MIlitary in the Region
-
Hmmm, not so much a matter of range, but a matter of scanning the huge amount of airspace. They can only scan a very small portion of the airspace at one time, thus the use of AWACS. The APG-68 has pretty good range, IIRC. (of course, cannot compare to the range of AWACS platforms lah)
-
Yes, like you said, they can only scan a certain area of airspace at a time. I doubt it would be early warning if the radar was scanning at the wrong place at the wrong time. =)
-
True. What is interesting though is that USAF are developing aircraft radars (such as the ones in Raptors to scan a wider volume of sky at any one time). They could act as mini-AWACS and that was suggested by some military experts.Originally posted by Shotgun:Yes, like you said, they can only scan a certain area of airspace at a time. I doubt it would be early warning if the radar was scanning at the wrong place at the wrong time. =)
-
Something like the SU-30MKI's ability to act as 'command posts', due to their data-links and extremely fast scanning due to their AESA radars. Malaysia will have this capability if they get the MKM version.
-
Iranians use their tomcats radar as AEW for other fighters... the logic is simplistic.. just point the tomcat radar at iraq...Originally posted by Joe Black:True. What is interesting though is that USAF are developing aircraft radars (such as the ones in Raptors to scan a wider volume of sky at any one time). They could act as mini-AWACS and that was suggested by some military experts.
But in the end... i think going to space.. should be the logical next step... -
Going into space? We dont have so much money. What we can do is use commercial sats. And we do have access to them. I went to NUS, they have a centre there, forgot what its called already, but on a school trip last year, we went to the command post through which they could control sats like Ikonos (which gave 1m resolution shots, cool!) when these sats came whithin our satellite dish's Line Of Sight. They are used for military purposes as well.
-
LOL!! I'll give the Iranians credit for that thinking.
-
may i point to you the recent report of singapore joining the isrealis in developing millitary purpose satellites....Originally posted by YourFather:Going into space? We dont have so much money. What we can do is use commercial sats. And we do have access to them. I went to NUS, they have a centre there, forgot what its called already, but on a school trip last year, we went to the command post through which they could control sats like Ikonos (which gave 1m resolution shots, cool!) when these sats came whithin our satellite dish's Line Of Sight. They are used for military purposes as well.
Just in case u miss the news... the malaysian cabinet have a very lively debate in their parliament over this piece of news...
So going to space may not be so far fetch at all... and if it is to be in collaboration with the isrealis... it will certainly speed things up a bit and at a lower cost...
Lastly... uncle sam has given approval over the joint isreali and singaporean satellite project.... -
BTW, what has it got to do with Uncle Sam since we are not buying into their satellite technology. Secondly, it is more like Singapore draw the spec and Israeli build and launch it into space rightOriginally posted by tripwire:may i point to you the recent report of singapore joining the isrealis in developing millitary purpose satellites....
Just in case u miss the news... the malaysian cabinet have a very lively debate in their parliament over this piece of news...
So going to space may not be so far fetch at all... and if it is to be in collaboration with the isrealis... it will certainly speed things up a bit and at a lower cost...
Lastly... uncle sam has given approval over the joint isreali and singaporean satellite project....
What I think Singapore need is not just a photo imagary satellite but also one that conduct SIGINT. -
Good idea... in fact wasnt the SIGINT a concern for the australians when singapore bought over OPTUS... reportedly controlling one of australians SIGINT satellite.... wonder where that satellite will be pointing its ears??? just look north of australia... heheee...Originally posted by Joe Black:BTW, what has it got to do with Uncle Sam since we are not buying into their satellite technology. Secondly, it is more like Singapore draw the spec and Israeli build and launch it into space right
What I think Singapore need is not just a photo imagary satellite but also one that conduct SIGINT. -
Hmmm, the SIGINT platforms we have are the Fokker 50s, right? I thought the Optus satellites were telecommunication sats only? I didn't really follow up on that one, someone kindly please fill me up on the details?
-
I think the issue about Optus was that the Aussies needed SingTel's word that they would be able to regain control of their sats for military purposes should the need arise. Or at least thats what I read....
-
I was just surfing the net and I found a place where we could download a quantitative analysis of the region's military balance of power. Just download from these links:
http://www.csis.org/burke/mb/asia_ro_asian_mb_comp.pdf
http://www.csis.org/burke/mb/asia_sea_mb_conv.pdf -
Wow!!! Hand on a sec (referring to the article and not your post)....Originally posted by YourFather:I was just surfing the net and I found a place where we could download a quantitative analysis of the region's military balance of power. Just download from these links:
http://www.csis.org/burke/mb/asia_ro_asian_mb_comp.pdf
http://www.csis.org/burke/mb/asia_sea_mb_conv.pdf
The articles put RSAF F-16 numbers at 91?????
and Australia F-111 at 49???? The figures are really dubious....
As for the helos table... what are the figures for Chinooks??? RSAF and RAAF UH-1H figures at 0???? what bulls**t!
As for the ships figure... Amphibious at 6 for RSN? Where on earth did the 6th ship appear? I thought it was 4 (Endeavour class) + 1 (ex-Sir Lancelot)?
Mine warfare ships at 0 for RSN? What about the RSS minehunters? They don't count? Singapore Submarine at 1???? Singapore Missile Patrol at 6? Are they referring to MGBs or MCVs?
The articles are crap!!!! But thanks YourFather for posting them anywhere. At least we can see that some people really do their research before posting information to the world.... Anyway, I hope our neighbours believe in those figures... hee hee -
hee hee, sorry. Should have checked its contents more carefully B4 recommending them to you guys. Luckily you spotted the mistakes
:-) -
Oh yah, the latest news fron China is that the J-10 is entering production, and will soon enter service. Go to any chinese military forum, they are in a frenzy over this. I've been visiting a chinese military info website recently, www.999junshi.com, and I realised that most chinese military enthusiasts are pretty blinded by nationalism. I mean, look at some of their essays, claiming that their tanks have better firepower than the Abrams(!), that they have a stealth helicopter, the WZ-10(!?), pic of which I've seen, and by god, I think the Supercobra looks much more stealthy...and much more BS. Really, I also feel a little ashamed for them. Come-on, nobody said they wont be a military power 1 day, but that day's at least 10 to 20 years away....
Anyway, back from my rambling, the J-10 seems to be the most capabable plane produced by China. Chinese enthusiasts tout that its more capable than the F-16 Block 50(yeah, right...), but others estimate its performance to be about that of the F-16 Block 30, which is still pretty damned good, for them. BTW, the plane looks pretty good too.
[This message has been edited by YourFather (edited 08 February 2002).] -
Yeah, tell me about it. Most of them think their stuff is really top of the line. while western analysts think they're rubbish, for example the JH-7(FBC-1) maritime strike aircaft has been likened to F-4 technology. Oh please...I think the reality is somewhere in between, the Chinese stuff is not top of the line, but its not antique junk trapped in a time warp either...
After all, whos seen the pictures of the PLAAF Finbacks carrying Python 3s. If a plane can carry a missile like that, I would say it would be no slouch in WVR combat. -
Just a thought. Who like me thinks that the RSN should spend more effort at building up its mine warfare capability? I think the small number(4?) of MCMVs we have is ridiculous, given the importance of our Sea Lines Of Communications(SLOC) and the geography of the area, where there are only a few narrow channels in and out which will be eailt mined?
-
me me me.... of course RSN thinks that the neighbours do not have credible minelaying ships yet.... the MCMVs are there just to clear mines around Singapore just in case some nuts think of putting some mines via there submarines...Originally posted by Viper52:Just a thought. Who like me thinks that the RSN should spend more effort at building up its mine warfare capability? I think the small number(4?) of MCMVs we have is ridiculous, given the importance of our Sea Lines Of Communications(SLOC) and the geography of the area, where there are only a few narrow channels in and out which will be eailt mined?
I think RSN need to build up their air defence and anti-subs capability. the 6 MCVs and the 6 MPV (anti-subs) and the new La Fayattes will not be sufficient for concurrent anti-air and anti-sub defence. Perhaps RSN should look at network centric modal. -
Network-centric? Ala CEC? nah, too axe. But Isreali datalinks are already in use in our air-force, and I wonder if the Navy has such a system for its Naval assets. (like sharing info between the Fokkers and the ships?)
As for AAW for the ships, I say money can be better spent elsewhere. We already operate under the best air-cover in the region, no need for further redundancy. I would rather money be spent to further ASW capabilities, as well as anti-mine capabilities. -
Actually, the Aussies DID buy F-111s from the US. Somehow, delivery was delayed again and again and again. I don't remember when they bought it though, but it was somewhere in the late 1960's if I'm not wrong. They took delivery of their first F-111C in 1973 and F-111Gs in 1992.
Quoted from F-111.net
"Today the 17 F-111C (including 4 ex F-111A), 4 RF-111C and 14 F-111G form the RAAF's Strike Reconnaissance Group consisting of No. 82 Wing, No 1 Squadron (F-111C Strike and RF-111C Reconnaissance) and No.6 Squadron ( F-111G Strike and F-111C Training). Depot level maintenance is performed by No. 501 Wing (ex 3 Aircraft Depot and 482 Squadron). The F/RF-111C fleet has recently completed the AUP Block upgrade, and a potential Block upgrade for the F-111G fleet is in the wings. " -
Shotgun, just pointing that RAAF doesn't have 49 F111. The number is incorrect that's all just like RSAF doesn't have 91 F-16s...Originally posted by Shotgun:Actually, the Aussies DID buy F-111s from the US. Somehow, delivery was delayed again and again and again. I don't remember when they bought it though, but it was somewhere in the late 1960's if I'm not wrong. They took delivery of their first F-111C in 1973 and F-111Gs in 1992.
Quoted from F-111.net
"Today the 17 F-111C (including 4 ex F-111A), 4 RF-111C and 14 F-111G form the RAAF's Strike Reconnaissance Group consisting of No. 82 Wing, No 1 Squadron (F-111C Strike and RF-111C Reconnaissance) and No.6 Squadron ( F-111G Strike and F-111C Training). Depot level maintenance is performed by No. 501 Wing (ex 3 Aircraft Depot and 482 Squadron). The F/RF-111C fleet has recently completed the AUP Block upgrade, and a potential Block upgrade for the F-111G fleet is in the wings. "
In fact the numbers you have quotes seem right and they are split among two sqn. The F-111C in one, and F-111G in another. -
Yeah...but 2 subs with 30 mines each laying them at the East and West end of the Straits of Singapore could really hurt...Originally posted by Joe Black:me me me.... of course RSN thinks that the neighbours do not have credible minelaying ships yet.... the MCMVs are there just to clear mines around Singapore just in case some nuts think of putting some mines via there submarines...
I think RSN need to build up their air defence and anti-subs capability. the 6 MCVs and the 6 MPV (anti-subs) and the new La Fayattes will not be sufficient for concurrent anti-air and anti-sub defence. Perhaps RSN should look at network centric modal.
Anti sub is well taken care of IMO once the new anti-sub helos arrive. The MPVs plus the frigates and 9-12 helos which we're looking for would be more than enough to take care of regional sub threats. -
Yeh....the only Pigs in the world that fly!Originally posted by Joe Black:Shotgun, just pointing that RAAF doesn't have 49 F111. The number is incorrect that's all just like RSAF doesn't have 91 F-16s...
In fact the numbers you have quotes seem right and they are split among two sqn. The F-111C in one, and F-111G in another.
seriously watching them do that dump and burn stunt was fantastic...I was at Melbourne for Australia Day last year and seeing the long plume of flame against the twillight sky was something else....
And Joe Black, have you seen 6 Sqns 50th Anniversary bird with the Pig's head and Boomerang on the tail? Way cool! -
Well nobody's perfect with numbers, if u know what I mean. Intelligence agencies aren't GOD. I can sympathize them if they decide to err on the higher numbers than on the lower numbers.
Simple logic that these numbers will either increase, or stay the same. Since they don't know the actual numbers at the time they are doing their report, it would be perfectly logical if they up the numbers a little.
I'm not tryin to diss you guys off or anything. Its just that, you can't expect the 100% accurate results from these intelligence firms/companies. Only those working for their respective military would have a clue of what the numbers are really like. =)