RMAF shopping for AEW&C
-
hey... i am not malaysian... and i am not the one who spouts the nonsense about warding off a "pre-emptive strike"Originally posted by kenhor:Dear Tripwire,
The initial purchase of the AWACs is for 4 aircraft .. they never said thats all they will be buying. They have a long learning curve up ahead .. so they buy 4 first for training. Just like the subs .. do you honestly think that their entire submarine fleet will consist of 2 subs?
dear kanhor... i seriously doubt that they are gonna be purchasing anymore awacs or even subs... with their kind of economic ability ... swallow the 4 awac and 2 subs... would give them indigestion for years to come... and if we took a look at malaysian defence purchasing style and inventory list... you will notice that they tend to buy many toys but always in very very low numbers... that's why they got a reputation as a museum or a circus then a real military estab.... 
And I never said that they will be challenging China .. so don't put words in my mouth .. you have some issues with the Malays .. the rest of us don't. They are going to put some assets to project force into the South China Sea .. and if you look at the map of our region, the countries with the most coastline bordering the South China Sea are China, Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia. They have a right and duty to protect their coastline. oh please.... if not against china and singapore.. dont tell me they gonna need an awac to deal with phillipine or indonesia?? and thais aint interested in them.... in any case.. if the thais do go south.. their army will be a bigger threat then their air force...
And you also said in some of your posts that the Malaysians should not consider us as their only threat .. by buying the AWACS, they have demonstrated that very clearly .. so you of all people should be happy that they are buying the AWACS. -
To Viper,
Any country buying equipment in defence of its own land is definately preferable to buying equipment to be the aggressor.
Its unfortunate that our doctrine is forward defense (invasion of neighbouring country) so any defensive weaponary to defend their land is to prevent us from defending ours effectively.
The Malaysians are not so paranoid about being invaded as we are. They build their main naval base next to a holiday resort. They have a nice 4 lane highway linking their most potential enemy to their capital city. They have nice petrol refinery plant with good port facilities temptingly within reach. They have a huge port complex at the southern tip of the country which acts like a very nice jumping off point. Their main port in Klang has a berth large enough to dock a carrier (our newspapers reported 3 years ago that beside Changi, only Westport is large enough to dock an American Nuclear Carrier) Not to mention that their military budget is less than ours.
So excuse me if I don't share our leadership's concern over the north's capability. In fact, I worry about their economic ability more. -
In my earlier post over in the Su30 thread, .. I did mention that Lima is coming .. all this activity will be to attract vendors to show off their wares. They can sign for the purchase agreement this year and the deployment can come within 2 years (hence the supplier has to open booth for 2 LIMA shows)
As for projecting power into South China Sea .. please look at my response to Kanzer.
To buy 3-4 vehicles of each type is now normal for the Malaysians. It may be a logistical nighmare for us, but they have been doing it for many years already .. maybe they have gotten immune to the logistical nighmares. Its only a nightmare if you intend to use it .. if its a deterrence, it works fine.
And what is the rush of buying all the equipment? They can buy a little now, a little later .. its not like there's a war and they need all the equipment NOW .. -
Kenhor, so would I be right to assume you favour abandoning a policy of forward defence in favour of drawing a potential invader in a high cost high casualty urban slugfest in downtown Singapore?Originally posted by kenhor:To Viper,
Any country buying equipment in defence of its own land is definately preferable to buying equipment to be the aggressor.
Its unfortunate that our doctrine is forward defense (invasion of neighbouring country) so any defensive weaponary to defend their land is to prevent us from defending ours effectively.
So excuse me if I don't share our leadership's concern over the north's capability. In fact, I worry about their economic ability more.
Ahhh...concern for economic ability at the expense of their military capability, now you're advocating tunnel vision? The new toys might not be bought to counter us, that I agree, but it can be any time they want to and I think it might be prudent to take that in mind.
Earlier you said "Having an AWACS may not stop piracy from happening but you will be able to track all comings and goings a lot better."
Simply put, thats a job that can be done even better and cheaper with a properly equiped maritime patrol aircraft. An AEW's playground is high up, while an MPA not only has the better ability to monitor shipping, it even has the ability to respond to piracy better as it flies low. -
To Viper,
"Kenhor, so would I be right to assume you favour abandoning a policy of forward defence in favour of drawing a potential invader in a high cost high casualty urban slugfest in downtown Singapore? "
If you have all read my posts, I have advocated strongly deterrence. And my ideal was the same kind of deterrence that Nato employed against the Warsaw Pact. That if you come, you will not live to enjoy the victory parade.
If war does come and we march off, there is no guarantees that our city will be spared the ravages of war as well. So to me deterrence is much better than having a forward defence policy.
Ahhh...concern for economic ability at the expense of their military capability, now you're advocating tunnel vision? The new toys might not be bought to counter us, that I agree, but it can be anytime they want to
If you will read my long winded replies in most of the other threads, I have time and again said that the Malaysians are not intending to buy equipment. Their main agenda is to generate economic activity. i.e Sell palm oil and boost interest in LIMA (tourism dollars) To any Malaysian person I met, economic security of the country is of greater concern than military security.
Earlier you said Having an AWACS may not stop piracy from happening but you will be able to track all comings and goings a lot better.
Simply put, thats a job that can b done even better and cheaper with a properly equiped maritime patrol aircraft. An AEW's playground is high up, while an MPA not only has the better ability to monitor shipping, it even has the ability to respond to piracy better as it flies low
If you look at the article that was posted, they did mention the roles of what the awacs is going to play. A multi purpose platform is definately better for them. And yes, I agree with you that maritime patrol aircraft is better. But don't forget that the Navy just got that new submarines .. so their airforce needs some more sexy toy to show off .. that's they way the world works. Each branch needs something to show off .. the Army with their Tanks and MRLS, the Navy with their Subs, and the airforce with the AWACS and Su30s. -
let me summarised what i have postedOriginally posted by kenhor:To Kanzer,
The AWACS are dual purpose aircraft .. they can co-ordinate lots of aircrafts to do a strike mission OR they can detect ships that surface borne radar can not.
You have to look at the bigger picture when dealing with Malaysia. There is ample evidence of what they can do with the Aircraft. What is Malaysia's role? They are a trading nation, and also a natural resource producer. They are an emerging tourism destination as well as a new transhipment port.
What are the main dangers for those 4 economic activity? War? Nope. Its piracy. If you read the shipping times, Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore waters have the highest reported incidents of piracy. Some range from just robbery. But the more daring cases are where whole ships are captured and made to dissappear.
Imagine the economic damage if one of Malaysia's LNG carriers plying the waters between Bintulu and Japan is taken by pirates? The worst case scenario would be that floating time bomb be taken to Tokyo Bay and detonated.
Having an AWACS may not stop piracy from happening but you will be able to track all comings and goings a lot better. So lets all just look at the possible use of the equipment before thinking its all for an invasion or some plot against Singapore.
(1) they will be additional cost in integrating a datalink among its air and naval assets.
(2) americans will take no barter.... they want straight cash
(3)F-111 does have the range to hit SEA with air to air refuelling
i did not mention that having AWACS is a plot as you mentioned.....
so please do not put words into my mouth
as well, if you want to fight piracy..... a MPA is more useful AWACs is not designed to detect small sampans.... -
Originally posted by Viper52:
that is why i qualified the sentence with the word "technically"..... anyway the RAAF is contemplating that the F-111 lifespan be extended to 2040?!?!?!?! make no sense......and cents......
[b]Kanzer, the Aussies can indeed reach Jakarta and all of SEA with tanker support in theory, but the Pig fleet is VERY old and unreliable. Sure, they boast about 100% servicability during red Flag, but do you know the effort and cost needed to do that. As for tanker, the RAAF is left with 4 old clapped-out ex-Qantas 707s.[b] -
the weapons system has a life cycle cost. even if it is on an economic platform that the hardwares were purchased, they are taking a big gamble.
1st of all the costs of maintenance, MLU, documentation and what nots can be forecasted over the life of the hardware adjusted for inflation of course.
but is the revenue stream certain? palm oil has its competitors too. and no doubt they are able to make inroads now and thus generating a revenue stream now. will they able to defend and enlarge their market share 10 years from now? given other factors like exchange rate and political risk, what will be the expected cash flow from this venture? No one is quite sure here. But I do know how much they will be spending in the next 10 years for maintenence..... -
Kenhor,
If you have all read my posts, I have advocated strongly deterrence. And my ideal was the same kind of deterrence that Nato employed against the Warsaw Pact. That if you come, you will not live to enjoy the victory parade.
If war does come and we march off, there is no guarantees that our city will be spared the ravages of war as well. So to me deterrence is much better than having a forward defence policy.
Having shiny new toys which only look menacing on parade is not deterrence. That's called wayang. You cannot deter enemies if they know you do not know how to, or do not have a coherent strategy for using those shiny toys properly.
NATO did not deter the Warsaw Pact just by having their tanks planes and guns. The Warsaw Pact was deterred by the fact that NATO had those weapons and along with that a workable strategy for using them seamlessly and efficiently to defend W Europe if ever push came to shove. Look at the whole picture not just the part of it that you want to see.
In 1940 the Germans knew that the French had a qualitative as well as a quantitative advantage (in certain areas) BUT they also knew that the French did not have a coherent or workable strategy to use these advantages properly, and thus they invaded France. We all know what happened.
There is no guarantee indeed that if war comes and we march off the city will be spared. But the chances of that, as well as the potential damage done to Singapore itself will sure be a lot less than having one big FIBUA furball in Singapore a la Grozny or Stalingrad
Based on the local conditions that exist here, forward defence is a coherent and workable strategy to make use of the deterrent nature of our equipment. Maybe you have an alternative strategy to enhance the deterrence value of our armed forces without having to resort to forward defence? I'm sure the guys here would love to hear it.
If you will read my long winded replies in most of the other threads, I have time and again said that the Malaysians are not intending to buy equipment. Their main agenda is to generate economic activity. i.e Sell palm oil and boost interest in LIMA (tourism dollars) To any Malaysian person I met, economic security of the country is of greater concern than military security.
Economic security comes hand in hand with military security. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. If you have economic well-being but not the means to defend it, theres nothing secure about it. -
[quote]Originally posted by kenhor:
To buy 3-4 vehicles of each type is now normal for the Malaysians. It may be a logistical nighmare for us, but they have been doing it for many years already .. maybe they have gotten immune to the logistical nighmares. Its only a nightmare if you intend to use it .. if its a deterrence, it works fine.
Maybe they've gotten used to the logistical nightmares? Hahaha....sure after that little episode with the sub-50% servicability of the Mig-29 they've gotten "used" to that and now they're coming back for more with a new round of diverse purchases...
I think your definition of military deterrence is rather different from its context as used in military circles. Please read my counter to your NATO-Warsaw Pact analogy in the post above. -
To kanzer
The sampans and speedboat is indeed not detectable by the AWACS .. but container ships and LNG carriers are.
As for datalinks between their Navy and Army, that project is a money maker for big business .. hence will definately do it.
An AWACS is multirole, compared to MPA which is single role. If they haven't got either, the AWACS is a better way to start.
For the Americans, yes, they will demand cash .. but if they accept a barter or a huge discount, it will signal a thaw in relations between USA and Malaysia, as well as an approval of their use of the platform for the south china sea .. (maybe used to help monitor China's naval activity in disputed territory) -
Over 30 years of independence did they finally learn the potential of international trade that Singapore had envisioned ages ago. I believe the only thing globally influential that can emerge out of that country is Islamic militancy and xenophobic diplomacy that breeds distrusts between north and south.Originally posted by kenhor:They are an emerging tourism destination as well as a new
transhipment port..
Forget about piracy thingy. It is a child's play compared to acts of terrorist or flashpoint at Spartly isle. Even the KL gov is supiciious of Sabah,fearing that it maybe another Singapore.
So lets all just look at the possible use of the equipment before
thinking its all for an invasion or some plot against Singapore.
[/quote]
Isn't that the similar dangerous assumption that lead to Pearl Habour 1941 ?
History has shown Simpleton assumptions of cheap peace dividend often become a prelude to a war. -
To viper
As for WP vs Nato scenario, there was a nuclear stand off. That kept the peace, rather than who has the best tank and soldier. If there was a war in Europe, and if either side was losing, most analyst I have read was that the war will go nuclear. Russia and WP had a policy of winning and surviving a nuclear war. While Nato had a policy of deterrence and MAD. USA had enough weapons to survive a first strike and then will strike back. The russians policy was that of limiting the damage of their cities and ensuring survival of a nuclear war.
The Americans were able then to focus their attention on economic and social activities while the WPs focus on military. Long story short, they over did it and their economy died. My opinion is that we may face the same scenario.
As for deterrence, there is a limit to what is used to deter an aggressor, compared to the overkill we currently have. Malaysia's flashy toys to me are not an aggressive platform, as we still have numerical and quantity superiority over them. So we are very much not worried about them coming over.
Over on the Malaysia side, their economy and country is progressing better than most other countries. Economic prosperity and a Malaysia first policy brings their people together. Hence the fact that Chinese and Malay can work together against a possibly hostile Singapore is the deterrence against us invading them. The equipment is just a force multiplier. But it also acts as a psychological weapon that Malaysia is worth defending. -
To viper
I actually think that if the Malaysians are serious about the AWACS, they will get the 737 version. That way, they have lots of experience and spare parts .. they have plenty of 737s in MAS and Air Asia .. they run the second largest fleet worldwide outside USA.
So until they announce the type of plane, we can only guess on the "difficulties" in the logistics, which of course, you are right to mention. -
Originally posted by kenhor:
purchase of weapons from Europeans and US may not be on barter basis but had included technological transfer and countertrade purchases...eg.
For the Americans, yes, they will demand cash .. but if they accept a barter or a huge discount, it will signal a thaw in relations between USA and Malaysia, as well as an approval of their use of the platform for the south china sea .. (maybe used to help monitor China's naval activity in disputed territory)[/b]
- thru the purchase of BAE Hawks, CTRM based in Malacca, had been supplying composite aircraft parts for Airbus aircrafts.
- thru the purchase of Hornets, ACM based in Kedah had been supplying composite aircraft parts for Boeing commercial aircrafts like B747 etc -
To gun
Over 30 years of independence did they finally learn the potential of international trade that Singapore had envisioned ages ago.
Of course, but once they learn something, they can out do us in implementing it as they have larger economies of scale and a domestic market.
Forget about piracy thingy. It is a child's play compared to acts of terrorist or flashpoint at Spartly isle.
Piracy or Terrorism will be the same thing if the target is a big container ship or LNG carrier. So the AWACS is definately a neccessary platform for them to procure.
Even the KL gov is supiciious of Sabah,fearing that it maybe another Singapore.
Thats why they built the new submarine base over there .. not to mention the huge economic handouts and benefits that they give to all the East Malaysians.
Isn't that the similar dangerous assumption that lead to Pearl Habour 1941 ?
The warning signs were given .. its just that the leadership did not listen to the lower ranks. We have a similar case here .. we have complained till our tongues turned blue over the dangers of certain government policies (such as the FT policy and lack of democracy) but they are not listening. -
not with the Pathfinder/Sharpshooter combo we are currently using....Originally posted by Viper52:So with LGBs and designating systems like the LANTIRN or Litening, everyone can stay high and be safe from SHORADS.
oops, can I say that? -
if you fly high, who's gonna laser the targets for you? Another aircraft with a targeting pod? Then he'll be within the operating range of the ground defences. Commandos on the ground with laser designators? Those souped-up laser pointers are pretty short range too, if you can get troopers close in, may as well have them take out the SAM sites/launchers....
The GBU-10 use by our F-16 have a range of 8Nm , 8 Nm ranged bombs have a very good advantage agaisnt the 8km range Jernas use by Malaysians. I personnally find that the main issue is in targeting not range. LGB are rather inaccurate in foggy days or night , its accuraccy may be affected by rain too. Thus i believe our LGB bombs may have GPS guidance system to improve accuraccy. To increase the range of the LGB , the RSAF might incorporate the LONGSHOT kit onto our LGB , turning it into a short range cruisemissile.
However y would the RSAF will wanna use the Laser guided bomb agaisnt SAMs in our region. The LGB is a glide plateform , the JERNAS will be able to optically track it and shoot it down before the bomb can even reach the target. The GBU-10 have a circular error porbable of 9meters , 9 meters might mean alot in plinking those SAMs in the woods. I will rather the RSAF to use the Maverick Missiles in SEAD mission , best will be with missile such as ALARMs or HARMs which have stand-off anti-radiation capability. -
Kenhor
As for WP vs Nato scenario, there was a nuclear stand off. That kept the peace, rather than who has the best tank and soldier. If there was a war in Europe, and if either side was losing, most analyst I have read was that the war will go nuclear. Russia and WP had a policy of winning and surviving a nuclear war. While Nato had a policy of deterrence and MAD. USA had enough weapons to survive a first strike and then will strike back. The russians policy was that of limiting the damage of their cities and ensuring survival of a nuclear war.
So then you do admit that the YOUR initial analogy of using NATO vs Warsaw Pact as an example of military deterrence is fundamentally flawed, no?
You say that your ideal deterrence is That if you come, you will not live to enjoy the victory parade.
Whats the point then, if the enemy does not live neither do we should deterrence fail? Isn't the point of going to war(when war comes to us) to win and survive if possible? Whats the point of playing for a draw by bleeding ourselves half to death along with the enemy? Especially knowing that with our small population and limitations, every one of our people that is lost would be more costly to us than every one lost by the enemy?
As for deterrence, there is a limit to what is used to deter an aggressor, compared to the overkill we currently have. Malaysia's flashy toys to me are not an aggressive platform, as we still have numerical and quantity superiority over them. So we are very much not worried about them coming over.
Is it an overkill? Most of our weapon purchases in the past few years, as well as planned acqusitions, have been simply replacing of existing equipment that is approaching the end of it's life cycle, other than the Apache helicopters virtually nothing else is the introduction of new capbilities that our neighbours do not have.
Over on the Malaysia side, their economy and country is progressing better than most other countries. Economic prosperity and a Malaysia first policy brings their people together. Hence the fact that Chinese and Malay can work together against a possibly hostile Singapore is the deterrence against us invading them. The equipment is just a force multiplier. But it also acts as a psychological weapon that Malaysia is worth defending.
Counting your chickens before they hatch aren't you? That really remains to be seen. -
We're not using Pathfinder/Sharpshooter. The pods we got with the initial F-16C/D purchase in 1994 are full-spec LANTIRNs.Originally posted by SlowPoke:not with the Pathfinder/Sharpshooter combo we are currently using....
oops, can I say that?
The Pathfinder/Sharpshooter looks quite different from the LANTIRN. I've seen those mounted on Taiwanese F-16s -
Double post deleted
-
the container ships and LNGs are only attractive terrorists targets...... for piracy wise, not feasible..... most ships targeted are smaller freighters because they have a lower gunwhale.... it is easier to board......a bigger ships takes more people to overcome the crew and takeover....so the pirates prefer something smaller and more easier disposable cargo......Originally posted by kenhor:To kanzer
The sampans and speedboat is indeed not detectable by the AWACS .. but container ships and LNG carriers are.
As for datalinks between their Navy and Army, that project is a money maker for big business .. hence will definately do it.
An AWACS is multirole, compared to MPA which is single role. If they haven't got either, the AWACS is a better way to start.
For the Americans, yes, they will demand cash .. but if they accept a barter or a huge discount, it will signal a thaw in relations between USA and Malaysia, as well as an approval of their use of the platform for the south china sea .. (maybe used to help monitor China's naval activity in disputed territory)
and as for US needing msia AWACS platform to monitor the chinese....hahahaha...... US will only sell them the export version.... so this is less capable than what they have. with the spy satellites and EP-3s in Japan, 7th fleet......they basically can cover the whole south china sea, east sea, sea of japan etc by themselves..... the msians have no role to play here..... they would not have one now nor will them have any in the future.....
as for a thaw in relations, after the GWII, he literally defined how diplomacy is being conducted...... more like the carrot or the cane here.....a barter with them is a non-starter. you have mentioned that US is the bigger competitor of palm oil so will the americans do something that is against their interest right? -
[quote]Originally posted by kenhor:
Thats why they built the new submarine base over there .. not to mention the huge economic handouts and benefits that they give to all the East Malaysians.
they built their sub base over there is because....
1... they want to hide their subs sonar signature from RSN... so as to hamper RSN future effort in hunting their subs in times of conflict... or when they want to use their subs for covert mission against singapore...
2... a base in sabah would be effectively safe from RSAF strike and at the same time close enough to the south china sea SLOC to harass merchant shippings to and from singapore...
3... with only 2 subs... they cant afford to loose either one in actions... thus they would not want them anywhere near the RSN's fleet of subs, ASW PVs, CVs, MPAs and the newest frigate...
4...as long as their subs remain active... RSN would be hard press to ensure the safety of merchant shippings so far from home base.. for extended period... the problem becomes more acute when one realise that RSN's CVs and PVs aint built for extended, long distance patrol functions... especially in the absence of air cover from RSAF...
5... thus...RSAF would be even hard pressed to provide air cover continuous at such long distance over the RSN ships if the ships are indeed sent to the south china sea to challenge the RMN subs...
in short... 2 RMN subs.. could significantly tied down huge RSN and RSAF resource while at the same time... expose RSN ships to continous threat from RMN and RMAF forces.. which in my opinion would result eventually in the lost of RSN ships... and probably RSAF planes... over time...
thus... malaysia aint dumb this time round... but there is a serious flaw with their strategy... which i wont tell them... -
Interesting article with information on the various new development of AEW & C platforms that are currently available in the world of Airborne Defense Industry
http://www.global-defence.com/2000/pages/airb.html -
To viper,
So then you do admit that the YOUR initial analogy of using NATO vs Warsaw Pact as an example of military deterrence is fundamentally flawed, no? You say that your ideal deterrence is That if you come, you will not live to enjoy the victory parade.
Whats the point then, if the enemy does not live neither do we should deterrence fail? Isn't the point of going to war(when war comes to us) to win and survive if possible? Whats the point of playing for a draw by bleeding ourselves half to death along with the enemy? Especially knowing that with our small population and limitations, every one of our people that is lost would be more costly to us than every one lost by the enemy?
The point of deterrence is not to win the war but to prevent one from happening. Hence the deterrence by NATO works .. as they knew the WP was planning to survive a nuclear war .. so all NATO had to do was to ensure that was not possible. Once they had enough, they can divert resources to their economy. We have to do the same .. ensure that we have enough deterrence and to heck with anything else they buy .. we want them to go bankrupt .. not the other way around.
In fact, I disagree totally with forward defense as it will spare our infrastrucutre but bleed our citizens. If we intend to invade an enemy, we need to outnumber them .. hence we probably need to mobilize our entire male population if we are serious about defeating them in a scenario where we go it alone. Each death of a soldier is equivalent to the death of a civillian. So I prefer to wait in a defendable position rather then go into a hostile environment where terrain suits the defender.
Is it an overkill? Most of our weapon purchases in the past few years, as well as planned acqusitions, have been simply replacing of existing equipment that is approaching the end of it's life cycle, other than the Apache helicopters virtually nothing else is the introduction of new capbilities that our neighbours do not have.
Just count the number of weapons and the troops we have on each side .. we outnumber them numerically and qualitativly on all fronts .. thats why I call it an overkill.
Counting your chickens before they hatch aren't you? That really remains to be seen.
This entire forum is all about counting chickens before the egg is hatched .. if we all weren't doing that, there will be no discussion right!