Understandably, Malaysia`s MMEA would need more flyable and
maritime assets given the breath of maritime and longitudinal space
they have to cover. However, my question is how many
helicopters do they have ? And how numerically sufficient to cover
the maritime borders of Malaysia ? Do you have the figures to lend
credence to your argument as I do not know. Thank You.
gee.. its been awhile since navies fought ship to ship running
naval fire battles. the last time i checked, most navies used ship
launched ASMs and OTOH fighting, with helicopters providing ASW and
targeting.
in case you havent realized
1) in any potential redland vs blue land scenarios. our naval
assets are hemmed in on two fronts. needless to say, SoM and up the
east coast of malaysia. blueland forces can only advance from so
many points of entry. how difficult would it be to anticipate /
track blue force support vessel movements ?
tell me. how difficult is it to monitor vessel movements @
chokepoints ?
2) while MMEA's assets are purely for civillian
control/martitime enforcement. they represent a potential dual-role
use. which presents a threat in a red-land/blue-land scenario.
coupled with electro-optical targeting systems for OTOH on the
leiku frigates, they could possibly represent an additional threat
dimension.
do the absolute numbers matter ? or is the potential threat that
these platforms manifest more critical ?
all im saying is that does stealth really matter when there are
plenty of dual-use airborne surveillance assets ? does a helicopter
necessarily have to venture within the formidable class kill
zone/envelope to detect the formidable class.
point here i made originally is : assets capable of detecting
the formidable class exist. and that there are quite a few of these
assets.
i dont contest your point about how blueland forces operate
within a NCW framework and should have a shorter sensor-shooter
loop blah blah blah and have better shooter-sensor intergreation
(i.e better sit awareness). that really isnt my
point
all i want you to consider is this. in any scenario, a potential
redland maritime survelliance asset can easily fly low, using
potential add on sensor suites to detect enemy threats.
these are not the only things avaliable,
a) commercial sat pictures are avaliable
b) redland has potentially greater helicopter / maritime
survelliance assets to monitor us
c) potential of detection with eyeball mk I from HUMINT sources is
always present
the formidables can be found if wanted/enough assets to
do so. not invisible. not invicible.
before you introduce the G550 CAEW and other air force assets,
ild acknowledge, its not a certain probability, but a potential
situation. my aim here is not to create a red vs blue scenario
(which is explicitly banned in forum rules anyway) but to show the
possibility of it.
like klausewitz stated,once the battle begins, all best laid
plans are screwed up.
3) let me count thy choppers :
3 dauphins
? as 109
2 bombardier amphbuous aircraft.
hint hint : google hard enough and you can find them easily.
anyway, IIRC, JDW has also reported on MMEA's acquisitions.
what good are absolute figures ? they are simply numbers. its
what you interpret out of them that makes sense. not the numbers
alone.
why should i substantiate something that is well known and
widely covered and practically public domain information ? its not
as if im making some wildly absurd claim.
The Herakles has a range of 250km(from the manufacturer`s site).
Furthemore, they are important nodal points in the net-work centric
net of sensors which allow the latter to leverage on other sensors.
Why is it that thay cannot detect RCS heavy objects like the
helicopters or MPAs first as compared, in your own words, to MK1
eyeball detection system? Under such circumstances, the Formidables
would locate the MMEAs helicopters and MPAs first would you not
think so? In a war, they are simply dead without help from the navy
and airforce.
as mentioned above, RMN's execution of a OTH missile firing
using a helicopter electro optical system to guide the missile to
its target represents a threat.
NCW yes. Airforce assets YES. Full spectrum conflict - Whatever
you want to say. Ive made my point up above. the formidables arent
invincible. like everything else, it has vulnerabilities.
now isnt it quite ironic that you'd expect the formidable to act
in a NCW setting while expecting a potential adversary chopper
(somewhat useful tactical asset given the age and reliabilities of
the NURIs) to be thrown to the wolves ?
wasnt there several incidents in the cold war where low flying
planes crept up undetected ?
1) the russian foxbat pilot who defected to japan flew low over
the sea of japan to avoid radar detection and landed unannounced at
a hokkaido airfield. to be exact, a JSDAF base in hakodate
2) IIRC, not exactly too certain, several USSR yak forgers made
several low level sea passes to avoid US navy awacs to buzz/harass
USN carriers.
Im not insinuating you are wrong or anything. its just a matter
of perspective. I'm contextualising it at somewhat different level
from you.
