Do SAF need MLRS ?
-
Do you all think SAF should buy Muiltiple Launched Rocket System?
MLRS is more deadly than Artillery guns systems used by SAF . -
Hehheh, they prob wont go it anytime soon considering saf just got their new self propelled arty. singapore seems to prefer the shoot-and-run rather than shoot-u-from-so-far-away-until-u-cant-shoot-back idea...
coastal defence:
but in the long term, probably as a cheaper coastal defence option instead of having to by large numbers of ships sitting around during war, i think its possible to get some high mobility (read "wheeled") missile system to deploy on the coast lines in war. boosts the coastal defences and frees up some ships from having to hang around on the coasts. stuff like shorebased harpoon, exocet, RBS15, etc... -
yeah..i think sg should get some shore based anti-ship systems too..but are there such things as shore based harpoons and exocets?Originally posted by laser51088:Hehheh, they prob wont go it anytime soon considering saf just got their new self propelled arty. singapore seems to prefer the shoot-and-run rather than shoot-u-from-so-far-away-until-u-cant-shoot-back idea...
coastal defence:
but in the long term, probably as a cheaper coastal defence option instead of having to by large numbers of ships sitting around during war, i think its possible to get some high mobility (read "wheeled") missile system to deploy on the coast lines in war. boosts the coastal defences and frees up some ships from having to hang around on the coasts. stuff like shorebased harpoon, exocet, RBS15, etc... -
with the introduction of New generation MLRS systems in Malaysia, i do see a need for a counter unit in this area for the SAF. We need to maintain the technological edge. but to counter a MLRS unit, we might not realli need another MLRS unit.
perhaps we are still exploring the options?
frankly speaking, i won't be surprise if some years down the road, SAF announces tat our MLRS-battalion has turned operational.
SAF, unlike her sister arms namely RSN and RSAF, dun really announces her acquistions until they have already been delivered. so perhaps we would already have some MLRS units trainning at an undisclosed location, firing away. -
Errm...do we need a MLRS to counter another MLRS?Originally posted by foga:with the introduction of New generation MLRS systems in Malaysia, i do see a need for a counter unit in this area for the SAF. We need to maintain the technological edge. but to counter a MLRS unit, we might not realli need another MLRS unit.
perhaps we are still exploring the options?
frankly speaking, i won't be surprise if some years down the road, SAF announces tat our MLRS-battalion has turned operational.
SAF, unlike her sister arms namely RSN and RSAF, dun really announces her acquistions until they have already been delivered. so perhaps we would already have some MLRS units trainning at an undisclosed location, firing away.
Really, what we need is air superiority, effective ground detection capabilties, and radar to track where the Asters are firing from.
These are largely fulfilled or under progress. With the F-16s, NGFs, A4s, AWACS, we should be able to achieve air superiority.
To hunt MLRS or artys, we can use UAVs (or UCAVs?) and call in the strikes. If they fire, the ground radars would pick up their location and call in air strikes....
Question: Do we need a MLRS to complement our Arty? Dunno....depends on cost and effectivenes..... -
lets not be stupid and waste our money by throwing limited resources down the MRLS or MLRS blackhole...
if we really need an area effect weapon... our cargo rounds are much cheaper... -
no doubt air-superiority is the key to winning a battle.
but let's not forget the fact tat since the day the MAF's ASTROS II became operational, all airbases in singapore effectively come within strike range of the MAF's MLRS units at even greater buffer area. and hence to ensure the safety of our airbases, we would have to have a weapon system/systems or a ops plan to counter such a possiblity.
let's hope tat SAF have alreadi looked into the possibilities.Originally posted by southpark2000:Errm...do we need a MLRS to counter another MLRS?
Really, what we need is air superiority, effective ground detection capabilties, and radar to track where the Asters are firing from.
These are largely fulfilled or under progress. With the F-16s, NGFs, A4s, AWACS, we should be able to achieve air superiority.
To hunt MLRS or artys, we can use UAVs (or UCAVs?) and call in the strikes. If they fire, the ground radars would pick up their location and call in air strikes....
Question: Do we need a MLRS to complement our Arty? Dunno....depends on cost and effectivenes..... -
even with the newer 155 base bleed RA cargo rounds,corect me if i'm wrong, the furtherest we can hit is abt 48 to 50km. cargo rounds are excellent fire for effect ground suppression ammunition, but fired from our 155 guns, they lacked the strike distance of the Astros II.Originally posted by tripwire:lets not be stupid and waste our money by throwing limited resources down the MRLS or MLRS blackhole...
if we really need an area effect weapon... our cargo rounds are much cheaper... -
Hmmm......but dun just about all our airbases come in range, save PLAB? The best planes are in TAB which are in range of 52 cal artys.....Originally posted by foga:no doubt air-superiority is the key to winning a battle.
but let's not forget the fact tat since the day the MAF's ASTROS II became operational, all airbases in singapore effectively come within strike range of the MAF's MLRS units at even greater buffer area. and hence to ensure the safety of our airbases, we would have to have a weapon system/systems or a ops plan to counter such a possiblity.
let's hope tat SAF have alreadi looked into the possibilities.
That said, agreed that counter plan is required.... -
Multi launched rocket system
Feel the awesome power! -
Given the current situation, the MLRS system is a GOOD TO HAVE rather than NEED TO HAVE. Bear in mind that rockets and missles can still be countered with all the anti missle systems out on the market.
-
I dunno why are we still talking abt this ? pls refer to the the thread below:
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=65643&page=0
At the moment, only the US MLRS and the Russian Smerch are worthwhile to have, but at the same time very expensive to have, becos high initial outlay and the cost of the rockets themselves.
At the moment , tube arty are still much cheaper and more accurate than the unguided rockets.
As for those guided tactical missiles will be too expensive as well as political implication of having such weapons unless of course MY get their hand on the AV-MT 300 tactical missiles.
So at the moment, money will be better use to have new fleet of light tanks, new tracked ADS( heard is already there), get the army to be fully NCW, and the development of a sqn of UCAV and maybe UGV than having MLRS. -
Satellite guide munitions can be an effective counter to MLRS batteries, though they lack the area effect devastation which is primarily psychological in nature rather than actually lethal enough to decimate anything substantial.With linking up of surveillance planes and UAVs, perhaps coupled with accurate satellite imagery, our howitzers may pose a more potent threat as we can perform more accurate bombardment.One hit on a enemy Ops HQ is more effective than the enemy's rockets saturating our open terrain.IMHO, we can counter but the valid point for airfield defence cannot be pushed aside.First strike could be the only option to protect our airfields then, however offensive that action may be.
-
Hmmm...
U guys are talking about wasting a million or more per missile, and each is UNGUIDED. Heh. What are the chances of it hitting the target correctly or buang?
As the gulf war has shown, 28 missiles to destroy a Toyota......wahaha -
Precisely.Psychological effect weapons only provide an initial barrage of "steel rain" to attempt to disorientate and confuse the enemy, beyond that, logisitical needs will pile up exponentially, especially if sustained bombardment is needed.This is also why the US Army does not use MLRS in sustained combat, only when some "softening up" of resistance is needed.The M109 is still their best and reliable weapon, IMHO.
-
I agree.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Precisely.Psychological effect weapons only provide an initial barrage of "steel rain" to attempt to disorientate and confuse the enemy, beyond that, logisitical needs will pile up exponentially, especially if sustained bombardment is needed.This is also why the US Army does not use MLRS in sustained combat, only when some "softening up" of resistance is needed.The M109 is still their best and reliable weapon, IMHO.
No use to waste millions to barrage the enemy. What if you could do the same with a calculated air strike or even a precise targeting missile? That would be much more useful. -
quoted from National Defense Magazine.
Another smart satellite-guided round, in development by the Raytheon Co., is the 155 mm XM982 Excalibur extended-range artillery projectile, which can be adapted for special-purpose warheads—antipersonnel, Sadarm and unitary—within a common airframe and guidance system.
If Excalibur does not come to fruition, the Crusader program again may employ a Bofors product, the micro-wave/satellite-guided “trajectory correctable munition.” TCM is in development and could serve as an alternative to the Excalibur round, said the UDLP source.
The range of the Excalibur round is approx. 50km if fired from the M109 Paladin howitzer.If its fired from the XM8 Crusader, the range would approx. 60km. -
For area effects, the direct solution would be to replace the arty rounds and any other aerial precision weapon with napalm or FAE/thermobaric munition-based warheads, instead of the usual iron-bombs or plain HE. A few of these would be good enough to achieve somewhat Daisy Cutter effects on target areaOriginally posted by LazerLordz:Satellite guide munitions can be an effective counter to MLRS batteries, though they lack the area effect devastation which is primarily psychological in nature rather than actually lethal enough to decimate anything substantial.With linking up of surveillance planes and UAVs, perhaps coupled with accurate satellite imagery, our howitzers may pose a more potent threat as we can perform more accurate bombardment.One hit on a enemy Ops HQ is more effective than the enemy's rockets saturating our open terrain.IMHO, we can counter but the valid point for airfield defence cannot be pushed aside.First strike could be the only option to protect our airfields then, however offensive that action may be. -
Yup totally agre,no way can M'sia keep up to the logistical demands of continuous MLRS strike since each UNGUIDED rocket cost a million.SAF could use weapons like Tomahawk Cruise missiles,or if we decide to purchase the Rafale or EuroFighter Typhoon combat aircraft,they can be equipped with StormShadow cruise missiles which are more pin-point and can clearly define a target to within a few feet.Besides weapons systems such as MLRS are usually used just to scare the balls off the enemy.MAke the troops lose confidence as they are disoriented by the sheer onslaught of metal raining down on them.As such,SAF should instead get precision weapons instead of blanket weapons.
-
i think SAF should get some super long range MLRS...
^^
preferably get the arrow system used by israel
Just thinking that Malaysia could get alot of Armour and technology
and advanced weaponry and fighter upgrades if it allies with Israel
and be more friendly with the US and European instead of criticising
and go more with pro-US policies..actually helps in defense matters ...
...
if the ASTROs which malaysia is using...could be countered by ARROW
wahahahahahha
maybe a arrow system which splits up in mid air ...(saw it in C&C tiberium strike) and engage all the missiles simultaneously -
Arrow is an ABM system.Meant for theatre missile defence, it is not a MLRS system.
-
U sure anti-missile will be effective against mlrs rockets? these are area saturation weapons, just like any other arty piece. most (affordable) mlrs rockets are unguided and meant to be fired in salvos, not one by one such that u can counter with anti missile systems...
another prob with mlrs is that if singapore get it, they'll prob need an all-regular unit to man it. with the high cost of each rocket, we can let NSmen shoot it for practice all the time!! they are smarter ways even if u just wanna bankrupt the treasury...
(but it doesnt cost a million lah, tens of thousands more likely, even harpoon with all its guidance and stuff is a few hundred thousand each)
and yep there are shore based antiship missiles. just go do a google search... like i said, i'm a no-experience person, so if i mention some arms or munitions, its quite definite that it can be found on google!! -
This topic should not be constrained to just the possibility of receiving MLRS attack by conventional military adversary. More so, beware the unconventional threat also, the equivalent of their MLRS in real-world example being the Hizbollah's Katyusha attacks on Israeli positions. These are really short-range weapons, but the psychological, economic impact they pose, by non-governmental entities on national institutions have far-reaching ramifications.Originally posted by SpecOps87:Yup totally agre,no way can M'sia keep up to the logistical demands of continuous MLRS strike since each UNGUIDED rocket cost a million.SAF could use weapons like Tomahawk Cruise missiles,or if we decide to purchase the Rafale or EuroFighter Typhoon combat aircraft,they can be equipped with StormShadow cruise missiles which are more pin-point and can clearly define a target to within a few feet.Besides weapons systems such as MLRS are usually used just to scare the balls off the enemy.MAke the troops lose confidence as they are disoriented by the sheer onslaught of metal raining down on them.As such,SAF should instead get precision weapons instead of blanket weapons.
No point discussing about having million-dollar cruise missile countermeasures against such cheap hundreds of dollars rockets here. Look at the real world around you today and you will notice what kind of enemy you will more likely to be facing. You should instead be making more preparations against such eminent yet often underestimated enemies than against the subtle and more unlikely enemy in these days -
never underestimate ur enemies.
"not able to keep up with logistical demands of deploying the mlrs"
"each rocket costing 1 million"
wat if they launched a surprised attack on our airbases?
how far can our arty pieces go?
it's good to have confidence in the SAF but dun under estimate the enemy. -
Saying this because the unconventional enemy will exploit the terrain and counterfire immunity in neighbouring states' to launch their attacks during peace time, and most likely in the aftermath of masterminding the sowing of political discord/distrust between the countries to head-fake them onto war footing against each other.Originally posted by panzerjager:This topic should not be constrained to just the possibility of receiving MLRS attack by conventional military adversary. More so, beware the unconventional threat also, the equivalent of their MLRS in real-world example being the Hizbollah's Katyusha attacks on Israeli positions. These are really short-range weapons, but the psychological, economic impact they pose, by non-governmental entities on national institutions have far-reaching ramifications.
No point discussing about having million-dollar cruise missile countermeasures against such cheap hundreds of dollars rockets here. Look at the real world around you today and you will notice what kind of enemy you will more likely to be facing. You should instead be making more preparations against such eminent yet often underestimated enemies than against the subtle and more unlikely enemy in these days