In your opinion what part of the current Total Defence policy and its strategies of Deterrence and Forward Defence do you think needs changing? How would a policy designed by you look like?
Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) update
- Thread starter Ding
- Start date
Those F-16s have to land on airfields that are within artillery range.
Those F-16s can land in many places on the island apart from the home air-bases which are the most `hardened' and well-protected in the whole of SEA and can be repaired easily; plus foriegn military aircraft(read US) parked there as well... In which case, this is a moot point since the pre-emptive doctrine would would not allow artillery to come within any range at the onset of conflict as well as a moot discussion point given this thread.
lol, abit off topic here.
I notice that when ever we bring in "someone whom have F16s" it also somehow make it related to "someone whom have most F16s". These guys never realize the friendship is limited and mostly for defensive not offensive. And even it is defensive, it has its limitations and regulations.
Anyway... there will be no war between them but is always possible for little conflicts to happen.
The presumption of war would mean the initiation of hostilities by parties other than Malaysia. In which case it would be a hard sell to another country that it should allow its forces to be held ransom to the actions of said party. The pre-emptive doctrine also presumes that said party's forces will be successful. Remember 1974?
What would be a moot point for discussion is not for you to decide. You are at leisure not to participate. BTW, this is not a discussion. It is an observation. All airfields of said party are within artillery range as is its entire territory.
The point I am making is that it is not necessary to match a potential adversary weapon type for weapon type in order to achieve military parity.
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
There are`nt many countries which can directly send forces in large numbers over to
Singapore. And Im talking about Malaysia per se.
Im curious and flattered that you think the pre-emptive doctrine presumes victory. For me and my mates in our respective units, it would be unthinkable to presume something like that in war or any conflict. Maybe, we tweaked that doctine a bit if what you say is true. There is a whole spectrum of strategies at play. Im pretty much sure that is the case on the other side of the straits as well. Techniques evolve very fast. They`re very interesting but puzzling at times and tiresome to operationalise sometimes.
You are absolutely right.If you are to station artillery( even if the latter have a range of 1 km),they will be within range of Singapore since we share borders.Vice-versa.
In any case, there are both advantages and disadvantages given the current geo-strategic location of the two countries. For one thing; you just can`t lob shells with artillery without massive deployment of troops on your side in preparation for a massive invasion from Singapore. You`ve got to pull troops from all over the peninsula. So that kills the sneaky element. You can be sure the jets are already in the air to suppress such audacious equipments and troops are already on other side of the straits. The jets don`t have to land back at the same bases. In fact, they can land all over Singapore. Also, you can end up shelling another country`s equipment at our bases. It`s not for nothing that Singapore invited the US to set up the western pacific logistic base here. There are many others as well.
We are so close that such sneaky attacks are difficult. Singapore, for example, cannot hide our frequent mobilization of troops; let alone full mobilization. I have nothing to say about the ransom part. But Singapore`s foreign policy does hedge a lot on military prowess; a crutch for our small size. Lucky you for being so big
It has irritated certain countries at times when they cannot get thier way. Oh well, we`ve got used to that. That`s politics. People to people ties are excellent. That`s very potent observation Weasel. The RSAF will defend Malaysian skies in case the RMAF`s net falls through. That`s an undeniable fact. Some would say Malaysia`s southern frontier is kept safe by the presence of the RSAF. Not sure about the army coming over though but I hardly think Singapore will tolerate an invasion of Malaysia.
Yeah, saber rattling is one thing. War is another. Malaysian troops train with their Singapore counterparts regularly. They are a lot friendlier than politicians on both side of the straits. We get along very well. Better than the internet heh. I think that the possibility of going to war is the last thing on our minds. It always help to prepare though.
You mentioned about our detection systems. Humbly, I think they`re the most sophisticated in SEA. And we`re are currently upgrading/improving them. There are certain programs running con-currently; UAVs like you say and others. They look very promising. For example, I don`t think we`ll see the E-2Cs Hawk-eyes for 'much..much' longer. Cheers.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Would like to add some info regarding the 2 OPVs.
If i recall correctly, they both are now assigned to a naval base at Sabah. The base is not new but renovated. They were there to replace 2 unknown old OPVs. News was from Bernama. Hope someone can compile and give a clear summary
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Article:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Teluk Sepanggar is a new base. It is the HQ for Naval Region 2 (Markas Wilayah II) and home for the submarine corp. KD Kedah and KD Pahang replace KD Marikh and KD Musytari in the RMN's orbat but AFAIK the older vessels were never homeported in PLKK (Pengkalan Laut Kota Kinabalu) or Labuan for that matter.Would like to add some info regarding the 2 OPVs.
If i recall correctly, they both are now assigned to a naval base at Sabah. The base is not new but renovated. They were there to replace 2 unknown old OPVs. News was from Bernama. Hope someone can compile and give a clear summary
I have often wondered why the combined duties of the MMEA were not entrusted to the PDRM's Cawangan Marin. Was there really a need to create a new agency?
Yes... same confuse here. I mean, why not just combine them to form something like coast guard and handle all those jobs?
Anyone how and why MMEA started?
The MMEA is our coast guard and it has inherited the duties formerly assigned to the separate law enforcement agencies on maritime matters.
What I was asking was why the GOM didn't just expand the duties and assets of an existing government agency (i.e. the PDRM's Cawangan Marin) instead of creating the MMEA. Afterall, the PDRM is already a national agency and by default so are its sub-sections.
The situation might be different in the United States, for instance, where AFAIK a national police force like Malaysia's does not exist. This might not be the best example as the FBI does come to mind.
Yes, you are correct.
Tasman, you are from Hobart? Just slightly off-topic but I have always thought the Catamarans you guys make over there would a great addition to our navy's transport fleet. Something that could transport combat troops and equipment quickly between East and West Malaysia. Within the "evolution of a single darkness" if necessary.
Last edited: