Proposed reforms and expansions for SAF

last SG · 2004-06-05T01:04:20+00:00

More Apaches? Better solution would be more and better SAMs. My friends in ADA all complain that our missiles are kinda short-range and that the mainstay of...

Langley SG

Problem could be that ADA grouped under RSAF. And RSAF’s share of the defence budget is probably all used up to buy all those fanciful planes so ADA, the poor cousin, gets peanuts. If you ask me, investing in a good SAM system is more worth it than investing in planes. Not only is it cheaper but its likely to be damn effective. Our likely adversaries sux at SEAD so they can’t destroy our fixed defences whereas our fixed defences can destroy them. This may also be a wiser choice given that our offensive edge has been blunted by Malaysia’s purchase of newer SAM systems than us e.g. Jernas. RSAF, chuck your Rapiers! According to my ADA friends, Rapiers all bo bo and pak boh one.

Langley SG

Also, just read in today’s Lianhe Zaobao’s cover story (dunno why ST never publish) US phasing out P-3C Orions. Taiwan buyin alot. Perhaps Singapore should buy also. Unlike us who bought antique submarines, Malaysia has modern Scorpenes and Agostas, posing serious threats to our Deltas. Furthermore, littoral waters should be good anti-sub hunting grounds for the Orions.

Shotgun SG

For wad? We already have our "silver bullets"!

We have 3 operational squadrons of VF-1C, variable fighters.

And 4 Battalions of Gundams. For fish go buy carriers?

bot_in_shop SG

Before we start having delusions of grandeur, let’s start looking at Singapore’s primary constraint, manpower! 1 time light carrier is probably going to take up an entire squadron worth of manpower just to man that carrier. Let alone the escorts that one such carrier will entail. Why do we want to project power? We don’t even have the manpower to be totally safe, let alone get involved in the South China Seas. Our new Delta frigates are also highly automated, just to ensure that we have no problem manning them! And we are not even talking about the ensuing arm race! Let’s not ask for trouble!

Langley SG

Singapore is not a claimant to the Spratly Islands. We also do not have any Exclusive Economic Zones containing lucrative oil and gas fields plus fishing grounds to secure. Thus Thailand has compelling reasons to buy a carrier but we do not. Our only maritime interest is to ensure the security of SLOCs in the Straits of Malacca and the South China Sea. And we can do this with what we have now. With KC-135s, I really dun see the need for carriers to extend our reach. Anyway, the Endurance class LSTs do have the capability to carry a few helicopters. All this should be more than enough already.

fkh SG

My suggestions for SAF:

Navy:

It should buy long range air defence missile for ship defence
It should set up Naval Air Sqns and trained their own air crews to provide air support for naval operations.

It should buy Harriers and Sea Cobras ..

It should lease Super Tankers ..for Harriers and Sea Cobras to base there. ( Super tankers can function as light aircraft carrier.)

Air Force: It should consider A-10 and Harriers .

Army : it should purchase M1 Abrams .
It should set up Army Air Cavalry consisting of helicopter gunships, assault helicopters, and light observation helicopters.
Door mounted mini-guns( which function as rotary cannons) should replace M60 GPMGs.. and these miniguns can be mounted on the doors and windows of Chinooks..
It should consider buying Mulitiple Launched Rocket System...

We need 800,000 soldiers..

cutebug SG

Russian S400 * 10

Langley SG

Double post

Langley SG

Isn’t Guards considered Air Cavalry? Then we have Apaches, Fennecs and Chinooks in support.

Viper52 SG

That is part of the solution. You're right when you say that the SAF's ADA capabilities need a huge shot in the arm. The problem has been examined before on this forum, and I believe the reason it has lagged is due to funds being used for aircraft, as well as the capabilities (or lack thereof) of the air forces of our potential threats in the past few decades. However that is changing, so it is time to keep up!

However, SAMs lack the mobility to respond to a changing tactical situation the way aircraft could, which is why I still think getting a small number of STOVL F-35s, along with upgrading our ADA capabilities is the answer

Viper52 SG

Old....very old airframes! With 5 Fokker MPAs, the RSN's own ASW capabilities and the coming naval helos should do for now.

Langley SG

But Fokkers are not doin anti-sub work right? Perhaps can configure them to drop sonar buoys out of their cargo doors, carry torpedos and depth charges etc. Then no need to buy dedicated ASW aircraft.

LazerLordz SG

Army Aviation would be extraneous, instead I think we should increase the scope to the present Joint units, perhaps have a dedicated Joint light infantry/Guards brigade supported by NDU/Coast Guard STS.This could be a singel unit based on the lines of the US Navy Seals but organised on a larger force level with light armor and heliborne force support.Just my two cents.

ferret69 SG

As the saying goes, the best anti-sub weapon is.....another sub.

Langley SG

Sighz.. We need newer subs then. Heard our Sjoormens not true Albacore shape so cannot even travel at high speeds or else the whole thing would wobble. Should be ok as a training sub but combat wise?

Viper52 SG

The Fokkers are already configured for carrying torpedoes. And comparing the 2 MPAs that appeared at the 1998 and 2003 Open Houses, there are some equipment added between those years that I suspect might be related to ASW work. For obvious reasons I won't say more.

Fairyland SG

Actually for the kind of depths we have around our region maybe MADs is enough for airborne ASW detection?

Obersturmfuhrer SG

My take on the developement of our Armed forces is to become a highly mobile force in line with the Blitzkrieg doctrine: Strike fast and strike hard, since our economy cannot sustain a protracted conflict.

Most of the infantry units should be mechanised eventually (Not all at once given our economic capability) and we really should look into getting a few medium (not heavy) armour to complement the main bulk of light tanks (for the shock effect). A battery of MRLS should be on the cards in the long run, adding to the firepower of our artillery arm (not to mention the strategic deterrence factor).

The developement of an amphibious force (maybe a brigade) would be a nice option, giving an extra dimension to the force. (Remember the impact of the Inchon landings during the Korean war)

Our logisitics (most people always forget this is the most impt branch during a conflict) should be able to meet with the requirements for such a rapid mobility force such that mistakes shown by the US Army during the recent GW2 do not happen.

I admit to being unfamiliar with the true capabilities of our Navy and Airforce so I shall not comment on them, but leave it to those who are familiar with the doctrine. But I'd like to add that an assault carrier is definitely wishful thinking, given it's vulnerability in our small confined region, it's quite impractical as we have requirements to force-project over extended distances (our KC135s are more than capable for the time being).

Bear in mind my suggestions are for long term developement and not in the immediate future so budget is not very strained. Very Happy I'm a taxpayer too you know.

Paladin SG

Does the America export their AIM-54 missiles?

Possible to buy and mod 8 to 10 Fokkers with the AN/AWG-9 system and armed each Fokker with 8 to 10 AIM-54 missiles?
Or maybe with the BVRAAM in the future?

Just a crazy thought.. Rolling Eyes

Fairyland SG

I think the concept for medium range ADA maybe outdated for point air defense of Singapore airspace?

To provide air space cover for the battlefield maybe yes.....

To deploy I-Hawk and have live missiles in the field you need defcon 2........by then the F5s would be doing CAPS too.

Why not use the F5s with sparrow/derby and sidewinder/pythons instead of I-Hawks?

« Previous Page Next Page »