Can singapore hold its own?

Status
Not open for further replies.

LazerLordz

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
gf0012-aust said:
I'd probably have to disagree with that. ;)

The Singaporeans are basically running weasel packages - and at the ewarfare level they have a far more comprehensive integrated capability.

They have extensive and long standing tech transfer with the israelis, and a lot of work was done on their F-16's post US receipt.

The EW suites are comparable to the F-16I Sufas. Elisra PAWS II.

Wild Weasel configurations with the ability to do minor vectoring for each other. The counter-strike capability of the PAWS is somewhat like an autonomous self-defense mechanism .

My take.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Snayke said:
Hell, it doesn't seem their population limits their military much. I think their air force is just as capable or more than Australia's and it's infantry sure outnumbers ours even though our population is 5 times bigger.
Australia had over 500,000 troops in uniform during WW2, with a population of only 7 million, without conscription. Kind of puts into perspective what we COULD do if necessary with a population of 20 million nowadays...

Their Air Force is probably slightly ahead of the RAAF at present thanks to their AWACS and KC-135 AAR's. By 2010 the difference may swing back a bit... The RAN is certainly more capable than RSN.

But who cares about pi**ing contests? Singapore and Australia are great allies, almost as strong as Australia and NZ. In any regional conflict I'd rate Singapore as a "slightly" more staunch ally of Australia's (but followed closely by Malaysia) ahead of anyone else.
 

LazerLordz

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
Aussie Digger said:
Australia had over 500,000 troops in uniform during WW2, with a population of only 7 million, without conscription. Kind of puts into perspective what we COULD do if necessary with a population of 20 million nowadays...

Their Air Force is probably slightly ahead of the RAAF at present thanks to their AWACS and KC-135 AAR's. By 2010 the difference may swing back a bit... The RAN is certainly more capable than RSN.

But who cares about pi**ing contests? Singapore and Australia are great allies, almost as strong as Australia and NZ. In any regional conflict I'd rate Singapore as a "slightly" more staunch ally of Australia's (but followed closely by Malaysia) ahead of anyone else.
I agree. What's with the comparisons? It's not as if we are going to slug it out one day.

The Aussies are great neighbours and allies and we share many common goals in South East Asia. Therefore, this is getting irrelevant.
 

Big-E

Banned Member
LazerLordz said:
I agree. What's with the comparisons? It's not as if we are going to slug it out one day.

The Aussies are great neighbours and allies and we share many common goals in South East Asia. Therefore, this is getting irrelevant.
If you want to compare numbers do it with the PLA... no comparison.:shudder
 

Markus40

New Member
Re: Singapores Defensive Posture in Asia.

Yes, the Singapore Armed services are well armed and well trained. There is no gaps in their defensive and offensive abilities. However if someone wanted to take Singapore over seriously for a sustained period of time coming from the mainland North, then i would have to say the odds are not looking good. Even if the American and Asia Pac allies were to call in and pull their weight behind the defence of Singapore it is still doubtful they would win.

No country or countries for that matter are going to pour billions of dollars into a war effort with Singapore to fight off a large enemy like China or Even Indonesia. This in it self would tear down the economies of the supporting countries and its very doubtful anyone in their right mind will contine to do so unless of course Singapore was oil rich like Iraq.

It is good that Malaysia is to the South of them and a country allied to the west, and a good launch base for operations but it would turn it into an armed camp. Singapore is an important topic as they do control 1/3 of all trade shipping around the world, and is rather wealthy as well. Singapore is an Island and it wouldnt take much to turn it over to the enemy. Perish the thought.
 

long live usa

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #67
Big-E said:
If you want to compare numbers do it with the PLA... no comparison.:shudder
true comparing australia and PRC is pretty obviously one sided,but the chances of relations becoming sour is very nil,and PRC having naval forces to carry out succesful atack also nil
 

Markus40

New Member
Aussie Digger- Can you tell me what the proceedures are when the Australian Army load their LAV into a C130H. Do they need to lower the suspension and if so what is invloved with that. Cheers.





Aussie Digger said:
Australia had over 500,000 troops in uniform during WW2, with a population of only 7 million, without conscription. Kind of puts into perspective what we COULD do if necessary with a population of 20 million nowadays...

Their Air Force is probably slightly ahead of the RAAF at present thanks to their AWACS and KC-135 AAR's. By 2010 the difference may swing back a bit... The RAN is certainly more capable than RSN.

But who cares about pi**ing contests? Singapore and Australia are great allies, almost as strong as Australia and NZ. In any regional conflict I'd rate Singapore as a "slightly" more staunch ally of Australia's (but followed closely by Malaysia) ahead of anyone else.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Markus40 said:
No country or countries for that matter are going to pour billions of dollars into a war effort with Singapore to fight off a large enemy like China or Even Indonesia. This in it self would tear down the economies of the supporting countries and its very doubtful anyone in their right mind will contine to do so unless of course Singapore was oil rich like Iraq.
Most allied nations would probably see that an aggressive neighbor is an immediate threat to their national security as well. I cant imagine Canberra sitting back and watching China or especially Indonesia take Singapore, no matter the cost. If we didn’t fight them in Singapore we might be fighting them in the Timor Sea minus one powerful ally. There doesn’t always have to be economic gain for a nation to declare war. look at the yanks in WW2.
 

Big-E

Banned Member
Ozzy Blizzard said:
There doesn’t always have to be economic gain for a nation to declare war. look at the yanks in WW2.
Look at the yanks in the Gulf, we aren't making a dime off that sucker.:cowboy
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Big-E said:
Look at the yanks in the Gulf, we aren't making a dime off that sucker.:cowboy
my point exactly (although some yanks may be making money). Even if Iraq has massive oil rescources it hasn't been anexed by the US. And if you believe the conspiracy theories and the real intention was to break OPEC and relieve oil prices, that hasn't happened either. I cant think of one conflict scince the colonial days that was started with an overall objective of gaining economic resources (ok the japs in the pacific and china in 1937 & 41 but that was a late colonial war). The only country in the last 100 years that has made money from a war was the yanks in WW2, and that wasn't due to conquering economic resources, but the massive ecoomic growth caused by mobilization in an economy with a lot of slak in it. Most conflicts are either politicaly, ideologically or racially driven and the economic gains in defending a nation are not the main factor. i think the ANZUS nations alone would poor billions of dollars into defending singapore, and they probably wouldnt see any of it back!
 

Zaphael

New Member
Yeap. We were once under the occupation of Japanese Expeditionary forces back in WW2. Back then, we were still a crown colony of England, and didn't really have a say in our defence policies. We assumed that our colonial masters would protect us. Well, they tried.

It was unfortunate though, that despite the best intelligence made available to the Brits then, they still felt that Singapore would not be attacked, and Imperial Japan would not dare. They felt that Singapore was an impregnable fortress.

Well, we all know how that sad story ended. British, Australian, and NZ forces surrendered to a smaller but more fiercesome and well trained Japanese army. Who could blame them? It was not their country to die for. It was mostly the local militias that fought to the last man.

It was a hard lesson to learn. That defence was in our own hands. The older generation of Singaporeans still remember the cruel treatment by the Japanese soldiers and the feared kempeitai. Rapes, massacres and starvation. The cost of losing a war is simply too great.

We are a small country, in a vulnerable position. Lack of depth, lack of resources. Yet we are one of the world's busiest port and trading centre. To lose another war where we are now, would probably destroy us altogether this time. With a small population, we have a small army, air force and navy. The only way we can form an effective deterrent is with a techonologically superior, well trained, and determined fighting force.

Technology as a force multiplier is evident throughout the entire SAF force structure. From the F-16C/D's electronic warfare systems, integrated battle command and control infrastructure, down to our logistics management systems.

The next step we are moving into would be the use of unmanned combat vehicles, in the air, land and sea, to further supplement our combat forces.

In short, Singapore takes no chances in our defence purchases and policies. The equipment we buy, must be able to fit in, and contribute significantly to our defence. We have only ONE chance at defending ourselves against any aggressor, and we cannot fail.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Ramjetmissile said:
what has it gonna do with "Can singapore hold its own???" its about the history of singapore:)
You've lost me a bit here. What are you trying to say?
 

Big-E

Banned Member
Ramjetmissile said:
what has it gonna do with "Can singapore hold its own???" its about the history of singapore:)
B/c history often repeats itself except this time Singapore learned her lesson.
 

long live usa

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #78
the reason singapore fell was because the british did think she could not fall and because the massive and well placed artillery they had there was meant to stop an japanese atack from the sea,no one ever thought the japanese could atack through the dense jungle,also japanese air power had knocked out the citys pumping facilities and also the indian units were poorly trained,and many of the troops had very low morale because of the japanese barrage little did they know the japanese commander(yamashita)was running low on ammunition he did not let up his fire or the british may sense it and fight harder instead he kept up his fire and the british surrendered on february 15 1942
 

Snayke

New Member
Also because the units there had half-assed equipment, or so I've heard. All the "good stuff" was in Europe.
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
Lead from the front

Not to mention as was often the case the British CO was a total moron, he wouldn't listen to his advisers, didn't place enough anti invasion devices on the beach as it would "demoralise the natives", real political appointee as near as I can figure, and he just assisted by r**ting it up, they could of fought on also, espescially with the gift of hindsight many of them would of to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top