RMAF shopping for AEW&C
-
A forward offensive defence is the apporiate defence for us, you have to be nuts if you intend to let them come here and fight and take our MRT. Sorry, but we have to look out for number one in war, and that number one is not them.
Econimic MAD, you are mad, not every potential Malaysian leading party will be like UMNO, if some PAS-like nutcase takes over, it wun take any streach of the imagination to see how ultra-nationistic elements can justify a war. Nvm if it hurts them. What if jokers like those at harimaru.org come to popular power? And our armed forces, being long sighted, are preparing for that eventuality, we are no kuwait.
What you are wanting us to assume is that they will always be soft-bellied about taking economic damage, unfortunately, the harimaru mindset dosen't care if we knock down their Petronas towers or not, as a matter of fact, they want to remove this yellow fever infestation in singaporea and restore rightful bumi-rule. Go figure, are these the kinds of people who will flinch when you threaten to MAD them or knock down what UMMNO worries about? They don't care two hoots. They only care when you drive an SM1 up to their door and point it's 75mm cannon in their face, that's what they know. -
Aiya,why kick up such a big fuss about this issue? Just let them buy lor and within a few years time,those mats will crash all of them gradually during routine flights...
-
Kenhor
Oh year .. forgot to mention that I am a christian .. I do believe in turning the other cheek.
Good for you. For better or for worse, not all Christians think that way. But thats another topic for another forum.
Well then if the enemy can stage to Johore, it will have sufficient targets within reach. And we can stage from Brunei . or our friends in Taiwan ..
On the assumption we are allowed to stage from there, quite a big assumption and a risky one to hedge our entire defence strategy from
You say that the enemy will have enough targets if it can stage to Johor it will have enough targets withing reach. Yup true, Johor will be crawling with enemy tactical targets which we can strike, but hardly any capitals or oil refinery type targets you're advocating we hit.
FIBUA is costy to BOTH the attacker and Defender. While establishing a half baked "defensive corridor" in the deep jungle and palm oil estates will be expensive to the DEFENDER. Especially if we are unfamiliar, in the dark, 100 km of line, with enemies in front, behind and a long logistical trail.
Well I have highlighted the flaws in the Mersing Line Strategy anyway. But I still believe that it is less "half baked" that a strategy of holding out for a bloodbath in Singapore proper.
100km of line? not really, There are numerous choke points, high ground to concentrate on and lot of natural obstacles to impede the enemy advancing on Singapore. Enemies in front, but if the enemy is not Malaysia (which is what this discussion between you and me is about) there will be none behind. And 75 km is not a long logistical tail in military terms
So you are living in 1941 is it? If I want to attack Malaysia, i will take them from KL , not Kota Baharu. And at the same time, I will not BOTHER with dealing with them ONE AT A TIME .. I WILL HAVE TO ENGAGE BOTH AT THE SAME TIME .. only a fool (or a person stuck in 1941 tactics) will employ a piecemeal tactic to first finish off Malaysia and then go to Singapore ..
Now you're arguing semantics. It does not matter whether the landings are held at Kota Bahru, KL, Kuala Malacca or Kuantan
Engage both at the same time? Sure, but again, please let me re-iterate, if you want to engage both, you'll
i) Carry out landings in Malaysia, while trying to nullify Singapore through airstrikes while moving southwards through the Peninsula and eventually arriving in Singapore. We can take care of the attempted airstrikes in Singapore but theres no point in trying to stop the move south only when the enemy is in range of Singapore.
ii) An alternative to take out both is to land in Malaysia as well as to attempt a paradrop/amphibious landing in Singapore. Unfortunately the latter is next to impossible, ground based radars will detect incoming troop transports and coordinate a response to destroy before the transports near Singapore while radar will also detect the invasion fleet which will be forced to traverse slowly due to the numerous islands, shallow waters and narrow, making this invasion fleet a sitting duck
Option (ii) will be next to impossible because even in the long term, no nation save for the US will be able to muster this capability
The only viable option, IMO is (i). Please feel free to come up with alternate invasion scenarios for debate
I am craping about the fact that we are using the malaysians as a body shield just to save ourselves .. not to help them if they are invaded. If they are invaded and we just form a line 100km to the north, does that help them in any way?
Yes, it prevents them from being completely overrun and provides them a springboard for launching a counteroffensive.
Yeah right .. then there is more reasons to fight the enemy as a team rather than forming a "security cordon"
Agree totally, but we cannot form a team and be expected to do something thats beyond our capabilities.
Which is why I blame the politicians on both sides for promoting a culture of misunderstanding and suspicion to score political points with their respective public instead of trying to find common ground
It takes 2 hands to clap
Ok .. tempers are flaring .. I will agree to disagree here .. lets just both cool off for a while and resume next week. I got to go overseas for an assignment.
I'll be waiting, and sincerest apologies should you find my tone of language harsh in anyway. -
[quote]Originally posted by On the way:
I May I remind you of the high losses suffered by the original batch of 40 A-4s purchased by S'pore. These include (recalling from my memory) a 4 ship formation lost when it crashed into a Phillipine mountain at while using the practice range at Clark Air base. Loss of 5 pilots as one of them was a TA-4s.
Cause was bad weather, hardly points to failing at Singapore anyway does it?
Loss of 5 pilots as one of them was a TA-4s. One A-4 crashed into chicken coop in Punggol, one crashed into Farmer's house,
The latter case would be a collision between an A-4 and a RAAF Mirage III near Tengah in 1983. Weather was hazy, incident happened during a runway change procedure, which is a tricky thing to carry in a crowded circuit in bad weather even in a Cessna 172. Again, hardly an indictment of poor skills on our part is it?
If you like to read up more on this, I can recommend "Seek and Strike" a look into the history of the RAAFs' 75 Sqn, who owned the Mirage. There was a short paragraph on the incident.
Or try
http://www.adf-serials.com/3a3.shtml
Look for aircraft A3-69 which has a less detailed account of the incident
Losses were so heavy they had to buy a second batch of 70 airframes, followed by 16 more.
Try to remember,
- each TA-4 requires a second airframe to be sacrificed for the 2nd cockpit. At last estimate there were 20+ conversions so thats almost 50 airframes
- Spares were no longer produced, so the spare engines and parts needed to come from *somwehere*
- We put into service almost a total of 120 airframes out of 150+, 20+ were sacrificed for TA-4 cockpits
Today, total A-4 strenght is only around 40. U do the math.
40? 20 in France with 1 squadron (confirmed by European plane spotters tracking serial numbers). So theres only 20 serving with 2 squadrons in Singapore? Is that logical, why dont you "do the math"?
Also, please again try to remember, these Skyhawks were built as A-4Bs and Cs in the 50s/early 60s. Most if not all had seen service in the US Navy in Vietnam. They're 40-50 years old, is it surprising that numbers are lower or that some have retired?
Look at our own accident rates first before looking at others.
Sure, but you compare the accident rates of the 1970s/80s RSAF against those of todays RMAF, why not compare todays rates? We suffered no write offs for 7 years until 2001 when a S.211 crashed(student pilot on his first solo, again at a runway change procedure). Another in May 2002, when a RSAF F-16 piloted by a USAF pilot crashed in Arizona. The RMAF has lost more Hawks in 9 years of operations than the RSAF's total write offs for the same nine years.
You know about the problems of comparing apples and oranges?
By the way the A-4 flown by the RMAF were refurbished by Gruman in the US. I doubt at that time whether they were that familiar with this type of Douglas aircraft.
The RMAF A-4s put into service with later Skyhawks and more powerful (and 10 years newer) engines compared with those of our Skyhawks before the F404 upgrade. Yet they used theirs for around 10 years (1985-1996) and suffered a load of crashes while Singapore used older airframes from 1973-today (till early 1990s for the older engined models) and still going strong. The Argentines used their old versions from 1976 - late 1990s and even took them for a 2nd war.
Fact, the last RSAF Skyhawk loss due to a crash was in 1985, same year as the Skyhawk crisis and incidentally the year the RMAF put into service their Skyhawks.
More info on the RSAF Skyhawks
http://horizontech.bizland.com/articles/article1.html -
[quote]Originally posted by On the way:
Again u are missing the whole point. The fact is the RMAf have the training, the equipment, and yes even chinese pilots flying for them, such that they are a credible force.
Thats your opinion. But then, thats what a forum is about isn't it?
I can tell you are a armchair wannabe (wannabe what I don;t know?),
And how many actual combat operations have you taken part in or planned that puts you in the category of "non-wannabe"? Unlike you I'll wait for your answer and won't jump to conclusions.
and probably have never served in any capacity in any armed forces. Were you a NS reject condemned to reading only theory?
Again, jumping to conclusions. I've done my 2 1/2 years in the SAF, combat fit medical status and in combat vocation . Thank you very much for your concern
Only stupid people underestimate their enemies to the degree that you do.
- I've never regarded Malaysia as my enemy. I leave that to the politicians and you
- I don't underestimate the MAF. Neither do I praise them to the heavens. Ditto the SAF.
By the amount of time you spend in this forum expousing your half baked ideas and personal attacks on people,
So rebut them if you don't agree with me, like me and Kenhor with each other. As for personal attacks, do you mean like what you've written about me below? I don't recall doing the same to you in here or the "SAF light tank" thread. As far as I can see, there was a stony silence from you after I had replied to one of your posts in the other thread, and then you came up with this response after I had rebutted your "Likely war scenario" on this thread
I can only conclude 2 things. Get a job you loser, and get a life.
Oh I have both thank you very much. Since you're so interested in my life, I'm now taking a one-month vacation while waiting for my new job to start which would see a large MNC in the Aerospace industry take me and my family halfway round the world to start in a professional capacity. Oh, and the pay's not half bad too.
And I sincerely hope your job pays as well and enriches your life as much too.
There is more to life than breaking down every ones's post and attacking each little detail as erroneous.
Everyone? Surely you exaggerate?
If one states erroneous facts, be prepared to be rebutted and rebut back if you're sure of your stance and accept you're wrong if proven otherwise. See my reply to cavsg's post to me about 737 vs E-2C costs.
yes CAE does make the best flight simulators in the world,
I never said otherwise...
Your own immaturity show ups every time you post. If you are man enough post this, other wise, I couldn't care less.
Sure, I'll allow it, after all, your post does allow others to judge you Just make sure to rebut me with facts if you're think I'm wrong like I have with yours
Really the standard of this forum shows by their poor choice of moderators,
Ah...you're tired of attacking me, now you've moved on to the other mods as well.
and than by the fact that u are running around, afraid the PAP will shut u down for allowing the wrong post.
Oooh...now you're cursing me and the other mods.
I think I will take my ball and go to another forum.
I believe the correct term is testicles, or in your case, testicle.
Sure, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Don't let the door hit you on the way out!
But if you think you're able to contribute to this forum, accept contrary arguments and be prepared to rebut with valid counter-arguments, please feel free to drop in. -
bye
-
First job?Originally posted by Viper52:Oh I have both thank you very much. Since you're so interested in my life, I'm now taking a one-month vacation while waiting for my new job to start which would see a large MNC in the Aerospace industry take me and my family halfway round the world to start in a professional capacity. Oh, and the pay's not half bad too.
And I sincerely hope your job pays as well and enriches your life as much too. -
Yup it is
-
gd luck.Originally posted by Viper52:Yup it is
and damn, I just finished reading most of this thread. omg, another sgforum war and i missed it. . . damn.
so whats the latest with the Malaysian AWEC?? how come after the initial news there doesn't seem to be anything else already? -
the latest news is that... they no money left...
they cant even pay their contractors and have to submit a plea to their MINDEF for funds to the tune of a mere 56 million dollars to pay off the contractors...
-
Thanks, considering local conditions now I'm one heck of a lucky I scored this gig with my 3rd job application and 1st interview. There was a guy in the papers the other day with 180 applications and 10 interviews and hes still searching...Originally posted by laser51088:gd luck.