Singapore At War
-
Depending on how many rockets they have purchased too. They did not purchase the 32 rockets version thus signify that they intend to simply outrange SAF FH2000. However, rockets are known to be less accurate. Their intention is not to destroy targets at pinpoint accuracy but more for area bombardment. I wouldn't worry too much unless all their rockets are armed with cluster munitons. Secondly, SAF could well purchase ASTOR too or MLRS.Originally posted by CX: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. -
Oh I forgot to mention this... SAF doctrine is based on the 100 KM advance in 1 day, which means that theoritically, if war breaks out btw SG and MY, SG would probably be doing situation attack, sending most troops and equipment over the crossways. Unless MY is willing to waste JB or for the matter most of Johor, SAF could well occupy enough Johor to form a 50 to 100 klicks buffer zone. Don't think the ASTOR rockets would be able to threaten SG much then. SAF can then bring the new ultra lightweight 155mm gun across the causeway by Chinooks and Pumas. while the FH2000 can slowly be moved across.
-
You might reading too much of that book "Defening the Lion City". All I can say, is that SAF training is not focused on FIBUA. Let's leave matters of doctrine to the SAF planners ok?Originally posted by Joe Black:Oh I forgot to mention this... SAF doctrine is based on the 100 KM advance in 1 day, which means that theoritically, if war breaks out btw SG and MY, SG would probably be doing situation attack, sending most troops and equipment over the crossways. Unless MY is willing to waste JB or for the matter most of Johor, SAF could well occupy enough Johor to form a 50 to 100 klicks buffer zone. Don't think the ASTOR rockets would be able to threaten SG much then. SAF can then bring the new ultra lightweight 155mm gun across the causeway by Chinooks and Pumas. while the FH2000 can slowly be moved across.
-
I agree that the ASTROS2 system togather with their JERNAS system is their most significant buy of recent times. About counter battery capability, I share the same sentiments with a lot of you that loitering armed UAV is a excellent way of dealing with this. An interim solution would perharps be the formation of hunter killer groups consisting of wild weasels and fighter bombers to patrol certain sectors. The terrain in the region however makes the task of spotting the launchers much more difficult vis a vis Desert Storm. The worst thing about the counter battery mission is that the adavantage of first strike rest with the MLRS. Its extremely difficult to target a battery for suppression when it refuse to reveal its presence by firing. Someone mentioned the creation of the buffer zone. The creation of the buffer zone would protect our citizens and spore-based facilities but does not offer any protection to our troops in the field. An achilies heel in the deployment of MLRS would perharsp be battlefield target aquisition. What you cannot find you cannot hit. Air superiority over the battlefield would most probably deny an opponent the oppurtunity for air reconnaissance to aquire target information and allowing us to do the same. Tightening ground security will hopefully allow us to reduce the threat posed by the ground recce teams. Like what the doctor say....prevention is better than cure
-
I am curious about something. How many of you are actually military professionals? I do not want to know any details about your vocation...just whether you are a regular or not
-
well..... our only UAV project is call FIREFLY... supposedly with supersonic speed...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.
Tha LALEE as far as i know... is merely an engine at this stage... Engine for wat?? well.... maybe for the FIREFLY or maybe for something else more sinister....
But... i felt that somehow... LALEE may not be for the FIREFLY.... while the long endurance engine would imply long range or long loitering time.... but the first two letter LA of LALEE..... stands for LOW ALTITUDE.... UAVs are supposed to be high altitude.... i am not saying that this engine cant be use in high altitude (probably even better endurance)... but why they designate it with the key word Low altitude?
I would surmise that this engine.... could be the protype of future SS missile of singapore.... make 2 dozen of this SSM equipped with NAPALM... and KL would be immolated in a matter of minutes!
But the idea of using missile armed UAV is indeed a rather reasonable idea.... imagine if we have hundreds of these UAVs patrolling enemy sky using computer AI. in fact... i hope the RSAF RPV A4 skyhawk turns out to be a reality... considering we probably got 100+ skyhawks around... and not to mention the fact that ST has bought over the skyhawk manufacturing plant in the states afew years back, lots of spare parts to go around.. -
I never knew that the ST bought over the Skyhawk manufacturing plant
Considering that we are going to phase out the skyhawk in the next 5 years or something, It will be interesting to see where the Skyhawks would end up....to make an armed UAV out of them and yet maintaining their performance characteristics would be a major achievement. Perharps we can be less bloodthirsty in our forum ....to immolate KL in NAPLAM isnt a very neighbourly thing to do After all, we and not their sworn enemy and vice versa -
true indeed... but when bullets starts to fly... its either me or them... i prefer me.Originally posted by solaris:I never knew that the ST bought over the Skyhawk manufacturing plant Considering that we are going to phase out the skyhawk in the next 5 years or something, It will be interesting to see where the Skyhawks would end up....to make an armed UAV out of them and yet maintaining their performance characteristics would be a major achievement. Perharps we can be less bloodthirsty in our forum ....to immolate KL in NAPLAM isnt a very neighbourly thing to do After all, we and not their sworn enemy and vice versa
there is another UAV... called blue horizon right ??? -
UAVs being supersonic? Where did you get that from? Could you provide some sources?Originally posted by tripwire:well..... our only UAV project is call FIREFLY... supposedly with supersonic speed...
From what is being posted about the threats and all, what didn't anyone talk about the prospect of UCAVs? From what is read from magazines, seems like it's gonna be real big in a couple of years time. Or maybe ST has already had some 'ideas' about that?
Or maybe LALEE powerplant for that purpose? -
Dare to dream Joe! dare to dream...Originally posted by Joe Black:I wouldn't worry too much unless all their rockets are armed with cluster munitons.
The Brazillians don't have export control, the Malaysians have money to burn this time round and they've obviously done their homework...
Quite futile to wish the worse of one's adversary. -
You may be right, but at this time, it is hard to see where the Northern neighbour is going to come up with sufficient riggits to fund all these purchases.... let's take stock:Originally posted by CX:Dare to dream Joe! dare to dream...
The Brazillians don't have export control, the Malaysians have money to burn this time round and they've obviously done their homework...
Quite futile to wish the worse of one's adversary.
1. ASTOR rockets - source Brazil - quantity ???
2. MEKO 100 covettes - source Germany - quantity 6, eventually 20+??
3. MBT - source Poland - quantity 72
4. 155mm Howitzers - source South Africa - quantity (i forgot - need to check it up).
5. Korean IFV - source South Korea - quantity ???
6. Turkish IFV - source Turkey - quantity ???
7. New fighter type? Su 30? Super bugs? - source unknown yet - quantity ???
8. Submarines - source ??? - quantity ????
9. etc.
Man oh man, these are quite significant purchases. MY must have recovered very well since the 97 Asian economy crisis or they are just burning a lot of riggits just so that they can look to be on par with SG's military strength.
On paper, a lot of their stuffs look scary alright, but I really doubt their equipment will perform to the full spect or they have enuff munition to be effective. However, CX, you are rite to say that one should never underestimates one's opponent.
In my opinion, SAF can consider the following:
1. replace SM1 (that goes without saying) with a light/medium tank type with at least 105mm gun (preferrably 120mm). I personally like CV90-120mm type or upgraded Leo 1, A5 variant.
2. Arty dudes need to increase their firepower with:
a. guided munitions such as copperhead-type munition or millimeter wave guided munitions.
b. different kind of munitions including cluster munitions, anti-personal and anti-tank mines, fuel-air explosive rounds, etc.
3. Greater use of UAVs (although theoretically this falls under RSAF responsibility), arm the UAVs with warheads for dive in kills and some with missiles such as Hellfires and Spikes.
4. Improve air defence for each division with mobile launchers on M113 or the likes (like the LAV-AD LIGHT ARMOURED VEHICLE AIR DEFENSE system or the Linebacker SHORT RANGE AIR DEFENSE system).
5. Improve anti-amour/anti-tank by upgrading some or all Bionix IFV with TOW missiles (eg. like M2 Bradley or LAV 25).
Does anybody have more ideas??? -
Here is some modification I would like to addOriginally posted by Joe Black:You may be right, but at this time, it is hard to see where the Northern neighbour is going to come up with sufficient riggits to fund all these purchases.... let's take stock:
1. ASTOR rockets - source Brazil - quantity ???
2. MEKO 100 covettes - source Germany - quantity 6, eventually 20+??
3. MBT - source Poland - quantity 72
4. 155mm Howitzers - source South Africa - quantity (i forgot - need to check it up).
5. Korean IFV - source South Korea - quantity ???
6. Turkish IFV - source Turkey - quantity ???
7. New fighter type? Su 30? Super bugs? - source unknown yet - quantity ???
8. Submarines - source ??? - quantity ????
9. etc.
Man oh man, these are quite significant purchases. MY must have recovered very well since the 97 Asian economy crisis or they are just burning a lot of riggits just so that they can look to be on par with SG's military strength.
On paper, a lot of their stuffs look scary alright, but I really doubt their equipment will perform to the full spect or they have enuff munition to be effective. However, CX, you are rite to say that one should never underestimates one's opponent.
In my opinion, SAF can consider the following:
1. replace SM1 (that goes without saying) with a light/medium tank type with at least 105mm gun (preferrably 120mm). I personally like CV90-120mm type or upgraded Leo 1, A5 variant.
2. Arty dudes need to increase their firepower with:
a. guided munitions such as copperhead-type munition or millimeter wave guided munitions.
b. different kind of munitions including cluster munitions, anti-personal and anti-tank mines, fuel-air explosive rounds, etc.
3. Greater use of UAVs (although theoretically this falls under RSAF responsibility), arm the UAVs with warheads for dive in kills and some with missiles such as Hellfires and Spikes.
4. Improve air defence for each division with mobile launchers on M113 or the likes (like the LAV-AD LIGHT ARMOURED VEHICLE AIR DEFENSE system or the Linebacker SHORT RANGE AIR DEFENSE system).
5. Improve anti-amour/anti-tank by upgrading some or all Bionix IFV with TOW missiles (eg. like M2 Bradley or LAV 25).
Does anybody have more ideas???
1. Malaysian 155mm artillery
Sometime ago, field trials for the GIAT CESAR 155mm self propelled artillery was conducted and I believe a certain quantity was purchased. The South African 155mm - when was this announced?
2. The RMN submarines
I believed the winner of the submarine bid was DCN with their Scorpene submarine. I think RMN aquisition plan call for 3. The Scorpene posses a grave maritime menace. However I believe Tony Tan once made a public annoucement that the Challenger class subs are ~training subs~....
Regarding their funding, I think it is apparent to many of you that the RMAF grows in spurts - a massive modernisation once every few years. Therefore in the next 4 - 5 years you should see defence spending return to normal level. I think the SAF practises creep/low profile modernisation - a gradual upgrade and replacement program with new aquisition being announced in a staggered manner. Therefore I think what you are seeing is 2 different approach to arms modernisation. Another factor we should consider is the tendency of the Malaysians to do barter trade. I believe this was done with the MIG 29 purchase and could be one of the funding strategy for the Russian/CIS purchases though I don't think the western nations will be particularly enamored by it.
The Malaysian economy reported a growth of 4 - 5 % in 2001 with optimistic assesement by external agencies. Their credit rating should be substantially improve base on this. Loan from external institutions would probably be on favorable terms.
Upgarde for the Army
1. I am speculating that the light/medium tank will be an indigenous design based on Bionix technology with prominent Israeli influence(fire control and gunnery stabilisation etc). The gun will probably be a 105mm.
2. As mentioned earlier, MLRS should be a technology that the SAF investigate. The introduction of true SP variants of the FH2000 is also a possibility.
3. Improvement in the army air lift capability. With the completion of the Chinook program, a replacement for the UHIH should be evaluated.
4. It is unlikely that with the introduction of Igla and Mistral some years back and the fulfillment of our SHORAD requirements, a new SHORAD system will be introduced. The mounting of Igla/Mistral on IFV chassis is a possibility however? A more immediate task is the replacement of the I Hawk and Rapier 2 perharps. I am not sure of their system specifications and performance though. Should the upgrade be extensive enough then replacement might not be neccessary.
5. A low profile area - C4I. Battlefield information system and communications should be improved. By improving information transfer and dessimination, our forces will be able to outmaneurve larger enemy units. No information on this and I don't think anyone will comment on this. However with the SAF emphasis on manoeuvre warfare, there will most probably be interesting developments in this area.
6. Upgrade of AT capability. I do not think the SAF would introduce a new ATGW system currently. The Spike offers us many interesting possibilities though
------------------
what you cannot defend does not belong to you... -
Agreed on replacing out aged French grandfather...time that light tank needs to retire.
Disagree on fuel air explosives...such an offensive weapon is (pun unintended) highly offensive. Russia received huge bitchslaps from the international community from using that in chechnya. I guess the same reason why, even though we could probably produce nalpalm, we don't and shouldn't (in future) use it.
So far all your suggestions seem very offence minded, here are some of my suggestions to counter the MY purchases:
1) More CETs, CEVs. with these, they stop armour movt. period. throw in a few well laid minefields, and they are stuck.
2) More automated bridging equipment to ensure our armour is constantly on the move
3) more effective comms monitoring and jamming equipment
4) more NVDs handed out to rank and file, instead of only being handed out to Section I/cs and MG teams.
5) vehicle launched minefield creation systems.
6) more minefield hasty breaching equipment.
7) and perhaps my most controversial suggestion - changing our rifles.
I think a 5.56 lacks sufficient stopping power and 5.56 in deep jungle will not penetrate foliage.
hmm. what do you guys think?
cluster munitions for the airforce
9) better bayonets for our guys
10) and a partridge in a pear tree -
Janes defence weekly.... 1998 issue if i remeber correctly... it was on an interview by janes reporter with ST officials.... the Janes reporter even queried the official.... since FIREFLY is supersonic... wont it become a supersonic cruise missle (tomahawk is not even supersonic) once an explosive payload was amalgamated into the FIREFLY??? the official refuse to answer this question... the Isrealis also refuse to comment except that they are merely providing the techonology for the UAVs 'camera' system... with no involvement in its engine.Originally posted by Eyezer:UAVs being supersonic? Where did you get that from? Could you provide some sources?
From what is being posted about the threats and all, what didn't anyone talk about the prospect of UCAVs? From what is read from magazines, seems like it's gonna be real big in a couple of years time. Or maybe ST has already had some 'ideas' about that?
Or maybe LALEE powerplant for that purpose?
the reporter however noted that supersonic UAVs would be better then subsonic as the UAV can be sent to an area of interest within a shorter span of time... providing quicker surveilance reports... -
at least the rifle change should be easy, & can be done anytime. have the SAR 21 chambered for the 7.62 cartridge.
------------------
"Is it me or the sword you want?"~Jen Yu
CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON -
*laff*...what for? The recoil will be even greater and for inexperience shooters it will mean more off targets no matter how accurate Your this gun's targetting system maybe.Originally posted by mooncake:at least the rifle change should be easy, & can be done anytime. have the SAR 21 chambered for the 7.62 cartridge.
Sticking to the 5.56 mm currently will be the best for U all.
Ta -
*laff*...what for? The recoil will be even greater and for inexperience shooters it will mean more off targets no matter how accurate Your this gun's targetting system maybe.Originally posted by FuckSpore4ever:[QUOTE]Originally posted by mooncake:
[b]at least the rifle change should be easy, & can be done anytime. have the SAR 21 chambered for the 7.62 cartridge.
Sticking to the 5.56 mm currently will be the best for U all.
Ta[/B][/QUOTE]
Ahh....just to add to my original post why U all should stick to 5.56 mm. I shall use an AR-15 as an illustration.
The AR-15's 5.56mm bullets tumble upon impact, causing a bigger and more difficult to heal wound than the AK-47's round. Later developments of AK-74 was designed to rectify this with its own 5.56mm hollowpoint bullets.
The AK line is good for it's reliability, price, and power in a bigger cartridge, the 7.62mm (that's the standard, anyways). The AR-15 uses a smaller 5.56mm NATO cartridge, but also shoots straighter.
*laff* so in terms of stopping power in thick jungles like Brunei, Malaysia {if U all want to come that is...I can be a tour guide for U all *laff*} it won't be of that vitial importance. The AR-15 has been combat proven in the Vietnam War etc. Switching to a 7.62 mm may not bring U all the desire results U want. Not too sure about Your SAR21...unless U all care to show me.
*laff* okay going to see my niece in NUS. Will come back tonite to chat with U all and FuckMudlaysia4ever.
Ta. -
Its futile to change to the 7.62 rounds... first and foremost, logistics: It would entail a whole series of re-tooling by ST kinetics, you need to re-create whole new stockpiles and re-train troops to use it properly. Its heavier and if we complain about lugging around 5.56 mags, i dont wanna think about lugging around 7.62 rounds... Its an absolute waste of resources.
Also, in jungle terrain, u usually can't see beyond more than 50-100m... thats why even with an extended range, its useless. U can't kill what u can't see. Penetrate foliage? what for??? It really makes more sense to watch and shoot than to flood the whole jungle with metal to to kill a guy hiding behind a tree! Besides, thats what the 1.5x scope on the SAR21 is for... I'm never convinced by the argument that in actual ops, soldiers would never aim their weapons... thats what training is for!
Another thing is compatibility. 5.56 is the NATO and American standard. That means it would be possible for them to supply us, or us to supply them during ops if necessary. Don't have to worry about having weird, incompatible calibres... (the U.S had this problem with the Afghans recently...)
By and large, I think its dumb to just change the calibre of the service rifle just for some myopic and questionable benefits.
------------------
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 -
The point of having it subsonic is for fuel endurance flight, making it a string assert in the primary role of survelliance. By making it supersonic, wouldn't it just shorten the time in the air? What good would that do? And i doubt the fuel tank is that big for so much needed fuel.Originally posted by tripwire:Janes defence weekly.... 1998 issue if i remeber correctly... it was on an interview by janes reporter with ST officials.... the Janes reporter even queried the official.... since FIREFLY is supersonic... wont it become a supersonic cruise missle (tomahawk is not even supersonic) once an explosive payload was amalgamated into the FIREFLY??? the official refuse to answer this question... the Isrealis also refuse to comment except that they are merely providing the techonology for the UAVs 'camera' system... with no involvement in its engine.
the reporter however noted that supersonic UAVs would be better then subsonic as the UAV can be sent to an area of interest within a shorter span of time... providing quicker surveilance reports...
If they were to increase the payload(MTOW), it would be more useful on having more equipments(for primary mission) and even weapons, not on fuel, i believe. Still not convince that it's a feasible option.
As for the increase in calibre for our rifles, you must be nuts to even think of carrying a 7.62mm around. How much heavier do you think that will be? Don't think it's physically possible for an average size singaporean who spends their time playing too much computer and internet(like us!!). Unless you are thinking of supplementing the MG gunners when they are out of rounds, hahahahaa.....
Agree on the stand of our gradual purchases of weaponary and equipment. Furthermore, the ST is always improvising our 'toys', so might never know what is their next surprise. Although they are not that highly 'thought' of, but with expertise brought from overseas and push for more R&D, they'll be an impressive organisation in time to come. Just needs more time for the scientist and engineers to think of some innovative ideas. -
I think wat they mean is that the FIREFLY UAV has the capability to go supersonic whenever required... but not neccessary to be supersonic all the time.....Originally posted by Eyezer:The point of having it subsonic is for fuel endurance flight, making it a string assert in the primary role of survelliance. By making it supersonic, wouldn't it just shorten the time in the air? What good would that do? And i doubt the fuel tank is that big for so much needed fuel.
If they were to increase the payload(MTOW), it would be more useful on having more equipments(for primary mission) and even weapons, not on fuel, i believe. Still not convince that it's a feasible option.
As for the increase in calibre for our rifles, you must be nuts to even think of carrying a 7.62mm around. How much heavier do you think that will be? Don't think it's physically possible for an average size singaporean who spends their time playing too much computer and internet(like us!!). Unless you are thinking of supplementing the MG gunners when they are out of rounds, hahahahaa.....
Agree on the stand of our gradual purchases of weaponary and equipment. Furthermore, the ST is always improvising our 'toys', so might never know what is their next surprise. Although they are not that highly 'thought' of, but with expertise brought from overseas and push for more R&D, they'll be an impressive organisation in time to come. Just needs more time for the scientist and engineers to think of some innovative ideas.
Being supersonic while might guzzle up fuel... it does have its advantages... such as overflying high threat areas or the need to reach a designated area within a short short time....
After that... it can go subsonic and loiter around....
And lastly... if push come to shove... tip that bastard with a NUKE... ahahahaha..... oops... where is KL??? -
Talking about the terrain and range at which an infantryman will have to fight in the Malay Peninsular, there are a few of my friends in the army who do not believe that in a future conflict, close quarter and confined combat in which the contact range may be less than 50m will be possible.
The reason given is that with the range of modern weaponry, why would we need to close in? I am always quite disconcerted by this ...perharps too many Singaporeans have been blinded by technology to understand that the use of technology is often constrained by the terrain in which they most probably have go fight in. I hope this is an isolated example..... -
Looking through the discussions up till now, I am still amaze by the amount of information that is avilable from the public domain. It is obvious that as long as you purchase your equipment from an external supplier, that will be the weakest link in the securtiy chain I can imagine some intelligence officer spending his whole work day poring through all the defence magazines and such. Makes one wonder whether the RMAF already knows all this stuff.... regarding the UAV..... they offer VERY VERY interesting possibilities in the RSN operations
------------------
what you cannot defend does not belong to you... -
Its pretty damn obvious that most of the stuff available on the public domain is merely the tip of the iceberg.
So what if they know? Firstly, CIS and ST and everybody else are in the business of selling their stuff as well as making it for SAF and other armed forces so it has to be assumed that useful marketing materials are available to whoever's interested... but as i said before... marketing materials may not be the best indication of a product's operational capability.
Of course they know... the important thing is, so what if they know? knowing the specifications of your adversary helps u prepare to defeat it, but it doesn't mean that u don't have to put men or machines in the field to do it. It plots directions and strategies, but doesn't necessarily determines outcomes. -
New Straits Times report that SAF will train in Red China, causing Taiwan MP to call for SAF to be banned from Taiwan. Hah!!
Just like the Malaysians... I wonder if our Malaysian defence analyst Mr EYEZER has anything to comment......thx -
I always pin high hopes on our SAFOriginally posted by andrewtay:i think most of the postings by you all just shows that you all are just simply ignorant of the capability of SAF...i dun want to reveal too many things...but SAF is always on the offensive when we officers plan our missions...regardless of Battalion or Brigade level.
There are many sensitive matter that only CAT 1 clearance personnel can access to...so for those who r unsure, pls dun anyhow post.