PJ-10 BrahMos and its launch canister on display at the International Maritime Defence Show (IMDS-2007) at St. Petersburg, Russia
Crapping thread for the crappers and the crap.
-
Also go and read up a little of what happens when you are forced to do point air defence over crowded urban cities.
The U.S. Army claimed an initial success rate of 80% in Saudi Arabia and 50% in Israel. Those claims were eventually scaled back to 70% and 40%. However, when President George H. W. Bush traveled to Raytheon's Patriot manufacturing plant in Andover, Massachusetts during the Gulf War, he declared, the "Patriot is 41 for 42: 42 Scuds engaged, 41 intercepted!"[9] The President's claimed success rate was thus over 97% during the war.
On April 7, 1992 Theodore Postol of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Reuven Pedatzur of Tel Aviv University testified before a House Committee stating that, according to their independent analyses, the Patriot system had a success rate of below 10%, and perhaps even a zero success rate. In response to this testimony and other evidence, the staff of the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security reported, "The Patriot missile system was not the spectacular success in the Persian Gulf War that the American public was led to believe. There is little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scud missiles launched by Iraq during the Gulf War, and there are some doubts about even these engagements. The public and the United States Congress were misled by definitive statements of success issued by administration and Raytheon representatives during and after the war."[10]
Also on April 7, 1992 Charles A. Zraket of the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University and Peter D. Zimmerman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies testified about the calculation of success rates and accuracy in Israel and Saudi Arabia and discounted many of the statements and methodologies in Postol's report.
- Success Rate – the percentage of Scuds destroyed or deflected to non-populated areas
- Accuracy – the percentage of hits out of all the Patriots fired
It is important to note the difference in terms when analyzing the performance of the system during the war.
According to Zimmerman, in accordance with the standard firing doctrine on average four Patriots were launched at each incoming Scud – in Saudi Arabia an average of three Patriots were fired. If every Scud were deflected or destroyed the success rate would be 100% but the Accuracy would only be 25% and 33% respectively.
Both testimonies state that part of the problems stem from its original design as an anti-aircraft system. PATRIOT was designed with proximity fused warheads, which are designed to explode immediately prior to hitting a target spraying shrapnel out in a fan in front of the missile, either destroying or disabling the target. These missiles were fired at the target's center of mass. With aircraft this was fine, but considering the much higher speeds of TBMs, as well as the location of the warhead (usually in the nose), PATRIOT would most often hit closer to the tail of the Scud due to the delay present in the proximity fused warhead, thus not destroying the TBM's warhead and allowing it to fall to earth.
The Iraqi redesign of the Scuds also played a role. Iraq had redesigned its Soviet-style Scuds to be faster and longer ranged, but the changes weakened the missile and it was more likely to break up upon re-entering the atmosphere. This presented a larger number of targets as it was unclear which piece contained the warhead.
What all these factors mean, according to Zimmerman, is that the calculation of "Kills" becomes more difficult. Is a kill the hitting of a warhead or the hitting of a missile? If the warhead falls into the desert because a PATRIOT hit its Scud, is it a success? What if it hits a populated suburb? What if all four of the engaging PATRIOT missiles hit, but the warhead falls anyway because the Scud broke up?
According to the Zraket testimony there was a lack of high quality photographic equipment necessary to record the interceptions of targets. Therefore, PATRIOT crews recorded each launch on videotape, and damage assessment teams recorded the Scud debris that was found on the ground. Crater analysis was then used to determine if the warhead was destroyed before the debris crashed or not. Furthermore, part of the reason for the 30% improvement in success rate in Saudi Arabia compared to Israel is that the PATRIOT merely had to push the incoming Scud missiles away from military targets in the desert or disable the Scud's warhead in order to avoid casualties, while in Israel the Scuds were aimed directly at cities and civilian populations. The Saudi Government also censored any reporting of Scud damage by the Saudi press. The Israeli Government did not institute the same type of censorship. Furthermore, PATRIOT's success rate in Israel was examined by the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) who did not have a political reason to play up PATRIOT's success rate. The IDF counted any Scud that exploded on the ground (regardless of whether or not it was diverted) as a failure for the Patriot. Meanwhile, the U.S. Army who had many reasons to support a high success rate for PATRIOT, examined the performance of PATRIOT in Saudi Arabia.
A Fifth Estate documentary, quotes the former Israeli Defense Minister as saying the Israeli government was so dissatisfied with the performance of the missile defense, that they were preparing their own military retaliation on Iraq regardless of US objections.[11] That response was cancelled only with the cease fire with Iraq.
And note that this is a report on a missile that actually REPLACED our most capable missle, the I-Hawk, in the US arsenal.
This is why militaries want to keep the hostile air OUT of the cities in the first place. Once the enemy penetrates your fighter layer you are pretty much in trouble.
What will happen is that the goal of a missile or bomb is simply to hit the ground, if it does so in one piece or many is not really the issue for it, especially in Singapore. Even if you shoot down a plane it does not just vaporize, there is significant wreckage that can cause plentry of trouble for Singapore if it crashes into a populated area.
-
So answer all this lionnoisy:
1. How is it even possible to set up your kind of proposed IADS to cover the whole of Australia?
2. Is Singapore reliance on IADS a result of us having a great idea, or no choice because of our lack of depth?
3. Which viable airforce in the region can really afford to bomb
4. Which is more cost effective and practical? A lionnoisy-style IADS that waits for the enemy to come or JORN based-standoff defence based on sea and air responses?
If you cannot answer, you've just wasted your effort reposting.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
So answer all this lionnoisy:(yes Sir.answer by lionnoisy in black)
1. How is it even possible to set up your kind of proposed IADS to cover the whole of Australia?
(Have i said to cover every inch of Oz?No.But just cover big city will do,,,)
2. Is Singapore reliance on IADS a result of us having a great idea, or no choice because of our lack of depth?
(Depth?u mean u give up the coastal cities to enemy and u re org
your ADF and get back the cities?When u get back the cities,
u will probably find
women raped
men killed
children dead
all houses and valubales destoryed and missing..
I wont allow any one take over any single tree or single
block in SG,even in Pulau Ubin!!
SAF is here to protect.Not to play any tactical withdrawl
and let the people suffer,properties damaged,memory gone..!!NEVER.)
3. Which viable airforce in the region can really afford to bomb
(u mean to bomb Oz?Time will tell.I dunt have a crystal ball.)
4. Which is more cost effective and practical? A lionnoisy-style IADS that waits for the enemy to come or JORN based-standoff defence based on sea and air responses?
My idea of protecting each and single big cities is.
Like Suen Tse said:The more u prepare for war,the unlikely
u will get attacked.
JORN cant cover cities clusters in SE corner and west.It cover only
Darwin.u still need other mean to identify the objects.
Whatever good sensors u need weapons to shoot down the enemy
planes.Rapiers is the only land based AA ,so far,we know!!
Besides JORN,there are good FORE set of radars for
20 million people,most of them near the coast..
If you cannot answer, you've just wasted your effort reposting.
I alrady answer.
lionnoisy said lah:
Further,if i may assist,can i give some ideas to get few
more AA weapons---cheap and fast to be in service:
new info,different from MINDEF standing info.
sources--REAF news May 2007
Mechanised IglaIgla is Russia stuff,but radar and armoured Iglais Singapore Technology Engineering ,DSTA<DSO...stuff
The Mechanised Igla features:
- An armoured outfi t to protect the
system against ground threats.
- Four fire-and-forget missiles.
- An integrated targeting radar.Enhanced Responsiveness
- A platoon can engage up to 12 targets
at a time. The integrated targeting
radar can also detect pop-up air
threats, even while on the move.
Enhanced Robustness
- Even while reloading, the integrated
targeting radar on the IFU can also
cue nearby WFUs towards targets,
which is especially helpful in poor
visibility or in surprise conditions.
- Being able to change position after
each engagement also makes it
harder for enemy units to locate and
target the Mechanised Igla.Upgraded Improved-HAWK
The Upgraded I-HAWK features:
- The ability to engage multiple targets
simultaneously, unlike the I-HAWK,
which could only engage one target
each time.
Enhanced Responsiveness
- Being able to engage multiple targets
at the same time means new targets
can be assigned to the upgraded
I-HAWK while it is in the midst of
engaging previous targets.Giraffe Agile Multiple-Beam Radar
The Giraffe AMB Radar features:
- A 60km range and a 20km height, up from the 40km range and 7km height of the Basic Giraffe system.
- High clarity to detect low-speed, low fl ying aircraft which were hard for older system to detect,
and to differentiate between a wide range of hostile aircraft such as fi ghters and moving and stationary helicopters.
Enhanced Awareness
- It is the improved range of the Giraffe AMB Radar that contributes to the integrated 3D air picture seen by SHORAD operators through the ERWD. Its clarity also ensures that no low-fl ying threat goes undetected.
Enhanced Precision
- The clarity of the Giraffe AMB Radar aids in the recognition of friendly and hostile aircraft, while allowing commanders to differentiate between various threats and therefore to formulate the appropriate response.end of quoteu see,small radar and weapons can show your seriounessin AA.u may tell me bombs can be released more than 100 kmaway from target.yes u are right.No weapon can cover every threats.But just like u said,Who can do it?May i add how many can do it?I think u do your best toDetectIdentifyEngageDestorysay within a radius say 50 km and height 15,ooo meter.and u show to the world u mean it.I think u can sleep soundly every night.It is much better than u have very long range detections.But people know u dunt have too much weapons to shoot...Perception and reality!! -
My idea of protecting each and single big cities is.
Like Suen Tse said:The more u prepare for war,the unlikely
u will get attacked.
JORN cant cover cities clusters in SE corner and west.It cover only
Darwin.u still need other mean to identify the objects.
Whatever good sensors u need weapons to shoot down the enemy
planes.Rapiers is the only land based AA ,so far,we know!!
Besides JORN,there are good FORE set of radars for
20 million people,most of them near the coast..
If you cannot answer, you've just wasted your effort reposting.
I alrady answer.
lionnoisy said lah:
Further,if i may assist,can i give some ideas to get few
more AA weapons---cheap and fast to be in service:
new info,different from MINDEF standing info.
sources--REAF news May 2007
-
Igla is Russia stuff,but radar and armoured Igla
is Singapore Technology Engineering ,DSTA<DSO...stuff
The Mechanised Igla features:
- An armoured outfi t to protect the
system against ground threats.
- Four fire-and-forget missiles.
- An integrated targeting radar.
Enhanced Responsiveness
- A platoon can engage up to 12 targets
at a time. The integrated targeting
radar can also detect pop-up air
threats, even while on the move.
Enhanced Robustness
- Even while reloading, the integrated
targeting radar on the IFU can also
cue nearby WFUs towards targets,
which is especially helpful in poor
visibility or in surprise conditions.
- Being able to change position after
each engagement also makes it
harder for enemy units to locate and
target the Mechanised Igla.
Upgraded Improved-HAWK
The Upgraded I-HAWK features:
- The ability to engage multiple targets
simultaneously, unlike the I-HAWK,
which could only engage one target
each time.
Enhanced Responsiveness
- Being able to engage multiple targets
at the same time means new targets
can be assigned to the upgraded
I-HAWK while it is in the midst of
engaging previous targets.
Giraffe Agile Multiple-Beam Radar
The Giraffe AMB Radar features:
- A 60km range and a 20km height, up from the 40km range and 7km height of the Basic Giraffe system.
- High clarity to detect low-speed, low fl ying aircraft which were hard for older system to detect,
and to differentiate between a wide range of hostile aircraft such as fi ghters and moving and stationary helicopters.
Enhanced Awareness
- It is the improved range of the Giraffe AMB Radar that contributes to the integrated 3D air picture seen by SHORAD operators through the ERWD. Its clarity also ensures that no low-fl ying threat goes undetected.
Enhanced Precision
- The clarity of the Giraffe AMB Radar aids in the recognition of friendly and hostile aircraft, while allowing commanders to differentiate between various threats and therefore to formulate the appropriate response.
end of quote
u see,small radar and weapons can show your seriouness
in AA.u may tell me bombs can be released more than 100 km
away from target.yes u are right.
No weapon can cover every threats.
But just like u said,Who can do it?
May i add how many can do it?
I think u do your best to
Detect
Identify
Engage
Destory
say within a radius say 50 km and height 15,ooo meterand u show to the world u mean it.
I think u can sleep soundly every night.
It is much better than u have very long range detections.
But people know u dunt have too much weapons to shoot...
Perception and reality!! -
Your perception and reality are wrong.
You didn't answer me correctly lionnoisy, giving a wrong answer does not mean you've answered:
You post so much for what?
What is the point of having so many short-ranged radars when you are vulnerable to a heavy ECW environment?
Case in point, the Iraqis stocked up on a lot of radars and SAMs, prehaps even DENSER then Singapore's ADA in some areas but all it took was for the allies was to deploy EF-111s and they didn't even manage to shoot down a SINGLE allied aircraft when an EF-111 was on station.
The only solution is the old one, and that was to use their own air force to chase away the EF-111s.
It is much better than u have very long range detections.
But people know u dunt have too much weapons to shoot...
Perception and reality!!Are you forgetting that with a standoff range of over 500km and the ability to detect stealth on the surface and the air there is this concept called INTERCEPTION?
How come your concept of defence is all passive and wait for the enemy to come to you?
say within a radius say 50 km and height 15,ooo meter
and u show to the world u mean it.
I think u can sleep soundly every night.WRONG
Did you see the number of SAM launches and AA fire put up over Baghdad during Desert Storm? If you don't have air superiority all you are doing is damage mitigation.
Do you think Singapore can stand a few bombs to our vital areas?
Upgraded Improved-HAWK
The Upgraded I-HAWK features:
- The ability to engage multiple targets
simultaneously, unlike the I-HAWK,
which could only engage one target
each time.
Enhanced Responsiveness
- Being able to engage multiple targets
at the same time means new targets
can be assigned to the upgraded
I-HAWK while it is in the midst of
engaging previous targets.You post this for what? The upgraded I-Hawk is a generation behind the Patrioit series which did not perform up to scratch for the purpose of defending cities from missile attack. What you posted is simply a wayang ad without considering what happens in reality.
So who's the want with a lack of perception and reality.
So your idea of sleeping soundly is to let the enemy come up to your doorstep and then trying to shoot them down instead of facing them out further with standoff ability with superbugs and AMRAAMs?
You are trying to argue for the superiority of a point-defence air defence model in an age of ECW, smart weapons, stealth and standoff munitions over a standoff air defence model?Wow, do you go outside wearing your clothes on backwards? You wear your shoes on your head and your hat on your feet ah?
Nice try, but you're fooling no one.
Answering wrongly does not mean you've answered.
Please answer:
1. How is it even possible to set up your kind of proposed IADS to cover the whole of Australia?
2. Is Singapore reliance on IADS a result of us having a great idea, or no choice because of our lack of depth?
3. Which viable airforce in the region can really afford to bomb
4. Which is more cost effective and practical? A lionnoisy-style IADS that waits for the enemy to come or JORN based-standoff defence based on sea and air responses?
If you cannot answer, you've just wasted your effort reposting.
And also you haven't answered on the issue of degaussing for demining work in your LCS thread which you quietly left.
Why you always leave your threads quietly after you are cornered?
-
Perception and reality!!
So tell me lionnoisy, you talk so much about perception and reality, then how come all these kinds of ideas are coming from you if you say that perception and reality is so important:
- Inline skate force
- Launch F-18s from "mini-cvs"
- SAR-21 carry like handbag and "run for your life"
- Use clones and talk to yourself
Those ideas don't seem to be coming from a very good perception, or have any good grounding in reality.
You dare to answer?
If you keep quiet it means you conceed my point.
-
say within a radius say 50 km and height 15,ooo meter
and u show to the world u mean it.
I think u can sleep soundly every night.So you think with just 50km and 15,000 meter will allow you to sleep soundly against this ah?
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
BrahMos Supersonic Cruise Missile - for Indonesia?
PJ-10 BrahMos and its launch canister on display at the International Maritime Defence Show -
On April 14, 2007 it was reported in India that Indonesia has shown interest in purchasing the PJ-10 BrahMos supersonic cruise missile. That came after a three-day visit of Indonesian Admiral Siamet Soebijanto to India.
-
Malaysia is also reported to be interested.If used against us, these things can reach us in as little as under two minutes, worse, these things are faster then our Igla and I-Hawk, as well as being able to keep that speed real close to the deck. This means that the pK of our defences against such a threat will be low under lionnoisy's defence concept, and even worse in a saturation attack... this is a point defence concept he intends to "sleep under" in an era of rapidly evolving theats.
Which is a more viable concept to defend against this?
1)lionnoisy puny point air defence concept with just 50km range and 15,000m high
2)Standoff air defence in depth with interception from surface and air
I don't think lionnoisy will be sleeping very soundly if he goes by his idea...
In fact, he might be blasted to bits when his idea fails:
-
Thanks tyrannosaur for reminding us about the inline skate force and F18 project off mini CVs.
Thanks lionnoisy for being so dumb and giving us a laugh. I hope you come up with more silly ideas we can all laugh at. What would you call the inline skate force?
The Singaporean Mobile Inline Skate Force est 2008 Motto "Roll on".
HEHEHE. If you love your country, just shut up cos you're an embarrassment to it.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Your perception and reality are wrong.
You didn't answer me correctly lionnoisy, giving a wrong answer does not mean you've answered:
You post so much for what?
What is the point of having so many short-ranged radars when you are vulnerable to a heavy ECW environment?
Case in point, the Iraqis stocked up on a lot of radars and SAMs, prehaps even DENSER then Singapore's ADA in some areas but all it took was for the allies was to deploy EF-111s and they didn't even manage to shoot down a SINGLE allied aircraft when an EF-111 was on station.
The only solution is the old one, and that was to use their own air force to chase away the EF-111s.
Are you forgetting that with a standoff range of over 500km and the ability to detect stealth on the surface and the air there is this concept called INTERCEPTION?
How come your concept of defence is all passive and wait for the enemy to come to you?
WRONG
Did you see the number of SAM launches and AA fire put up over Baghdad during Desert Storm? If you don't have air superiority all you are doing is damage mitigation.
Do you think Singapore can stand a few bombs to our vital areas?
You post this for what? The upgraded I-Hawk is a generation behind the Patrioit series which did not perform up to scratch for the purpose of defending cities from missile attack. What you posted is simply a wayang ad without considering what happens in reality.
So who's the want with a lack of perception and reality.
So your idea of sleeping soundly is to let the enemy come up to your doorstep and then trying to shoot them down instead of facing them out further with standoff ability with superbugs and AMRAAMs?
You are trying to argue for the superiority of a point-defence air defence model in an age of ECW, smart weapons, stealth and standoff munitions over a standoff air defence model?Wow, do you go outside wearing your clothes on backwards? You wear your shoes on your head and your hat on your feet ah?
Nice try, but you're fooling no one.
Answering wrongly does not mean you've answered.
Please answer:
1. How is it even possible to set up your kind of proposed IADS to cover the whole of Australia?
2. Is Singapore reliance on IADS a result of us having a great idea, or no choice because of our lack of depth?
3. Which viable airforce in the region can really afford to bomb
4. Which is more cost effective and practical? A lionnoisy-style IADS that waits for the enemy to come or JORN based-standoff defence based on sea and air responses?
If you cannot answer, you've just wasted your effort reposting.
And also you haven't answered on the issue of degaussing for demining work in your LCS thread which you quietly left.
Why you always leave your threads quietly after you are cornered?
U really make me wake up.
can u pl tell me what stuff that u mention
do Oz have at this very moment
and the time frame in case they dunt have right now?
You are trying to argue for the superiority of a point-defence air defence model in an age of ECW, smart weapons, stealth and standoff munitions over a standoff air defence model?
EF-111Patrioit
Even the Great Britain had to abandon the AEW project,
Do u think UK or Oz is more capable in Defence industry?
i am little worry the AEWC project after few years delay
The major risks to the project are radar and electronic support measures technical maturity, software development and system integration. These risks are being managed through close interaction between Commonwealth and contractor staff on a daily basis.
page 265 (27 of 82)
SECTION TWO
DEFENCE MATERIEL
ORGANISATIONOz Defence DMO 2007/08 AR
NO NEED to be angry.Neither u nor me have crystal ball.
Just wait and see.
more option---
Kangaroo-Jump shoes
i think it can save Infantry energy and reach destination faster!
In line skate cannot go against slopes.
But it is still good for paved flat land.
-
i have said currently ,Oz dunt has enough AA radar to cover
big cities.Although military invasion is unlikely,the 9--11
style hijacked planes crash is another risk Oz cant
afford to overlook.
Pl read Oz think tank:
Another less visible risk is the possibility of
civilian airliners being hijacked in Asia and
used for 9/11 style suicide attacks against
targets in Australia. Given Australia’s very
limited radar coverage, a hijacked airliner
could, once over the continent, be flown
most of the way to any Australian capital
city without being tracked. While arguably
not strong enough alone a justification for
acquiring an AEW&C fleet, it nevertheless is a
contingency where having such a fleet would
be critical to preventing loss of life.http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publicationlist.aspx?pubtype=6
Strategic Insight 29 - Wedgetail: Australia's eagle-eyed sentinel Tuesday, 26 September 2006 This publication, authored by Dr Carlo Kopp, explains why the Wedgetail is so important to the Australian Defence Force and provides the reader with some understanding of this complex program. it is brave,if not foolish,NOT to get each big city
under AA radar and missiles/guns umbrella.
-
Lack of air--tankers jeopardise resuce of Perth
There are 3 clusters of cities---
South East---Adelaide to Brisbane
North--Darwin
West--Perth
Only the first two clusters are defended by fighters/strikers.
The distances from the two clusters to Perth are 2000 to 2500 km.
It is within ferry range of F111.But can it fight without refuelling
after reaching Perth?
Will the situation allow it land ,refulled and take off to fight?
-
Dumb lion, with regards to cities, did you actually think about the civilian air radar systems? They can monitor flight paths and lots of planes around the cities as well as between cities.
So you're full of shit when you talk about 9/11 style attacks!
-
U really make me wake up.
can u pl tell me what stuff that u mention
do Oz have at this very moment
and the time frame in case they dunt have right now?
You don't seem to have woken up, if you have woken up you would have seen that the Australians are already having one of the best solutions to this problem.
Instead you are still going on and on uselessly on why these problems require your kind of ineffective point-defence solutions when basically what the Australians are doing are addressing the problem, you are not.
You just want a long list of names and SAMs and anti-air guns used in no context except to make long posts and make it seem like you understand the concepts of air defence when all you are suggesting is bad idea after bad idea, as well as thinking that such complex concepts and systems can be solved simply by throwing money at the problems to buy this or that system without even a CONCEPT to use them under.
Can you please wake up for real?
And please don't be retarded, the only thing you seem to be in is in denial.
If anything it's pretty obvious that the Aussies are doing what it takes to protect themselves in the light of how things in the region develop.
You are always focused on today and now because it allows you to make useless threads like this asking more useless questions. But in reality to plan for anything especially when it comes to regional defence requires thinking decades in advance, the difference between Singapore and Australia is that Australia makes it's intentions known and open to public scrutiny while Singapore only lets out the good news and keeps failures quiet.
You claim you always want to know the truth and are very good at digging out information and asking question.
Now I want to see you do the same for us:
Now lionnoisy, point out what major mistakes and failures the SAF have made in their arms procurements and give a reason for them.
Now there are some very obvious failures, you better be able to find them.
If you can't it means you are simply not interested in honest dialouge here.
-
Although military invasion is unlikely,the 9--11
style hijacked planes crash is another risk Oz cant
afford to overlook.
Don't be silly, the best solution to hijack is not shooting down the plane but to prevent the hijack in the first place, if that fails you already have a suck thumb incident.
For example, our RSAF and air defences are totally useless if a plane is hijacked from Changi airport with the intention to crash it somewhere in Singapore. Even if you shoot it down it is going to fall somewhere in Singapore, possibily in somewhere populated and people are still going to die.
Hijacked aircraft are not so much an air defence problem then a security problem, but given you like to have all your security issues on backwards like advocating point defence over defence in depth I am not surprised you seem to think the solution to hijacked aircraft is to use SAMs and guns to shoot them down.
-
He is basically grasping at straws
anything to say about Aussie he will say
i wonder issit coz he got rejected from UNSW or something?
hha
-
Seriously lionnoisy, do your homework.
You are just wasting your effort using microsoft paint and making all these little pictures.
Did you realize something?
You constant efforts to pick out fault with the Aussies in here have produced the opposite effect? In fact now people are even more informed about the ADF and CONFIDENT about it.
This is not because they idolize Australia, but because in your haste to slime them you keep shooting your own foot and making them look good instead.
And worse, your inability to answer questions about the SAF has only made our own military look worse.
So here's a tip, try doing your homework not to try to construct problems but actually find REAL ones.
-
So lionnoisy, can you answer how our air defence of your specifications that you want to sleep soundly under of "50km range and 15,000m high" will defend against a supersonic cruise missile saturation attack from Malaysia or Indonesia in a heavy ECW environment?
Can you answer?
If you cannot answer you post so much junk on Igla on I-Hawk for what when it really comes down to this they are of LITTLE use?
-
JORN cant cover cities clusters in SE corner and west.
WRONG, you are making a conceptual mistake.
The idea of JORN is not to watch the skies over their own cities and land as in it is to look over the skies and land of their POTENTIAL enemies and the approach vectors.
They whole idea is to know when your enemy is taking off planes and sending ships and where they are heading well in advance before they even come in range of your conventional sensors.
So you want JORN to cover cities in SE corner and west for what? You are making the same mistake in the defence of Singapore during WW2, and that was to position and point the guns the WRONG way.
-
He is basically grasping at straws
anything to say about Aussie he will say
i wonder issit coz he got rejected from UNSW or something?
hha
LOL, he has been at this for years, I doubt he'll change soon.
He will not change because he's not interested in bettering himself as a person, but more interested in feeling good about himself. Hence he is reluctant to do things that will challange his "feel good" notions about himself, such as taking a critical look at his own beliefs and behaviour.
Instead he will blame others for his own failures, calling them Aussie-worshipers and what have you not without even stopping to think that it is those people he thinks who are the traitors towards the Singaporean ego that are the ones who are probably far truer Singaporean patroits then him and his shallow behaviour in here.
Does a person who stands up for Singapore do so by engaging in dishonest acts like creating clones and trying to trick others into believing he has more support and to manipulate others?
So lionnoisy, if you dare, answer to all this.
I doubt he will.
But well, it's still fun to pwn him.
But really, nobody takes him seriously.
-
LN, please dont talk about the Mech Igla. You have NO idea how it ACTUALLY works or is employed. Dont make me grief.
Have you even seen where they tested the IGLA and how it performed?
BTW do you know where the radar of the Mech IGLA comes from?
-
Originally posted by CM06:
LN, please dont talk about the Mech Igla. You have NO idea how it ACTUALLY works or is employed. Dont make me grief.
Have you even seen where they tested the IGLA and how it performed?
BTW do you know where the radar of the Mech IGLA comes from?Oh pl tell me.
By Sg Ty
WRONG, you are making a conceptual mistake.
The idea of JORN is not to watch the skies over their own cities and land as in it is to look over the skies and land of their POTENTIAL enemies and the approach vectors.
They whole idea is to know when your enemy is taking off planes and sending ships and where they are heading well in advance before they even come in range of your conventional sensors.
Do u mean when any planes take off fr thousand miles away and
oz start to track?Can their computers cope with the work loads?
Can JORN identify them,let say 300 km from oz coast?
I think some one said cannot.
I prefer each big city under a small and good AA umbrella,
iso a super huge leaking umbrella for the north?
http://defence-data.com/features/fpage37.htm
can the bad buys fly from other directions?
Is it too risky u depend on one single sys?
mmm
-
i think its quite pointless to reason or even force a sense of rationality upon lionnoisy.
post after post, after getting badly pwnzred and thumped and proven that his statements are bigoted, flawed and ignorant, he still comes back for more.
why cant lionnoisy get that our different approaches to ADA/AA isnt some kind of pissing contest and see who has a bigger d*ck.
its about suitability to our threat scenario and circumstance
-
Do u mean when any planes take off fr thousand miles away and
oz start to track?Can their computers cope with the work loads?
Can JORN identify them,let say 300 km from oz coast?
I think some one said cannot.
I find this very funny because this picture which you keep using:
Comes from the webpage that answers your question:
Jindalee over-the-horizon radar was used to track military aircraft landing and taking off from Dili Airport, in East Timor, on 20 September 1999, when Australia-led Interfet forces began securing the former Indonesian province from militia violence. Australian Hercules C130 transports were detected from 1500 kilometres away by a 6 kilometres-long radar array at Longreach (Queensland), and at a similar site at Alice Springs (Northern Territory).
Aircraft images were displayed on radar consoles in Adelaide and Melbourne, 2600 kilometres from the action. Royal Australian Air Force commanders said the radar was accurate enough to show aircraft turning on their landing approach to Dili Airport.
Note it was used in 1999, and at EXTREME range and it more then worked. The network has been much improved since then.
If it can do this at 1500km, 300km is chicken feat.
On the other hand your 50km requirement for AA umbrella will be totally blind until the last moment.
Normal civillian radars deal with thousands of flights in a day, the technology to track such numbers is already well in place.
I think you only want to listen to those who say cannot, what about those who say can?
Let's see what those who say can say:
I find it interesting, you keep using your picture from THAT webpage but don't dare to quote what it says.
Why ah?
Being dishonest again?
Rest assured that when we try to take off our planes, the Aussies will know about it. Even our stealth frigates can be picked up by them.
I understand it's very frightening for you, that's why you would like to think cannot.
I prefer each big city under a small and good AA umbrella,
iso a super huge leaking umbrella for the north?
Have you learned nothing?
How good is your small umbrella in an ECM environment and under saturation supersonic cruise missile attack and NO ROOM for error on a small island?
You said you woke up to the realities of air defence after reading my post, but now have apparently gone back to sleep again?
The only thing that will be leaking is your small and "good" AA umbrella.
What's next? You prefer to be in a Humvee instead of an Abrams when people are throwing APFSDS rounds your way?
Let me ask you a question instead:
Do u mean when any enemy launch hundreds of supersonic cruise missiles hundreds of miles away with heavy jamming and
sg air AA can only start to track at 50km?Can their computers cope with the work loads?
will their missiles be fast enough to catch everything? the missiles are faster then even I-Hawk
can their AA guns even hit anything
I think everyone say cannot.
-
can the bad buys fly from other directions?
Is it too risky u depend on one single sys?
mmm
mmm
i think your english fail again:
what on earth are bad buys?
And no, to skirt around JORN will be beyond the capacity of most combat aircraft save long range bombers, and the region has none. And skirting around it does not mean that there are no conventional systems to cover those areas.
You want to know what is risky?
Your idea of using a small AA umbrella in an era of ECM and supersonic smart munitions.