Singapore At War
-
Dear ipowersiaOriginally posted by ipowersia:sg can win war??? lolx dream long long... SAF stand for serve and forget.. wont win 1..
my comments onli.. no offence hehe
If you are a Singaporean...the ability of SAF to win a war depends on whether people like you yourself are willing to fight. Perharps you would be klind enough to substantiate your opinion with examples to allow us to have an intelligent debate.
If you are not a Singaporean, I wish and i pray that hope that we never have to find out the answer in the crucible of war. You might be surprise and not me
No offence too and nothing personal
I have read abt the comments by the Malaysian general. Correct me if I am wrong but he seems to imply that National Servicemen, being non-professional, do not have a concept of ethics and morality in war. I would think that on the contrary, an NS army with its exposure to a civilian society would be more imbused with the notion of morality in war. That was a blatant case of making an enemy out of nowhere. What is the lesson to be learnt out of that conflict he might say - how about when a state threatened with extinction will go to great length and be capable of applying overwhelming force to ensure its survival?
------------------
what you cannot defend does not belong to you... -
Just when i mentioned in the previous page that i wish people would think a bit before deciding not to fight...Originally posted by ipowersia:sg can win war??? lolx dream long long... SAF stand for serve and forget.. wont win 1..
my comments onli.. no offence hehe
I wonder if the alternative of the aggressor coming over to burn your house, kill your family and rape your wife and daughter is preferable to you?
There isn't really a choice here... after all possible peaceful avenues have been explored and exhausted, the only choice that remains is if u wanna die fighting or die running... -
Precisely. I never cease to be amazed at the ignorance shown by some Singaporeans about this issue. What do they think? If an invader attacks Singapore, they think that once they completed their occuaption they will let everyone who did not fight go about their merry ways and continuing to live their own private lives? Get real...these people are so obsessed with themselves they never look around the world and see what happens to the populations of conquered nations, what happens to the men, and especially the women.Originally posted by CX:Just when i mentioned in the previous page that i wish people would think a bit before deciding not to fight...
I wonder if the alternative of the aggressor coming over to burn your house, kill your family and rape your wife and daughter is preferable to you?
There isn't really a choice here... after all possible peaceful avenues have been explored and exhausted, the only choice that remains is if u wanna die fighting or die running...
ipowersia, a recommendation to you. Go to google, type in the following searches,
- Srebrenica
- occupation kuwait
- bosnia war rape
- ethnic cleansing
- rape of nanking
You might change your attitude -
My sentiments exactly Viper.
The reason why we have national conscription is to make all of us soldiers whether in or out of uniform.
Even if we lose the conventional war, the north chimps will have hell to pay in trying to hold us down.
Gentlemen, let me quote from from SM Lee's 2nd book @ pg 35 - "the best deterrent to any malaysian plan to regain control over Singapore was their knowledge that even if they could subdue our armed forces, they would have to keep down a whole people well trained in the use of arms and explosives" -
I think the effectiveness of a armed resistance movement in an occupied SingaporeOriginally posted by No Frill:My sentiments exactly Viper.
The reason why we have national conscription is to make all of us soldiers whether in or out of uniform.
Even if we lose the conventional war, the north chimps will have hell to pay in trying to hold us down.
Gentlemen, let me quote from from SM Lee's 2nd book @ pg 35 - "the best deterrent to any malaysian plan to regain control over Singapore was their knowledge that even if they could subdue our armed forces, they would have to keep down a whole people well trained in the use of arms and explosives"
would be relatively low due to its urbanised nature. I have yet to come across a resistance movement that flourish in an urbanised envron. Civil disobedience perharps? That would very much depends on the ruthless and oppressiveness of an occupying power. A Lidice or Oradour sur mer in Singapore would have a suppressive effect on the resistance of the occupied population.
Throughout this topic we have been discussing abt the capability of the SAF and I am sure that many would have a vague idea or concurrence with the operation plan of a hypothetical SAF offensive in Malaysia as described in Tim Huxely <Defending the Lion City>. Should this be the SAF mode of operation, What should the RMAF(Royal Malaysian Armed Forces) do to counter this and negate the SAF conventional superiority in war?
------------------
what you cannot defend does not belong to you... -
Apologies to all but I think we should not discuss the question I raise in the above post. I do not want to help others do the thinking.....Originally posted by solaris:I think the effectiveness of a armed resistance movement in an occupied Singapore
would be relatively low due to its urbanised nature. I have yet to come across a resistance movement that flourish in an urbanised envron. Civil disobedience perharps? That would very much depends on the ruthless and oppressiveness of an occupying power. A Lidice or Oradour sur mer in Singapore would have a suppressive effect on the resistance of the occupied population.
Throughout this topic we have been discussing abt the capability of the SAF and I am sure that many would have a vague idea or concurrence with the operation plan of a hypothetical SAF offensive in Malaysia as described in Tim Huxely <Defending the Lion City>. Should this be the SAF mode of operation, What should the RMAF(Royal Malaysian Armed Forces) do to counter this and negate the SAF conventional superiority in war? -
Hey Solaris, I agree with you that S'pore's urbanised environment does not afford the same kind of strategic depth of say, Chechnya, where the terrorists...whoops, 'freedom fighters' can dodge in and out of the mountains.
However, what we do have is s hugely urban landscape.
A determined population in the battle for Salingrad has shown that it can be held. They can bomb us all to smithereens, but that will only worsen 1) the global politics for them 2) destroy whaever they wanted to get their grubby infidel hands on 3) turn the entire nation into one huge FIBUA which is, if you have experienced it, a real pain in the ass.
They will literally bleed their army to death as determined pockets of singaporeans hold out here and there, booby trapping every convoy route, shooting helpless chimp sentries on duties, shitting in their food, that sort of fun and games.
Yes of course we'd suffer shitloads too, but hey, it would defeat all their strategic purpose to come into S'pore and try to hold us.
I doubt that they'd even dare to step here, cos they know that they'd lose all their men to the urban meatgrinder.
And FIBUA always favours the defenders -
While i am not exactly averse to fighting and possibly, dying to keep the filthy arms of the aggressor away from all that i hold dear, i think it should be remembered that the whole point of peacetime training is so that you don't die easy in wartime.
the point is not to die for your country, but to make the bastards on the other side die for his...
speed is obviously of the essence and as tim huxley suggests in his book, the advance is necessarily limited so that the supply lines would not be overstretched. (since it is published, i do not find it taboo to mention 'cos our friends up north would probably have been the first to review it)
I've often wondered if we can move fast enough to make this as painless as possible... as often said, no plan survives first contact with the enemy. A question we ought to ask ourself is: are our capabilities diverse enough to afford us the maximum flexibility and still allow us to maintain a coherent and limited objective? -
This is a question whose reply I feel is not appropriate on this, a public forum.Originally posted by CX:A question we ought to ask ourself is: are our capabilities diverse enough to afford us the maximum flexibility and still allow us to maintain a coherent and limited objective?
Pose the question and keep 'em guessing if they don't already know. -
I was just wondering what types of tanks (aside from the scorpion) that monkey land has? I understand that they were trying to bulk buy some 30 Turkish AIFVs in 1998, then what happened?
What APC / armoured vehicles do the chimps use? Do the chimps have MLRS capabilities? -
No Frill and everyoene, I think we should refrain from calling them names and such. Just because they're unable to rise to our level does not mean we have to stoop to theirs.
Afterall like I've mentioned before, every abusive post that guy makes just proves my point that he, like the government and press over there, are unable to conduct a proper debate or discussion and are just able to resort to hysterics, name calling and abuse.
Every post he makes here just proves my point -
Viper's right dude.Originally posted by No Frill:I was just wondering what types of tanks (aside from the scorpion) that monkey land has? I understand that they were trying to bulk buy some 30 Turkish AIFVs in 1998, then what happened?
What APC / armoured vehicles do the chimps use? Do the chimps have MLRS capabilities?
Ok back to question...the 30 Turkish AIFV is actually AC-300s. AC-300 are pretty much like heavily modified M113s with additional road wheel for increased size. It seems to have applique armor and a 25/30mm chaingun. I think the number is not 30 but more like 300 on order.
Currently they do have 90MM Scorpion Tanks, stormer APCs, Condor 6x6 APCs, BV206s, Simbas APC, Saracens, Saladin and Ferret cars. Actually numbers I dunno and I think I left out a few armor too. Basically, they do have a few variety of "cold war era" armor vehicles.
[This message has been edited by Silenthunter (edited 23 April 2002).]
[This message has been edited by Silenthunter (edited 23 April 2002).] -
Thanks for the info. Hmm. Most of their stuff is pretty much lightly armoured with an emphasis on mobility rather than fire power and protection.
I doubt that their armour can withstand ST's 40mm airburst ammunition. Still.
Nothing that a well laid minefield can't stop
-
I guess the Bosnian/serb campaign is the best example of air power ABUSED. US Airpower was the SOLE striking asset throughout the whole campaign. Though they asserted total air-superiority quickly, they still took many losses due to the lack resolution to commit ground troops. So basically, milosevic pointed all his guns into the air, ready to hose whatever they can see. The threat came from only one place, the skies.Originally posted by Silenthunter:Didn't the Bosnia/Serb Peace-keeping mission prove that Gunships are vunerable too? If I'm not mistaken, the US rather deploy tanks than the Apaches in during the conflict.
Seems like our northern neighbor's forces are always used as a benchmark when comparing our force. But I was quite suprise than M-sia's buying yesterday's technology. Although the PT-91's fully upgraded to current generation tank technology, it's still a T-72 right? It's not like as if the M-sians already have T-72s are were upgrading to the PT-91s. But it terms of the size of the T-72, it's actually not that big. I would say it's still able to manuver pretty well even in some of the larger paths of SG's "kampong terrian".
SM1 operator were often simulated to fight the smaller brother of the T-72s so I guess that's it for the SM1s....
The gulf war was a better example of air power at its best, simply because the entire US Armed forces was put to work in Unison, with one service supporting the other. Whatever the ground pounders couldn't take care of, the Air force took care of it. Whatever thats too hot for the fighters/bombers to handle, the ground pounders levelled it.
For the SAF to be effective in war, ALL 3 services must be able to work independently, and cooperatively, striking or parrying as individuals, or in unison. Only then, would any of the services be utilized fully, and efficiently. -
Well said on the tri service integration requiredOriginally posted by Shotgun:I guess the Bosnian/serb campaign is the best example of air power ABUSED. US Airpower was the SOLE striking asset throughout the whole campaign. Though they asserted total air-superiority quickly, they still took many losses due to the lack resolution to commit ground troops. So basically, milosevic pointed all his guns into the air, ready to hose whatever they can see. The threat came from only one place, the skies.
The gulf war was a better example of air power at its best, simply because the entire US Armed forces was put to work in Unison, with one service supporting the other. Whatever the ground pounders couldn't take care of, the Air force took care of it. Whatever thats too hot for the fighters/bombers to handle, the ground pounders levelled it.
For the SAF to be effective in war, ALL 3 services must be able to work independently, and cooperatively, striking or parrying as individuals, or in unison. Only then, would any of the services be utilized fully, and efficiently.
I agree with you that the air power was the sole striking arm used in the NATO campaign. However given the political contraints and weakness, it was the only method available. The objective of the campaign however was achieved - to force the Bosnian serb into the Dayton peace conference.
CX :
To add on to what SilentHunter has said about the RMAF armour capability. There is the KIFV - Korean Infantry Fighting Vehicle.
The RMAF also the ASTRO2 MLRS system - does anyone know whether the RMAF has the 4 Tube Variant with a 90KM range (useful counter battery capability)
Does anyone has information of the Malaysian Army air defence capability? I am only aware of IGLA and JERNAS. -
I believe that they have the STARBURST as well. All these are essentailly close in MANPADS type weapons. Not too sure if they have longer ranged systems.Originally posted by solaris:The RMAF also the ASTRO2 MLRS system - does anyone know whether the RMAF has the 4 Tube Variant with a 90KM range (useful counter battery capability)
Does anyone has information of the Malaysian Army air defence capability? I am only aware of IGLA and JERNAS.
Not too sure about the ASTROS. I've seen press reports stating its got 90km range, but knowing the average "mainstream" press story about defence issues (worldwide not just M'sia) I'm not surprised some reporter plucked the most impressive figure he saw from Janes and assumed thats the one they got -
assuming that they did indeed obtain the 90km range version (either now or in the future)... what do we have to counter it...?Originally posted by Viper52:I believe that they have the STARBURST as well. All these are essentailly close in MANPADS type weapons. Not too sure if they have longer ranged systems.
Not too sure about the ASTROS. I've seen press reports stating its got 90km range, but knowing the average "mainstream" press story about defence issues (worldwide not just M'sia) I'm not surprised some reporter plucked the most impressive figure he saw from Janes and assumed thats the one they got
I would assume... that those assets with relatively high mobility and long range would be quite difficult for air power to hunt them down in a jungle terrain... not to mention that they will probably be well defended by portable or jeep mounted SAMs.... from air threats..
can singapore's LALEE engine be combined with the Spike warhead and seeker to hit those target? to be frank... i have no idea wat is the range of LALEE... but i would assume it to be at least 100km... else wont it be stupid to call the engine... long endurance? last i heard.... (probably rumor) its range is somewat like that of the tomahawk!! -
How do we counter the ASTROs? Good question. There're a number of ways.Originally posted by tripwire:assuming that they did indeed obtain the 90km range version (either now or in the future)... what do we have to counter it...?
I would assume... that those assets with relatively high mobility and long range would be quite difficult for air power to hunt them down in a jungle terrain... not to mention that they will probably be well defended by portable or jeep mounted SAMs.... from air threats..
can singapore's LALEE engine be combined with the Spike warhead and seeker to hit those target? to be frank... i have no idea wat is the range of LALEE... but i would assume it to be at least 100km... else wont it be stupid to call the engine... long endurance? last i heard.... (probably rumor) its range is somewat like that of the tomahawk!!
- Get even longer ranged MLRs or arty systems. The American ATACM is an example of this. IIRC it boasts a 300 klick range, unless I got that wrong. Since we will not be the first country to get a MLRS, export restrictions *might* not matter. Upshot is we have a system that restores our advantage in range. Downside is the difficulty in accurately placing counterbattery fire. Advances in arty radar might help, but its not an exact science, and targets might pack up and move before counterbattery fire.
- The UAV idea is pretty intersting. As the LALEE is a pretty new system obviously no one knows the full specs of its performance. But with its capacity for large payloads(at this moment just restricted to camera packs) I don't see why a Spike, Hellfire, CBU or Mk.82 JDAM(if the Americans allow export here) cannot be fitted. It'll act like the Predators over Afghanistan, effectively being the eyes, ears and teeth of the war effort. Let it loiter over posible launch areas, out of reach of MANPADS, and watch for launch signiatures. Once detected the missiles will be returned, with interest. -
Counter attack using ATACM might not be as easy because (as you have already said in your post) it requires the enemy to first fire before counter attack can proceed. Alternate use is to first fire ATACM with cluster munition warheads that will rain down on possible launch sites to pre-empt an attack by the MLRS.Originally posted by Viper52:How do we counter the ASTROs? Good question. There're a number of ways.
- Get even longer ranged MLRs or arty systems. The American ATACM is an example of this. IIRC it boasts a 300 klick range, unless I got that wrong. Since we will not be the first country to get a MLRS, export restrictions *might* not matter. Upshot is we have a system that restores our advantage in range. Downside is the difficulty in accurately placing counterbattery fire. Advances in arty radar might help, but its not an exact science, and targets might pack up and move before counterbattery fire.
- The UAV idea is pretty intersting. As the LALEE is a pretty new system obviously no one knows the full specs of its performance. But with its capacity for large payloads(at this moment just restricted to camera packs) I don't see why a Spike, Hellfire, CBU or Mk.82 JDAM(if the Americans allow export here) cannot be fitted. It'll act like the Predators over Afghanistan, effectively being the eyes, ears and teeth of the war effort. Let it loiter over posible launch areas, out of reach of MANPADS, and watch for launch signiatures. Once detected the missiles will be returned, with interest.
Using LALEE with ATGM makes senses as it has proven to be effective by both Americans and the Israeli. In fact IDF armed their UAVs with miniture warheads for a dive in attack if they spot any valuable assets (eg. SAM radar, etc) while on recon. Using UAV for attack may not be as easy given US army had lots of problem with Predators in Afganistan, but still I think this is definitely something SAF can explore.
On the notes of SAF should get a similar capability, I think I agree that SAF should renew the interest to obtain at least a battery to two of MLRS with a possiblity of getting some ATACMs. -
The best way to take out a highly mobile long range weapon is to "plink" it... just like they did the mobile scud batteries during the Gulf war; with men on the ground directing laser guided bombs. but then, they were dealing with scuds... i wonder if its viable to do that with mlrs 'cos the bottom line is, its just an artilerry system.
But its high risk and the people involved would certainly not wanna get caught... As for fitting a UAV with a spike... well... lets hope the engineers in ST are quick to catch on...
Actually, the achilles heels of the Astros is not in the rockets; its the Command and Control Vehicle / Fire Control Unit (AV-VCC) which directs and co-ordinates the fire for up to 3 batteries(typically 6 launchers each). u take that out, its effectiveness is greatly reduced 'cos mlrs depends on the massive saturation they can deliver for its greatest effect.
Of course, its cold comfort to know that they can't all fire at the same time anymore, but its a step towards realizing a more effective way to counter it.
The danger to the mlrs in my opinion, is that (a) it outranges our most effective artillery so we lack an effective means of retaliation and (b) its potential application... don't wanna give em any ideas but u can imagine what it could do in an anti-artillery role... it could also rain bomblets on armour and defence positions and the damage could be total... both the Iraqis and the Allies used it during the gulf war and they both know its a very good system...
I've often felt more spooked by the Astros than the PT90s... Maybe its time to make an appointment with lockheed-martin and good 'ol uncle sam for their HIMAR system and then, good 'ol brother israel for their enhanced range rockets =) well, when push comes to shove, it might even be advisable to negotiate for the purchase of the ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) guided missiles for use with it...
Problem is, these are very expensive systems... i would hate for my GST to rise to 10% (even though its still lower than some European countries' but thats not the point!) -
The problem with tasking aircraft to take out individual vehicles is efficiency. At Desert Storm and Allied Force, coalition and NATO airraft had a difficult time taking out individual mobile Scuds and Yugoslav AFVs and arty pieces due to their mobility, camouflage and extensive use of decoys. However, in both cases, the air forces were compelled by political considerations to do so(halt Scud attacks against Saudi Arabia and Israel in DS, and to try and impede Serbian ethnic cleansing in Kosovo). As it was, the USAF found the job to be inefficient, taxing on resources, and marginally successful at best. If the USAF had its resources taxed, I cannot imagine how the RSAF would cope with such a scenario. We'd be practically pulling aircraft from other roles to hunt the damn rockets.
I actually have an alternative solution to taking out these rockets, but I would not go into it here. I'm sure the MINDEF planners would have thought into this since it would fit into overall strategy. All I'll say is, focus!!
[This message has been edited by Viper52 (edited 23 April 2002).] -
on the subject of taking out rockets... Israel has the help from the US in developing lasers that can shoot down the Russian Katyusha rockets fired by the Hezbollah. Perhaps SAF should also acquire this technology as part of the arty defence system. Secondly, destroying mobile launchers and command stations are probably better to defend against arty strikes than to down rockets. So, I still think that UAV carrying Hellfire/Spike is a great idea ST Engg engineers should come up with. DSTA should help add some really cool IIR seeker, laser designator to the UAVs.Originally posted by Viper52:I actually have an alternative solution to taking out these rockets, but I would not go into it here. I'm sure the MINDEF planners would have thought into this since it would fit into overall strategy. All I'll say is, focus!!
As for hunting the mobile launchers and command posts, perhaps the best is to send attack helos and SFs. 2 Apaches with 4 TOW and rocket armed Fennecs plus 4-6 UH-1H with SFs are perhaps a workable solution. Apaches with their longbow will be able to defeat SAM protection and pick up real targets from decoys, the TOW armed Fennecs will go in for the kill wile the UH will drop the SFs for any additional killings, or put a laser on any targets for a LGB drop from RSAF aircraft. Of course all these will come after the UAVs have done some recon around the area first and perhaps drop a few Hellfire/Spikes on priority target first, such as mobile SAMs launchers/radars, MANPADs, etc. -
The idea is good, but not practial against MLRS, which is a staturation onslaught. I am not sure if it could handle against such numbers. It also does not solve the root of the problem.Originally posted by Joe Black:on the subject of taking out rockets... Israel has the help from the US in developing lasers that can shoot down the Russian Katyusha rockets fired by the Hezbollah. Perhaps SAF should also acquire this technology as part of the arty defence system.
It will be more effective, if they could not come into range of any high value targerts. That will require us to achieve errr..... some empty space.
For any long range system to work, one will require spotters. Eliminate that factor, and will reduce much of this threat.
[This message has been edited by wombat (edited 23 April 2002).] -
.
[This message has been edited by wombat (edited 23 April 2002).] -
I agree.. the laser solution is workable for the IDF against Hezbollah terror attacks 'cos they don't fire that many rockets at any one time...
Our friends up north certainly did not buy the Astros to be used as a terror weapon. they obviously intend it to be a long range artillery saturation weapon to counter our edge in long range artillery. the FH2000 has a maximum range of 55km. the Astros, equipped with long range rockets will have range from 20-90km.
They've thought this through before putting their money into it.
I wonder what the Thais are thinking... I don't buy the notion that the peaceful Buddhist kingdom will be least likely to get involved in an armed conflict... like it or not, the balance of power in this region must be maintained and everybody in the region would concur on this point.
------------------
I never saw a wild thing
sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
without ever having felt sorry for itself.
D. H. Lawrence