RMAF shopping for AEW&C

|-|05| SG

All military planes as common sense will tell you do not carry black boxes though transports,training planes and the likes might.Helicopters also do not carry blackboxes.Why?Well having it land in someone else's land is not really gonna do you any good now is it?Sure they could always take it out when doing covert ops or stuff but it would save time if they just left it out and put in more electronics in it's place(this is especially so in bombers and recon planes).Also fighter planes do not have space for them.
It was in the papers a few years ago that in some country(European i think) a plane crashed and they had problems determining the cause due to a lack of blackboxes in military planes.

In response to Question 2 well yes those are costs also but having all that cost PLUS the need to mantain the airframe will add to the cost.In fact mantain the airframe alone will take up around 20% of the mantaince cost with the crew sucking up at least 50%(for 3 crews per plane).It would be prudent to cut as much cost as possible is it not?
And also once they have the ability to operate,repair/replace the radar and upgrade would it not be possible for them to upgrade a few "former" MAS B737's?

Question 1 well the RMAF would most prob get parts and training from MAS thus reducing cost once again.Or a Malaysian firm could be contracted to do it.They could possibly create an engineering company to mantain their military B737's and also MAS B737's
Much like how our ST eng does some civilian work too.
Hope that answers your questions?

|-|05| SG

You seemed to have ruled out the fact that we have more planes and that some of our F-16's are stationed overseas.Also fighter planes can take off in 800m of runway....i'm sure we have many islands that can handle that.Also what makes you think we do not have the Aim-120's and SAM's and AA that the Malaysians in your situation have used to such deverstating effect?
Oh and no i'm not belittlering the Malaysian armed forces in fact i give them alot of credit and would pay attention and not write them off.However i will not write off our armed forces either

Viper52 SG

Thank you for clearing that up. I stand corrected.

kenhor SG

To observe,

Thank you for your observations and comments .. you are probably more knowledgeable than me (a mere IT salesman) on what kind of ability the Malaysians have in making spare parts.

Keep on informing us.

Viper52 SG

[quote]Originally posted by On the way:
I think you are wasting your breath here with a lot of xenophobes,

Ummm...nice...are you forgetting you once referred to the Malaysian PT-91 as "Mat PT-91s" in the "What would u like to see on a new SAF light tank" thread?

Do you happen to be the pot that called the kettle black?

- A RMAF AEW will be held far in the north guarded with fighters. This is standard operational practice in many air forces. Its is a fact that the RMAF has already signed an upgrade contract with MAPO to install the Phazontron N0119MF dual BVR radar in all their MIG-29s. In addition, the MIGs are to be upgraded with Vympel R77, which are every bit as competent as the AIM-120. The MIG escorts will take u out BVR if you try to engage the AEW.

Yes, they do have the Phazontron radar in their MiGs which we all know have Adder capability. But ever since the old days of the Speakers Corner I have questioned whether the R-77 for the MiGs. Of course we had Malaysians like Innocent Malaysian and Harimau insisting they had, although they didn't(and still haven't) substantiated that claim. And recently Innocent Malaysian has told me his sources now tell him they don't have it and will not get it with the Su30 package because they don't want to introduce that capability in the region

Also, The RMAF AEW will instantly detect mass take off from all RSAF airfields from the safety of northern malaysia. By the time RSAF a/c pass KL, most of the fighters stationed in Langkawi and Butterworth would already be scrambled. A BVR duel would occur north of KL that will take its toll on the attacking RSAF A/C. Should the remaining RSAF a/c survive this, they can still destroy the airbases and maybe lose a few more to Malaysian SAM and AA activities, and close in "heater" dogfights.

I don't think the planners were expecting 100% survival rate

By the time they return to S'pore, they will find that all their airbases plus alternate runways at Changi, PIE, etc,. will be destroyed or cratered by Malaysian MLRS, and long range arty.

Which is why theres the Mersing Line to try to prevent that. You spoke up so fervently for that strategy when I questioned its effectiveness in the "What would u like to see on a new SAF light tank" thread insisting its going a cakewalk. So why are you singing a totally different tune now?

I predict mass ditching of RSAF a/c in the south china seas. They may all form up on KC-135 and refuel and do circuits until one of the runway is repaired,

And I bet you think the KC-135 is a bottomless pit of Avgas Wink

This is just one scenario.

And one thats full of loopholes at that Rolling Eyes

In addition, many high ranking RMAF pilots are actually Chinese, Eurasians or Indians.

Chinese? Where did you dream that one up?

And even if they are not in the air for whatever reason, there is a top of the line MIG-29 flight simulator build by CAE for training RMAF pilots.

Yes and RSAF has no simulators Rolling Eyes

Also RMAF MIGS have stuff that even the best RSAF a/c doesn't. Like quad bomb release racks for 250 and 500 lbs, and dual engagement BVR radar.

Singapore has had multiple ejector racks for 3-6 bombs of up to 500lb since the Skyhawks in the early 70s. Even so, thats no big deal really Rolling Eyes

The F-16C/Ds are equiped with BVR engagement radars also

Viper52 SG

Friend .. if they ever bring their arty within range of our airbases and let off a strike with our jets still on the ground, it means that our intel has failed us .. and if intel fails us, the forward defense won't work either.

Friend, don't you know that there are already arty units ALREADY in range? So if we don't move in and take them out and hold their firing positions, how are the jets gonna operate?

You don't need to send troops to the jungle in order to flatten cities.

When did I say that? I said you need to hold the land to prevent it from being used to harass you aircraft operations?

We don't even bother looking for their guns .. we just do what tactical planners do in NATO .. threaten strategic targets (like cities) if they attack tactical targets on our side .. i.e they hit our army barracks, we hit their oil refinery x10 ..

Again, NATO can afford that because W Europe is so large compred to Singapore. Are we?

kenhor SG

To |05|

Well 2 things here.....if a 3rd party did wish to invade Singapore via Malaysia then either Malaysia will be their ally and let them through or Malaysia will fight them off.So i do not see how we would invade them just for the sake of protacting ourselves.....But if they do help the enemy i do not see much choice.

You are absolutely correct. That means the Mersing line theory is actually targeted against 1 potential enemy only.

A war is won on the ground not in the Air.Having contorl of the air is nice and all when u're attacking or defending but it does nothing to help you win a war.

Capturing half a state also will not help us win the war .. if we want to win the war, we have to go all the way up to deliver a knockout punch ... not a half hearted foray and establish a "security buffer"

And if we can flatten KL why can they not flatten Singapore?Their arty has around the same range as our's and their MRLS have twice the range.We flatten 1 city the flatten our COUNTRY.Doesnt really make sense does it?

On the theory of MAD (mutual assured destruction) it makes great sense.

Err......do u know why the USSR even put those nukes there?
It was to counter the nukes the US put in Turkey within even short range missile range!!Basically the US did it 1st the USSR just reponded....like u said not every 1 likes being under a pre-emptive strike.....and the US found out the hard way why they should not do that.Much like we should find out.Unfortunately we really have no choice about this now do we?

You are correct, the USA started it first. And you brought out a great point .. people and countries do not like being under a pre-emptive strike doctrine.

If say Indonesia has a pre-emptive strike doctrine against Singapore, won't that make us mad? Lucky the Malaysians have no choice but to play it cool.

Viper52 SG

You are absolutely correct. That means the Mersing line theory is actually targeted against 1 potential enemy only.

Yes but not the forward defence theory

On the theory of MAD (mutual assured destruction) it makes great sense.

But us flattening a couple of cities and they flattening our country is not MAD is it? We are destroyed while most of their land is still intact?

kenhor SG

To on the way

Thank you for your words of support .. War is hell and the only way to educate people sometimes is to put the shoe on the other foot.

I spend too much time watching old war movies .. I recently finished "All quiet on the western front" .. a very captivating WW1 movie .. it seems so pointless for war really. Such a waste sending 18 year olds to die for the kaiser. Here is the most telling part of the show. The kaiser addressing the troops.

"They are doing their duty to their fatherland .. and I will like to remind everyone of you .. that if you show bravery and heroism, someday, your kaiser will pin the iron cross on your uniform like I did your comrades."

And 1 minute to the end of the show.

"I am writing this letter to you .. out of the 20 of us in the class who enlisted, 12 are dead, 5 missing, 1 in a mental assylum .. only you and I are left .. I am waiting for armistice to be declared so I can go home."

He checks up his men, and is shot in his head .. the show ends.

I am now waiting for my DVD of Gettysburg to come .. God rest their brave souls.

Viper52 SG

Let me put it another way to you .. the people up north have been living with the possiblity of being INVADED for 30 years .. (our forward defense doctrine) Don't you think that they have an issue with that as well?

Wrong again! We started out with the "poison shrimp" doctrine since the 1970s, which was kind of like your defeatist strategy, whereby "If you want to eat us, you'll be poisoned" but that changed in the early 1990s when we realised that the "poison shrimp" analogy would do us no good because in the end, we will not survive as well.

Like I've said, the forward defence strategy is not directed just at Malaysia, but it has been warped by 2-bit politicians trying to score political points as well as segments of the nationalist press with their own agendas into looking like it is one directed against Malaysia alone.

kenhor SG

To nismoS123,

if you want to die while fighting a war, please migrate up north.
over here, we prefer to fight to survive and gloat about it.

I am sure that thousands of Russians who served in the WP armies shared your view when they were with the 3rd Shock Army ..

I guess the defeat due to economic failure of the Soviet Union came as a shock to them.

Viper52 SG

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

I like all things military, from the history to the technical(except probably the life, which is why I'll never sign on). But that does not make a warmonger that supports all forms of war.(See my posts of Dubya's recent adventure) But on the other hand, if there is someone who is threatening the security of my life, my familiy and my country, I will not stand by and not respond.

A lot has been made about Singapore's first strike, pre-emptive strategy, and a lot of myths generated. But through all of this hubris, everyone constantly fails to mention that the plan will not be put into action until a threat against Singapore "is imminent"

I guess its just easier to try and score points than understand the reasons.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

If push came to shove, what do you think is the logical thing for Singapore to do? Invite them to our shores and fight a FIBUA in our small nation racking up tons of civvie deaths?

Sorry, even if our forward defence stragety is not offical, any half-smart person would see that it is the most logical course of action to take if things go to the dogs. Of course the Malaysians dun like it, they have an alergic reaction to logic.

kenhor SG

Dear dkhoo

You are welcome in your opinion that in our point of view, that we need such a policy of forward defense to safeguard our homes and families.

Its my duty to remind you that war is hell, as you have portrayed. Whatever you posted is what people in the battlefield and sieged cities will feel. But do yourself a favour. Put yourself in the Malaysians shoes.

Can you imagine an enemy who for 30 years declared that the only way they feel secure is to invade you the moment you harbour any animosity towards them. Can you imagine that they will take your land, resources and people just to feel safe. Can you imagine that these people have no regard for your own feelings of security.

Thats why I am advocating the doomsday scenario. If I die, you will die with me. MAD. Mutually assured destruction. If I know what you want, all I have to do is to ensure that you will never get what you want even if you kill me. That sort of thing.

This theory has kept the peace in Europe for 50 years .. can you tell me which country has got forward defense as their main policy and how long did that peace last?

I do not advocate war .. and my belief is that MAD has kept the peace longer than "forward defense" Hence I do not consider myself sick. I consider myself a pacifist, and to me human lives are too precious to squander just so that we can feel "safe"

I re-iterate again .. think of yourself as the poor peasant. Wife kids hard life. The aggressor is an arrogant samurai. Both need to cross the bridge. The samurai challenges the peasant to a fight due to his reputation being at stake. The peasant won't back down because he is right. He learns a lethal stance .. which guarantees the death of both combatants if ever used ... the samurai, who knows that its foolish to lose his life over such trivial matters will have to withdraw.

That is deterrence. Thats my opinon.

foxtrout8 SG

I mean , the JSTAR will be extremely useful to monitor the ground movement up north , a good stand off plateform to guard agaisnt their artillery systems....

kenhor SG

Dear Viper52

Friend, don't you know that there are already arty units ALREADY in range? So if we don't move in and take them out and hold their firing positions, how are the jets gonna operate?

I don't think that if anyone wants to kick of a conflict, they will just send their arty. They will have to mobilize EVERYTHING. If we can't spot that, we deserve to die. We have been mobilizing for years .. our readiness is much better than anyone in SEA. Telling me that we need the forward defense as a compliment to our intel is a joke. By the time their main strength comes close, we are all ready.

And I may not know much, but launching an offensive into a hardened defensive position manned by ready troops is suicide.

Again, NATO can afford that because W Europe is so large compred to Singapore. Are we?

And is not very large compared to Russia .. so it evens out.

kenhor SG

To viper,

On the theory of MAD (mutual assured destruction) it makes great sense.
But us flattening a couple of cities and they flattening our country is not MAD is it? We are destroyed while most of their land is still intact?

Thats where you don't understand what MAD stands for ...

MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION .. both die .. not one die and one get hurt only .. both die.

And another part of the equation .. what does Malaysia want to do with Singapore? Conquer it or destroy it .. if they plan to CONQUER it, MAD will work wonders as they will never be able to do so as the scorch earth policy will work well.. If their plans are to DESTROY us, then that is another matter.

Thats why Isrealis are not the best teachers (ideological wise) for us. They are surrounded by a people who want to kill them at all costs. Hence they have tactics to prevent that. Malaysia (I feel) prefers us re-united rather than destroyed. So differnt strategy is needed.

kenhor SG

Dear Viper52,

Like I've said, the forward defence strategy is not directed just at Malaysia, but it has been warped by 2-bit politicians trying to score political points as well as segments of the nationalist press with their own agendas into looking like it is one directed against Malaysia alone.

Ok .. i will bite .. you got me very interested .. please then let me know which potential adversary can the forward defense theory work against in our context. I can't see any country in the whole world that if they want to invade us, will seek to use Malaysia as their launching pad, and hence a defense line from mersing to batu pahat will be effective.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

MAD only works if both sides see reason...

Unfortunately, if the current world leaders are anything to go by, some dun really care. Lets try to play MAD with North Korea lah...

kenhor SG

TO viper52,

But on the other hand, if there is someone who is threatening the security of my life, my familiy and my country, I will not stand by and not respond.

Yeah .. but aren't we then threatening the people up north .. especially the large chinese community over in JB and Batu Pahat?

« Previous Page Next Page »