Long-range offensive weapons for Singapore.
-
Take it that pple want to sell , they got money anot???? Later they have to barter off 50% of their palm oil , their prime minister cry again.....sibei cham.....
-
i've always felt that they LOSE money selling palm oil this way cos it adds one more layer between the buyer and the seller...Originally posted by foxtrout8:Take it that pple want to sell , they got money anot???? Later they have to barter off 50% of their palm oil , their prime minister cry again.....sibei cham.....
all it does is make the middlemen richer. makes the current a/c look better too, but in reality, it exposes the inefficiency of the economic system... -
Can anyone out there provide pictures of the SS21 SRBM missiles mentioned earlier? If possible please include the tech specs. Other pics of missile?rocket launchers are also welcome.Thanks
-
The most offensive weapon I can think of is to send out DPM Lee to spew his BS to the world.
But seriously, why the heck would Singapore want with long-range offensive weapons like these?Originally posted by foxtrout8:Wats ur opinion of the possibility that Singapore will be a potential purchaser of Stand-off missiles , Ballistic Missile (SRBM ) and MLRS systems.
If so , wat in ur view are the different system available to satisfy Singapore's requirement. -
Singapore is a very small island. If we will to be caught asleep , our neighbour strike us first , we will lost abt a quarter of our assets and half of our will . Our neighbours have large amount of lands. They can hide their weapon among their kampongs and if we are caught asleep , the war will be hard to win.
If we will to get long range and yet weapons which can deliver higher calibre of weapons , we can target our enemies deeper and deadlier . Imagine if we will to target every mass of country X's military installation 100km from singapore , wont it be a bonus to our capacity. -
It may sound childish and stupid. But trust mi , one day will we find ourselve in a position where we will need such capacity to deal will an enemy who process the potiential to be at par with us. We cant even afford one minute of attack. I will strongly support our govt to purchase a system where we can strike deep swiftly and to minimis causuaties at our side .Originally posted by foxtrout8:Singapore is a very small island. If we will to be caught asleep , our neighbour strike us first , we will lost abt a quarter of our assets and half of our will . Our neighbours have large amount of lands. They can hide their weapon among their kampongs and if we are caught asleep , the war will be hard to win.
If we will to get long range and yet weapons which can deliver higher calibre of weapons , we can target our enemies deeper and deadlier . Imagine if we will to target every mass of country X's military installation 100km from singapore , wont it be a bonus to our capacity.
Even if we dun wish to be offensive , SRBM is one hell of a deterrence too. -
F16(popeye), Rafale(Apache) and ss21 ICBM.
-
SS-11 Scarab...Originally posted by branzzz:Singapore once expressed interest in buying a russian SRBM... i think its the ss21 or something. range i remember is 120km... something to do with what some minister said about SAF's "silver bullets"(special secret weapons for use in extreme circumstances).
tim huxley's defending the lion city says in its conculsion that it could have been used to carry a fuel-air explose, which he said to be "of similar blast force as a small nuclear weapon"
-
i concur with tripwire and foxtrout8. Loose lips sink ships.
I believe most of the ppl here who talk too much sensitive stuff are those who didn't really enjoy their NSF days. Or those who likes to complain complain and complain. Or they have something against the system..etc etc. -
-
Not so fast cowboy... take this:
picture deleted by Silenthunter
I wonder what this button does?
Yipeee Kai Yay... woah what happen to KL?
picture deleted by Silenthunter
whoops
Note from Silenthunter:
we had enough of this bullsh!t so stop it okay. Considered yourself warned...........again! -
Wat tok u????Originally posted by War_Antique:i concur with tripwire and foxtrout8. Loose lips sink ships.
I believe most of the ppl here who talk too much sensitive stuff are those who didn't really enjoy their NSF days. Or those who likes to complain complain and complain. Or they have something against the system..etc etc. -
I think long range systems to be considered should be cruise missiles and MLRS
It should be remembered that MLRS systems are mainly used to attack infantry and lightly armoured or soft skin vehicles, not heavily armoured vehicles. Also,, if Singapore were to purchase the MLRS, its range should be longer than 40km, since the current artillery in the SAF inventory can already achieve fire to 40km, and at a much lower cost. I must say that the Brazilian ASTROS II pruchased by the MAF looks best after a quick look at various MLRSs on the www.fas.org/man website. The main advantage a MLRS will have as compared to an artillery gun with a similar range is the MLRS ability to deliver massive amount of firepower to one place in a very short period of time. One MLRS could deliver the same firepower that only many artillery guns can in a short period of time. However, for sustained operations, a gun would probably fire better and is alot cheaper since a 155mm shell, even Extended range ones, will cost much less than each rocket the MLRS fires.
Cruise missiles can be readily developed from anti-ship missiles in many instances, including the Harpoon. In fact, the US already has a cruise missile SLAM and SLAM-ER developed from it. I would say that a cruise missile is much more likely to be used as compared to a SRBM, simply because a cruise missile is able to attack individual targets while the SRBM would simply blow the hell out of any where it lands in in a 5 to 10 km at least, depending also on geographical factors of the place. A cruise missile is much more practical, although is failings are generally a speed of less than 1 mach and since the target is generally far away, this allows the target to manoevure away or a good chance at shooting down the cruise missile, especially if it does not fly very low. Consequently, cruise missiles are used only against mainly stationery targets.
IMHO, if MLRS is needed, the launch vehicle should be an indegenious production or modified to fit Singapore's needs, but rockets can be either purchase from elsewhere or developed from existing ones, especially if a range of 90 km like the SS-80's, or even more, is wanted. It should however also be noted that there is some point in the range where the rocket would become uneconomical in terms of the size of its warhead as compared to the price of its rocket engine
Cruise missile option can probably be the SLAM-ER, since it has commonality of parts with the Harpoon and makes handling them cheaper and easier.
my two cents -
To CX,
You said, "i've always felt that they LOSE money selling palm oil this way cos it adds one more layer between the buyer and the seller...
all it does is make the middlemen richer. makes the current a/c look better too, but in reality, it exposes the inefficiency of the economic system... "
Actually, the Malaysians have been flogging off their palm oil stocks through barter with third world countries and also to France (who will give it away to the french speaking african countries). They also have given millions worth of credits as aid to third world countries. (such as India, Pakistan etc) They are the world's cartel for the palm oil.
Why give away free palm oil? Very simple. Palm oil is very useful to make products like cosmetics, soap, detergent, lubricants etc. Its a useful alternative to petroleum, so much cheaper for third world countries to afford.
Once you get the palm oil, you need to set up a factory to process it and then more factories to make the soap etc.
These 3rd world countries benefit as once they have the palm oil, MNCs will set up the factories there to make the products. Malaysia benefits as they will start importing more palm oil. Who is the loser? USA ... with its dependance of soya oil exports. There is a big fight between Canola Oil, Palm Oil and Soya oil years ago, with funny articles out in the internet about how soya oil is healthy and canola oil will make your skin peel and palm oil causes cancer. (all courtesy of the soya oil board of USA)
So do not be mislead that Malaysia loses out by this way of exchanging palm oil for goods. They benefit .. as after they sell the oil, their businessmen will sell electronics goods, clothing etc next.
Check up on the economist magazine .. it will tell you who the heck is the number 2 foreign investor in South Africa is .. No 1 is USA .. no 2 is MALAYSIA .. want to make a guess what the Malaysians are buying from South Africa in exchange for its palm oil? Do we dare think that we have better relationship with SA than Malaysia? After all, their country system is a bumi system now. -
Trust mi , singapore HAVE the technology to build cruisemissile..........Originally posted by laser51088:I think long range systems to be considered should be cruise missiles and MLRS
It should be remembered that MLRS systems are mainly used to attack infantry and lightly armoured or soft skin vehicles, not heavily armoured vehicles. Also,, if Singapore were to purchase the MLRS, its range should be longer than 40km, since the current artillery in the SAF inventory can already achieve fire to 40km, and at a much lower cost. I must say that the Brazilian ASTROS II pruchased by the MAF looks best after a quick look at various MLRSs on the www.fas.org/man website. The main advantage a MLRS will have as compared to an artillery gun with a similar range is the MLRS ability to deliver massive amount of firepower to one place in a very short period of time. One MLRS could deliver the same firepower that only many artillery guns can in a short period of time. However, for sustained operations, a gun would probably fire better and is alot cheaper since a 155mm shell, even Extended range ones, will cost much less than each rocket the MLRS fires.
Cruise missiles can be readily developed from anti-ship missiles in many instances, including the Harpoon. In fact, the US already has a cruise missile SLAM and SLAM-ER developed from it. I would say that a cruise missile is much more likely to be used as compared to a SRBM, simply because a cruise missile is able to attack individual targets while the SRBM would simply blow the hell out of any where it lands in in a 5 to 10 km at least, depending also on geographical factors of the place. A cruise missile is much more practical, although is failings are generally a speed of less than 1 mach and since the target is generally far away, this allows the target to manoevure away or a good chance at shooting down the cruise missile, especially if it does not fly very low. Consequently, cruise missiles are used only against mainly stationery targets.
IMHO, if MLRS is needed, the launch vehicle should be an indegenious production or modified to fit Singapore's needs, but rockets can be either purchase from elsewhere or developed from existing ones, especially if a range of 90 km like the SS-80's, or even more, is wanted. It should however also be noted that there is some point in the range where the rocket would become uneconomical in terms of the size of its warhead as compared to the price of its rocket engine
Cruise missile option can probably be the SLAM-ER, since it has commonality of parts with the Harpoon and makes handling them cheaper and easier.
my two cents
However abt the MLRS , we may not succeed if they will to perform an pre-emptive strike onto singapore ,even we are the ones who perform pre-emptive strike on them, the problem is where to hit????? Thats y i believe intelligence factor will be the most important factor here .
It is not realli about having the amount of MLRS , SRBM etc , however they are also important too as without them obviously u cant hit hard.
Now lets tok range. If a SRBM can have a range on any target around a 500km radius and destroy almost anything from 5 to 10 km radius upon impact, destroying a cluster of MLRS systems will not be problem. SRBM will also allow singapore to destroy heavily guarded military installment. Counter measures for the SRBM will surely be done then i shd say Singapore 's SRBM shd be a heavily guarded secret , at least not to the civilian level of knowledge. Thus will the amount of killing power , i find SRBM is the most pratical solution to the M. MLRS if it is available.
Cruisemissile is available to Singapore , having a stockpile will not be a problem too. However CMs are more to individual targeting which are use often in attacking targets which require pin-point accuration. (The onli cruisemissiles i think which do not provide pin-point precision attack shd be nuclear-tipped) However not onli because of her precision , CMs are use also to prevent human KIA during missions and they are cheaper to operate. ( a mission of a package of strike aircraft , support aircraft with a couple of loses will cost more. ) CMs are practical to Singapore if they are use in SEAD , and attack of installations. Of course attack on the MLRS can also be done .
MLRS to counter MLRS will not be useful if we fail to perform pre-emptive strikes , as Singapore will suffer from a geographic disadvantage fighting this battle.
Another safe way to counter MLRS attack will be placing point Air- defenses on Singapore's stratigical location. I have onli heard of a Anti-MLRS missile system from a russian company however forget wat is it and how it look like. From studying the Shipborne Air-defense System , i believe missile such as seawolve , baraks and astros could do a job over it , limited anot , im not sure.
