2nd MAF ASTROS II MLRS regiment are operational!!!!!
-
Ahem, that's a nice way to discuss... quote a "credible" source and turn tail and run. For somebody who claims to want to find the true capabilities, this stick-your-finger-in-your-ears-and-sing-lalala in general ignorance to logic is bizzare and self-contradictory.Originally posted by observe:to ST,
say what you like, i would prefer to base my conclusions on a credible source like the Maj-Gen.
I think it would serve the SAF much better if the capability of the Astros is known accurately.
All this speculation, many without any basis or proof, only leads to misinformation. Try going into battle thinking that MLRS is useless, only to find out that all you know and has spew out in this forum as BS! It would be too late, my fren.
Note that you have not provided even one point to refute what I have clearly pointed out save the credibly of your Maj-Gen quoted out of context and ad nauseum. So be it.
Then again many credible Maj-Gens also thought that the tank would never replace horse calvary. Sometimes it helps to see logic then see the medals and buttons on a uniform.
What's next, if this credible source states that the revolutionary weapon is the rubber band powered slingshot firing glass marbles at 20 m/s based on a quote and on data unknown to you and me, I suppose you would go all out and believe him no matter what, why not trade in your M16 for it?
What we are doing here is simply showing the ASTROS II for what it all is, and I'm sure for once the guys up there are watching this more carefully then we or you would care to do.
The truth of the matter is, nobody here said the ASTROS II was useless, it was your impression based on your flawed and myopic reading of the posts. What so many have pointed out were the obvious limitations of the such a system.
After all, nobody is dowplaying the ASTROS II as a system that can't shoot. What we are doing here is demolishing the paper tiger's (who has been mysteriously silent) fantasy that the ASTROS II can lob rockets with impunity from 89 kilometers away and there's nothing we can do about it. Such a view is obviously flawed, as demostrated to do such a thing is not anywhere nearly as easy as it seems, there are certain things the system cannot do (that some rapid MAF supporter happy disregards)
If anybody is making baseless speculations, that would be you. Note that all the supposed sore grapes and wet blankets are the ones who have been doing their homework and posting forward revealing facts and figures and making educated deductions. Nobody is dismissing the ASTROS II "threat", they are putting it in it's proper context.
You on the other hand, decide rely on a quote from a Maj-Gen of which context you probably barely understand. Bizzare, considering this is coming from a person who claims he wants the capability of the Astros to be known accurately. Well it seems like he isn't doing much homework save for the "it more mean and deadily then you think" pitch ad nauseum. Show your facts beyond a quote.
How credible is this Maj-Gen's quote, if a higher ranking officer thinks otherwise? What about the USAF who thinks smart munitions are the revolution in warfare? How do you account for them? Apparently the Maj-Gen's words represent reality to you and not logic.
Obviously SAF is not going to sit around and say "oh we're doomed" in response to the ASTROS II, at the same time, they will, and probably are doing something about it. And from what we know, given our prelim data, that the ASTROS II is hardly as good as the Malaysians crank it out to be, impressive no doubt, but far from being immortal and full of vulnerabilities to boot.
We don't claim the Bionix is a wonder IFV, first in the world, and capable of running down the causeway, shooting up the whole MAF and driving all the way up to KL to deliever the coup de grace. It's easy to see how anybody in response can take apart this argument rapidly as paper tiger's faith in his MLRS toy has been rapidly demolished.
In the end it's just a weapon, and one we can respond to. The idea is to get a good picture of what it can do, and act accordingly. Fear mongering and relying on credible Maj-Gens. is hardly the way to cut it, you need to have serious facts and logic at hand, something you apparently seriously lack. -
Ah yes, the typical nightmare seneriao of blanketing Singapore with exploding submunitions.
The thing is could they do it?
Of course.
But would they do it?
That's a different story altogether.
Why bomb out Singapore indiscrimately and cause untold damage to noncombatants local and not as well as vested interest from out countries here? Would it cut it to lob a few submunitions into the US embassy?
They can get the capacity to flatten Singapore if they like, but the truth is, that won't cut it too well with the rest of the world. The very problem with having a weapon like that. You can't use it unless you are very desperate, and crazy enough to be considered a terrorist state in the world.
Such a tatic would be as self defeating to them as using nukes, it's so terrible that they can't employ it.
So take a jet plane view and stop fuddling about sauturation strikes, when their main concern is getting in at enemy troops. Of which they can with their ASTROS, but now the question is... how well can they do that?
Your stragetic aspirations for the ASTROS II threat is "prehaps" a little imaginative. -
By the way it's good to note it takes more then one salvo of rockets to reduce an urban area to wasteland. Submunitions are small pockets of explosives and lack the ommph to cause extensive damage to structures. They are good for porkmarking runways and killing anybody caught in the open with no cover. Don't delude yourself and a shower of oversized hand grenades can create nuclear-war like effects.
Of course inevitably the kind of targets submunitions will end up affecting the worst are soft targets, civillians local and not, good as a self-defeating terror stragety employed by some fanatic terrorist bloc, but the MAF? Unless they are suffering from a bad case of bravado. -
You simplistic methodology really astonishing!!Originally posted by observe:[quote][b]
[size=large][b]
firstly, if the Astros rockets were designed like the Russian Smerch, it would take 12mins to reload the 4 SS60/SS80 tubes from the back.
For an arty system. the design engineers would have taken this reload time as one of their design parameter.
They have chosen to house the rockets in container pods....which means it is more expensive than the russians method. On the plus side, the rockets would not be exposed to the vagaries of the weather hence prolonging the lifespan. With the rockets in the container and prewired within the container, the external wirings from the container to the launch vehicle would have been much reduced....almost like plug-and play.
As analogy, to change the harddisk within you computer would require you to open the chasis, unplug the IDE cable, power supply blah blah. Then you insert the new HD and plugin all the cables again, fasten the screws....this would be like changing you engine in the armoured vehicle. If you don't do this often, its acceptable to have a process that takes this long.
However, if you envisage that you will change the HD routinely, you will be better off getting a removable HD drive. You preconnect the drive into your PC, mount the HD into the cassete that comes with the removable HD. Now you can change your HD quickly by inserting the cassete into the drive....
That would be they way, the containerised rockets work.
Reloading the MLRS launchers is a routine activity, and the engineers would have work something like that into the rocket loading mechanism.
I would say the containerised rocket pod allows this "plug-and-play" method with minimal fastening and connections to the launch vehicle.
Its more expensive than russia's exposed rockets method, therefore the added expense have to be justified by design benefits.
As i said, using the russian method(which surely have been considered by the Brazillian engineers) would result in 12mins of reload time.
I would put 6mins of reload time needed for the Astros as resaonable.
You have a very naive view of the Brazillian engineers....they are not that stupid to adopt a reloading method that is worst off compared to the russian way.
Even to remove one such big object from a trunk takes at least 10mins. First someone have to climb the the "containers" to hook the steel cable , then move the crane to hookup with the steel cable then slowly lift the "container" and swing it to another trunk & lower it down then unhook the steel cable,for safety purpose lifting & moving the large object by a crane could not be done quick.
Repeat the whole process for the new "container" this itself take another 10 mins!!!
The time for unhooking & rehooking of coupling is not even included.
Since you have no engineering background, dun take my word for it ,go ask those who have experience in lifting a large object using a crane , show them the picture & ask them how fast could this be done as I described.
Obviously, you dun believe me for someone who as such experiences, and I dun want argue with you on this!
The Astros 2 was fielded in 1982.(it is certainly no controlled rocket)Originally posted by observe:[quote][b]
Now, back to the controlled rockets,
While the design of the Astros may be earlier, but who is to say that the will not be any improvements to the rockets. Afterall, the rockets is just the ammo, you can change the rocket design anytime when new technologies have been tested and proven.
The first angular stabilisation rocket was fielded by the russian in 1988.
The company has financial problem in the late 80s, abt the same time as the Smerch MLRS was fielded, then in 1990, all R&D has been cancelled.
Even till now there is no report of a improved rocket from them,or any example like SS80 Mk2 or Improved SS80 etc, the designation remain the same.
So where you got the info that a improved rocket is out where no one including Avibrás seem to know about it!?!
So dun make assumption there is a improved version, if I am from Avibrás, and Avibrás came out with a angular stabilisation rocket which improve the CEP, I will tell the whole world abt it so that I could sell more with this new rockets!!!!
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/brazil/astros.htm
From the link above, there is no mentioned any new rockets, control or guidance system as well as reload time for the current rockets.
Either they are non existance or with spec that are too poor to be proud of, otherwise they will reveal them to make more sales.
As I said before, unless you have any documentary proof to rebut me for what I have stated above , your assumptions dun interest me! -
Let not bother with this "observe", obviously he is a Malaysian, emotional and certainly not objective at all in the discussion, a typical Malaysian that I have encountered so far.
Is his own link that prove that the Astros 2 is unguided rocket system certainly not a controlled rockets. I.e. CEP at least 1%.
Is his own quote that prove that the the Astros 2 has a very poor success rate at long range i.e.no tactical value above 40km.
Now he started to blabs nonsense!!!
Well anyway, thanks for providing the links & quote that supported the above statement & let us all learn more about this fancy but expansive toys (i.e. tactically useless at LR) from MY.
I am now so scared!!!!!!
It will lucky if they could let out two salvos , becos it will be hunted down like wild dogs after the first salvo.
And base on the reloading methodology ,it will be extremely good crew if they could let out two salvos within an hour.
CHARGE!!!
-
Sorri, double post
-
As said, if MLRS were so good and can turn Sg to wasteland in 32 minutes, the people up there including the Maj-Gen. with the data that he puts his trust in SAF would have gotten tons of such "revolutionary" toys already instead of wasting time and money developing and buying other stuff.
The truth is, we've seen nothing by assumption after assumption and credible outsourcing from him with little to logical results to show for his efforts. You don't even need to nitpick about reload times or accuracy. -
Wow, you guys are good. What do you all do? Read military books intensively? Work closely with the arm forces?
-
"What we are doing here is demolishing the paper tiger's (who has been mysteriously silent) fantasy that the ASTROS II can lob rockets with impunity from 89 kilometers away and there's nothing we can do about it."
Nobody EVER said that. There are always means to counter any weapons system.
"Let not bother with this "observe", obviously he is a Malaysian, emotional and certainly not objective at all in the discussion, a typical Malaysian that I have encountered so far."
That is EXACTLY what's worrying me. This board is turning into a sina.com, with all opinions being clouded by nationalism. I dont give a damn whether observe is a Malaysian or a Singaporean, just judge him based on his comments. Your statement has already exposed your lack of objectivity by dismissing him as a "Malaysian" just because he is argueing for the merits of the Astros MLRS system, which is something we dont have. (is that, I'm afraid, the reason?)
"It will lucky if they could let out two salvos , becos it will be hunted down like wild dogs after the first salvo."
Sure, anyone who let's off a salvo of those at us will be asking for our attention. But how would we target it? I do not know, but I do know that our TPQ-47 has a range of 50km against rocket arty, which is shorter than the range of the the rockets. And counter-battery radars are pretty vulnerable too, if they are not careful with EMCON procedures. Of course there are other ways to find the Astros, but pls do not make it sound so easy as "oh, we'll use our searchers to find them" or " those extended range JDAMs from from CAS would fit the job nicely." UAVs, even with teir endurance, are not exactly very good tools for wide area search of a particular system. And do we really have F-16s orbiting 24 hrs a day with nothing else to do but to wait for an MLRS salvo? And by the way, what makes you think that they are so willing to be found by us? For all the detection and descrimination technology possessed by the USAF, they were still fooled by simple decoys. We may not fall for the same tricks, but if our generals think the way some of you here do, then we have fallen into the complacency trap.
"We don't claim the Bionix is a wonder IFV, first in the world, and capable of running down the causeway, shooting up the whole MAF and driving all the way up to KL to deliever the coup de grace. It's easy to see how anybody in response can take apart this argument rapidly as paper tiger's faith in his MLRS toy has been rapidly demolished."
I dont think he has ever claimed something like that in this thread. Why are you putting words in his mouth?
"Smart technology is the way to go, and it's something the SAF is chasing with quite a lot of zeal instead of getting every increasing numbers of guns to shoot every increasing numbers of rounds and rockets.:
Yes, I totally agree with you. The GMLRS will be far more effective per rocket fired than the SS-80 ever will be, and will thus be a much lesser logistical strain. Though I have some reservations on munition cost, I still feel its better to put guidance on the rockets for long ranges. But does that mean that the Astros SS-80 is not able to effectively engage a target at 80kms? That it is, tactically useless? This attitude scares me. I hope no high ranking person in SAF thinks that way. -
Originally posted by YourFather:
I dun mind having a objective discussion with anyone including malaysian, but are we having a objective discussion when one keep on giving assumptions w/o any backup evidences?
"Let not bother with this "observe", obviously he is a Malaysian, emotional and certainly not objective at all in the discussion, a typical Malaysian that I have encountered so far."
That is EXACTLY what's worrying me. This board is turning into a sina.com, with all opinions being clouded by nationalism. I dont give a damn whether observe is a Malaysian or a Singaporean, just judge him based on his comments. Your statement has already exposed your lack of objectivity by dismissing him as a "Malaysian" just because he is argueing for the merits of the Astros MLRS system, which is something we dont have. (is that, I'm afraid, the reason?)
Yes, I totally agree with you. The GMLRS will be far more effective per rocket fired than the SS-80 ever will be, and will thus be a much lesser logistical strain. Though I have some reservations on munition cost, I still feel its better to put guidance on the rockets for long ranges. But does that mean that the Astros SS-80 is not able to effectively engage a target at 80kms? That it is, [b]tactically useless? This attitude scares me. I hope no high ranking person in SAF thinks that way.[/b]
Assumptions are certainly not objective!!!!
I actually thought he was Singaporean before today, after he realised that he could not prove the accuracy as well as potency rate at LR, then he started to blabber abt flatten the SG in 5 salvos. then I noe he is malaysian. No bias before that.
Tactically useless in the sense that it has very low success rate in meeting it military objectives w/o incurring a high amount of damage against civillian targets.
I am sure a salvo of Astros 2 will cause some damage to military facilities but certainly will not disable our ability to strike back & strike back hard!!! -
Exactly, it never fails to amaze me how some think that their latest MAF latest toy will be a war-winner. Especially when they bring that attitude in here, and expect to be entertained.
It easy to see how it degenerates, pointing out basic flaws basically leads to the basically joker losing it, making wilder and wilder claims which require a forceful application of logic to refute. Unfortunately if it's anything we've learnt, is that logic applied to their brand of irrationality only breeds wilder responses. What started out as a simple "hey you said this now how can you account for so and so" typically becomes imflamed not by merit of us trying to be nationalistic, but them simply refusing to face up to the facts that things are not as easy as they seem.
To get a general idea of paper tiger's true grasp on reality, go read the SAR-21 with foregrip thread. Apparently he bought simplistic childish propangada on the true nature of the weapon, and even took it to it's utterly discusting and nonsenscial extreme. And then sued for peace when it became apparent the obvious logic in this case was about to beat him upside down.
Other general MAF fanatics frequenting this forum have also shown much case of bravado but little brain. Go read the case of the sick malaysian fantasy on how the mighty righteous MAF dishes it out on an cardboard character SAF which is generally deaf, dumb and blind and willing submits to whatever the MAF dishes out as if we were the chinese navy in Tom Clancy's SSN. Also in prehaps the most delusional eposides, another MAF zealot came in heralding the PT-91 as the most advanced MBT in the world, and was greatly angered and confused when the facts didn't tally with his rethoric. Is this behaviour typical of Malaysian Military Nuts?
Compare this to the nature of Singaporean Military Nutters, they are in general a self-critical bunch who at many times overly criticize their own equipment, some of which are light years ahead of anything the ego-tripping MAF has. We make frank critique on the SM1 "tank" (prehaps if we were like MAF zealots, we would claim it could easily outflank and outfight MBTs?), ponder over the lack of protection on our LSVs, and complain (much of it unjustified in the light of facts) about the SAR-21 quirks. Does this sound like propangada buying nationalistic people wanting to create sina.com?
Eventually you drag this long enough and when the evidence stacks up overwhelmingly, they either go silent or start the routine of sticking-fingers-in-ears-and-sing-lalala and quote "credible" Maj. Gen's and stick to them like their security boosters. And of course, MLRS holocaust stories soon appear. Singaporean or Malaysian, whoever can come up with such a story shows the general "grasp" of reality.
ASTROS II demands an apporiate response, and that is not to laugh it off as harmless or useless (if you read carefully, nobody said it was useless, just NOT AS USEFUL as the MAF zelAots would like to believe), and behaving as if they have gotten the ultimate weapon that can nuke us all and we're dead meat is also hardly rational. My verdict? No that thing can't wipe us out in a few barrages or reduce Sg to a wasteland, that's what nukes generally are for. Nor would they, even if they could, for very obvious reasons.
Apparently his attempted "helicopter view" on the big picture has turned out to be a big case of Super Puma down. For some reason he just can't get the idea into his mind that there is a lot we can do about the ASTROS II threat, and not only that, it is within our means to easy trump that capacity, if we wanted to. -
The below is the link to the full articles that "observe" has partially quoted, from Gen Scales and some conveniently omitted.
It shown impt of sensors etc for arty fire etc.
It was based on GW1, therefore the range he was refering to was 21km(2/3 of 32km).
It highlited advantages of rocket of having instant shower of steel but also that the gun arty has greater accuracy,but the whole articles is basically based on range below 32km, afterall that is the maximum range for the US MLRS rocket at time.
Therefore not really showing the effectiveness for range at 80km.
http://www.defencejournal.com/dec99/field-artillery.htm
CHARGE!!! -
Bah, it always happens when people decide to read only what they want to see.
-
hopefully the rockets can be intercepted by our Baraks
-
I doubt that the baraks were made for that purpose. I believe they are for protecting the corvettes from antiship missiles and aircraft. Not sure if can intercept rocket artillery... Actually Ive never heard of any system to counter rocket artillery b4.... unless ur talking about patriots and arrows though they intercept ICBMs and scuds and not MRLS fire.
-
The Israeli & the US are working on high energy laser system to protect against rockets, tactical missiles & even arty shells.
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/systems/THEL.html
CHARGE!!! -
Originally posted by gary1910:
Wow...hey this look like US MLRS.....it is...
The Israeli & the US are working on high energy laser system to protect against rockets, tactical missiles & even arty shells.
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/systems/THEL.html
[b]CHARGE!!!
[/b] -
Here is my 2 cents.
ASTROS, MLRS, Katyusha rockets are what Dumsfeld might call part of "Shock and Awe", with emphasis on the shock.
As a poster in this thread acurrately pointed out these systems are designed to throw a wall of steel down range. It complements the howitzers and mortars. Simply put, blanket a certain grid with sharpnel and high explosives. Now you know why the infantry is call the PBI.
As these systems strived for area saturation, CEP is not that critical, afterall you are not going to take out a bridge or bunker. When you fire these rockets, they are typically mixed with SSQ and delayed fuzing. Again CEP not that critical again. Good to have though.
When you use these systems, you are not particularly interested in collateral damage. For the Malaysians, they can practise defense in depth as they have lots of countryside to manoeuvre.
For Singapore, well you can't really use it on the island. Unless you intend to do some serious landscaping. If we were to field such systems, it will be seen as increasing offensive capability.
That will be contrary to the carefully crafted public image of the SAF, as a defensive force.
In another words, if we have it, don't expect to read about it here or in Pioneer magazine. -
Actually you are not totally right especially not against SG.Originally posted by touchstone_2000:Here is my 2 cents.
ASTROS, MLRS, Katyusha rockets are what Dumsfeld might call part of "Shock and Awe", with emphasis on the shock.
As a poster in this thread acurrately pointed out these systems are designed to throw a wall of steel down range. It complements the howitzers and mortars. Simply put, blanket a certain grid with sharpnel and high explosives. Now you know why the infantry is call the PBI.
As these systems strived for area saturation, CEP is not that critical, afterall you are not going to take out a bridge or bunker. When you fire these rockets, they are typically mixed with SSQ and delayed fuzing. Again CEP not that critical again. Good to have though.
When you use these systems, you are not particularly interested in collateral damage. For the Malaysians, they can practise defense in depth as they have lots of countryside to manoeuvre.
For Singapore, well you can't really use it on the island. Unless you intend to do some serious landscaping. If we were to field such systems, it will be seen as increasing offensive capability.
That will be contrary to the carefully crafted public image of the SAF, as a defensive force.
In another words, if we have it, don't expect to read about it here or in Pioneer magazine.
The reason is that SG is so densely populated that almost all military installations are within a few hundred meters & below from any civilians installation, as the matter of fact ,we even have commercials airport within a military camp!
For example , if Astros 2 is to target CNB, could it guarantee that it will not hit a commercial airliner causing hundred of deaths of foreigner in Changi Int'l Airport!!!
There are alway foriegn military a/c & ships in SG, what if they hit one of them. For example a US aircraft carrier, they might even strike back with their F/A-18s!!!!!
Since Astros 2 is unguided rocket system , the best CEP for this kind of system is 1%, it might be even worst. The Indian's Pinaka is 2-3%, the Chinese's WS-1B is 1-1.5%, therefore at the range of 89km, it could have a error deviation of at least 890m!!!!!
Therefore a good CEP is critical against SG.
The political implication & maybe even military implication if US also get involved will be great, MY will be foolish to try a pre-emptive strike against SG using the Astros 2 rockets.
CHARGE!!! -
According to the link, this Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) program should be completed by 2007. Since we are a good friend of Israel and US ships frequently use SG facilities, we might get a battery or so from them after completion, afterall it is to their interest to have it to protect CNB.Originally posted by laurence82:Wow...hey this look like US MLRS.....it is...
The THEL laser during firing.
The laser shot down a target.
CHARGE!!! -
Originally posted by gary1910:
If finished, can let me try on few buggers I really dislike, I mean can i zap them into oblivion.......
According to the link, this Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) program should be completed by 2007. Since we are a good friend of Israel and US ships frequently use SG facilities, we might get a battery or so from them after completion, afterall it is to their interest to have it to protect CNB.
The THEL laser during firing.
The laser shot down a target.
[b]CHARGE!!!
[/b] -
No, we will NOT get any THEL from them. I doubt the US is willing to export DEW technology to other NATO countries, least of all Singapore. Quit your wet dreams guys.
(sigh, I wish we have one of those too, heh heh)
And oh please, no more of those "shooting down of rockets with our Barak" thingie. I do not know if it is possible, (and I wont get into a pointless debate on this) but doing something like that would be stupid. We would deplete our stores of Barak like nobody's business. I have something interesting to share though. It seems that the US Army is fretting too about the arty barrages it would face in future, and they are thinking of a "shield" based on a gun system which fires 'smart' rounds to intercept rockets (or other munitions) coming their way. IIRC, the objective is to intercept each target with two rounds. They might be more willing to sell such a system.
And oh yes, are you guys sure they have procured an anti-runway submunition payload version of their rocket? (to be truthful, I;m not sure if there even is one, but I think I read somewhere that there is) Because I dont believe ICMs are very useful against structures at all. Even if launched against our runways, they would cause only minor damage and would be easily repaired. I hope this puts to rest some of our (un-needed) fears of this weapons system. -
You mean someting like CIWS, like Phalax ,Goalkeeper.Originally posted by YourFather:No, we will NOT get any THEL from them. I doubt the US is willing to export DEW technology to other NATO countries, least of all Singapore. Quit your wet dreams guys. (sigh, I wish we have one of those too, heh heh)
And oh please, no more of those "shooting down of rockets with our Barak" thingie. I do not know if it is possible, (and I wont get into a pointless debate on this) but doing something like that would be stupid. We would deplete our stores of Barak like nobody's business. I have something interesting to share though. It seems that the US Army is fretting too about the arty barrages it would face in future, and they are thinking of a "shield" based on a gun system which fires 'smart' rounds to intercept rockets (or other munitions) coming their way. IIRC, the objective is to intercept each target with two rounds. They might be more willing to sell such a system.
And oh yes, are you guys sure they have procured an anti-runway submunition payload version of their rocket? (to be truthful, I;m not sure if there even is one, but I think I read somewhere that there is) Because I dont believe ICMs are very useful against structures at all. Even if launched against our runways, they would cause only minor damage and would be easily repaired. I hope this puts to rest some of our (un-needed) fears of this weapons system.
I think our 35mm AA might actually hit a few rockets if they are fired in a salvo. Maybe even our 30mm Typhoon RWS could also utilise for that.
As for whether Astros 2has any anti-runway round , the answer is yes.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/astros/index.htmlCluster munitions warheads and dual purpose anti-armour and anti-personnel bomblets for increased area saturation are available for the SS-40, SS-60 and SS-80 rockets. A high explosive white phosphorous incendiary warhead provides anti-personnel, smoke deployment and materiel incendiary capability. A mine deployment warhead carries anti-personnel and anti-materiel mines. An anti-runway warhead which is equipped with a delayed action fuse has the capability of penetrating reinforced concrete runways to a depth of nearly 0.5m.
Dun to worry abt the Astros 2 , if they are so devastating as someone has described, I am sure by then the US/Israeli will provide us the THEL system, afterall it is a joint project between US & Israeli, not US alone.
CHARGE!!! -
Exactly, Singapore still has a defence budget 4 times that of Malaysia, we ain't exactly gonna sit around doing nothing.
That's why this ASTROS II incident is more of a matter of propangada feel-good rethoric then an actual edge for the MAF, since they know that Singapore can easily go tit-for-tat, and counter them at every move, and do much more.
ASTROS II is a good leveler for them, for while they can't match us for quality or quantity, if worse come to worse, they can at least have a capacity to hurt Singapore in any way they can short of employing MAF sucide bombers. The problem that remains for them is how to catch up with the gap in their military and ours, using a budget that is 4 times less. No matter what they do, there's really little they can do to really catch up, not unless we screw up very badly on our part.
While it's easy to match capacity because the MAF knows what to buy, we have to be a lot more careful with our cash because we have to stay ahead of the game, so while they can just blindly follow us and try to match up in equipment, we have to crack our heads and really carefully consider how to get the most bang for our buck. If you look at our recent advanced technology projects, you'll realize that we are not trying to be unreal, but rather get a big headstart on technologies that will prove to be very important in the future war. -
Uhh, no. Each projectile will actually be radar guided to their target by a radar tracker, if i remember correctly. Also, what do you think the dispense altitude for the rockets are? Should any intercept against a rocket be attempted, that would be a consideration. (but its just a theoretical thought. I guess you'll agree with me
)