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...

Gun SG

Originally posted by kenhor:
To gun,

[b]Question that u should ask is what makes a 737 platform any safer or cheaper to maintain than E2C ?
Because they have more experience with the 737 than the E2C
[/b]

Well, is RMAF buying it in the 1st place ?

Gun SG

Originally posted by |-|05|:
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.

Think we have a different interpretation of what "black box" means in aviation term.

In the context of today's aircraft design, be it civilian or military, "black box" or electronic system packages are both critical and essential component to meet the demanding tasks and need of services expected. In fact, international law requires all airworthy planes to be fitted with certified navigation and communication systems like transponders. And this will become even more inconceivable for ANY modern aircrafts, be it helo or transport, to remain even marketable in current increasing need for secure and reliable blank boxes onboard.

Needless to say, military planes now can't even get airborne without those onboard active flight control system. Switch on a Block52 F16 and u will observe the 1st thing it does is an auto system POT and avionics check sequence. It only bothers the engine status check later after the electonics and the gyro stablized.

I don't understand your point about no hving "black boxes" onboard certain missions such as covert or spying when you most needed it. Remember the emergency landing of a USN EP-3 at Hainan island, China in April 2001 after collision with a PLAF F8 fighter ? The US didn't hv a choice, all the crew could do is to follow the procedure and destroy the hard drives, dump sensitive code books before landing. The Chinese still striped the EP3 anyway.

[quote]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?

Tell me if Malaysia can upgrade one of their MAS 737 to this ?

The challenge isn't about maintaining the basic flying condition of the plane. It is a question of RMAF's ability to service the complex systems onboard, not including operational proficiency and the integration into their over-extented variety of airforce inventory.
Having said that, whether Malaysia has the financial powess or even clearance to acquire this US-make is still an open question. According the Bernama's report, the KL gov is more interested (politically correct ?) in the cheaper Swedish-made EMB-145 which is also used by Brazilian and Greece a/f

Viper52 SG

Actually, the Erieye radar is the Swedish made component. The EMB-145 is the Brazilian jet is the one the RMAF is looking hard at for mounting the Erieye radar on.

The Swedes and Greeks are using the Swedish Saab 340 turboprop as the aircraft, only the Brazilians are using the EMB-145 currently

|-|05| SG

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.

Wow dude could you lend me that?!?!?! i've been looking for it since 1995!!!!!I never got to finish the show due to school.....and it was only shown once on SCV!! Twisted Evil i watched till around the part one of the guys got a brand new pair of leather boots from his dying friend....

10 June 2003 · 08:33 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To singapore tyrannousaur,

They shouldn't feel threatened because Singapore would never move to hamtam them as long as they do not shove us

What guarantees are there that Singapore will never make the first move?

After all, we are a dictatorship, where the ruling party has been able to push for any and all rules with out any checks and balances.

Suppose our economy fails .. and the PAP declare war to divert attention or fight for resources .. its a possible scenario.

So I ask you again. What assurances can anyone give that our government will not throw the first punch.

The fact that our army is a conscript army and not a regular army.The thing is unlike a regular army a conscript army can only function in a defence mind set...otherwise moral is gonna be really lousy.I mean i'm sure you've been through national service....now i present this to you.You get moblized and send to fight a war when you do not agree with the reason.Will you fight?Since you do know that there is NO threat and you've got your own family.
A regular soldier would gladly do it since it's his job and he is paid to do it.
You on the other hand is a conscript who's "job" is to protact your family which is not threatened.

Unless we got nukes and they dun have that is...

Lol yea well if we did nuke erm i'm sure u know that we'd be screwed along with the whole reigon..... Mr. Green

Think we have a different interpretation of what "black box" means in aviation term.

err..from what i just read i think we do.... Rolling Eyes oops Cool
My interpretation of the blackbox is the flight data recorder not it's electronics suit

The challenge isn't about maintaining the basic flying condition of the plane. It is a question of RMAF's ability to service the complex systems onboard, not including operational proficiency and the integration into their over-extented variety of airforce inventory.
Having said that, whether Malaysia has the financial powess or even clearance to acquire this US-make is still an open question. According the Bernama's report, the KL gov is more interested (politically correct ?) in the cheaper Swedish-made EMB-145 which is also used by Brazilian and Greece a/f

That is another matter completely.I was responding to views on why the RMAF would be better off with a B737 then the E-2C.The part about electronics well the RMAF will most definately have problems mantaining it without a good supply line.Which is why i still say the B737 is prefered due to the fact that they only have to source for the electronics and not both the electronics and planes spares.
This would do them good if they ever get an arms embargo dropped on them.Or if they are short of cash.

kanzer SG

Originally posted by kenhor:

Who is to say that there is no cooperation between the pentagon and the maf? And what makes us think that Malaysia will not share military information with the USA? The last I read, Malaysia still sends some of its military officers to USA for training.

If we want to make assumptions, we better look at worst case scenario .. that USA may have some links with the MAF and that political difference aside, there are still good relationships between the soldiers of both sides.[/b]

as i say before, there is a difference between military cooperation and fighting a proxy war.... we have also a good military cooperation with the US.... the thais also enjoyed close working relationship with the US, but it doesn't mean that US will wage a proxy war through them. that is my point here. there is a huge gap and difference here. to wage a proxy war involves the pentagon and CIA pouring $$$ into msia or give them some benefit which they cannot refuse..... i would not assume a scenario without considering these factors. of course if there are some other factors to consider too. I would like to hear from you.

tripwire SG

Originally posted by kenhor:
To viper52,

[b]No we're not threatening...like I've said, the plan is not to move in unless wer're threatened. But as I've said, the politicians and the press refuses to potray the full picture by giving the idea we'll cross the border whenever we feel like it.

Of course you will say that we are not threatening .. you don't live in JB or Batu Pahat. But they know that we have plans to turn their city into a war zone if the worst does happen. Will that make them happy? Is this what feeling safe in Singapore is about .. to deny the citizens of other countries the same kind of "safety"

DO you think they care about how we feel in terms of safety and security when they shout "potong potong" during rallies, threaten to build a bridge to replace the causeway while casually lefted out the water pipes??

DO you think they are even bothered about how singaporeans feel when they purchase the Astro 2, PT-91, SU-30, Mig-29, G5 arty and brags about how difficult it is for singapore to do point defence??

Do you think you are out of your mind to worry about how malaysians feel rather then the security of your own people?? i think you are NUTS....

last I CHECK... singapore govt has NEVER EVER threaten malaysia with words of war, conflict or shooting down RMAF planes as loosely as MAF defence minister had and still is....

Its like the USA having a plan to use Singapore as a base for offensive military operations into China .. if we found out about those plans ... don't you think that we will get excited?[/b]

they have a plan... we have a plan... but neither USA or singapore has been so unrulely, unabashed in threatening war against the PRC like Malaysian kuku leaders has against singapore... PRC, USA and singapore leaders are far more mature and diplomatic then those monkeys they call leaders up north...
Mr. Green

kenhor SG

To singapore tyrannosaur

If it comes down to having to throw the first punch, then I say our country must be really messed up as it is.

In which case, your idea of MAD would be unworkable in our situtation anyway, because as you have so stated, nobody will listen to your idea, much less the "dictatorship".

So forward defence it is.

That's why MAD should work .. if we are messed up and have forward defense, our leadership will invade north on a flimsy pretext. If we have MAD, things can get worst .. much worse.

Agree... esp when some potential mad northern leader is willing to lose a few cities in arty range, hence nullIfying your MAD...

You mean range of our airforce .. not just arty .. and when you say a "few" how many cities do you think Malaysia has? Let me count them for you. KL, Penang, Ipoh, Seremban, Melaka, JB, Kuantan, Kuching, Kota Kinabalu, Kota Baharu, Perlis, Alor Setar, Kangar, Kuala Trengganu. Any more? 14 cities. By threatening 14 cities over 1 city of ours, do you think that they will want that loss ratio?

dkhoo SG

Kenhor,

I do not think you understand the concept of MAD. It only applies if in a conflict both sides are 100% assured of destroying each other. That is why the superpowers built enough nuclear weapons during the cold war to vaporize each other literally hundreds of times over -- so that no matter how many were disabled or destroyed by enemy action, enough capability would remain to assuredly destroy the other party in return. That is why it is Mutual Assured Destruction.

We do not have a 100% chance of completely destroying Malaysia. We have a 0% chance of doing that. I think you overestimate our capabilities. We cannot have a strategy that relies on MAD. Comparing our situation to the standoff between NATO and WP is ludicrous. In my opinion, the whole "poisoned shrimp" idea was retarded from the beginning, but it was the best that we could do at the time. Why would an aggressor nation be deterred by the threat of injury if he could inflict death upon us in return?

No, we must seek victory in war if we wish to deter the enemy. An aggressor must realize that he is likely to LOSE a war with us. That is the surest and most effective form of deterrence. The only war for us to defeat the enemy, and therefore deter him and prevent war is a forward defence doctrine. It is the most humane thing to do. If the temptation of war is removed from potential aggressors, then everyone will live in peace.

As for the intimidating effect of our forward defence doctrine, I have three things to say:

Firstly, our neighbors should and do realize that because of the conscript nature of our army, we can never be a force of aggression. We cannot annex another country. We cannot permanently capture and hold ground. We are not trained for counterinsurgency. Our neighbors only sometimes pretend to forget this for domestic political reasons. Regardless of how strong the SAF becomes, she can only be a defensive force. We cannot and therefore will not invade.

Secondly, the SAF specifically lacks deep strategic strike capability. We do not threaten our neighbors with ballistic or cruise missiles. We have no strategic heavy bombers. We lack sea control platforms like cruisers and aircraft carriers. This means that the SAF is not a force of intimidation. We cannot use the SAF as a stick to make our neighbors do what we want.

Thirdly, our neighbors are not extending the same courtesy to us that you suggest we extend to them. They threaten us with force or deprivation of water. They parade their military hardware. They try to make us feel insecure. We do none of these things, even to the point of keeping our military strength out of the public eye. Saying that we intimidate our neighbors is the pot calling the kettle black.

In summary, I do not feel that a forward defence doctrine is at all undiplomatic or unjustified. They have nothing to fear from us and they know it. On the other hand, we have an entire nation to lose. I do not think that the residents of JB should be at all offended or afraid at our military preparations. I would not be in their position. Of course, their warmongering press ensures that the reality is quite different, but that is not our fault.

Incidentally, a forward defence doctrine is not just the Mersing Line. It is the idea that we will prevent the enemy from reaching Singapore. If we are attacked from the south we will strike them at sea before they reach our shores, possibly capturing some islands to deny them to the enemy and to base our forces. Of course, due to our air and naval capabilities, an attack from the sea would be extremely difficult and unlikely, so we tend to concentrate discussion on the more interesting question of attack from the land.

kenhor SG

To viper

"How safe do you think they'll feel if we opt to stay on this island and let our enemy use their land as a staging area to invade or besiege us? "

Firstly, if an enemy lands in johor to invade us, we will not be hitting that enemy in Johor. We will be hitting his capital city with all we got .. killing his expeditionary army won't stop the war. Reducing his capital to ruin will.

Secondly, killing all our troops in battle will force surrender. Remember that our troops are our citizens. if we fully mobilize and establish the mersing line properly, that sucks up 25% of the male population. Killing that will automatically mean that defending the rest of singapore is impossible. My belief is that it will be easier to kill the SAF troops in Johor, compared to SAF troops in BUA like woodlands.

Its like the Mummy 2 movie .. what the heck did the defenders of the city in the first scene array themselves in front of the city to meet the enemy? They can wait in the city, endure some bombardment and sortie out .. it makes for a good movie, but I think its a stupid idea.

Kenhor, for all your concern about the feelings and safety of those living in JB and Batu Pahat, you forgot one important thing. Should the Mersing Line be activated to counter a third party invasion of Singapore via Malaysia, it would only mean that the MAF has collapsed and virtually the entire Peninsula from Alor Star to Gemas has fallen. By that time would you think Johoreans would oppose a move northward by us?

This is a very hypotetical question ..

a) Which enemy is going to attack both singapore and Malaysia at the same time
b) Which enemy is going to attack both Singapore and Malaysia ONE AT A TIME
c) WHY isn't the SAF deployed furthur up north if the intended target was Singapore.

I will tell you why .. we hope that the Malaysians will be invaded and we stake a claim to some portion of Johor during the fighting. If you can answer questions a)-c) .. you will see no need for a mersing line.

kenhor SG

To nismoS123

you seem to be missing the point entirely. the basis of any defence stradegy is to keep ourselves alive and our enemies dead. what's the point of defense when we're dead?

The point of deterrence is to prevent the fighting in the first place. You want a defence strategy, I want a deterrence strategy.

Defense strategy ties up critical resources .. deterrence frees up the same resources. Singapore has little resources to waste.

MAD, as you described, works well, on paper, when everything and everyone is reduced to a statistic. you die i die, no one gains, woot.

That's why its a deterrence. The enemy will have more to lose than us. 14 cities vs 1. Thats a big loss ratio.

however, try telling a soldier that, let them know that, when the enemy is coming, that they all are to be reduced to kamikaze fighers, to take down as many enemies troops as they can before their own demise. i'm sure that's going to be a great morale booster.

You may see it that way, I see it as the INVASION of a foreign land .. remember what the japanese did to china ... I am sure the young japanese soldiers though that they were righteous when they went to defend japanese interests during ww2.

kenhor SG

To tripwire,

the feelings and safety of those living in JB and BP are the responsibility and duties of the malaysian govt... they are not singaporeans.. and singapore is not responsible for the well-being of citizens of another nation...

singapore govt... acts and behave in a manner which it believe would achieve the best outcome for its citizens... just as malaysian govt would... we believe in mutual respect of each others sovereign rights and the right of their people to decide the fate of their country....

IF the citizens of malaysia felt their lifes are in peril... one wonders why they still stay in harms way.. similarly.. singapore citizens felt too that their lives are in perils of malaysia arty and MRLS... but we do not complain to malaysian govt, like they do in their papers (like guniang )... we simply accept it as malaysian's right to do wat it feels is in its best interest and simply looks to the govt of singapore to do something about it...

lastly... singapore forward defence policies are created based on the analysis of its strength and weakness.. and based on the merits of various strategy based on the circumstances, constraints and limitation of present day technology.... thus... the forward defence policies is not of malicious intent... but an unavoidable consequence of the restrictions imposed on us...

and as a nation.. singapore will do watever it can and within its ability to ensure the safety of its populations whenever a conflict occurs...

in war... you either kill or be killed... obviously... there arent many choice when one is pushed to the wall.. and the code of chivary is long dead... in war... you cannot except morality and high horse ideology... only idiot dead corpse(or would be corpse) think like that...

Correct .. so when the Malaysians take steps to counter the forward defense strategy of ours, please don't consider it a hostile act. They are doing exactly what you are saying .. taking care of their own people.

kenhor SG

To gary1910

My pts are
1. MAD is only applicable to WMD.

2.You must table to withstand the first strike & enough left to able to destroy the enemy.i.e large places to conceal the WMD & sufficient number for it.

You have a good point. Lets see it in our context.

What are the Isrealis afraid off? That the Arabs wipe them from the face of the earth .. that is in their blood.

Are the Malaysians out for blood? Nope .. they want to CONQUER us .. not DESTROY us. Like I said earlier .. the Isrealis are not the best Ideological teachers for us .. their context is very different from our situation. Malaysia will love to have us as part of their nation. They want our infrastructure, our national reserves. Not as a burnt out wasteland.

And right now, their economy is doing better than ours. So MAD can stand for the destruction of their economy, and their lifestyle, and all that they worked for in the last 40 years.

That is enough as a deterrence to keep them at bay. At best, the chinese there will also not agree to lose all that they worked hard for. The scenario is find out what they want and deny them.

Its easier to destroy them militarily and economically than wiping 25 million people out of the face of the earth. we have enough weapons to do that. And the flip side is that if they are too weak, Indonesia and Philippines will be the one that will benefit, Sabah and Sarawak is very temptingly.

So that my friend .. threating economic ruin is MAD ...

kenhor SG

To gun,

Well, is RMAF buying it in the 1st place ?

Wait and see .. my opinion is that by announcing that they are LOOKING at AWACS, every AWACS dealer in the world will set up a booth in Lima03. They will take 2 years to decide and award the contract in Lima05 .. that way, they can stretch the economic benefit for two shows.

Viper52 SG

[quote]Originally posted by kenhor:
Firstly, if an enemy lands in johor to invade us, we will not be hitting that enemy in Johor. We will be hitting his capital city with all we got .. killing his expeditionary army won't stop the war. Reducing his capital to ruin will.

With what? Which capital does the SAF have the capability to ruin? (Other than KL - which is moot if the enemy is not Malaysia) We don't have ICBMs, or even MRBMs to hit any enemy capital like you so cheeringly suggest. Our planes don't have the range, our navy doesn't have the capability. Please, use your brains to examine the practical aspects before coming up with hare-brained suggestions

Should we get such offensive capability
1) Our neighbours will complain no end
2) People like you will bleat no end about the cost. As it is you have been moaning again and again about the limited offensive capability we possess already,

You moan about our limited offensive capbilities, yet now you suggest we should possess even more offensive capbilities. Which is it?

Secondly, killing all our troops in battle will force surrender. Remember that our troops are our citizens. if we fully mobilize and establish the mersing line properly, that sucks up 25% of the male population. Killing that will automatically mean that defending the rest of singapore is impossible. My belief is that it will be easier to kill the SAF troops in Johor, compared to SAF troops in BUA like woodlands.

What is it that you've been smoking? anyone with a little military knowledge would know FIBUA is the costliest kind of conventional warfare, in terms of casualties as well as in monetary terms like ammo expended. Please stop making a fool of yourself.

a) Which enemy is going to attack both singapore and Malaysia at the same time

Refer to 1941. You cannot take Singapore without coming in through the Peninsula(ie. take Malaysia first). The marine geography here precludes a large scale amphibious landing in Singapore. Like I've said there are no short to medium term enemies but you agreed that doesn't mean we shouldn't plan

b) Which enemy is going to attack both Singapore and Malaysia ONE AT A TIME

Every one, because its foolhardy to invade Singapore from the sea and the only way is to invade Malaysia and move down south like the 25th Army did, which IMO is a textbook case of an invasion of Singapore.

c) WHY isn't the SAF deployed furthur up north if the intended target was Singapore.

Because regional sensitivities and short sighted ones like you insist that we must not have that capability. As it is you're already bitching constantly about Singapore having the capability to deploy 75 km north

I will tell you why .. we hope that the Malaysians will be invaded and we stake a claim to some portion of Johor during the fighting.

Another short sighted view. If Malaysia is invaded and overrun. The next target will be us.

If you can answer questions a)-c) .. you will see no need for a mersing line.

I did, but I still do see the need

kenhor SG

To |05|

I bought my copy 2 weeks ago in JB .. just before the clamp down .. sorry .. lent it to my friends at work .. must start my anti-war movement with people around me.

I am looking for 2 other shows .. Gettysburg and Gods and Generals .. 5+ hours long of Civil war drama .. been looking in JB for damn long time .. can't find it.

The fact that our army is a conscript army and not a regular army.The thing is unlike a regular army a conscript army can only function in a defence mind set...otherwise moral is gonna be really lousy.I mean i'm sure you've been through national service....now i present this to you.You get moblized and send to fight a war when you do not agree with the reason.Will you fight?Since you do know that there is NO threat and you've got your own family. A regular soldier would gladly do it since it's his job and he is paid to do it.
You on the other hand is a conscript who's "job" is to protact your family which is not threatened.

Friend, do you know what you said is TOTALLY not true. EVERY other country which has the draft is a vigirous democracy. The soldiers listen to the officers. They listen to the generals. The generals listen to the CiC .. who is the head of the government .. who can be removed from office by losing the election.

In Singapore, you disobey an order .. you are finished. But you can't even vote. 70% of the population CAN NOT vote. So what checks and balances are there. If the leader of the country tells you to invade, you have NO CHOICE but to invade.

The people are against a few government policies at this moment.
a) lack of democracy
b) too many FT

Has the government listen to the people? So think really hard if you can truly trust a government who has absolutely no checks and balances. Only one other government in Asia has more ruthless might .. thats the North koreans .. The PAP has more power than even the Iranian clerics. Thats what I am worried about.

kenhor SG

To kanzer

as i say before, there is a difference between military cooperation and fighting a proxy war.... we have also a good military cooperation with the US.... the thais also enjoyed close working relationship with the US, but it doesn't mean that US will wage a proxy war through them. that is my point here. there is a huge gap and difference here. to wage a proxy war involves the pentagon and CIA pouring $$$ into msia or give them some benefit which they cannot refuse..... i would not assume a scenario without considering these factors. of course if there are some other factors to consider too. I would like to hear from you.

I can't tell you too much .. the infomation is not verified .. but there are stories (by my politician contacts in Malaysia) that there are very good reasons why KL is chosen as the venue for talks between North Korea and USA .. I can't go furthur that this .. use your imagination .. the wilder the imagination, the better ..

Malaysian passports can't got to one country only ... Israel .. every other country in the world is fine ...

Viper52 SG

[quote]Originally posted by kenhor:
must start my anti-war movement with people around me.

Theres a difference between being anti-war and turning the other cheek whenever you get slapped

kenhor SG

Dkhoo,

I do not think you understand the concept of MAD. It only applies if in a conflict both sides are 100% assured of destroying each other.

I think we can find a way to be 100% assured of destroying each other economically. Read my answer to one of the other forum members ..

We do not have a 100% chance of completely destroying Malaysia. We have a 0% chance of doing that. I think you overestimate our capabilities. We cannot have a strategy that relies on MAD.

Threatening Singapore or Malaysia to turn the country into Somalia will be sufficient to make both sides see the light. Countries with too much to lose will not want to risk it all.

If Singapore was next to Mongolia then maybe the Mongols will not be afraid to be knocked back to stone age.

But Malaysia wants to be developed. They want economic prosperity. The people there want a nice life. They can have the 5Cs without too much difficulty. They are living in a underpopulated, resource rich, technologically advanced, trading nation. MAD on their economy and to turn that country into Somalia will be too much to lose.

Why would an aggressor nation be deterred by the threat of injury if he could inflict death upon us in return?

Thats assuming that the aggressor is them. Suppose that for next 20 years, we do this to them, they catch up and they do it to us. How will we like it? Do onto others what you want others to do onto you.

No, we must seek victory in war if we wish to deter the enemy. An aggressor must realize that he is likely to LOSE a war with us. That is the surest and most effective form of deterrence. The only war for us to defeat the enemy, and therefore deter him and prevent war is a forward defence doctrine. It is the most humane thing to do. If the temptation of war is removed from potential aggressors, then everyone will live in peace.

Thats your opinion .. I prefer my samurai scenario. Remember this. Invasion of Malaysia for whatever "forward defence" reason is considered an act of war by the international community.

Firstly, our neighbors should and do realize that because of the conscript nature of our army, we can never be a force of aggression. We cannot annex another country. We cannot permanently capture and hold ground. We are not trained for counterinsurgency. Our neighbors only sometimes pretend to forget this for domestic political reasons. Regardless of how strong the SAF becomes, she can only be a defensive force. We cannot and therefore will not invade.

Wrong .. see my answer in an earlier thread .. our government has no checks and balances .. too risky to allow our government to have such power ..

Secondly, the SAF specifically lacks deep strategic strike capability. We do not threaten our neighbors with ballistic or cruise missiles. We have no strategic heavy bombers. We lack sea control platforms like cruisers and aircraft carriers. This means that the SAF is not a force of intimidation. We cannot use the SAF as a stick to make our neighbors do what we want.

We may not have all those, but our neighbours are even more poorly equipted .. compared to what they have ours is definately better. We have been spending 5-6% of our GDP on weapons .. for 30 years .. and our GDP is higher than all other ASEAN nations .. go figure if our neighbours feel that our weapons are purely for defensive use only.

Thirdly, our neighbors are not extending the same courtesy to us that you suggest we extend to them. They threaten us with force or deprivation of water.

Its their water.

They parade their military hardware.

Have you never attended a NDP?

They try to make us feel insecure. We do none of these things, even to the point of keeping our military strength out of the public eye. Saying that we intimidate our neighbors is the pot calling the kettle black.

Sorry, ah .. I don't share your feelings. In fact, I think 99% of Malaysians are not interested in war or military. During the Malaysia NDP last year, they rolled out their machineray .. my cousin took photos and asked me what the heck are these machines. We know what they are .. they don't. There are less warlike than you portray them to be.

In summary, I do not feel that a forward defence doctrine is at all undiplomatic or unjustified. They have nothing to fear from us and they know it. On the other hand, we have an entire nation to lose. I do not think that the residents of JB should be at all offended or afraid at our military preparations. I would not be in their position. Of course, their warmongering press ensures that the reality is quite different, but that is not our fault.

Of course, you and I can agree to disagree on this .. its just an opinion.

Incidentally, a forward defence doctrine is not just the Mersing Line. It is the idea that we will prevent the enemy from reaching Singapore. If we are attacked from the south we will strike them at sea before they reach our shores, possibly capturing some islands to deny them to the enemy and to base our forces. Of course, due to our air and naval capabilities, an attack from the sea would be extremely difficult and unlikely, so we tend to concentrate discussion on the more interesting question of attack from the land.

If you want to discuss doctrine, lets see which other nation in this world actually practiced this doctrine and kept the peace for how long.

Viper52 SG

I will tell you why .. we hope that the Malaysians will be invaded and we stake a claim to some portion of Johor during the fighting.

Another point I've almost forgotten. As your new-found friend On the Way helpfully pointed out in the previous thread on the SAF Light Tank when he vigourously defended the Mersing Line, the SAF is not built as an occupying army. Our strategy to to parry the blow and force the enemy into suing for a diplomatic solution in the shortest time possible

kenhor SG

To viper52,

Oh year .. forgot to mention that I am a christian .. I do believe in turning the other cheek.

With what? Which capital does the SAF have the capability to ruin? (Other than KL - which is moot if the enemy is not Malaysia)

Well then if the enemy can stage to Johore, it will have sufficient targets within reach. And we can stage from Brunei . or our friends in Taiwan .. so don't play dumb with me. And keep your cool.

What is it that you've been smoking? anyone with a little military knowledge would know FIBUA is the costliest kind of conventional warfare, in terms of casualties as well as in monetary terms like ammo expended. Please stop making a fool of yourself.

FIBUA is costy to BOTH the attacker and Defender. While establishing a half baked "defensive corridor" in the deep jungle and palm oil estates will be expensive to the DEFENDER. Especially if we are unfamiliar, in the dark, 100 km of line, with enemies in front, behind and a long logistical trail. Again, please be less personal in your rebuttals.

Refer to 1941. You cannot take Singapore without coming in through the Peninsula(ie. take Malaysia first). The marine geography here precludes a large scale amphibious landing in Singapore. Like I've said there are no short to medium term enemies but you agreed that doesn't mean we shouldn't plan

As I told you earlier .. Malaya was one country. Singapore was the capital in 1941 for the british forces .... you have not got any proof that a country will want to attack Malaysia and Singapore together.

Every one, because its foolhardy to invade Singapore from the sea and the only way is to invade Malaysia and move down south like the 25th Army did, which IMO is a textbook case of an invasion of Singapore.

So you are living in 1941 is it? If I want to attack Malaysia, i will take them from KL , not Kota Baharu. And at the same time, I will not BOTHER with dealing with them ONE AT A TIME .. I WILL HAVE TO ENGAGE BOTH AT THE SAME TIME .. only a fool (or a person stuck in 1941 tactics) will employ a piecemeal tactic to first finish off Malaysia and then go to Singapore ..

Because regional sensitivities and short sighted ones like you insist that we must not have that capability. As it is you're already @&%^^ing constantly about Singapore having the capability to deploy 75 km north

I am craping about the fact that we are using the malaysians as a body shield just to save ourselves .. not to help them if they are invaded. If they are invaded and we just form a line 100km to the north, does that help them in any way?

Another short sighted view. If Malaysia is invaded and overrun. The next target will be us.

Yeah right .. then there is more reasons to fight the enemy as a team rather than forming a "security cordon"

Ok .. tempers are flaring .. I will agree to disagree here .. lets just both cool off for a while and resume next week. I got to go overseas for an assignment.

« Previous Page Next Page »