Defence Budget 2011

Ice kosong SG

Yeah bums like u like to sit down n stare at the computer all day long, talk like u so damn smart.

Go get a job bum.

Military spending is to benefit the garmen companies? What???

Eh, I know yer maths is bad but now I realise yer analytical skills are worse than a 10 year old.

Unless Sg has 1 million troops like North Korea, yeah, the garmen industry will benefit. But how much can it benefit from a small army and reserve army?

Wif technological edge, in event of any war, Singapore will bring the war to the neigbouring countries, tat is wat these high tech weapons r for. Dumb ice. Stupid fat boy wif penchant for fat arse.

yo stupid fat boy, why are u so stupid?

amanda.lu862 SG

Its a big risk to spend just for the sake of spending. UK has the 3rd largest defence budget in the world and in a few years will have a navy and air force smaller than Turkey with less stealth a/c. Spent $8+ BILLION on a MRA-4 aircraft and finally had zero-aircraft which ended up scrapped.

If Singapore spent $8 BILLION on nothing, it will have no deterrence.

The key is not just more spending but efficient spending. That means constantly re-examining sacred cows for effectiveness eg NS, big ticket purchases. Procurement needs to be transparent. Any leakages need to be plugged.

Lucky for SG, the current Government has had very many multi-$$$$$$$$$ projects which have been very well executed.

That includes:

(a) Formidable frigate - lower personnel to run same sized ships. Made in Singapore some more...

(b) F-15SG - highly effective 3rd gen a/c that unlike its other competitors can still be relevant into the next gen.

(c) G-550 replacement - introduced with minimal risk and cost unlike the highly problematic RAAF AEW program which was delayed with massive cost-overrun. They started their procurement earlier but we got ours earlier.

(d) S-70 helicopters. Australia had the massive S-2G cancellation again due to cost-overrun and manufacturing issues.

Other very cost-effective programmes with cheap 2nd hand capabilities include

(i) Submarines - 2nd hand hulls but upgraded with 1st hand weapons/electronics

(ii) Leopard 2 tanks - 2nd hand use but upgraded with 1st hand weapons/armour

(iii) KC-135s - cheap 2nd hand tankers

A lot of other examples. Some very cheap programmes but highly effective eg ACMS. All with a specific role that is highly calculated to meet specific and clear defence needs.

The F-15 was not a good value for money purchase

weasel1962 SG

I think some people might call it lying if you added your opinion as someone's original quote. Despite your lack of common courtesy, in your case, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by reading it as your technical inability to differentiate the quote and your opinion which happens to be in the last line.

Also, it would be credible to back up your single liners with facts rather than relying on opposition style sound-bites.

I-like-flings(m) SG

I dnt like them to use $9k to buy our hearts for serving ns.

Are we that cheap?

ya lor.. can i pay some ah neh 9k and let them do to 2yrs and 10 cycle for me?? plus free food and a roof for them leh... so good right?

amanda.lu862 SG

Also, it would be credible to back up your single liners with facts rather than relying on opposition style sound-bites.

one mistake doesnt mean an inability.

amanda.lu862 SG

Also, it would be credible to back up your single liners with facts rather than relying on opposition style sound-bites.

And where do you give any references? Pray tell? you are just as non-factual

weasel1962 SG

Actually, have been posting for almost a decade or more now at various defence forums. Most people would know I'm more than happy to share my sources and justifications.

If you can indicate which of the facts posted requires my source or justifications, do feel free to indicate. I do not even expect anyone to agree with my justification but I do put down my reasons for certain positions.

Specifically posts like this,

[quote="amanda.lu862"]Too many Leopard 2A4 Tanks were purchased. And yes the F-15 was the wrong fighter to buy[/quote]

would be far more credible with at least some justification.

BJK SG

It is foolish to increase the budget annually as our potential enemies are weak. Even if they combined forces, our superior military hardware can incapacitate them. It is wise if we maintain an edge over them.

Underpaid SG

I don't think it was "increased" as a percentage, it's always been a fixed fraction of the GDP, and since last year we had a very large economy increase (28% I think?), the budget automatically shot up to reflect this. It's not really a spending increase and depending on how "generous" the SAF is feeling, a lot of it might just go back into the budget surplus pool later.

Though Malaysia is getting a lot of nice equipment like new fighters, upgrading their MEKO 100s and artillery rockets like the ASTROS. A worrying potential buy is the Brahamos for their Kedah/MEKOs. That thing is a genuine threat to ships.

Amanda, the Leo and Typh are opinions, not hard fact. You have to factor in the retiring of the SM-1, which means we have a shortage of tanks and an excess of crew, and that the Typhoon can't do air to ground very well, so is not suitable for Singapore. We have a lack of air crew, so a plane has to multi-task i.e do air superiority AND ground support due to our lack of manpower. The Typhoon can only do air.

« Previous Page