RMAF shopping for AEW&C
-
All military planes as common sense will tell you do not carry black boxes though transports,training planes and the likes might.Helicopters also do not carry blackboxes.Why?Well having it land in someone else's land is not really gonna do you any good now is it?Sure they could always take it out when doing covert ops or stuff but it would save time if they just left it out and put in more electronics in it's place(this is especially so in bombers and recon planes).Also fighter planes do not have space for them.Originally posted by Gun:Question 1:
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" ???
It was in the papers a few years ago that in some country(European i think) a plane crashed and they had problems determining the cause due to a lack of blackboxes in military planes.
In response to Question 2 well yes those are costs also but having all that cost PLUS the need to mantain the airframe will add to the cost.In fact mantain the airframe alone will take up around 20% of the mantaince cost with the crew sucking up at least 50%(for 3 crews per plane).It would be prudent to cut as much cost as possible is it not?
And also once they have the ability to operate,repair/replace the radar and upgrade would it not be possible for them to upgrade a few "former" MAS B737's?
Question 1 well the RMAF would most prob get parts and training from MAS thus reducing cost once again.Or a Malaysian firm could be contracted to do it.They could possibly create an engineering company to mantain their military B737's and also MAS B737's
Much like how our ST eng does some civilian work too.
Hope that answers your questions? -
You seemed to have ruled out the fact that we have more planes and that some of our F-16's are stationed overseas.Also fighter planes can take off in 800m of runway....i'm sure we have many islands that can handle that.Also what makes you think we do not have the Aim-120's and SAM's and AA that the Malaysians in your situation have used to such deverstating effect?Originally posted by On the way: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.
[
Oh and no i'm not belittlering the Malaysian armed forces in fact i give them alot of credit and would pay attention and not write them off.However i will not write off our armed forces either -
Thank you for clearing that up. I stand corrected.Originally posted by cavsg: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?
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. -
To observe,
Thank you for your observations and comments .. you are probably more knowledgeable than me (a mere IT salesman) on what kind of ability the Malaysians have in making spare parts.
Keep on informing us. -
[quote]Originally posted by On the way:
I think you are wasting your breath here with a lot of xenophobes,
Ummm...nice...are you forgetting you once referred to the Malaysian PT-91 as "Mat PT-91s" in the "What would u like to see on a new SAF light tank" thread?
Do you happen to be the pot that called the kettle black?
- 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.
Yes, they do have the Phazontron radar in their MiGs which we all know have Adder capability. But ever since the old days of the Speakers Corner I have questioned whether the R-77 for the MiGs. Of course we had Malaysians like Innocent Malaysian and Harimau insisting they had, although they didn't(and still haven't) substantiated that claim. And recently Innocent Malaysian has told me his sources now tell him they don't have it and will not get it with the Su30 package because they don't want to introduce that capability in the region
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.
I don't think the planners were expecting 100% survival rate
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.
Which is why theres the Mersing Line to try to prevent that. You spoke up so fervently for that strategy when I questioned its effectiveness in the "What would u like to see on a new SAF light tank" thread insisting its going a cakewalk. So why are you singing a totally different tune now?
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,
And I bet you think the KC-135 is a bottomless pit of Avgas
This is just one scenario.
And one thats full of loopholes at that
In addition, many high ranking RMAF pilots are actually Chinese, Eurasians or Indians.
Chinese? Where did you dream that one up?
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.
Yes and RSAF has no simulators
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.
Singapore has had multiple ejector racks for 3-6 bombs of up to 500lb since the Skyhawks in the early 70s. Even so, thats no big deal really
The F-16C/Ds are equiped with BVR engagement radars also -
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.
Friend, don't you know that there are already arty units ALREADY in range? So if we don't move in and take them out and hold their firing positions, how are the jets gonna operate?
You don't need to send troops to the jungle in order to flatten cities.
When did I say that? I said you need to hold the land to prevent it from being used to harass you aircraft operations?
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 ..
Again, NATO can afford that because W Europe is so large compred to Singapore. Are we? -
To |05|
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.
You are absolutely correct. That means the Mersing line theory is actually targeted against 1 potential enemy only.
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.
Capturing half a state also will not help us win the war .. if we want to win the war, we have to go all the way up to deliver a knockout punch ... not a half hearted foray and establish a "security buffer"
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?
On the theory of MAD (mutual assured destruction) it makes great sense.
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?
You are correct, the USA started it first. And you brought out a great point .. people and countries do not like being under a pre-emptive strike doctrine.
If say Indonesia has a pre-emptive strike doctrine against Singapore, won't that make us mad? Lucky the Malaysians have no choice but to play it cool. -
You are absolutely correct. That means the Mersing line theory is actually targeted against 1 potential enemy only.
Yes but not the forward defence theory
On the theory of MAD (mutual assured destruction) it makes great sense.
But us flattening a couple of cities and they flattening our country is not MAD is it? We are destroyed while most of their land is still intact? -
To on the way
Thank you for your words of support .. War is hell and the only way to educate people sometimes is to put the shoe on the other foot.
I spend too much time watching old war movies .. I recently finished "All quiet on the western front" .. a very captivating WW1 movie .. it seems so pointless for war really. Such a waste sending 18 year olds to die for the kaiser. Here is the most telling part of the show. The kaiser addressing the troops.
"They are doing their duty to their fatherland .. and I will like to remind everyone of you .. that if you show bravery and heroism, someday, your kaiser will pin the iron cross on your uniform like I did your comrades."
And 1 minute to the end of the show.
"I am writing this letter to you .. out of the 20 of us in the class who enlisted, 12 are dead, 5 missing, 1 in a mental assylum .. only you and I are left .. I am waiting for armistice to be declared so I can go home."
He checks up his men, and is shot in his head .. the show ends.
I am now waiting for my DVD of Gettysburg to come .. God rest their brave souls. -
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?
Wrong again! We started out with the "poison shrimp" doctrine since the 1970s, which was kind of like your defeatist strategy, whereby "If you want to eat us, you'll be poisoned" but that changed in the early 1990s when we realised that the "poison shrimp" analogy would do us no good because in the end, we will not survive as well.
Like I've said, the forward defence strategy is not directed just at Malaysia, but it has been warped by 2-bit politicians trying to score political points as well as segments of the nationalist press with their own agendas into looking like it is one directed against Malaysia alone. -
To nismoS123,
if you want to die while fighting a war, please migrate up north.
over here, we prefer to fight to survive and gloat about it.
I am sure that thousands of Russians who served in the WP armies shared your view when they were with the 3rd Shock Army ..
I guess the defeat due to economic failure of the Soviet Union came as a shock to them. -
On this point I agree. And I do think a lot of the posters here do make claims and posts with false bravado but then, thats their perogative. They will learnOriginally posted by kenhor:War is hell and the only way to educate people sometimes is to put the shoe on the other foot.
I like all things military, from the history to the technical(except probably the life, which is why I'll never sign on). But that does not make a warmonger that supports all forms of war.(See my posts of Dubya's recent adventure) But on the other hand, if there is someone who is threatening the security of my life, my familiy and my country, I will not stand by and not respond.
A lot has been made about Singapore's first strike, pre-emptive strategy, and a lot of myths generated. But through all of this hubris, everyone constantly fails to mention that the plan will not be put into action until a threat against Singapore "is imminent"
I guess its just easier to try and score points than understand the reasons. -
If push came to shove, what do you think is the logical thing for Singapore to do? Invite them to our shores and fight a FIBUA in our small nation racking up tons of civvie deaths?
Sorry, even if our forward defence stragety is not offical, any half-smart person would see that it is the most logical course of action to take if things go to the dogs. Of course the Malaysians dun like it, they have an alergic reaction to logic. -
Dear dkhoo
You are welcome in your opinion that in our point of view, that we need such a policy of forward defense to safeguard our homes and families.
Its my duty to remind you that war is hell, as you have portrayed. Whatever you posted is what people in the battlefield and sieged cities will feel. But do yourself a favour. Put yourself in the Malaysians shoes.
Can you imagine an enemy who for 30 years declared that the only way they feel secure is to invade you the moment you harbour any animosity towards them. Can you imagine that they will take your land, resources and people just to feel safe. Can you imagine that these people have no regard for your own feelings of security.
Thats why I am advocating the doomsday scenario. If I die, you will die with me. MAD. Mutually assured destruction. If I know what you want, all I have to do is to ensure that you will never get what you want even if you kill me. That sort of thing.
This theory has kept the peace in Europe for 50 years .. can you tell me which country has got forward defense as their main policy and how long did that peace last?
I do not advocate war .. and my belief is that MAD has kept the peace longer than "forward defense" Hence I do not consider myself sick. I consider myself a pacifist, and to me human lives are too precious to squander just so that we can feel "safe"
I re-iterate again .. think of yourself as the poor peasant. Wife kids hard life. The aggressor is an arrogant samurai. Both need to cross the bridge. The samurai challenges the peasant to a fight due to his reputation being at stake. The peasant won't back down because he is right. He learns a lethal stance .. which guarantees the death of both combatants if ever used ... the samurai, who knows that its foolish to lose his life over such trivial matters will have to withdraw.
That is deterrence. Thats my opinon. -
I mean , the JSTAR will be extremely useful to monitor the ground movement up north , a good stand off plateform to guard agaisnt their artillery systems....Originally posted by Gun:JSTAR is a specialised airborn surveillance system more for ground surveillance, troop communication and control system
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. -
Dear Viper52
Friend, don't you know that there are already arty units ALREADY in range? So if we don't move in and take them out and hold their firing positions, how are the jets gonna operate?
I don't think that if anyone wants to kick of a conflict, they will just send their arty. They will have to mobilize EVERYTHING. If we can't spot that, we deserve to die. We have been mobilizing for years .. our readiness is much better than anyone in SEA. Telling me that we need the forward defense as a compliment to our intel is a joke. By the time their main strength comes close, we are all ready.
And I may not know much, but launching an offensive into a hardened defensive position manned by ready troops is suicide.
Again, NATO can afford that because W Europe is so large compred to Singapore. Are we?
And is not very large compared to Russia .. so it evens out. -
To viper,
On the theory of MAD (mutual assured destruction) it makes great sense.
But us flattening a couple of cities and they flattening our country is not MAD is it? We are destroyed while most of their land is still intact?
Thats where you don't understand what MAD stands for ...
MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION .. both die .. not one die and one get hurt only .. both die.
And another part of the equation .. what does Malaysia want to do with Singapore? Conquer it or destroy it .. if they plan to CONQUER it, MAD will work wonders as they will never be able to do so as the scorch earth policy will work well.. If their plans are to DESTROY us, then that is another matter.
Thats why Isrealis are not the best teachers (ideological wise) for us. They are surrounded by a people who want to kill them at all costs. Hence they have tactics to prevent that. Malaysia (I feel) prefers us re-united rather than destroyed. So differnt strategy is needed. -
Dear Viper52,
Like I've said, the forward defence strategy is not directed just at Malaysia, but it has been warped by 2-bit politicians trying to score political points as well as segments of the nationalist press with their own agendas into looking like it is one directed against Malaysia alone.
Ok .. i will bite .. you got me very interested .. please then let me know which potential adversary can the forward defense theory work against in our context. I can't see any country in the whole world that if they want to invade us, will seek to use Malaysia as their launching pad, and hence a defense line from mersing to batu pahat will be effective. -
MAD only works if both sides see reason...
Unfortunately, if the current world leaders are anything to go by, some dun really care. Lets try to play MAD with North Korea lah... -
TO viper52,
But on the other hand, if there is someone who is threatening the security of my life, my familiy and my country, I will not stand by and not respond.
Yeah .. but aren't we then threatening the people up north .. especially the large chinese community over in JB and Batu Pahat? -
To singapore tyranosaur,
Correct .. so the question is that do you consider the northern neighbour capable of reason? -
[quote]Originally posted by kenhor:
Yeah .. but aren't we then threatening the people up north .. especially the large chinese community over in JB and Batu Pahat?
No we're not threatening...like I've said, the plan is not to move in unless wer're threatened. But as I've said, the politicians and the press refuses to give the full picture by giving the idea we'll cross the border whenever we feel like it. -
Off the top of my head, none in the short to medium term, but then should we wait for one to appear before upgrading our defences and formulating a plan?Originally posted by kenhor:
Dear Viper52,Ok .. i will bite .. you got me very interested .. please then let me know which potential adversary can the forward defense theory work against in our context. I can't see any country in the whole world that if they want to invade us, will seek to use Malaysia as their launching pad, and hence a defense line from mersing to batu pahat will be effective.
Remember, until 1940 Britain regarded Japan as not a short term threat to it's interests in Asia -
To viper52,
No we're not threatening...like I've said, the plan is not to move in unless wer're threatened. But as I've said, the politicians and the press refuses to potray the full picture by giving the idea we'll cross the border whenever we feel like it.
Of course you will say that we are not threatening .. you don't live in JB or Batu Pahat. But they know that we have plans to turn their city into a war zone if the worst does happen. Will that make them happy? Is this what feeling safe in Singapore is about .. to deny the citizens of other countries the same kind of "safety"
Its like the USA having a plan to use Singapore as a base for offensive military operations into China .. if we found out about those plans ... don't you think that we will get excited? -
Originally posted by kenhor:
They shouldn't feel threatened because Singapore would never move to hamtam them as long as they do not shove us. The ball is in their court. They want to make trouble, they pay the price. They can't expect to make trouble and fell safe at the same time. "Ooohh... let us threaten your nation but you must be sensitive and dun use forward defence okay?"
Yeah .. but aren't we then threatening the people up north .. especially the large chinese community over in JB and Batu Pahat?
Rubbish. When push comes to shove, the kid gloves come off, we're gonna to bring them down for the count and make sure they can't get up to threaten us. A good reason for deterance in the first place.
Why MAD can't work here? Because Doktor M. and whoever that's gonna follow can't bring that out as an option without sparking world wide criticism, not to mention that back at home. This is not NATO and WP. Neither can our leaders afford to make the same claim or work towards that. Not unless some ultranationalistic PAS nutcase takes over who has no regard for non-bumi life.
Can the north reason? They can only reason within their emotions when it serves them. If not, they are for all purposes, quite illogical, as their behavior demostrates.