Singapore At War

last SG · 2000-04-06T04:56:00+00:00

I am newbie, but if I am a president of one country, let's say : Indonesia. And I want to invade SG (let's hope not)... you know ... what is the weakness of...

wave SG

Before malaysia's ordering of the PT-91, there was hardly any news regarding their likelyhood to purchase such tanks. Their decision seem sudden. Could the following articles from "New Straits Time" (dated 23 March 2002) reflect the reason why Dr.M suddenly become so interested in that machine? It mentioned the word "lobbying".

Understand the lobbying is common in western countries, esp among western politicians; but seem like it is also effective in some east-meet-west situation (in this case, it's the Polish-meet-Dr.M type of lobbying).

----------------------
Title: Poland lobbying hard to sell battle tanks to Malaysia

By: Syed Nadzri

POLAND is vigorously trying to sell battle tanks to Malaysia, showing off to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad on Thursday what its PT- 91 can do.

The PT-91 is an upgraded version of the T-72, popularly known as the Russian Tank which, defence experts say, has capabilities that are quite unmatched.

Dr Mahathir, who is on a three-day official visit to Poland, was taken to a military camp at Wesola on the outskirts of Warsaw after lunch to see the PT-91 and other armoured vehicles in action.

The Prime Minister braved chilly conditions and spent almost two hours watching the demonstration and even climbed onto a PT-91 with Defence Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

The tank has impressive mobility and is said to have a top speed of 60km per hour, very fast for a 45-tonne chunk of steel.

But whether Malaysia is actually buying or placing orders is another matter altogether.

The Polish Press, meanwhile, has been trying to fish for an answer from Dr Mahathir at the slightest opportunity, but the Prime Minister was not taking the bait that easily, responding only with non-committal replies.

"We have not finalised yet but Poland is high on the list," Dr Mahathir replied to a question whether Malaysia had struck a deal on the purchase of military equipment and where Poland figures on Malaysia's shopping list. The Prime Minister said decisions on the purchase of arms were not easy to make as many factors had to be taken into account.

It is understood that among the factors being considered were cost, reliability, after-sales services as well as commercial paybacks Poland could offer, for instance, contracts for buying commodities from Malaysia.

Defence-related activities featured quite prominently in Dr Mahathir's programme in Poland.

Yesterday, he flew about 400km to the port city of Gdansk by the Baltic Sea to visit the Gdynia Naval Shipyard. There he witnessed demonstrations and displays by the Polish Navy. Dr Mahathir also performed Friday prayers at the Gdansk-Oliwa Mosque. Later, he presented financial aid of US$5,000 to the mosque on behalf of the Malaysian Government. [email protected]

CX SG

One avenue of potential development worth looking at however, is an upgrade of the LAW. I believe it is actually possible to replace the current HEAT warhead with a tandem warhead more capable of defeating more advance armour without drastically changing the entire system... The psychological effect of lugging around an ineffective LAW is too great to ignore...

Wish some people would actually think before deciding NOT to fight too... I seem to know too many people who claim that they would just as soon desert a sinking ship... So much for National Education... While I don't approve of fanatical expressions of belligerent, jingoistic nationalism, such blatant expressions of defeatism does seem rather sickening...

Like... are we Singaporeans for better or worse or are we just here to enjoy the peacetime freebees until it runs out? Cheese...

wave SG

Does the Malaysian media believe that the country will become more powerful after the PT-91 purchase? I don't think there's any right or wrong answers, but one can draw his own conclusion from the following article:
==========================================

Source: The Malay Mail
Date: 25 March 2002
Title: More power for Malaysia?
Writer: Marhalim Abas

WILL the impending purchase of the Polish-made PT-91 main battle tanks (MBT) for the Malaysian Army tip the military balance in her favour?

Ananlysts told The Malay Mail that they would not.

"Everyone in the region knew that the army had planned to acquire MBTs since the 1980s after the Communist Party agreed to lay down their arms," said an expert.

"If the numbers are correct, 72 MBTs will not tip the scale in our favour. If we bought 1,000 tanks, that's another matter."

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad announced on Saturday that the Government had agreed to purchase the tanks from Poland.

Though he did not specify their numbers, a local daily reported that 72 PT-91s would be acquired.

They are an upgraded version of the T-72 MBT which is the mainstay of the Russian army and its allies.

The analyst said the Singapore Army, with its three Combined Arms divisions, was probably the most potent force, "pound-for-pound" in the region.

He said with 72 tanks, the best the Malaysian Army can do is to set up an armoured or Combined Arms brigade.

"It will be like the Combined Arms division in Singapore. A Combined Arms brigade will have at least two tanks and infantry batallions supported by an equal number of artillery, engineers and signal troops."

"The brigade will also need an integral airlift capability."

He said there is also the need for close air support with attack helicopters or fighter bombers or both. The three Singapore Combined Arms divisions have at least two brigades attached to each.

He said Singapore had taken steps to counter the perceived threat by buying at least 12 AH-64D Long-bow Apache attack helicopters from the United States. They are expected to be delivered in 2004, two years ahead of schedule.

The analyst said the Malaysian Army needs another RM3 billion to ensure they could form a combat-capable Combined Arms brigade.

He said the Malaysian Army needs at least RM10 billion to upgrade its six divisions.

wave SG

According to m'sia Defence Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, the MBT will not damage their roads. Don't tell me that their Armour is going to put on that rubber all the time?
==================================

Source: BERNAMA The Malaysian National News Agency
Date: 1 Apr. 2002
Article: BATTLE TANKS WILL NOT DAMAGE ROADS, ASSURES NAJIB.

KAJANG, April 1 (Bernama) - Defence Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak today assured the public that the use of main battle tanks would not cause damage to roads in the country.

He said the 45-tonne PT-91 main battle tank, Poland's version of the Russian T-72, would not damage the roads as it will transported on trailers for mobility.

"We have bought low-loaders (trailers). Apart from that, the tanks would be fitted with rubber tracks," he said after performing the ground-breaking ceremony for the Defence Science and Technology Reserach Institute (IPSTP) in Semenyih near here.

The rubber tracks may be installed on the PT-91 tanks by local firms which had developed the technology. Such tracks have been used by the army's tracked vehicles like the Scorpion light tanks and Stormer armoured personnel carriers.

In the past, plans to use heavy battle tanks came under public criticism as it was feared that local roads and geological structures may not be able to withstand the tanks' massive weight.

Najib said he expected Malaysia to have a regiment of PT-91 tanks, to be purchased from Poland as announced by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad during his recent visit to the country.

A tank regiment has some 50 battle tanks.

On the IPSTP, Najib hoped it would catalyse the local defence technologies which would in turn enhance Malaysia's rapidly developing defence industries.

The first phase of the IPSTP, developed at the cost of RM26 million, is due for completion July next year.

wave SG

Here's an interesting way of how the m'sia media measure the ability of PT-91:

========================
Title: How the PT-91 measures up against the rest

From: The Malay Mail (25 Mar 2001)HOW would the PT-91 fare in battle? One should look at the performance of the Russian T-72s since the Polish-made PT-91s were modelled after the former.

The T-72, an updated model of earlier T-54 and T-62 MBTs, was among the first to dispense with the fourth crew member - the gun-loader - when the manufacturers came out with an auto-loader.

Experts disagreed whether the auto-loader gave the T-72 crew an advantage over other tanks.

It helped the designer to reduce the tank turret to just 2.19 metre. But some pointed out that the auto-loader could be damaged in battle or due to wear-and-tear.

The T-72 was the mainstay of the tank armies in the Middle East. It saw combat in the Iran-Iraq and the 1991 Gulf Wars.

The T-72 first saw action in Lebanon, with the Syrian Army opposing Israeli tanks.

Though the Israelis claimed that the Russian tanks were not up to par with the US or British-made tanks, many of the vehicles captured were later modified and thrust into its own service.

During the Iran-Iraq war, the T-72 served both sides with mixed results.

Some 10 years after that war ended, the Iraqi T-72 faced the Coalition forces equipped with the most advanced tank forces from the US and Britain.

The Iraqi armour was ground down and most of the tanks were destroyed by airplanes which enjoyed air superiority.

Western military experts again cited inept leadership and lack of training as reasons for the poor showing by the Iraqi armoured forces.

They also said that rounds fired from the 125mm gun of the Russian tanks failed to penetrate the armour on the US-made M1A2 Abrams and British Challenger MBTs.

wave SG

The m'sian military are really keen for shopping. Ya, after the tanks, they are having "serious" thoughts for aircrafts. If not wrong, Dr.M will be visiting Russia soon after the Poland tour. Will there be another lobbying process in Russia for Dr.M to order the SU-30?

===============================
Article: Shopping for new fighters (by Marhalim Abas)

Newspaper: The Malay Mail (12 Apr 2002)

THE Defence Ministry has selected the Russian Sukhoi Su-30MKM Flanker and the Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet to fill the RMAF's multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) requirement, in a deal worth more than RM3 billion.

Defence Ministry sources told The Malay Mail that negotiations were on-going with both manufacturers. Negotiations are expected to be finalised soon.

Defence Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, at a Press conference yesterday at the end of the Defence Services Asia 2002 (DSA) Exhibition and Conference, confirmed that the MRCA contract would be finalised soon.

He, however, did not mention the aircraft that has been selected.

The Malay Mail learnt that current negotiations for the purchase of the Su-30s and Super Hornets were mostly centred on technical details and costs.

The number of aircraft to be purchased will be between 16 and 24 units.

However, it was unclear how many Su-30s or Super Hornets will be delivered.

An RMAF officer who declined to be identified, said the mix would probably be 16 Su-30s and eight Super Hornets, just like the deal that was secured in 1993 for the purchase of the MiG-29N Fulcrum fighter and the F/A-18D Hornet strike fighter.

A Defence Ministry official confirmed that both aircraft have been chosen for the MRCA programme.

"The Ministry has made its choice. It is going over the avionics and weapons fit," he said.

It was learnt that the Sukhoi aircraft is expected to be equipped with Russian and French-made avionics.

The aircraft itself would be the MKM variant which is built specifically for Malaysia.

Another issue is whether or not the Russian manufacturer is willing for the purchase to be paid partly in palm oil.

It has been reported that the Su-30 costs in the region of US$35 million (RM133 million) apiece. It was expected that the Russian plane would be fitted with the most advanced Russian-made air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles.

"For the Super Hornet, the Ministry is concentrating on the weapons fit. The Americans are apparently not willing to release some of the weapons that we want," a high-ranking Defence Ministry official said.

Although he did not elaborate on the weapons Malaysia is seeking, it was learnt that the RMAF seeks to acquire the AIM-120C Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile.

The US has cleared the export of the missile, better known as Amraam, only to Thailand and Singapore.

However, the missiles purchased by both countries are currently stored in the US and would only be delivered if there was an urgent need.

The Malay Mail also learnt that the Ministry had proposed to Sukhoi to buy back the MiG-29Ns in service with the RMAF as part payment for selecting their airplanes.

Boeing had proposed a similar scheme if the Super Hornet was selected by Malaysia.

It was learnt that both jets would be in service with the RMAF by 2007. The Super Hornet costs in the region of US$40 million (RM152 million) apiece. The RMAF operates 17 MiG-29N Fulcrums and eight F/A-18D Hornets.

mooncake SG

interesting news clips.

glad that Malaysia's aircraft purchases are NOT big enough for them to negotiate a liceanse to produce the planes like India & China does. nor do they have the technical capability to liceanse manufacture them. i think it's a bad idea for them to split up the purchase & buy 2 different planes. they should stick to the SU-30MKM instead of buying the 8 F-18's.

just read some articles about Korean's F-15 contract. they apparently had to make a political decision to choose the F-15 even though the French offered them more tech transfer & lower price.

If your order is big enough you might be able to negotiate a liceanse to manufacture. course depending if you have the technical capabilities. I wonder if S'pore has the capability to manufacture under liceanse?

------------------
"Is it me or the sword you want?"~Jen Yu
CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON

Viper52 SG

They've done it again. Buying piecemeal from both the US and Russia. While the 2 types are not bad aircraft in themselves, whats the point of having 16 of 1 type and 8 of the other? Wouldn't it simply make more sense to get more of one type and forget the other? Its not like both are specialised type, both are fully capable multirole platforms. Instead of buying 2 types and screwing up both in terms of crew and technical proficiency like the MiGs and Hornets, why don't they stick to one type and master it?

They're the only country I know that buys advanced top of the line jets and use them for 10 years before junking them. And aircraft with so much scope for upgrading at that.

They still have't learnt from the MiG/Bug/Hawk experience. Well so much the better.

FuckSpore4ever SG

*laff*...how much do U think you know abt my airforce..*laff*...when since did we hire a KNS like U....

Go and f**k your F-16 C/D...the spine is great for anal....*laff*

FuckSpore4ever SG

*laff*...so many PT-91 "experts" here...Let me tell U losers...Your Jewish Spike is good for anal only *laff*...Now I know Y U all Spores all full of Shit...and asshole so big *laff*

Heard that your ST-Kinetics is developing a pirate Humvee.

That's great *laff* now U Shitholes can have something to hump on and not rape Your women to produce soldiers..

Ta

solaris SG

hello

I am someone who has been following this topic from the starting post and I must comment on certain things. Besides the doubts surrounding the morale and fighting qualities of the singaporean soldiers, another thing that we should be beware of is hubris. I am worried about the complancency that might be incalculated in our soldiers during the NE lessons be it in school or the SAF. True we want our soldiers and citizens to have confidence in our defence capabilities but then we should avoid the pitfalls of believeing ourselves too strongly and underestimating our opponents. The consequences of this is all too clear - just ask the Israelis regarding the 1973 Yom Kippur war. The point to note in this war is not the outcome - an Israeli victory but one incurred at a much higher cost and duration than the previous wars - but rather the prelude to the war with particular emphasis on the glaring intelligence failure and analysis coupled with the overconfidence and arrogance the Israelis have prior to the outbreak. Another thing I must say is the anatagonistic attitude adopted by certain indiviuals here such as FuckSpore4ever, RMN - Best. I would not say that he is definitely a Malaysian. Whatever his nationality, he is a disgrace to himself and the nation and society which he grows up him. I would urge contributors not to respond to his provocation in kind.

wave SG

Go & die, boar! So what u yourself know about your airforce?

Never (or cannot) provide any arguments & yet want to oink loudly. If unhappy with what we say, provide some logical arguments to prove yourself right.

If can't, then your words just appeared like *Oink* *Oink* after all.

Rudin SG

With respect to wave's response, we do not need to look towards the Yom Kippur war for an example. One glaring example in our history is the Japanese invasion of Singapore which was largely due to arrogance, over-confidence and failure in intelligence to some extend.

Perhaps it is time to reflect upon current issues affecting us and plan ahead on how to thward future threats from our friendly neighbours in the future. As long as we are reliant upon them fro resources, we will be at their mercy.

Recently, my kakis and I were discussing about the rising youth delinquencies and the threats to our nations. One of my kaki suggested creating military boarding schools as a method to kill two birds with one stone.

On one hand, we get to put our trouble youth in line, and the other hand, give ourselves enough time to raise up a bunch of highly trainned professionals to lead our arm forces.

What do you guys think?

Viper52 SG

Wave and everyone else, ignore the troll. He's like the Malaysian government and press, unable to contribute coherently to a debate other than by spewing vitriol, hurling abuse and calling names. Do like our government, don't waste time by replying to him and sinking to their level. Every abusive post from him just proves my point.

jagkoh SG

You have my support for you point here.

Overall I believe I will go back and serve if the call arises. But during the peace times I better trim off the fats and get some lean muscles. I am an infantry spec. And also was an BMT instructor. I know I am going to get some remarks about cock up and sadistic instructors, but there are some people who are really doing a remarkable job in training up the kids, considering the amount of limited time and experiences we have.

My colleages and I believe in train the kids to the level where we can be confident that we are able led the out to fight and survive a fight. And there are some of them I can really depends on if the need arises.

What I can say is we compensated the lack of experience people with education and intelligence. Only in a NS policy you can get degree men and specs, which at times out think the officers and work on their own. What is important is that the mentality of performing you task professionally has to be better reinforced. As when you are a soldier think like a soldier, when you are a civillian think like a civilian, when your both think both ways take the good in each and piece them together. Take the bad and learn from them and remember not to commit the same.

Rudin SG

I was a combat personal. (ORDed : ages ago) Our trainning has always enabled men to think independently w/o the need for much leadership. In HR terms, this is a great achievement. Most sane people in this region desire peace. However, if crazed war-mongers desire war, I would not hesitate to use the skills acquired in my 2 1/2 year stint with the SAF against them.

To the mongels like FuckSpore4ever...please think of something constructive before writing your piece of shit here.

wave SG

Find it weird that many negative accuses on S'pore are without solid facts or evidences. e.g reclamation affect the sea lanes, RSAF aircrafts into m'sia airspace, military personnels stationed in a lighthouse island....all without convincible facts.

Those weird people are of all types, from politician to journalist to weirdo in internet forums.

Is that their culture to say things w/o fact? Or there are more complicate issues behind such phenomenons?

I think the above issues are appropriate for discussions.

Viper52 SG

I think the Malaysian army is worth our respect in some sense. True, there is no doubt that qualitatively, especially in terms of technology, we win. But in terms of experience, man-to-man, the fact that they are regulars will mean they have an edge in this area. Their experience in operational conditions(UN ops, fighting the commies) also give them the edge in this area.

Which is why our technological edge must be maintained. And the money spent on the air force to take part in exercises like Red Flag, Maple Flag and ODAX is worth it, these exercises are as close as we can get to real ops without having actually to get there.

FWIW, I've spoken to many members of foreign air forces from other forums who've had the opportunity to work with or against our guys in these exercises. The general consensus among them is that the RSAF is highly regarded; professional and "know their stuff" are comments which I've heard often.

[This message has been edited by Viper52 (edited 21 April 2002).]

Shotgun SG

Agreed, Mustn't get too complacent.

About the PT91, one has to agree that in a duel, the PT91 is definitely an overmatch for our SM1s and errr "da ge's." Where as "da ge da's" would be more than adequate to handle them. Perhaps the MAF should read up battles likt Wadi Al Batin and 73 Easting before getting too proud of the "upgraded" T-72s.

As for the American's reluctance in transfer of arms, well all I can say is........ ITS ABOUT BLOODY TIME THEY FOUND OUT!

Mig-29Ns, Su-30s, F/A-18Es, F/A-18Ds. Looks like they're gonna get themselves into another logistic mess. And if the US ain't gonna sell the weapons for those bugs, then they can have a good time figuring out how to rig russian weapons on them.

I'd still show a degree of respect for the Su-27/30 designs though. A retired US NAVY Admiral once wrote a full article debating the Su-30s. He conceptualised having Su's taking off US Carriers until the JSF was ready. Of course, the engines, avionics and weapons would be made in USA. Unfortunately, it has quite a large RCS and itself a bigger target.

solaris SG

When making a comparison between military hardwares of 2 countries(I will exclude the impact of intangibles such as system integration, doctrines, C4I etc) in this, we should take note of the asymmetery of the balance. Instead of comparing the quantity and quality of the same class of equipment in the 2 armed forces, we should note the impact oen class on another class. For example, the impact of A SAM systems on the superiority of B air force. The impact of A MRLS on B artillery deployment. For example, the impact of the syrian and egyptian SAM systmes on IAF operations were underestimated and this leads to them incurring unneccessary losses in 1973. The effect of infantry ATGW were similarly discounted and the IDF persist with mass armoured assaults with no supporting infantry early in the 73 war resulted in their tanks suffering extensive losses. Another point is that we should not get too rigid in our concept of operations. For example, is it really true that MBT have no place in a South Est Asian battlefield or that the ground too soft and the jungles too thick for effective MBT operations? Is the sunburn missile really an overkill in dealing with frigates in SEA….think of the impact on future naval operation of country A if country B manage to knock out 1 of counrty A frigates? We may yet be surprised. Doctrinal inflexibility has dismal consequences. Ask the French in June 1940…...

« Previous Page Next Page »