Hitting targets as far as KL or Ipoh from singapore....
-
Kenhor , u have ur own perpective , very good . I have my own. My views are that Malaysian Modernisation have been a threat. Maybe a low level threat now , however we should not sit down and say that they are trying to modernise , it is not a threat and we should focus on other activities.
E.g. Malaysian Modernisation vs Singapore Counter actions
Su30MKMs vs NGF.
SuperHornets vs NGF.
Astros2s vs Classified/Apaches
Pt-91Ms vs Light Tanks/Apaches
Meko NGPVs vs Lafayette Frigate.
Scorpene/Agosta vs Upcoming Subs.
I believe our Mindef is taking the chess followup action afterall , so we should sit down and see the eventual result. For ur info , long standing evidence have shown that Singapore is interested in Stealth Corvettes , New Art Pieces , New SAMs and for a very long time , long range air launch weapons. All this new on going evaluation are to keep us at the top , in another words , neutralizing threats from our region.......
Btw ,an operational F-16 cant fight an operational Su30. Su30s are built to neutralizing the American F-15s series and the successor of the Su30 , the Su35 and Su37 are built to neutralize the Raptor. Every country in this world is on their path on trying to be ahead of their immediate neighbours , especially those who they have to rely on , on certain resources.
Singapore and Malaysia will be at nv ending path , maybe economical and technological wise , a winner will emerge , however the race will still be on. One example of such chess follow up is the increase in defence spendings.
Cheer Kenhor , no offence dude. -
I think you should read those sec three social studies text books.
It was stated that Germany DID try to invade Switzerland.However, due to the natural barriers made by the Alps, the Germans had problems attacking it.
furthurmore, the height of the mountains were way higher than the maximum altitude of the Luftwaffle then.The Swiss simply shot them from the top of the mountains.
Another factor is man power.They managed to mobilize a force of 250000 men by the first 48 hours and a furthur 650000 men by the end of the week.To the already overstratched German army, this is a risk not to be taken.
As for your earlier arguments that Germany had already sanctioned Switzerland and hence they won't waste troops to attack Switzerland,
I have to tell you that they tried to starve the swiss and get them to surrender since they could not invade them.However, the swiss had already a contigency plan by making themselves self reliant.For example, growing vegetables and food on their gardens as a source of food.Till this day, such gardens could still be seen in switzerland.
FYI, there are reasons on why Germany would want to attack Switzerland.It is a gate way to italy, Germany and France. If Germany managed to secure switzerland, they would practically hold all the gateways to these countries.
For Singapore, we don't have any natural barriers protecting us.What we have is only a 1 km stretch of water seperating us from malaysia. With a click of a finger, they could simply destroy our closely built up quaters with artillary and rockets.If we don't have a good deterence, what are we going to fight back with? 350000 of your nation's best young men only to see them being slaughtered because our F-16s were thrashed up by some SU-30s and hence we don't have any air cover?
Deterance through diplomacy is never foolproof my friend.Look at Chamberlain.He is a classic case of deterence through diplomacy. End up what happened? He caused Britain to be isolated for two years because their allies were conquered one at a time.
If you see a potential enemy, try to build means to destroy it or offset it before it can destroy you.
Likewise if you see a queen termite, would you say,"Oh lets let them breed until they have the means to fight me.We will think of a solution to clear them up after that.After all its only fair." By that time, your house will be gone already.
Well, just my two cents.Hope you do some deep thinking about it. -
First of all, a threat is something which can cause harm to whatever you are defending. Everything is a threat. Astros is an especially big one. Even if it serves no purpose for malaysia to fire them into HDBs, can you imagine the damage done if it lands on an estate? That is an example of what may happen, and if that isn't a threat, I don't know what is.
Secondly, FAEs is not a WMD. It is no doubt known as a "poor man's nuke", but that is highly misleading. If you compare the figures, an FAE is nowhere near the destructive power of a nuke. This has been debated to hell in other forums.
What Kenhor is suggesting is quite contradicting indeed. What is the point of keeping a weak army? Might as well don't have an army! We can all sing the Malaysian anthem tomorrow. Call me braindead when it comes to defence policy, but this current policy is the only feasible way for us. You can walk in the streets and look weak, one fine day you will be robbed in the lifts. -
Since when is a F16 taking on a Su30 considered like a Spitfire vs Skyhawk?
It is when two aircraft of different time line comes in.
A FAE is known as a poor mans nuke. A nuke is a WMD, hence my linking the 2. Whatever they put into the ASTROS, we can put into a JSF and send it north. So the balance is there.
U have ur reasons with that , but for ur info the JSF will come in another 10 yrs time............
As I said so many times, Malaysia is buying the weapons to modernize their armed forces, and also to sell palm oil.
Thats a fact. Of course dude.
The reason why warsaw pact lost is that they concentrated too much on the military side and ignored totally all economic side. While we are not doing that, I believe that money has to be better spent on economic actions as our military has sufficient funds for deterrence and defence.
American concentrated as much as the Russian , the Russian lost because of their inferior communists ideals.....Singapore currently well focusing on defense , economical and of course social issues , dun worry ......
Please let me know how you got any information about the Germans trying to invade the swiss during ww2.
Social Studies text book . Btw there are more reason to that .....
Even without the ASTROS, the moment there is war, there will be huge numbers of loss of life. The mersing line and preemptive strikes are the psychological warfare that the military tell the civilians on how they will achieve their targets. In reality, if a shooting match happens, it wont stop until we reach Perlis and they wont stop until they reach sentosa.
The mersing line is to build a buffer zone so that their artillery and rockets cant reach singapore mainland easily.
Precisely my point. I think we have enough pieces on the board without spending more money putting another piece in the board. They can put a few more pieces, but our current armada is sufficient to counteract anything that they have.
The malaysian have new generation equipment and new toys that we dun have , i think we have to catch up even though we have enough on the board. Those seed we have are old or at least we need some new seeds to counter seeds that previously not found in SEA.
As for deterrence, how long a weapon you want? 500km?1000km? They have a short range weapon 90km. How much you want to pay to have weapons to hit KL? And why KL? Do you think by reducing KL to rubble that they will stop the invasion? They can rebuild any building. Its the economy and subsequent capital flight that will doom the country. If we destroy JB, and cripple their economy enough that there is starvation on the streets, then we win. Its the same for them. They don't have to reduce Orchard Road to rubble. They just need to sap our will to fight.
I dunno if u will call the Astros short ranged , but we need long range weapon as a force multiplier , a deterrence and of course to counter the long range weapon malaysia is getting.....such as that cruisemissiles.
Aniway , sorry for my sensitive words on my previous reply .....
-
You must also understand why we spend so much on our military hardware.For malaysia, for every 1 soldier,there are 175 people who could replace him if he dies in a war.For singapore, for every 1 soldier, you have only 10 people to replace him if he dies in a war.So for us, a lost of just one soldier impact us badly.Hence more money must be spend on high tech equipments to make up with the lost of man power.This is why getting advance aircraft and other weapons are justifiable.
-
Anyway, i find that a war with malaysia would simply not happen unless a politician of either of our country screws up in one way or another.I just use malaysia as an illustration over here. So to all malaysians out here, i apologise if I have offended you.But anyway let make peace not war.
-
American concentrated as much as the Russian , the Russian lost because of their inferior communists ideals.....Singapore currently well focusing on defense , economical and of course social issues , dun worry ......
Nope the Soviet was forced to divert more money into defence and less into their economy thus bankrupting themselves.The Soviet relied alot on numbers and little on quality back then.They also had a conscripted army with only their marines,KGB and spetnaz being regulars and every one else being conscripts.This dropping in standard of living due to a crappy economy caused massive "civil" war ripping warsaw pact apart.
Now for Germany trying to invade the Swiss i believe that was not the case.The German army apart from after 43 was not overstretched and if it was after 43 it didnt matter they were going to win just piss of the whole world and gain an enemy in the middle of their contorlled lands.If it was at the outset of war when the Swiss declared nuetrallity,they did moblise man from the various cantons but that like most of the people back then it was just incase.The Germans knew back then invading the Swiss would be madness for more reasons then just hurting themselves.They would have world opinion turned on them and have the US pissed off that them early in the war.Also their own people would rise againest them due to them not having an excuse for invading the Swiss.(surprised if you knew how many people believe poland shot and killed those border soldiers)I suggest you go read a good history book as the text books in Singapore are very very very simple and summarised.Enough to spark intrest not enough for anything else.Best library for this books would be the national library next to the museum. -
Well, I am no expert in all military aspects, my only passion is in economics and the sale of palm oil .. so I will leave it as agreeing to disagree.
It has been a wonderful discussion this weekend, look forward to more soon. -
Its true
russia collapse because their economic structure built by stalin couldn't live up to the 90's
they didn't bother to improve it in anyway, then suddenly boom
all is lost
not abt money -
Because based on our GDP and % per GDP on military budget, we are spending more money than our supposed adversary. How can we take an aggressor seriously when they spend less than us. If they really want combat, they will have to spend more than us. So as I said, we spend excessive amounts on our military.
To put it bluntly, their budget say is $1000, and ours is $2000 .. and has been that way for 30 years. Do I consider them a credible threat? NO. And expecially when our size is 500x smaller than theirs.
this is where i felt that you are mistaken... comparison based on GDP percentage is erroneous on several front :...
1... malaysia GDP is 2x that of singapore GDP... that is to say.. 3% of malaysia GDP expenditure on defence would equal to 6% of singapore GDP in real figure terms...
2... the cost of building an army in singapore and malaysia is different... malaysia having an abdundance of land and resources could face a lower cost in military expenditure vis-a-vis expensive singapore.. that is to say.. for the same fund.. they could support a larger force....
3... the malaysia defence expenditure pattern is different from singapore... other then the usual annual defence budget.. malaysia also have a 5 year plan additional supplemental budget for weapons purchase... which singapore do not have...
4... lastly... defence expenditure could be hidden and never be declared... thus... who can say... which side is really spending more?? could you?
and as stated... defence expenditure is based on threat perception and not dependent on land size... malaysia may be 500x larger than singapore... but that does not preclude their ability to mass all their forces in johor... neither does it imply that they might not have actually more forces than those declared...
the world of military is a murky stuff... will any nations come forth and spill all the military secrets?? i doubt it.. even malaysia aint that dumb...
lastly... as i have stated before.. singapore SAF is a matured forces led by pros... we are not short sighted... we do not believe in the stupid lone enemy, lone scenario and the perception that there could only be war with malaysia and no one else... in the future...
thus SAF is build with the aim to defend singapore against many threats... percieved or real... malaysia is just one of them... and i hope that malaysia isnt really that stupid to think that singapore is their only enemy... they will regret it.... the more they perceieved us as an enemy... they might really end up getting their wish of seeing SAF coming up north...
The opinion is that we have more than enough to defend the country, but am now trying for a force capable beyond defence, but also aggressive operations. That is the part that I disagree with.
can anyone in this world with the exception of GOD be in the position to tell SAF that "we have more than enough to defend the country" the person is either naive or simply underestimating our enemy's strength, resolve and intellect.... whoever that may be... lurking in the dark...
6... singapore est... 350,000
7... malaysia est ... 160,000
2x is not marginally .. 2x is definately overkill, especially if the 160k troops up north has to defend an area 500x larger than Singapore.
in war... 2X is not overkill... in the isreal arab war of 1967 and 1973... the arabs outnumbered the isrealis 10X... they still got beaten to a pulp... who can guarantee that SAF's 2X advantage could guarantee victory or peace for that matter?
So you are now saying that we are not poisonous enough to kill the enemy, and hence justify the deterrence through strength position. To me, that can not last indefinately, as we can never be sure that Singapore will forever remain economically better off than Malaysia. In fact, already HK has fallen with China's ascendancy. If we are not flexible in our military doctrine, we are as doomed as the USSR, who tried to keep up with the west. They looked good in the 80s, but their economy floundered and all that hardware was wasted.
whether we can last this situation indefinately... we dont know.. but until we found some other better means of securing our security... it would be foolhardy to insist a change in the doctrine that has worked well thus far... to an untested formula...
in fact... who knows wat the future holds for all of us?? malaysia for all we know might go kaput before we got a chance to see if singapore will forever remain economically better off than malaysia... there are nations that goes kaput and stayed kaput for eternaty....
-
forgive my bluntness... but i think your military knowledge sucks big times...Originally posted by kenhor:Well, I am no expert in all military aspects, my only passion is in economics and the sale of palm oil .. so I will leave it as agreeing to disagree.
It has been a wonderful discussion this weekend, look forward to more soon.
and as an economist myself... i have no choice but to give you a BIG BIG F for your economic..... -
To trip wire,
Well most of what I posted are my opinions, and its also your opinion that was posted.
Here is a sample of some of the things you have said about the MAF.
frankly... they cant afford to loose much of anything.. since they arent able to produce most if any of their weapons themselves...
their heavy dependency on foreign support for their local defense weapons platforms could only imply that any war that malaysia wanna start must first gained the blessing of foreigners....
in fact ... most of their equipment purchase... are crap load of joke.... furthermore.. they always buy in so pathetic a small number... it makes one ponder if they really have a monkey as a CDF or wat...
furthermore... everytime the maharaja's army purchase any " Top of the line stuffs" its always more hype then truth.... and never in the right number...
furthermore... anyone taking a good look at their ORBAT will be shocked to see a circus or a museum with many types of weapons but never in the right amount... it begs to wonder.... wat the hell is wrong with their CPUs...
Personally... i feel that malaysia's action in weapon purchase is more of a fanfare event then a security consideration... else why the claim to purchase the MIG-29M, then call it the MIG-29N... but in truth.. they got the MIG-29A (vintage stuff)??
take their hornets for example... its just barely enough in number to form a small aerobatic team (think the US navy aerobatic team got more hornets ) ... and they call that a combat force... *ouch* they must be in dream land.....
actually... in view of the high cost of the Astro2 ... it would be a severe strain on MAF finances to keep a large stockpile of such rockets... they will probably run out of rockets first before we get to kill off their launchers...
And now, you think that they have much more money than us. So which statements are correct? Are they a serious threat or a joke? Or both? Or you just want to have the last word? Should we take you seriously from now on?
Anyway, here is what the CIA factbook has to say
a) Malaysia US$1.69 billion (2.03% of GDP) FY00
b) Singapore US$4.47 billion (4.9% of GDP) FY01
So this is what is published by the CIA, who has better information that you and me. It clearly states that Singapores's spending is 2x that of Malaysia. So my conclusion is
a) You just want to win any argument and warp the facts to support your arguments or
b) You also suck in your economics.
As for any hidden expenditures, I am sure both countries have them. So it evens up. In fact, with the amount of corruption in Malaysia, I am sure that their budget is even less due to having to pay off the ministers.
I am willing to leave it as agreeing to disagree .. don't be too personal in your attacks. I will respond. -
to tripwire
2... the cost of building an army in singapore and malaysia is different... malaysia having an abdundance of land and resources could face a lower cost in military expenditure vis-a-vis expensive singapore.. that is to say.. for the same fund.. they could support a larger force....
But in our discussion, we are talking about the ASTROS and other missiles .. are the Malaysians developing it? Nope. They are buying it. And most of the new aquisitions are for foreign stuff like subs, missiles, tanks. Those are not cheap.
4... lastly... defence expenditure could be hidden and never be declared... thus... who can say... which side is really spending more?? could you?
So the chance of us spending more is just as likely. Especially with the silver bullets many forum members like to mention. It may be that we spend more. Nobody knows. So this statement is as true for them as for us.
and as stated... defence expenditure is based on threat perception and not dependent on land size... malaysia may be 500x larger than singapore... but that does not preclude their ability to mass all their forces in johor... neither does it imply that they might not have actually more forces than those declared...
Friend, already you mentioned earlier when there was a paratroop drop within 10km of JB, we mobilize .. how the heck can they mass all 160k troops to JB without us knowing? And the 160k will face 320k. So what talk you?
thus SAF is build with the aim to defend singapore against many threats... percieved or real... malaysia is just one of them... and i hope that malaysia isnt really that stupid to think that singapore is their only enemy... they will regret it.... the more they perceieved us as an enemy... they might really end up getting their wish of seeing SAF coming up north...
In my opinon, the MAF is buying stuff that is to be used for defence of their country. I don't see how they are just defending against Singapore. The stuff that they have is what every modern arm force wants. Is there any thing that they have that works particularly well against us? -
Friend, already you mentioned earlier when there was a paratroop drop within 10km of JB, we mobilize .. how the heck can they mass all 160k troops to JB without us knowing? And the 160k will face 320k. So what talk you?
boy it's me that said it
-
Originally posted by kenhor:
i kindly provide you with the link from CIA for your pleasure... check it yourself...
To trip wire,
Well most of what I posted are my opinions, and its also your opinion that was posted.
Here is a sample of some of the things you have said about the MAF.
[b]frankly... they cant afford to loose much of anything.. since they arent able to produce most if any of their weapons themselves...
their heavy dependency on foreign support for their local defense weapons platforms could only imply that any war that malaysia wanna start must first gained the blessing of foreigners....
in fact ... most of their equipment purchase... are crap load of joke.... furthermore.. they always buy in so pathetic a small number... it makes one ponder if they really have a monkey as a CDF or wat...
furthermore... everytime the maharaja's army purchase any " Top of the line stuffs" its always more hype then truth.... and never in the right number...
furthermore... anyone taking a good look at their ORBAT will be shocked to see a circus or a museum with many types of weapons but never in the right amount... it begs to wonder.... wat the hell is wrong with their CPUs...
Personally... i feel that malaysia's action in weapon purchase is more of a fanfare event then a security consideration... else why the claim to purchase the MIG-29M, then call it the MIG-29N... but in truth.. they got the MIG-29A (vintage stuff)??
take their hornets for example... its just barely enough in number to form a small aerobatic team (think the US navy aerobatic team got more hornets ) ... and they call that a combat force... *ouch* they must be in dream land.....
actually... in view of the high cost of the Astro2 ... it would be a severe strain on MAF finances to keep a large stockpile of such rockets... they will probably run out of rockets first before we get to kill off their launchers...
And now, you think that they have much more money than us. So which statements are correct? Are they a serious threat or a joke? Or both? Or you just want to have the last word? Should we take you seriously from now on?
please understand my dear dear friend... there is a difference between effective spending and blind wasting... which is to say... though malaysia might spend more (which i did not claim in the first place)... they could jolly well be either spending it the wrong way... (cos that is open to argument) or they might be spending smartly under the guise of those purchases... like i noted in my previous post... which idiotic nation would actually spill all their military secrets in public?? and which idiot would be so foolish to argue for his own nations defence spending cuts base on such public figures??
Anyway, here is what the CIA factbook has to say
a) Malaysia US$1.69 billion (2.03% of GDP) FY00
b) Singapore US$4.47 billion (4.9% of GDP) FY01 if CIA is believable... then pig can climb trees.... first ... CIA didnt take into account the 5 year plan extra-budget military spendings... which amounted to almost 1 billion ringgit a year secondly... CIA figure cannot be right if you checked malaysia GDP for FY2000 is approx 200 billion dollars.. at 2.03 percent... that should give a figure of 4.06 billion dollars for defence... not your small small 1.69 billion as you claim... dont believe me go check your CIA figure again and do the maths yourself instead of reading blindly.... on the other hand... also from CIA... singapore GDP is 100 billion with a 4.9% GDP spending correctly stated as 4.47billion... ( dont read blindly next time) plus malaysia's 5 year extra budget defence spending plance... i would say... both nation spend almost the same...
So this is what is published by the CIA, who has better information that you and me. It clearly states that Singapores's spending is 2x that of Malaysia. So my conclusion is GARBAGE BELOW since your figure is wrong above,.. your points below aint even worth reading....
a) You just want to win any argument and warp the facts to support your arguments or
b) You also suck in your economics.
As for any hidden expenditures, I am sure both countries have them. So it evens up. In fact, with the amount of corruption in Malaysia, I am sure that their budget is even less due to having to pay off the ministers.
I am willing to leave it as agreeing to disagree .. don't be too personal in your attacks. I will respond.[/b]
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sn.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/my.html -
Originally posted by kenhor:
i can only pray that you are right... beyond that... i wish them good luck....
to tripwire
[b]2... the cost of building an army in singapore and malaysia is different... malaysia having an abdundance of land and resources could face a lower cost in military expenditure vis-a-vis expensive singapore.. that is to say.. for the same fund.. they could support a larger force....
But in our discussion, we are talking about the ASTROS and other missiles .. are the Malaysians developing it? Nope. They are buying it. And most of the new aquisitions are for foreign stuff like subs, missiles, tanks. Those are not cheap. and you were trying to tell me their defence budget is so so the low secondly... becuase their cheaper cost... they could spare more money to buy even more fancy stuff right??
4... lastly... defence expenditure could be hidden and never be declared... thus... who can say... which side is really spending more?? could you?
So the chance of us spending more is just as likely. Especially with the silver bullets many forum members like to mention. It may be that we spend more. Nobody knows. So this statement is as true for them as for us. thus wont be it foolish to declare outright that we are "overspending" and clamour for cut backs??
and as stated... defence expenditure is based on threat perception and not dependent on land size... malaysia may be 500x larger than singapore... but that does not preclude their ability to mass all their forces in johor... neither does it imply that they might not have actually more forces than those declared...
Friend, already you mentioned earlier when there was a paratroop drop within 10km of JB, we mobilize .. how the heck can they mass all 160k troops to JB without us knowing? And the 160k will face 320k. So what talk you? me say.... please dont underestimate thy enemy... for it should led to your downfall.....
thus SAF is build with the aim to defend singapore against many threats... percieved or real... malaysia is just one of them... and i hope that malaysia isnt really that stupid to think that singapore is their only enemy... they will regret it.... the more they perceieved us as an enemy... they might really end up getting their wish of seeing SAF coming up north...
In my opinon, the MAF is buying stuff that is to be used for defence of their country. I don't see how they are just defending against Singapore. The stuff that they have is what every modern arm force wants. Is there any thing that they have that works particularly well against us?[/b] -
To tripwire,
Thats why I am tell the forum members to agree to disagree. Since you don't know what the Malaysians are spending, whether they are competent or not, my opinion of them being a threat is as valid as anyones elses.
You don't know, and I don't know. So leave it as that. -
sorry bloke... but it seems that your opinions has been torn to shreds....Originally posted by kenhor:To tripwire,
Thats why I am tell the forum members to agree to disagree. Since you don't know what the Malaysians are spending, whether they are competent or not, my opinion of them being a threat is as valid as anyones elses.
You don't know, and I don't know. So leave it as that.
i sure make a big dent in your belief... didint i.... 
no hard feelings... you tried your best..... mua happen to be better that's all.....
but perhaps next time... you would be more careful.... in posting figures...
i let you in on a secret....
i knew about that CIA report blunder many many many moons ago..... -
The CIA book takes into account exchange rate and standard of living and stuff also lah if u see it's pachasing parity lah.Means our money worth more even if we actually make less
-
lol you know what they think RSN stands for? Royal Singapore Navy. LOL!!!
-
heh ok
oops mistake this is how they got the military expenditureThis entry gives current military expenditures in US dollars; the figure is calculated by multiplying the estimated defense spending in percentage terms by the gross domestic product (GDP) calculated on an exchange rate basis not purchasing power parity (PPP) terms. Dollar figures for military expenditures should be treated with caution because of different price patterns and accounting methods among nations, as well as wide variations in the strength of their currencies.
-
heh..... Republic of Singapore Navy lahz... =P
-
btw talking abt swiss......
been there a couple of years back.....
All the roads leading out to borders of immediate neighbouring countries have been rigged with explosives since ww2 till now.... so... in case they are threatened by lets say.. someone from the north.. they simply need to blow up the roads and paths linking from that direction. Think its rigged like lets say every 50m or so.... ALighted the tourbus and walked to the road... took a photograph of the "sabotage"
Swiss ppl are smart... Their overall terrain is like mountainous and very hilly.... so making it kinda hard for the Germans to invade....
Just my 2 cents.... ^_^ v -
lol it only got that way cuz they invaded too many people and kenna beat back to present day borders.It's a prob to invade and for them invade as well lah works both waysOriginally posted by Moonstriker:btw talking abt swiss......
been there a couple of years back.....
All the roads leading out to borders of immediate neighbouring countries have been rigged with explosives since ww2 till now.... so... in case they are threatened by lets say.. someone from the north.. they simply need to blow up the roads and paths linking from that direction. Think its rigged like lets say every 50m or so.... ALighted the tourbus and walked to the road... took a photograph of the "sabotage"
Swiss ppl are smart... Their overall terrain is like mountainous and very hilly.... so making it kinda hard for the Germans to invade....
Just my 2 cents.... ^_^ v -
lol, put dynamites on causeway....[/img]