RMAF shopping for AEW&C

last SG · 2003-06-09T12:14:56+00:00

On this point I agree. And I do think a lot of the posters here do make claims and posts with false bravado but then, thats their perogative. They will learn...

kenhor SG

To gun

Over 30 years of independence did they finally learn the potential of international trade that Singapore had envisioned ages ago.

Of course, but once they learn something, they can out do us in implementing it as they have larger economies of scale and a domestic market.

Forget about piracy thingy. It is a child's play compared to acts of terrorist or flashpoint at Spartly isle.

Piracy or Terrorism will be the same thing if the target is a big container ship or LNG carrier. So the AWACS is definately a neccessary platform for them to procure.

Even the KL gov is supiciious of Sabah,fearing that it maybe another Singapore.

Thats why they built the new submarine base over there .. not to mention the huge economic handouts and benefits that they give to all the East Malaysians.

Isn't that the similar dangerous assumption that lead to Pearl Habour 1941 ?

The warning signs were given .. its just that the leadership did not listen to the lower ranks. We have a similar case here .. we have complained till our tongues turned blue over the dangers of certain government policies (such as the FT policy and lack of democracy) but they are not listening.

SlowPoke SG

not with the Pathfinder/Sharpshooter combo we are currently using....

oops, can I say that?

foxtrout8 SG

if you fly high, who's gonna laser the targets for you? Another aircraft with a targeting pod? Then he'll be within the operating range of the ground defences. Commandos on the ground with laser designators? Those souped-up laser pointers are pretty short range too, if you can get troopers close in, may as well have them take out the SAM sites/launchers....

The GBU-10 use by our F-16 have a range of 8Nm , 8 Nm ranged bombs have a very good advantage agaisnt the 8km range Jernas use by Malaysians. I personnally find that the main issue is in targeting not range. LGB are rather inaccurate in foggy days or night , its accuraccy may be affected by rain too. Thus i believe our LGB bombs may have GPS guidance system to improve accuraccy. To increase the range of the LGB , the RSAF might incorporate the LONGSHOT kit onto our LGB , turning it into a short range cruisemissile.

However y would the RSAF will wanna use the Laser guided bomb agaisnt SAMs in our region. The LGB is a glide plateform , the JERNAS will be able to optically track it and shoot it down before the bomb can even reach the target. The GBU-10 have a circular error porbable of 9meters , 9 meters might mean alot in plinking those SAMs in the woods. I will rather the RSAF to use the Maverick Missiles in SEAD mission , best will be with missile such as ALARMs or HARMs which have stand-off anti-radiation capability.

Viper52 SG

Kenhor
As for WP vs Nato scenario, there was a nuclear stand off. That kept the peace, rather than who has the best tank and soldier. If there was a war in Europe, and if either side was losing, most analyst I have read was that the war will go nuclear. Russia and WP had a policy of winning and surviving a nuclear war. While Nato had a policy of deterrence and MAD. USA had enough weapons to survive a first strike and then will strike back. The russians policy was that of limiting the damage of their cities and ensuring survival of a nuclear war.

So then you do admit that the YOUR initial analogy of using NATO vs Warsaw Pact as an example of military deterrence is fundamentally flawed, no?

You say that your ideal deterrence is That if you come, you will not live to enjoy the victory parade.

Whats the point then, if the enemy does not live neither do we should deterrence fail? Isn't the point of going to war(when war comes to us) to win and survive if possible? Whats the point of playing for a draw by bleeding ourselves half to death along with the enemy? Especially knowing that with our small population and limitations, every one of our people that is lost would be more costly to us than every one lost by the enemy?

As for deterrence, there is a limit to what is used to deter an aggressor, compared to the overkill we currently have. Malaysia's flashy toys to me are not an aggressive platform, as we still have numerical and quantity superiority over them. So we are very much not worried about them coming over.

Is it an overkill? Most of our weapon purchases in the past few years, as well as planned acqusitions, have been simply replacing of existing equipment that is approaching the end of it's life cycle, other than the Apache helicopters virtually nothing else is the introduction of new capbilities that our neighbours do not have.

Over on the Malaysia side, their economy and country is progressing better than most other countries. Economic prosperity and a Malaysia first policy brings their people together. Hence the fact that Chinese and Malay can work together against a possibly hostile Singapore is the deterrence against us invading them. The equipment is just a force multiplier. But it also acts as a psychological weapon that Malaysia is worth defending.

Counting your chickens before they hatch aren't you? That really remains to be seen.

Viper52 SG

We're not using Pathfinder/Sharpshooter. The pods we got with the initial F-16C/D purchase in 1994 are full-spec LANTIRNs.

The Pathfinder/Sharpshooter looks quite different from the LANTIRN. I've seen those mounted on Taiwanese F-16s

Viper52 SG

Double post deleted

kanzer SG

the container ships and LNGs are only attractive terrorists targets...... for piracy wise, not feasible..... most ships targeted are smaller freighters because they have a lower gunwhale.... it is easier to board......a bigger ships takes more people to overcome the crew and takeover....so the pirates prefer something smaller and more easier disposable cargo......

and as for US needing msia AWACS platform to monitor the chinese....hahahaha...... US will only sell them the export version.... so this is less capable than what they have. with the spy satellites and EP-3s in Japan, 7th fleet......they basically can cover the whole south china sea, east sea, sea of japan etc by themselves..... the msians have no role to play here..... they would not have one now nor will them have any in the future.....

as for a thaw in relations, after the GWII, he literally defined how diplomacy is being conducted...... more like the carrot or the cane here.....a barter with them is a non-starter. you have mentioned that US is the bigger competitor of palm oil so will the americans do something that is against their interest right?

tripwire SG

[quote]Originally posted by kenhor:

Thats why they built the new submarine base over there .. not to mention the huge economic handouts and benefits that they give to all the East Malaysians.

they built their sub base over there is because....

1... they want to hide their subs sonar signature from RSN... so as to hamper RSN future effort in hunting their subs in times of conflict... or when they want to use their subs for covert mission against singapore...

2... a base in sabah would be effectively safe from RSAF strike and at the same time close enough to the south china sea SLOC to harass merchant shippings to and from singapore...

3... with only 2 subs... they cant afford to loose either one in actions... thus they would not want them anywhere near the RSN's fleet of subs, ASW PVs, CVs, MPAs and the newest frigate...

4...as long as their subs remain active... RSN would be hard press to ensure the safety of merchant shippings so far from home base.. for extended period... the problem becomes more acute when one realise that RSN's CVs and PVs aint built for extended, long distance patrol functions... especially in the absence of air cover from RSAF...

5... thus...RSAF would be even hard pressed to provide air cover continuous at such long distance over the RSN ships if the ships are indeed sent to the south china sea to challenge the RMN subs...

in short... 2 RMN subs.. could significantly tied down huge RSN and RSAF resource while at the same time... expose RSN ships to continous threat from RMN and RMAF forces.. which in my opinion would result eventually in the lost of RSN ships... and probably RSAF planes... over time...

thus... malaysia aint dumb this time round... but there is a serious flaw with their strategy... which i wont tell them... Mr. Green

Atobe SG

Interesting article with information on the various new development of AEW & C platforms that are currently available in the world of Airborne Defense Industry

http://www.global-defence.com/2000/pages/airb.html

kenhor SG

To viper,

So then you do admit that the YOUR initial analogy of using NATO vs Warsaw Pact as an example of military deterrence is fundamentally flawed, no? You say that your ideal deterrence is That if you come, you will not live to enjoy the victory parade.

Whats the point then, if the enemy does not live neither do we should deterrence fail? Isn't the point of going to war(when war comes to us) to win and survive if possible? Whats the point of playing for a draw by bleeding ourselves half to death along with the enemy? Especially knowing that with our small population and limitations, every one of our people that is lost would be more costly to us than every one lost by the enemy?

The point of deterrence is not to win the war but to prevent one from happening. Hence the deterrence by NATO works .. as they knew the WP was planning to survive a nuclear war .. so all NATO had to do was to ensure that was not possible. Once they had enough, they can divert resources to their economy. We have to do the same .. ensure that we have enough deterrence and to heck with anything else they buy .. we want them to go bankrupt .. not the other way around.

In fact, I disagree totally with forward defense as it will spare our infrastrucutre but bleed our citizens. If we intend to invade an enemy, we need to outnumber them .. hence we probably need to mobilize our entire male population if we are serious about defeating them in a scenario where we go it alone. Each death of a soldier is equivalent to the death of a civillian. So I prefer to wait in a defendable position rather then go into a hostile environment where terrain suits the defender.

Is it an overkill? Most of our weapon purchases in the past few years, as well as planned acqusitions, have been simply replacing of existing equipment that is approaching the end of it's life cycle, other than the Apache helicopters virtually nothing else is the introduction of new capbilities that our neighbours do not have.

Just count the number of weapons and the troops we have on each side .. we outnumber them numerically and qualitativly on all fronts .. thats why I call it an overkill.

Counting your chickens before they hatch aren't you? That really remains to be seen.

This entire forum is all about counting chickens before the egg is hatched .. if we all weren't doing that, there will be no discussion right! Very Happy

kenhor SG

To tripwire,

If you ever been to Lumut or Sitiawan 10 years ago, it was a dead town. Then they decided to build the naval base there. Now, the entire place is developing faster than any other town in Perak .. putting 10k soldiers anywhere generates lots of income.

By doing the same to Sabah .. the same economic activity is generated. As well as additional focus, security and reduction in cross border instability. Hence Sabah will be made more integrated into the Federation.

That plus the fact that BN is once again the ruling party of Sabah will ensure that it won't go the way of Singapore.

|-|05| SG

err....nope....having 3 up at the same time would be a big mistake as there will be no way of plugging the hole when all 3 of the planes need a refuel or even if either 1 will need to land.
With 4 planes in war time the best they can have is 2 up with 1 standby but that is still risky.you would need at least 1 reserve and 1 standby so that in case of emergency 1 plane can be luanched to have at least 2 planes in the air during the emergency.You might ask what happened to the other 2?Well one would be in the shop and the other 1 would still be on the ground resupplying.

kenhor SG

to kanzer,

the container ships and LNGs are only attractive terrorists targets...... for piracy wise, not feasible..... most ships targeted are smaller freighters because they have a lower gunwhale.... it is easier to board......a bigger ships takes more people to overcome the crew and takeover....so the pirates prefer something smaller and more easier disposable cargo......

Yes you are right .. i am looking at the worst case scenario.

and as for US needing msia AWACS platform to monitor the chinese....hahahaha...... US will only sell them the export version.... so this is less capable than what they have. with the spy satellites and EP-3s in Japan, 7th fleet......they basically can cover the whole south china sea, east sea, sea of japan etc by themselves..... the msians have no role to play here..... they would not have one now nor will them have any in the future.....

You will never know for sure .. it depends on what kind of deal the Malaysians can strike with the Americans quietly. The yanks may not be able to put the AEWs near China for fear of collision, but no one said the Americans never fought by proxy before .. and there is lots more USA-Malaysia joint activity that we know about ....

as for a thaw in relations, after the GWII, he literally defined how diplomacy is being conducted...... more like the carrot or the cane here.....a barter with them is a non-starter. you have mentioned that US is the bigger competitor of palm oil so will the americans do something that is against their interest right?

Normally, barter with USA is a no-go right from the start. The thing is IF (a BIG IF) a barter trade with USA is announced .. that signals that there is a thaw. We can all wait till the cows come home for it to happen, but IF that REALLY does happen, that shifts the equation somewhat to their favour.

GWB will usually weigh the most credible threat against minor irritants .. if the threat is big enough (like North Korea or Iran), he may have to let some small NAM country win a round. After all, thats what politics are all about.

As for barter .. Malaysia is also still a textile and electonics producer. They can work something out.

SlowPoke SG

I do not wish to carry on this debate about our Lantirn pods specs. To do so we might get into trouble with OSA. Perhaps if it's possible we continue via email?

Gun SG

Another dimwitted arguement from you again.
Are u saying that the all RMAF needs to know is to borrow the MAS
737 experience to run the AWACS system ? What a joker, even the RSAF isn't interested in the 40-yr-old E2C's turbine engines. The key are the electronics, its software and operational competency.

kanzer SG

Originally posted by kenhor:

You will never know for sure .. it depends on what kind of deal the Malaysians can strike with the Americans quietly. The yanks may not be able to put the AEWs near China for fear of collision, but no one said the Americans never fought by proxy before .. and there is lots more USA-Malaysia joint activity that we know about ....

Normally, barter with USA is a no-go right from the start. The thing is IF (a BIG IF) a barter trade with USA is announced .. that signals that there is a thaw. We can all wait till the cows come home for it to happen, but IF that REALLY does happen, that shifts the equation somewhat to their favour.

GWB will usually weigh the most credible threat against minor irritants .. if the threat is big enough (like North Korea or Iran), he may have to let some small NAM country win a round. After all, thats what politics are all about.

As for barter .. Malaysia is also still a textile and electonics producer. They can work something out. [/b]

apparently you do not know how the amercians think. they are running a big risk if they run a proxy war..... can the msians be trusted? when it comes to security issues, you think the americans will just trust anyone? you seem to think that AWACs is a tool to fly close to the international border..... you think that is the way the americans use their AWACS.....?

as for barter trade, the americans have and will always prefer a straight cash deal here. unless you have some strategic commodity like uranium, oil, etc.... if not they are more interested in bottom line.... electronics? textile? you are talking about the world no 1 importer here....... if msians can do electronics, we would have done it 10 years ago! come on get real....

tripwire SG

it doesnt work that way... having military base in a state does not and has not prevented singapore from leaving the federation... and its certainly questionable how well a Naval base or in this case.. a sub base can prevent sabah from seceeding the federation when army camps in singapore back in 65 failed to hold singapore back.... thus i think its merely an excuse.. the real purpose is still as i stated in my previous post...

secondly... if malaysia is really interested in the economic benefit of the people of sabah... they malaysian govt has far easier and better means of improving sabah's economy through infrastructure construction... the truth is.. malaysia fear that a well off sabah would be the trigger that will see sabah seceed from the federation like singapore...

thus malaysia doesnt want to see a sucessful sabah as it believe that a weak sabah would be continuously dependent and thus obedient to the federal govt... which is wat inignited the anti-federation sentiments in sabah...

lastly... having a sub base in east malaysia does not limits its sub movement to only east malaysia and south china sea... they could afterall return to peninsula for special ops as peninsula also got naval base.. though not a sub base... but it will do....

kenhor SG

To gun,

Maintenance of aircraft movable parts is the most "wear & tear" part of maintaining an aircraft compared to electronics components.

If they have plenty of 737 spare parts and the experience to fix it, it makes their job easier than on some other platform which they have absolutely no experience.

kenhor SG

To kanzer

apparently you do not know how the amercians think. they are running a big risk if they run a proxy war..... can the msians be trusted? when it comes to security issues, you think the americans will just trust anyone? you seem to think that AWACs is a tool to fly close to the international border..... you think that is the way the americans use their AWACS.....?

There is lots more than what meets the eye .. you do know that there is an international anti-terrorist task force based in Malaysia going to be set up as a JV between FBI and Polis Malaysia right?

You also do know that there is the Asia Anti Piracy (arr me hearties) Evil or Very Mad HQ in KL also right?

And don't forget, during Sep 11, the Malaysian authorities passed info to the FBI regardiing some of the terrorist BEFORE the incident .. the fact is that there are OFFICIAL working level contacts between the Malaysians and the Americans ..

Malaysia actually has good relationship with all 3 rogue states (Iraq, Iran, N Korea) .. not to mention Myanmar, Cuba etc .. The USA knows that Malaysia can help keep tabs on all these undesirable countries for them quietly.

The americans don't have to trust the Malaysians .. they just have to use them .. but to use them, they need to let the Malaysians have the proper tools.

as for barter trade, the americans have and will always prefer a straight cash deal here. unless you have some strategic commodity like uranium, oil, etc.... if not they are more interested in bottom line.... electronics? textile? you are talking about the world no 1 importer here....... if msians can do electronics, we would have done it 10 years ago! come on get real....

Actually, Malaysia exports more electronics components than you know it. Its because they export small components into Singapore and Taiwan and they are assembled into bigger parts that you are not aware of.

And it is very easy for USA to accept barter trade with Malaysia .. take for example textiles .. all they have to do is to increase the quota for Malaysian made textiles and ta da .. Malaysia can benefit.

kenhor SG

To Tripwire

it doesnt work that way... having military base in a state does not and has not prevented singapore from leaving the federation... and its certainly questionable how well a Naval base or in this case.. a sub base can prevent sabah from seceeding the federation when army camps in singapore back in 65 failed to hold singapore back.... thus i think its merely an excuse.. the real purpose is still as i stated in my previous post...

Its economic benefit and the security that the submarine base (plus other military attachments) offers that will keep Sabah in the federation. At this moment, SABAH has to depend on Malaysia for its security .. it is infested with Philippinos. So much needed security forces are need to keep all the undesirables away. Add that to the economic benefits of a huge military presence, they have no cause for complain.

Of course, the Philippinos are doing Malaysia a big favour actually, with all that noise they are making and the chaos, Sabah will prefer to be safe.

secondly... if malaysia is really interested in the economic benefit of the people of sabah... they malaysian govt has far easier and better means of improving sabah's economy through infrastructure construction... the truth is.. malaysia fear that a well off sabah would be the trigger that will see sabah seceed from the federation like singapore...

If Malaysia is the best show in town, the Sabahans will be very happy to remain in the federation. After all, which other country is doing better and will do a better job running Sabah? Brunei? Singapore .. don't make me laugh.

thus malaysia doesnt want to see a sucessful sabah as it believe that a weak sabah would be continuously dependent and thus obedient to the federal govt... which is wat inignited the anti-federation sentiments in sabah...

Very interesting scenario .. but you left out the political dimension. Politics is what keeps sabah in the federation. Unfortunately, with Singapore's one party rule, there is little example the Sabahans can gain from us to make them want to leave .. most wil fear the repression that we have to undergo.

In Ipoh, the local town council just did an experiment .. they started acting like us .. imposing fines, clampdown on vice, shaming criminals in public etc .. the people there are already complaining .. so if our way of life is unable to be stomached by the city folk of Ipoh, don't expect it to go down better with the Sabahans.

lastly... having a sub base in east malaysia does not limits its sub movement to only east malaysia and south china sea... they could afterall return to peninsula for special ops as peninsula also got naval base.. though not a sub base... but it will do....

Of course .. it makes sense to have 2 bases .. just in case one kaput.

« Previous Page Next Page »