RMAF shopping for AEW&C
-
Kenhor,
to summarise I think your defence of "Deterrence at all costs" quite lacking in foresight. The Cold War might have been a success for deterrence, but history is littered with incidences where deterrence has failed. What we see here is us having a strategy of deterrence, but also a backup plan should that deterrence fail where not only will we not lose, we will try to win.
You just seem to be happy to think that should deterrence fail, its good enough to give the enemy a Phyrric victory. You say this will allow Singaporeans to survive, but I think thats plain naive. If we bloody the enemy's nose(along with our own) so that he will "not be able to enjoy the fruits of his victory"(your words), I fear terrible retribution will be exacted upon those who have survived the war. Again, history is full of such examples
Call me selfish, but its not good enough for me, nor for many people, I would think.
I see that it is pointless to try to sway your point of view, and it is the same for you to try to do the same to me. Our debate shall end here with me thanking my lucky stars defence planners here do not share your view.
Good day -
To Viper52
And thank goodness its not our defence planners idea of deterrence as well, because your idea of deterrence would not only ensure Singapore's defenders will die defending Singapore, all our family members as well what we have worked so hard to create will end up in one huge wasteland.
Its my opinion. You asked me for it. I gave it to you.
You seem to be happy to accept that if deterrence fails, you'll happily see Singapore laid waste to, and everyone dies. I'm sorry, but if deterrence fails, I'd rather give it a crack to try to keep my family alive.
The USA were happy with the theory that if WP attacked Nato, USA will risk USA just for the sake of the Europeans. i.e WP devastate Germany, USA nuke Moscow and Moscow nuke USA .. that kept the peace for nearly 50 years. Thats what MAD is.
Rubbish...if we sit in here and wait for the enemy to come like you suggest, the likely result will be a siege where we will be pounded into the dirt or we'll have a deathmatch in the streets. Either way, A LOT of Singaporeans will die and the country laid waste to
If you look at the weapons that both sides have nowadays, there is less fighting on the street than the scenario you are painting. Our weaponary is actually very long distance .. do you honestly think that the enemy can just sit in arty range and lob shells into the island without getting hit in return? One hit into Singapore, we flatten KL. the next hit, we do it to Penang .. and so on and so forth .. even before the first troop crosses the causeway, I can guarantee that there will be more damage to their cities than to ours. So what kind of need will there be for our troops to invade up to the Mersing line for?
By that same token, you are a lot friendlier to Malaysians than a lot of Malaysians are towards Singaporeans in general. Theres an anti-Malaysian undercurrent here, but the feeling is not one-sided, and worse still, a lot of the same kind of opinions expressed here are expressed by politicians and the mainstream press over there? So why pick on the forummers here alone for such sentiments?
I didn't pick on them first .. they picked on me. Every time I try to have a decent discussion, I get flammed even while I am very polite.
While we're on the topic of the last war, it does show the folly of attempting to make a last stand in Singapore proper
It also shows the folly of not working together and letting the enemy pick you off little by little.
Sure, and most here accept that fact, what we're picking on is their assertions that it is to counter "pre-emptive" strikes, which are comments obviously directed southwards towards us(especially) and Australia.
I will definately feel that they should buy the AWACS .. its make better sense than continually buying fighters ... what is wrong with that?
I have spoken out against the Mersing Line strategy in this forum before, but I also feel that its the best strategy in the circumstances in the absence of a better one and a certainly whole lot better than your "Singapore Deathmatch" option
Ok .. you may like it .. but I don't so we can agree to disagree on this . -
Originally posted by kenhor:
Question that u should ask is what makes a 737 platform any safer or cheaper to maintain than E2C ?
[quote]Like I said, if the Malaysian government were serious about the AWACS, they should get the 737 version. They will have less headaches with that place compared to a pure military one like E2C ..
The Hawkeye had been a very reliable plane with its Allison T56 420 series turboprop for the last 30 yrs of active operations in many conflicts.
And it is precisely on that fact that the USN has opted to extended its life for at least another 2 decades into the 21 century with Advanced Hawkeye upgrade programe by fitting a new radar to all
75 USN E-2C aircraft and expected IOC 2010.The RMAF can outsourse maintenance to the MAS or AIROD .. may be cheaper and better to do it.
Wow, Plug&play AWACs solution...Malaysian style.
Didn't u know the radar, its blackboxes and software components constitute major share of cost, regardless if it is based on E2C, Boeing or any other platforms.But maybe they can't afford it .. but that's another story.
Isn't affordabilty a prime factor that determines what Malaysian can buy ? ...another story, yeah rite. -
your hypothesis have no merit at all. 1st of all you seems to have forgotten that the msians strongly objected the presence of an anti-terrorist hq in KL......cooperation between intelligence agencies and spying on behalf of pentagon are two different stories........to say an apple an orange holds no water and i am bewildered by your comparsion.Originally posted by kenhor:To kanzer
There is lots more than what meets the eye .. you do know that there is an international anti-terrorist task force based in Malaysia going to be set up as a JV between FBI and Polis Malaysia right?
You also do know that there is the Asia Anti Piracy (arr me hearties)
HQ in KL also right?
And don't forget, during Sep 11, the Malaysian authorities passed info to the FBI regardiing some of the terrorist BEFORE the incident .. the fact is that there are OFFICIAL working level contacts between the Malaysians and the Americans ..
Malaysia actually has good relationship with all 3 rogue states (Iraq, Iran, N Korea) .. not to mention Myanmar, Cuba etc .. The USA knows that Malaysia can help keep tabs on all these undesirable countries for them quietly.
The americans don't have to trust the Malaysians .. they just have to use them .. but to use them, they need to let the Malaysians have the proper tools.
Actually, Malaysia exports more electronics components than you know it. Its because they export small components into Singapore and Taiwan and they are assembled into bigger parts that you are not aware of.
And it is very easy for USA to accept barter trade with Malaysia .. take for example textiles .. all they have to do is to increase the quota for Malaysian made textiles and ta da .. Malaysia can benefit.
secondly, what makes you think that US will accept barter trade? weapons sales can fall under different categories in US.... direct FMS, foreign aid etc..... whatever it is, can you name me an example in the past 10 years whereby the US have accepted a barter. if you can come up with one valid example, i will accept your arguments. if not, there isn't much validity to your arguments... -
Originally posted by kenhor:
Ah, finally we agree on how "unfortunate" of you to display such distrust & intransigence against the fact presented to you.
Of course .. I am sure that some of the forum members here will believe that the opinons of you and the IRISH akido association will reflect very accurately on how the samurai in medieval japan actually behaved, compared to what they were supposed to behave.
Unfortunately, I don't.
-
If you look at the weapons that both sides have nowadays, there is less fighting on the street than the scenario you are painting. Our weaponary is actually very long distance .. do you honestly think that the enemy can just sit in arty range and lob shells into the island without getting hit in return? One hit into Singapore, we flatten KL. the next hit, we do it to Penang .. and so on and so forth .. even before the first troop crosses the causeway, I can guarantee that there will be more damage to their cities than to ours. So what kind of need will there be for our troops to invade up to the Mersing line for?
Flatten KL and Penang with what long range weapons?? What long range weapons do we have? Our jets right? If the enemy is in artillery range pounding away at the airbases at anything that moves, how will the jets take off to land their counterpunch?
The Mersing Line is there to keep enemy artillery from being within range so we can "flatten KL" as you so eloqouently put it when the need arises.
And of course, you will say that we can always use our artillery to destroy theirs first, but like you yourself have said, the area south of the Mersing Line is so big, their artillery can be placed anywhere while ours is restricted to the small island. Whos going to have an easier time moving their big guns around? -
I will definately feel that they should buy the AWACS .. its make better sense than continually buying fighters ... what is wrong with that?
Like I said, nothing is wrong. The forummers here are not taking issue with the fact that they're buying AWACS, we're taking issue with the fact that they stated its for countering "pre-emptive strikes" which as I've said is directed at us among others. -
To viper52,
The purpose of the forum is for discussion. Its to share opinions and discuss it. We can agree to disagree.
You have your point of view. I have my own. By just sharing it, we are able to see what other people think.
No human has a monopoly on all thought.
Just as NATO formulated their MAD theory as a way of preventing WW3, there could have been other better ways .. but it can not be denied that it works.
So we can leave it here .. and can join again in other discussions. But most of all, lets all just keep calm and discuss it without flaming each other. -
To gun,
Question that u should ask is what makes a 737 platform any safer or cheaper to maintain than E2C ?
Because they have more experience with the 737 than the E2C -
to kanzer,
your hypothesis have no merit at all. 1st of all you seems to have forgotten that the msians strongly objected the presence of an anti-terrorist hq in KL......cooperation between intelligence agencies and spying on behalf of pentagon are two different stories........to say an apple an orange holds no water and i am bewildered by your comparsion.
Who is to say that there is no cooperation between the pentagon and the maf? And what makes us think that Malaysia will not share military information with the USA? The last I read, Malaysia still sends some of its military officers to USA for training.
If we want to make assumptions, we better look at worst case scenario .. that USA may have some links with the MAF and that political difference aside, there are still good relationships between the soldiers of both sides.
secondly, what makes you think that US will accept barter trade? weapons sales can fall under different categories in US.... direct FMS, foreign aid etc..... whatever it is, can you name me an example in the past 10 years whereby the US have accepted a barter. if you can come up with one valid example, i will accept your arguments. if not, there isn't much validity to your arguments...
Correct .. my argument in the earlier posts was that IF (A BIG IF) there is EVER a barter trade, (and we will wait till the cows come home for it to happen) it will signal a thaw in relations. -
Originally posted by kenhor:
On the contrary, more experience is not the only criteria to determine safety of economy in this sense.
To gun,
[b]Question that u should ask is what makes a 737 platform any safer or cheaper to maintain than E2C ?
Because they have more experience with the 737 than the E2C
[/b]
The E-2C as a turboprop is less complex a platform than the turbofan 737. It is less reliant on computers or FBW technology and has less systems, thus it more straightforward to maintain.
Simpler, and cheaper -
To Viper
Flatten KL and Penang with what long range weapons?? What long range weapons do we have? Our jets right? If the enemy is in artillery range pounding away at the airbases at anything that moves, how will the jets take off to land their counterpunch?
Friend .. if they ever bring their arty within range of our airbases and let off a strike with our jets still on the ground, it means that our intel has failed us .. and if intel fails us, the forward defense won't work either.
The Mersing Line is there to keep enemy artillery from being within range so we can "flatten KL" as you so eloqouently put it when the need arises.
You don't need to send troops to the jungle in order to flatten cities.
And of course, you will say that we can always use our artillery to destroy theirs first, but like you yourself have said, the area south of the Mersing Line is so big, their artillery can be placed anywhere while ours is restricted to the small island. Whos going to have an easier time moving their big guns around?
We don't even bother looking for their guns .. we just do what tactical planners do in NATO .. threaten strategic targets (like cities) if they attack tactical targets on our side .. i.e they hit our army barracks, we hit their oil refinery x10 .. -
To viper52
Like I said, nothing is wrong. The forummers here are not taking issue with the fact that they're buying AWACS, we're taking issue with the fact that they stated its for countering "pre-emptive strikes" which as I've said is directed at us among others.
Let me put it another way to you .. the people up north have been living with the possiblity of being INVADED for 30 years .. (our forward defense doctrine) Don't you think that they have an issue with that as well?
We threaten them with invasion, they get unhappy. They counter pre-emptive strike, we get unhappy.
But did you know that USA was so unhappy with the USSR having nukes in CUBA that can do a PRE-EMPTIVE strike that it was very close to declaring war ..... so not all people like to be under a pre-emptive strike
For your second question about cheaper .. it may be that a turbo prop is cheaper ..
But lets look at a realistic scenario .. Malaysia has no E2Cs in their inventory. But they have lots of 737s.
They have a new carrier Air Asia who is a discount airline. It offers flights from KLIA to Penang airport at RM28 per trip .. which is RM100 cheaper than MAS. So how do they do it?
They only run 1 kind of plane .. 737s .. they may have other costs to do like salaries, landing etc .. but by running just 1 model of plane, the 737, they can reduce costs tremendously.
So it MAYBE that by using the 737, they can reduce costs alot .. there is economy of scale and plenty of experience but again, this is my opinion, -
Originally posted by kenhor:
actually there have been counter trade eg. the setting up of Asian Composite Manufacturing Sdn Bhd in Kedah to manufacture and supply aircraft parts made from composites material.
secondly, what makes you think that US will accept barter trade? weapons sales can fall under different categories in US.... direct FMS, foreign aid etc..... whatever it is, can you name me an example in the past 10 years whereby the US have accepted a barter. if you can come up with one valid example, i will accept your arguments. if not, there isn't much validity to your arguments...
Correct .. my argument in the earlier posts was that IF (A BIG IF) there is EVER a barter trade, (and we will wait till the cows come home for it to happen) it will signal a thaw in relations.[/b]
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/news_release_980212b.html
This was part of the deal that involves the Hornet purchased. Without it there was no way a 3rd world country can penetrate the aircraft manufacturing industries and be Boeing's subcontractor.
Another that comes to mind is the maintenance and overhaul of USAF C130 aircrafts based in Asia-Pacific by AIROD.
PS. Kind of enjoyed the arguments posted by KenHor. It was a pleasant change from the norm here. -
Do u think there is a chance for Singapore to purchase the E-8C JSTAR Aircraft to monitor ground movement up north???Originally posted by Viper52:On the contrary, more experience is not the only criteria to determine safety of economy in this sense.
The E-2C as a turboprop is less complex a platform than the turbofan 737. It is less reliant on computers or FBW technology and has less systems, thus it more straightforward to maintain.
Simpler, and cheaper -
If there was a third party who wish to invade Singapore via Malaysia, our first policy will be to make peace with the Malaysians and integrate our forces to something like NATO , not invade them just fo the sake of our security. Thats like using someone elses body to block a bullet. That person will not be very happy. .. However, I don't see that we have noble intentions towards the north anyway. .. and from all the posts, we have plenty of people who are antagonistic towards Malays, Malaysians, etc .. so no point trying to convince me that the potential enemy is a third party.
Well 2 things here.....if a 3rd party did wish to invade Singapore via Malaysia then either Malaysia will be their ally and let them through or Malaysia will fight them off.So i do not see how we would invade them just for the sake of protacting ourselves.....But if they do help the enemy i do not see much choice.If you look at the weapons that both sides have nowadays, there is less fighting on the street than the scenario you are painting. Our weaponary is actually very long distance .. do you honestly think that the enemy can just sit in arty range and lob shells into the island without getting hit in return? One hit into Singapore, we flatten KL. the next hit, we do it to Penang .. and so on and so forth .. even before the first troop crosses the causeway, I can guarantee that there will be more damage to their cities than to ours. So what kind of need will there be for our troops to invade up to the Mersing line for?
A war is won on the ground not in the Air.Having contorl of the air is nice and all when u're attacking or defending but it does nothing to help you win a war.And if we can flatten KL why can they not flatten Singapore?Their arty has around the same range as our's and their MRLS have twice the range.We flatten 1 city the flatten our COUNTRY.Doesnt really make sense does it?But did you know that USA was so unhappy with the USSR having nukes in CUBA that can do a PRE-EMPTIVE strike that it was very close to declaring war ..... so not all people like to be under a pre-emptive strike
Err......do u know why the USSR even put those nukes there?
It was to counter the nukes the US put in Turkey within even short range missile range!!Basically the US did it 1st the USSR just reponded....like u said not every 1 likes being under a pre-emptive strike.....and the US found out the hard way why they should not do that.Much like we should find out.Unfortunately we really have no choice about this now do we? -
Question that u should ask is what makes a 737 platform any safer or cheaper to maintain than E2C ?
Safe and cheaper because the RMAF doesnt have to mantain it but the MAS which is far more reliable can.
The Hawkeye had been a very reliable plane with its Allison T56 420 series turboprop for the last 30 yrs of active operations in many conflicts.
And it is precisely on that fact that the USN has opted to extended its life for at least another 2 decades into the 21 century with Advanced Hawkeye upgrade programe by fitting a new radar to all
75 USN E-2C aircraft and expected IOC 2010
Cheaper also because it's more expensive on a part by part basis to buy spare parts for 4 E-2C's then it is to buy parts for 50 B737's(which if i'm not mistaken shares common parts with other Boeing planes making it even cheaper)Wow, Plug&play AWACs solution...Malaysian style.
Yea but in the long run it's the cost of Mantaining the damn plane that makes it worth while.And military planes do not often carry blackboxes.
Didn't u know the radar, its blackboxes and software components constitute major share of cost, regardless if it is based on E2C, Boeing or any other platforms -
JSTAR is a specialised airborn surveillance system more for ground surveillance, troop communication and control systemOriginally posted by foxtrout8:Do u think there is a chance for Singapore to purchase the E-8C JSTAR Aircraft to monitor ground movement up north???
This was used in Op Desert Storm even when JSTAR was still under evaluation. It was the one that created the infomouse
"highway of hell" at the end of the conflict. DAMN EXPENSIVE.
AWACs (E
is similar category but biased towards airborne controls and communications. Too expensive and very difficult to maintain for such size and complexity.
The E-2C was initially designed as a carrierborne AEW&C aircraft.
This provides a mix of sea-surface and air survillence role. An
essential requirment to monitor Singapore's SLOC and keep it open. However this passive role become more combat oriented
when the IAF used as their airborne fighter controller during war,
That caught not just Singapore's attention but also France, Japan, Egypt and Taiwan.
The Israeli discovered that the real-time datalink compartibility with their F16 had allowed them to guide their fighters in advantageous tactical positions against enermy jets which were then dependent
on their own radar or GIC controlled in 1980 conflict. -
Kenhor,
I think you are wasting your breath here with a lot of xenophobes, who cannot admit that the RMAF may be up to something and that they are capable and posess some element of power. I agree with most of your points and consider you a voice of reason in this debate. I am S'porean myself, but I try to see both sides and never underestimate a potential adversary no matter how weak or incompetent they may seem. Some points to consider.....
- A RMAF AEW will be held far in the north guarded with fighters. This is standard operational practice in many air forces. Its is a fact that the RMAF has already signed an upgrade contract with MAPO to install the Phazontron N0119MF dual BVR radar in all their MIG-29s. In addition, the MIGs are to be upgraded with Vympel R77, which are every bit as competent as the AIM-120. The MIG escorts will take u out BVR if you try to engage the AEW.
Also, The RMAF AEW will instantly detect mass take off from all RSAF airfields from the safety of northern malaysia. By the time RSAF a/c pass KL, most of the fighters stationed in Langkawi and Butterworth would already be scrambled. A BVR duel would occur north of KL that will take its toll on the attacking RSAF A/C. Should the remaining RSAF a/c survive this, they can still destroy the airbases and maybe lose a few more to Malaysian SAM and AA activities, and close in "heater" dogfights. By the time they return to S'pore, they will find that all their airbases plus alternate runways at Changi, PIE, etc,. will be destroyed or cratered by Malaysian MLRS, and long range arty. I predict mass ditching of RSAF a/c in the south china seas. They may all form up on KC-135 and refuel and do circuits until one of the runway is repaired, but I would'nt bet on it. In the meantime, if the Malaysians are smart (and I am sure they have considered it), they would be sure to retain some strike a/c like their SU-30s in the airbases in East Malaysia. From there, using the AEW for C & C, they can launch long range strikes into S'pore. Also if the AEW has rudimentary Joint Rivets capability, they will be able to detect the flow of SAF armour and transportation heading towards the causeway and other crossing points. They can direct arty fire or even ground attack a/c on to these routes.
This is just one scenario. People seem to forget that RMAF FA-18 Hornets pilots are trained by the US Navy aviators, some of the best in the business. They cannot suka suka pass u if u are a crap pilot. In addition, many high ranking RMAF pilots are actually Chinese, Eurasians or Indians. They do not have the discriminatory policy like the RSAF has. And trust me, these are competent pilots. Russian training is also of high standard. And even if they are not in the air for whatever reason, there is a top of the line MIG-29 flight simulator build by CAE for training RMAF pilots. Also RMAF MIGS have stuff that even the best RSAF a/c doesn't. Like quad bomb release racks for 250 and 500 lbs, and dual engagement BVR radar. I don;t know where all these false bravado is coming from. I know many RSAF pilots personally, some were my neighbuors, some I when to school with, but i have never heard even one of them talk down the RMAF like these people here in the forum. I think all these RMAF-is-a-big-joke forumners better wake up their ideas.
[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) -
Question 1:Originally posted by |-|05|:Yea but in the long run it's the cost of Mantaining the damn plane that makes it worth while.And military planes do not often carry blackboxes.
How does an airline budget its commerical operation cost by including the maintanenc of military a/c? Unless you are referring to contracted aerospace engineering firm, i do not see this as feasible option in the eyes of MAS investors nor any commercial benefit for its line of business.
Question 2:
How does one conclude that purchasing decision centres around the economy of maintaining an AEW&C aircraft alone and not its avionics and surveillance systems ? Whatever happened to faulty electronics switches, scheduled firnware changes, radar transmitter burns, operation glitch fixes, software/communication interface & upgrades, etc etc ?
Better still, to save cost, might as well convert existing MAS Boeing 737and stick traffic police radar guns on its wings !
Question 3:
Unless you are refering to Red Barons' biplane, please do pray tell which current military planes "do not often carry blackboxes" ??? -
Last time I heard my AF neighbour buddy saying that there isn't much to talk about RMAF and its threat. I asked Why & he replied:Originally posted by On the way:I don;t know where all these false bravado is coming from. I know many RSAF pilots personally, some were my neighbuors, some I when to school with, but i have never heard even one of them talk down the RMAF like these people here in the forum.
Just observe their accident ratio and its operational readiness.
Example 1.
"Beginning in 1995, 16 Mig-29N Fulcrums, derived from the Mig 29S, were delivered, along with two Mig-29NUB trainers. One aircraft has been lost to date. Serviceability has been a major problems with the Fulcrums and it has been reported that at one time , only a maximum of seven of the surviving 17 Mig-29s were airworthy. They had to spend another million$ to get it up to
standard 4 yrs later."
Example 2.
40 A-4 PTM (Perculiar-to-Malaysia) of 6 and 9-Sqn in Kuantan were prematurely grounded in 1999 due to high attrition rate after hving introduced only 15 years earlier from US. Reason: faulty or fake spare parts were supplied by corrupted ex-RMAF folks.
So who is the joker here ? -
Originally posted by kenhor:
if you want to die while fighting a war, please migrate up north.
To viper
[b]potential enemy has a fair crack at winning? The point of deterrence has to be that you must show your enemy that he WILL not win. Then he will be DETERRED from attacking.
Thats your version of deterrence .. my version is that if he does win, he won't be around to enjoy the fruits of victory, either because he is no longer around or the thing which he wants is no longer there.
My idea of deterrence is the story of a samurai who wants to cross the bridge the same time as a peasant. The samurai being more higher in ranked wants to challenge the peasant to a fight. So the peasant knows that he will die if he fights, yet he wants to cross the bridge .. so he learns a fighting stance that will lose the fight, but will guarantee that samurai dies as well. Once the samurai knows that the peasant is willing to die, the samurai, who has more to live for, backs off.
That is my idea of deterrence.[/b]
over here, we prefer to fight to survive and gloat about it. -
There are 4100 737s ordered. 3100 delivered. Parts are cheaper in the 737 then the E-2(Economies of Scale). FBW more difficult to maintain then mechanical linkages? I dun think so too. running diagnostic software is more difficult then opening up the cowlings and inspecting the linkages?Originally posted by Viper52:On the contrary, more experience is not the only criteria to determine safety of economy in this sense.
The E-2C as a turboprop is less complex a platform than the turbofan 737. It is less reliant on computers or FBW technology and has less systems, thus it more straightforward to maintain.
Simpler, and cheaper
Nevertheless, choosing the 737 does not mean it would be easier to maintain internally. there are structural changes to accomodate the weight and heat of the avionics and the electrical requirements are higher than a commercial 737.
the greatest advantage of the 737 would be its altitude. you can see alot of sky at FL 350. Advantages of a ESA radar. All this are just talking cock on the malaysian side. They dun have the $ to purse this option. Maybe the next 5 year plan.
A few years ago, DSO n RSAF held a public workshop in NUS and I happen to drop in and attend. The head of DSO was introducing the LALEE at that time and on the power point slides, one of the reasons for pursuing the LALEE was the high costs of maintaining the E-2C. -
kenhor,
I am not sure I understand your point of view. What are you advocating exactly? Do you feel that the strength of the SAF is excessive? Or that our policy of forward defence is misguided? Or both?
I would not underestimate our northern or southern neighbors in war. While I feel that victory over them is likely, they will not be certain victories nor come without cost. Tens of thousands of our soldiers will die in a thrust north if the whole MAF opposes us, and we may yet be defeated. Our advantages in numbers, technology, training and organization will be countered by their advantages in morale, terrain and local support. It will be a titanic and close fought thing. The shattered, scorched earth will be soaked with the mingled blood of our countrymen and the enemy.
However, it will be far preferable to any form of combat in Singapore. Kenhor, do you have any idea of the carnage urban combat inflicts upon the civilian population? The sheer misery that was experienced in Stalingrad? The destruction of Grozny? Even our own experience in WW2? Hundreds of thousands dead? Children crying because mommy's eyes look funny and something grey and sticky is coming out of her head? Parents seeing their children reduced to jam in an airstrike? Can you in good conscience look this eventuality in the face and not do everything in your power to prevent it?!?!
War is hell. No, that is too quaint. It makes war seem like something that you can read about and understand. To be frank, kenhor, your idea of a final stand in Singapore when it can be avoided is immoral and makes me sick.
As for me, I will not allow that to happen to my country! No matter how desperate, difficult or dangerous a northern expedition is, it is worth a try so that Singapore can remain safe. No matter how much it costs in time and money to prepare for it in peace, it is worth it.
And that is my opinion. -
There were quite a number of papers presented by DSO in public workshops involving theoretical defence hardware concepts based on RMA which ranges from neural network algorithms, autonomous flight control and mini UAVs. One of which interest me was the idea of combat UAVs and extended flight endurance AWACs on UAV plaforms like the Predator. All in all, AWACs system ain't cheap to buy and keep.Originally posted by cavsg:A few years ago, DSO n RSAF held a public workshop in NUS and I happen to drop in and attend. The head of DSO was introducing the LALEE at that time and on the power point slides, one of the reasons for pursuing the LALEE was the high costs of maintaining the E-2C.