably be detachments based overseas for training and reserve.

Only a single squadron? Highly unlikely. The fact that they are open to obtaining up to 100 units notwithstanding, it is always far easier to standardise the airforce and use as few aircraft types effectively in order to exploit the economies of scale in training and maintenance. It will be far cheaper and simpler for the military to replace parts and carry out standard maintenance procedures, and they won't have to fumble around with too many different pilot programs for all the different aircraft. In any case, we cannot expect SAF to be shrinking anytime soon - if anything, they look set to expand in the future.

Originally posted by niffoc:

Maybe order 100units is deliver over a period of decades to replace the old F35 with new F35 after been in use for sometime. Plane wear and tear is fast. or out of the 100 maybe 30 unit as spared?

Keeping 30 units in reserve is still costly as they still require maintenance, and they will be utterly in case of a war as there will not be any pilots assigned to fly them. No air force in the world pursues such a policy of buying extra as replacement - good maintenance means not having to replace aircraft, which is a highly costly prospect.

Originally posted by bloodsucker:

Hey, Jeremy right?? aircadet here :) U signed up for pilot yet?

Nosiree. I'm PES C9L2. Out of the question. Maybe I'll do the paperwork for the high-fliers.

Originally posted by eurofighter:

you're understating our official number of F-16s by almost 3 times.

 

I understate not the number of F-16s in the interceptor role. The others are strike aircraft, which may or may not be slated for replacement by the F-35As.

Well, of course, this being taken from Wikipedia, one must give room for doubt as to how up-to-date it is.

No nerfing. F-35 is part of an international JSF program and had international participation throughout its development. We get the same product, but less expertise since we weren't the ones building and testing it.

Singapore did say we could procure up to 100 units, but remember it's just an upper limit. We only have 22 F-16 interceptors and 45 F-5s that could be replaced for the interceptor role by the F-35A (the other variants are designed to be carrier-based.). Then again, this being a multi-role fighter, the RSAF might have more in store for the aircraft.

In any case, it means more pilot vocations available in the future.

It doesn't look bad, but I believe there's a bit too much brown and a bit too light, if Google Images are anything to go by. On the other hand, it's probably not a complete carbon copy of MARPAT. The pattern-generation could be somewhat tweaked to suit the landscape in Singapore, but the technology to create it would still be the same. Or it could simply be fractal camouflage that looks similar to MARPAT, but developed by another group instead. Anyone in the know?

Maybe there's a next step for us...

'it' is not gender-neutral - it's gender-absent.

'he/she' is even worse. It basically asks the reader to have to choose between two genders.

'one' is the next best choice, but sometimes it can be awkward to phrase into a sentence.

And what in damnation is 'hir', 'sie', 'thon', and 'shey'? Sounds like some kind of effort at getting a politically-correct term to balance between male and female prounouns. Why reinvent the wheel? Just use 'they'! There's a long enough history of its use as a singular pronoun.