"What we are doing here is demolishing the paper tiger's (who
has been mysteriously silent) fantasy that the ASTROS II can lob
rockets with impunity from 89 kilometers away and there's nothing
we can do about it."
Nobody EVER said that. There are always means to counter any
weapons system.
"Let not bother with this "observe", obviously he is a Malaysian,
emotional and certainly not objective at all in the discussion, a
typical Malaysian that I have encountered so far."
That is EXACTLY what's worrying me. This board is turning into a
sina.com, with all opinions being clouded by nationalism. I dont
give a damn whether observe is a Malaysian or a Singaporean, just
judge him based on his comments. Your statement has already exposed
your lack of objectivity by dismissing him as a "Malaysian" just
because he is argueing for the merits of the Astros MLRS system,
which is something we dont have. (is that, I'm afraid, the
reason?)
"It will lucky if they could let out two salvos , becos it will be
hunted down like wild dogs after the first salvo."
Sure, anyone who let's off a salvo of those at us will be asking
for our attention. But how would we target it? I do not know, but I
do know that our TPQ-47 has a range of 50km against rocket arty,
which is shorter than the range of the the rockets. And
counter-battery radars are pretty vulnerable too, if they are not
careful with EMCON procedures. Of course there are other ways to
find the Astros, but pls do not make it sound so easy as "oh, we'll
use our searchers to find them" or " those extended range JDAMs
from from CAS would fit the job nicely." UAVs, even with teir
endurance, are not exactly very good tools for wide area search of
a particular system. And do we really have F-16s orbiting 24 hrs a
day with nothing else to do but to wait for an MLRS salvo? And by
the way, what makes you think that they are so willing to be found
by us? For all the detection and descrimination technology
possessed by the USAF, they were still fooled by simple decoys. We
may not fall for the same tricks, but if our generals think the way
some of you here do, then we have fallen into the complacency
trap.
"We don't claim the Bionix is a wonder IFV, first in the world, and
capable of running down the causeway, shooting up the whole MAF and
driving all the way up to KL to deliever the coup de grace. It's
easy to see how anybody in response can take apart this argument
rapidly as paper tiger's faith in his MLRS toy has been rapidly
demolished."
I dont think he has ever claimed something like that in this
thread. Why are you putting words in his mouth?
"Smart technology is the way to go, and it's something the SAF is
chasing with quite a lot of zeal instead of getting every
increasing numbers of guns to shoot every increasing numbers of
rounds and rockets.:
Yes, I totally agree with you. The GMLRS will be far more effective
per rocket fired than the SS-80 ever will be, and will thus be a
much lesser logistical strain. Though I have some reservations on
munition cost, I still feel its better to put guidance on the
rockets for long ranges. But does that mean that the Astros SS-80
is not able to effectively engage a target at 80kms? That it is,
tactically
useless? This attitude scares me. I hope no high
ranking person in SAF thinks that way.
