Singapore At War
-
The was a discussion on UAVs, check out these sites to see the development of some of them.
Global Hawk
-----------
http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/global.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb1997/b022097_bt082-97.html
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/gallery/imageLinks.jsp?UAV
Predator
--------
http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/RQ_1_Predator_Unmanned_Aerial.html
Pioneer
-------
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/aircraft/air-uav.html
UCAV
----
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ucav.htm
http://www.boeing.com/phantom/ucav.html
http://www.boeing.com/phantom/ucavn.html
http://www.globemaster.de/regfact.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/71421_unmanned22.shtml
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/X-45A/HTML/EC01-0292-9.html -
Links to UAV development in US.
Global Hawk
-----------
http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/global.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb1997/b022097_bt082-97.html
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/gallery/imageLinks.jsp?UAV
Predator
--------
http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/RQ_1_Predator_Unmanned_Aerial.html
Pioneer
-------
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/aircraft/air-uav.html
UCAV
----
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ucav.htm
http://www.boeing.com/phantom/ucav.html
http://www.boeing.com/phantom/ucavn.html
http://www.globemaster.de/regfact.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/71421_unmanned22.shtml
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/X-45A/HTML/EC01-0292-9.html -
Links to UAV development in US.
Global Hawk
-----------
http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/global.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb1997/b022097_bt082-97.html
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/gallery/imageLinks.jsp?UAV
Predator
--------
http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/RQ_1_Predator_Unmanned_Aerial.html
Pioneer
-------
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/aircraft/air-uav.html
UCAV
----
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ucav.htm
http://www.boeing.com/phantom/ucav.html
http://www.boeing.com/phantom/ucavn.html
http://www.globemaster.de/regfact.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/71421_unmanned22.shtml
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/X-45A/HTML/EC01-0292-9.html -
Latest from Straits Times:
RSAF fighter jet crashes during training
By Dominic Nathan
ASSISTANT NEWS EDITOR
A REPUBLIC of Singapore Air Force F-16C fighter aircraft crashed on Thursday during a training flight near the Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, in the United States.
A statement from the Defence Ministry here on Thursday said that aircraft was flown by a United States Air Force pilot, under a training arrangement that the RSAF has in the US.
The pilot ejected safely from the aircraft and there were no casualties or damage to property.
Mindef said that the crash occured at about 5.15 pm on Wednesday in Arizona (8.15 am Thursday, Singapore time), some 60 nautical miles south of Luke Air Force Base, while the aircraft was on a routine training flight.
The ministry added that investigations are being conducted to determine the cause of the crash.
-----------------------------------------------------
guess we have 68 F-16s left -
At least it wasn't our pilot. When did it happen?
-
Nah, the USAF will compensate for the lost one from their stock.Originally posted by CenturionMBT:-----------------------------------------------------
guess we have 68 F-16s left
[This message has been edited by Joe Black (edited 31 May 2002).] -
Just saw an article I thought those of us interested in the recent MBT development will be interested to know:
------------------------------------------
United Defense, with subcontractors BAE Systems and TRW, has demonstrated the first simultaneous defeat of two live threats by the Integrated Army Active Protection System (IAAPS) on a US combat vehicle, under a US Army Survivability Technology Integration Programme contract.
The integrated suite has successfully conducted multiple demonstrations of end-to-end system performance, including: detection, classification, and selection of the appropriate countermeasure; tracking and computation of the fire control solution; and defeat by electronic warfare soft kill or active protection hard kill.
The suite has successfully demonstrated defeat of two live threats fired at a single vehicle at the same time without the use of armour as the primary means of defeat. The next phase in demonstrating IAAPS capabilities involves defeating incoming threats while on the move.
"The successful intercept of two incoming, simultaneous threats has never been achieved previously on a US ground combat vehicle," said Val Horvatich, General Manager of United Defense's Advanced Development Centre. "The ability to actively protect ground combat systems from hostile threats using systems other than armour is key enabling technology for the Army's Future Combat Systems."
The Integrated Army Active Protection System (IAAPS) is currently integrated on a ground combat vehicle and is undergoing testing. The suite includes two types of passive sensors, electronic warfare soft kill countermeasures, and an active protection hard kill system composed of launcher, radar and a deployed countermeasure.
The IAAPS program, which is an Army Science and Technology Objective, has successfully demonstrated an integrated survivability system on a ground combat vehicle, which is designed to increase vehicle survivability while allowing for a decrease in armour and, therefore, vehicle weight.
Source: http://defence-data.com/current/page14669.htm
---------------------------------------------
It seems like the Americans are trying to do the catching up in terms of active self defense system for MBTs. Like the Russians and Swedish, if their systems work as specified, SAF could perhaps buy into such technology for locally made or modified light weight MBTs to counter Malaysian's T91 MBTs. -
Unlikely. Of the top of my head I can't remember any USAF units using the 52. They've have some units on the 42, but none I know using the P&W F-16CJ. I believe that attirtion replacement will be ordered, possibly as part of any future F-16 order(who'd bet against that?) or by itself. But I think we'll definitely be stumping up the cash for the replacement.Originally posted by Joe Black:Nah, the USAF will compensate for the lost one from their stock.
[This message has been edited by Joe Black (edited 31 May 2002).]
Or maybe we won't get any replacements. After all we never replaced 883 -
Some interesting article....
http://beyond2000.com/news/May_00/story_640.html -
Viper, I thought the idea of having a common engine bay is to allowed Block 40 and above to have their engine hot swapped. Theoritically, the GE F110-129 engine can be readily replaced with the PW F100-229 engine with minimal changes. At least that was in theory why since Block 40, the then-GE made the engine bay adapted to both F110 and F100 engines.Originally posted by Viper52:Unlikely. Of the top of my head I can't remember any USAF units using the 52. They've have some units on the 42, but none I know using the P&W F-16CJ. I believe that attirtion replacement will be ordered, possibly as part of any future F-16 order(who'd bet against that?) or by itself. But I think we'll definitely be stumping up the cash for the replacement.
Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised that a clause in the training agreement saying that RSAF will be compensated for any lose of aircraft if the aircraft is piloted by US crew, be it LM crew or USAF.
BTW, what is a USAF crew doing in an RSAF aircraft? or was it a LM crew that was suppose to test a new built aircraft? -
Good question... evaluating the Falcon ONE upgrades? Or maybe they just had to borrow one falcon for some exercise cos one of theirs was not available?
-
The common engine bay thing is a misnomer. It'll take extensive changes to change a Viper engine from the PW to GE and vice versa, as engine configuration(GE or PW) is decided in the manufacturing stage. For one thing, the inlet will have to be replaced, along with the exhaust nozzles. Wiriing and fittings would also have to be changed. The engine bay is common, but there will be extensive refitting(not to mention downtime) to re-engine the bird. However, to upgrade the engine, say from a Block 30s GE to a Block 50 GE engine would be simplerOriginally posted by Joe Black:Viper, I thought the idea of having a common engine bay is to allowed Block 40 and above to have their engine hot swapped. Theoritically, the GE F110-129 engine can be readily replaced with the PW F100-229 engine with minimal changes. At least that was in theory why since Block 40, the then-GE made the engine bay adapted to both F110 and F100 engines.
Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised that a clause in the training agreement saying that RSAF will be compensated for any lose of aircraft if the aircraft is piloted by US crew, be it LM crew or USAF.
BTW, what is a USAF crew doing in an RSAF aircraft? or was it a LM crew that was suppose to test a new built aircraft?
I've had a friend pose a question to his contact, under the Peace Carvin contract, the US will not be liable for the loss of any RSAF Vipers in the US or Singapore, be it through pilot error(USAF or RSAF), maintenance error or mechanical problem.
The USAF pilot was a Major. Under the Peace Carvin agreement, USAF pilots are allowed to use our aircraft for training purposes. The RSAF squadrons there are mixed USAF/RSAF crewed, the last time I checked the CO of one of the squadrons was a Yank and his deputy from the RSAF. So its not unusual to have one of theirs on our bird. -
Wow, hand on a sec, does that mean that RSAF has a really bad training package? If USAF pilot crash our birds then USAF doesn't need to compensate us for the lost birds? Wow, in US armed forces, anyone who lost a plane be it pilot error or not usually has to end in an crash investigation which might end up in a court martial. So you mean USAF pilots will get off the hook if the crashes happen to be RSAF birds? What will RSAF get in return? Free training airspace? Free ammo and fuel? Quite unlikely right? I don't know why RSAF can sign a training package like that? Do they have something they keep in the dark, something USAF provide RSAF that will sufficiently offset RSAF attrition loses due to the USAF part?Originally posted by Viper52:I've had a friend pose a question to his contact, under the Peace Carvin contract, the US will not be liable for the loss of any RSAF Vipers in the US or Singapore, be it through pilot error(USAF or RSAF), maintenance error or mechanical problem.
The USAF pilot was a Major. Under the Peace Carvin agreement, USAF pilots are allowed to use our aircraft for training purposes. The RSAF squadrons there are mixed USAF/RSAF crewed, the last time I checked the CO of one of the squadrons was a Yank and his deputy from the RSAF. So its not unusual to have one of theirs on our bird. -
the lost of the falcon is unfortunate... but it will not be fair to claim pilot error so quickly without an investigation...Originally posted by Viper52:The common engine bay thing is a misnomer. It'll take extensive changes to change a Viper engine from the PW to GE and vice versa, as engine configuration(GE or PW) is decided in the manufacturing stage. For one thing, the inlet will have to be replaced, along with the exhaust nozzles. Wiriing and fittings would also have to be changed. The engine bay is common, but there will be extensive refitting(not to mention downtime) to re-engine the bird. However, to upgrade the engine, say from a Block 30s GE to a Block 50 GE engine would be simpler
I've had a friend pose a question to his contact, under the Peace Carvin contract, the US will not be liable for the loss of any RSAF Vipers in the US or Singapore, be it through pilot error(USAF or RSAF), maintenance error or mechanical problem.
The USAF pilot was a Major. Under the Peace Carvin agreement, USAF pilots are allowed to use our aircraft for training purposes. The RSAF squadrons there are mixed USAF/RSAF crewed, the last time I checked the CO of one of the squadrons was a Yank and his deputy from the RSAF. So its not unusual to have one of theirs on our bird.
And even if US does not need to compensate RSAF for the lost falcon... i think we need to see the far larger picture... US has been providing SAF with weapons and technology for the past decades including trainning program and purchases under the FMS system.. running into the millions of dollars as well.
while the plane is lost... we should be glad that the pilot survived.. while an investigation would definitely be conducted... it should be noted that since all of them yanks or lions belong to the same squadron... the lost of the falcon is a mutual lost to all.
Hopefully... the RSAF will order afew additional replacement... for the lost falcon. :> -
Well now Joe Black, lets see, we get more training airspace than we can ever dream about in Singapore. We get CAVU flying weather practically all year round. We train with combat proven pilots on combat proven platforms using combat proven tactics from various air forces all the time over there. We train with systems that the USAF loans to us long before the systems we ordered are due to be delivered to us so we'll be at least profiecient in their use when we take delivery of them. Sounds like a good enough deal to me no matter how I look at itOriginally posted by Joe Black:Wow, hand on a sec, does that mean that RSAF has a really bad training package? If USAF pilot crash our birds then USAF doesn't need to compensate us for the lost birds? Wow, in US armed forces, anyone who lost a plane be it pilot error or not usually has to end in an crash investigation which might end up in a court martial. So you mean USAF pilots will get off the hook if the crashes happen to be RSAF birds? What will RSAF get in return? Free training airspace? Free ammo and fuel? Quite unlikely right? I don't know why RSAF can sign a training package like that? Do they have something they keep in the dark, something USAF provide RSAF that will sufficiently offset RSAF attrition loses due to the USAF part?
Not getting a free replacement is a standard deal. RSAF lost Hunters while training in UK in 70s, 2 of our SF.260s were written off in Italy prior to delivery. While I do not know the cause of these crashes, I think its quite certain we did not receive free replacements.
Hang on, I never said the USAF Major is getting off the hook. I just repeated what I've been told, the Peace Carvin agreement states there will be no replacement aircraft given to the RSAF regardless of whether the faults was RSAF or USAF crew, maintenance fault or LM's f***up. Sounds reasonable enough to me.
As the report posted above clearly states, a full investigation is underway, and if the USAF Major is indeed found out to have fouled up big time, good luck to him. In the meantime, lets not hang him or anybody else shall we?
Anyway, do remember that there have been turbine blade problems with quite a few series of the F100, including the -220 model used by our Block 52s. S Korea has lost a few already, and while it would be unfair to say that its only a matter of time for ours, its not exactly an unprecedented incident.
Like Tripwire said, hopefully we'll get a replacement, and maybe 12 more to make the contract worthwhile through economies of scale. Heck, any replacement would probably be a Block 52+, losing a 52 and getting a 52+ for replacement, along with 12 more is not such a bad thing is it?
USAF news report on the crash http://www.af.mil/news/May2002/n20020530_0872.shtml
[This message has been edited by Viper52 (edited 01 June 2002).] -
Like someone said. Self praise is no praise.Originally posted by jingo:Well..after going through most of the posted messages in here, this is the only message with some brains behind it. The rest is just plain singaporean kiasu mentality.
Guess since Singapore Armed Forces are amongst the best, well equipped and well trained forces in the world heck, let them spent all their money on those hardwares. 60+Falcons, 40+F5S/T< hundreds of tanks, Newer Frigates coming by 2009 and lots more huh, well all i want to say is GOOD, thank you for giving the arms maker money and profit out of something which u singaporeans are afraid of..hhmm..your own shadow.
I dont think malaysia need to fight singapore through military, just use some basic economic sense and u can see around u how many singaporeans are out of work. HOw can a modern soceity like Singapore come to terms to these in the near future...i doubt it. Look around u mate, power isnt everything, its the mind that matters. U win now with all your military might that u have but remember all big powers comes down earthward bound one day. Remember Roman? Russian and now currently..the Americans? superpowers one day...beggars another day.
Think before u starts becoming more kiasu.
Hmmm...Malaysias buying of PT-91s, new subs, frigates, rifles, missiles blah blah blah maybe even SuperHornets, as trumpeted repeatedly by the press over there. Tell me something, did I miss something, or is the $$$ spent on the arms for Malaysia going to the World Wide Fund for Nature? Or the World Food Program? Fight AIDS in Africa perhaps? Care for refugess displaced in war? Empower women in Afghanistan? Or is it going to provide for childrens education in Sub-Saharan Africa?
Answer is, none of the above. The $$$ Malaysia is spending on arms is *also* going to the arms manufacturers you've accused Singapore of enriching.
All your charges against us, Malaysia is also guilty of. They're also buying arms because they're "kiasu" and "afraid of their own shadow" then.
Remember, when you point, 1 finger points at whoever you point at, while 4 fingers point at yourself...
Still think you make sense? Get real
[This message has been edited by Viper52 (edited 02 June 2002).] -
found the following article in another forum, the original article is in French from the magazine AirFan May 2002. Tranlated from Altavista's translation service, so the language is a little awkward, but it gives the general feel of the article.
Looks like the French have a winner on their hands, and the RoK stuffed up big time when the let politics rule over military good sense.
Wonder why did the Americans not want BVR DACT to take place, the article is not too clear on this. Was it because they felt that AIM-120 vs MICA are in different class, or they had enough of getting their collective a**es kicked by the French in WVR and didn't want that happening in BVR as well?
==============
"Aerial Combat".
In aerial combat, RafaleM is a truth bete of war, of Dogfights counters of F14 and F18 of the USS Theodore Roosevelt and J.C Stennis and counters of Av8-b of Garibaldi are regularly organized for entrainer the pilots with the tactics of the BFM "BASIC Fighters Manoeuvring" and has the management of the system of weapons. With the statements of the pilots of the 12F, the rate of victories is exceptionally high, their new mounting shows trés quickly its superiority in term of agility, of puisssance and of system effectiveness of weapons, "against the tomcats it is a true Butchery", acknowledges the commander Santiago test pilot patented of the USAAF test pile school of edwards. RafaleM and incomparably more handy than its counterparts americains of the navy, it take the advantage dice the beginning of engagement against F18 the spot is more complex, but there still it take the advantage quickly thanks to its powerful trés electric orders of flight, his advantageous poid ratio/power and its weak load ailaire. the F18 pilots must be trés careful and more present to hope to beat RafaleM has fall speed"
The new French Hunter draws much the attention of our combine US Navy, and for proteger the confidencielles data of performance and of efficacitées of the system of weapons, the pilots are satisfied with annocer if a shooting one is succé or a failure, without specifying the exact moment of the firing simulated of Magic2 or Mica, ansi they does not devoilent the firing envelopes of their systems. The Planchon captain however regrets that the americains do not vueillent to organize complete engagements with scenario BVR, Curieusement, L ' US navy desire not that RafaleM armed with Mica is opposed to of Hornet or utillisant F18 of Aim-120 AMraam, this is why Franco-Français scenario are organized against CdG, the debriefing his confidenciels defense.
Testimony of Lieutenant Whiteside Controls F18/C of aprés USS J.C Stennis engagements.
"RafaleM avere to be an adversary trés coriace in combat with short range, the plane is compact and we have visually the enormous ones difficultées with the reperer, especially of face the combat comencent with 10000 feet and 400 nodes, and finish has 500 feet and 150 nodes, RafaleM is trés nimble, particuliérement has low speed or its maneuverability and really trés impressionante, we regret being able debriefer the combat in an optimal way, our radio operator contacts with the French pilots limit ourselves has some words, in best case" -
I found an interesting analysis on China and it contained a scenario of China invading the Spratly Islands, with Singapore and Malaysia as the defending forces. (though I find the simulated scenarios provided by the author highly simplified) It might provide an interesting read for you guys. Heres the link : http://www.ic.ucsc.edu/~poli163/CHANG.htmlOriginally posted by Viper52:The common engine bay thing is a misnomer. It'll take extensive changes to change a Viper engine from the PW to GE and vice versa, as engine configuration(GE or PW) is decided in the manufacturing stage. For one thing, the inlet will have to be replaced, along with the exhaust nozzles. Wiriing and fittings would also have to be changed. The engine bay is common, but there will be extensive refitting(not to mention downtime) to re-engine the bird. However, to upgrade the engine, say from a Block 30s GE to a Block 50 GE engine would be simpler
I've had a friend pose a question to his contact, under the Peace Carvin contract, the US will not be liable for the loss of any RSAF Vipers in the US or Singapore, be it through pilot error(USAF or RSAF), maintenance error or mechanical problem.
The USAF pilot was a Major. Under the Peace Carvin agreement, USAF pilots are allowed to use our aircraft for training purposes. The RSAF squadrons there are mixed USAF/RSAF crewed, the last time I checked the CO of one of the squadrons was a Yank and his deputy from the RSAF. So its not unusual to have one of theirs on our bird.
There is also an interesting part which caught my eye in the article, a paragraph which said:"The most serious aircraft maintenance problem is often the engine. Engine wear is caused by prolonged exposure to the high temperatures created by flying at high velocities or for extended periods of time. Of no minor concern to Chinese air forces, "the PLAAF's fighter engines [such as the Chengdu WP7B (BM), Liyang WP13A II, and Klimov RD-93! require a major overhaul after 300 to 350 hours [of flying time], a second overhaul after an additional 200 to 250 hours, and a third after an additional 150 hours. After that, the engines are scrapped."(20) (Not surprisingly, these overhaul rates are comparable to those for other Soviet-designed engines in Warsaw Pact air forces during the cold war.) These rates are far greater than even those of the complex F100-PW-220 and F100-PW-229 engines that power Singapore's F-16s, which have been criticized for requiring substantial overhaul every 1300 hours.(21)"
Does anybody know why didn't we choose GE engines? If I remember, the -129s provided as much thrust as the -PW-229. -
I believe since RSAF had PW F100-220 engines (F-16 A/Bs) in the inventory, it was easier (in terms of training, spares and support) to have the Block 52 as the F100-229 shares up to 80% in common parts as the -220 engines.Originally posted by YourFather:Does anybody know why didn't we choose GE engines? If I remember, the -129s provided as much thrust as the -PW-229.
Furthermore, -229 powered engine has a slightly better trust to weight ratio due to the fact that the -229 engine is lighter than the GE -129 counterpart. -
No, actually it went to the "Movement for Free Ejaculation of Palestinians."Originally posted by Viper52:Like someone said. Self praise is no praise.
Hmmm...Malaysias buying of PT-91s, new subs, frigates, rifles, missiles blah blah blah maybe even SuperHornets, as trumpeted repeatedly by the press over there. Tell me something, did I miss something, or is the $$$ spent on the arms for Malaysia going to the World Wide Fund for Nature? Or the World Food Program? Fight AIDS in Africa perhaps? Care for refugess displaced in war? Empower women in Afghanistan? Or is it going to provide for childrens education in Sub-Saharan Africa?
Answer is, none of the above. The $$$ Malaysia is spending on arms is *also* going to the arms manufacturers you've accused Singapore of enriching.
All your charges against us, Malaysia is also guilty of. They're also buying arms because they're "kiasu" and "afraid of their own shadow" then.
Remember, when you point, 1 finger points at whoever you point at, while 4 fingers point at yourself...
Still think you make sense? Get real
[This message has been edited by Viper52 (edited 02 June 2002).] -
the article is not merely simlified... its stupid!Originally posted by YourFather:
1. why would Falcons and hornets be using mavericks against ships when both aircraft type can carry harpoon? in fact.. the Fokker 50 MPA also carry harpoons and torpedos.... and where are the RSN AND RMN ships??
2. SAF does have a forward defense idea... but i sincerely doubt it is forwarded all the way to the south china sea....to help defend malaysian interest at singapore expense and risk!
3. the FPDA does not include east malaysia... the author either never check it out or .... he sure love to make wild assumptions...
the entire article smells like the handiwork of a malaysian out to self comfort himself over a potential war between china and malaysia... banking, hopeing and praying the the SAF will join them.... to defend their interest!
STOP DREAMING LAH!!
if the chinese do attack... rest assured that they will come only when they have already won the war economically, politically and strategically.... the battle is just an aftershow dessert. -
I concur.Originally posted by tripwire:the article is not merely simlified... its stupid!
Singapore and Malaysia officially do not have air-launched Harpoons. Unofficially RSAF have both air-launched Harpoons and Exocets (for the Super Pumas) but that was never officially acknowledged or confirmed in any armed purchases. We do, however, know that part of the F-16 C/D package purchased contained the -G (IR) version Mavericks which are capable fo anti-ship purposes.
1. why would Falcons and hornets be using mavericks against ships when both aircraft type can carry harpoon? in fact.. the Fokker 50 MPA also carry harpoons and torpedos.... and where are the RSN AND RMN ships??
Singapore's attempt to purchase Penguine ASM from Norway was unsuccessful for whatever unknown reasons.
Agree. In fact Singapore has no business defending any portion of Spratley. Singapore has no claim to Spratly
2. SAF does have a forward defense idea... but i sincerely doubt it is forwarded all the way to the south china sea....to help defend malaysian interest at singapore expense and risk!
Maybe it was a Taiwanese who wrote the article. Anyway, and interestingly, it was for a political science course in University of California Santa Cruz.
3. the FPDA does not include east
the entire article smells like the handiwork of a malaysian out to self comfort himself over a potential war between china and malaysia... banking, hopeing and praying the the SAF will join them.... to defend their interest! -
Actually Joe Black, it is official that Singapore has air-launched Harpoons. Go to www.defenselink.mil, go the the News section and do a search for Singapore. Theres about 10 pages of results, mainly of news of FMS contracts to Singapore. You'll find (eventually!) at least 2 pieces of news of AGM-84 Harpoon sales to Singapore, in mid and late 1990s IIRC, totalling about 40+ missiles.
I do agree with the assessments here of the paper. Its absolute hogwash. Firstly, Singapore will never fight for someone elses interest, look at the Singaporean whiners on this and other forums and you'll know why. They refuse to even fight for their own country's interests, how will they fight for others? Besides, if the Spratlys dispute are to degenerate into military action, it will involve a lot more countries than Malaysia vs China, most of which have pretty close ties to Singapore. Who do we side with militarily then? Better to stay out and try to mediate politcally, by being as honest a broker as possible and not to appear to take sides. There is absolutely no other way we can gain from a fistfight in the South china Sea.
The article is as Joe Black says, most likely written by a Taiwanese. But the scenario is simplified and too two-dimensional, and doesn't dig deep enough into the complexities and psyche of the military and political situation in the region. If I were grading the report, its not going to score very high.
Tripwire, you seem to have some SERIOUS problem with Malaysia and Malaysians. True, some pf their politicians and press do piss me off sometimes, but if we adopt an attitude like yours to everything Malaysian, wouldn't we be as bad as the few idiots over there who piss us off?
[This message has been edited by Viper52 (edited 04 June 2002).] -
I've checked it out and stand corrected. Thanks Viper52Originally posted by Viper52:Actually Joe Black, it is official that Singapore has air-launched Harpoons. Go to www.defenselink.mil, go the the News section and do a search for Singapore. Theres about 10 pages of results, mainly of news of FMS contracts to Singapore. You'll find (eventually!) at least 2 pieces of news of AGM-84 Harpoon sales to Singapore, in mid and late 1990s IIRC, totalling about 40+ missiles.
Viper, do you know if there were any reasons why RSAF/RSN never considered air launched Gabriel 3? -
Your guess is as good as mine Joe Black; Capabilities, logistics, compatibility, American pressure, neighbouring sensitivities...throw a dice and take your pick cos I really have no idea!Originally posted by Joe Black:Viper, do you know if there were any reasons why RSAF/RSN never considered air launched Gabriel 3?
Anyone else know why?
With regards to Exocet use, this is the first time I've heard of this. I know that a Super Puma was experimentally fitted with a dipping sonar, but never heard that anything came out of that, nor of any fitting with Exocet, even on a test aircraft. I do know the new frigates come with MM40s though.