Singapore plans multiple rocket launcher, IFV acquisitions

[kato]

That's a slooooowwww train . . . . . Given a clear road, I could cycle from one end of Singapore to the other in that time.

Indeed. Even commuter trains here in Europe do 100+ km distance in that time in some areas

Singapore is almost exactly the size of Berlin, with maybe 20% more population. Takes about 75-90 minutes to get from one end of Berlin to the other.

The TGV Paris-Lille does 8 times the distance in 1 hour 8 minutes.

And Transrapid could get you from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur (twice Paris-Lille) in the same 68 minutes. If you invested those pesky $15 billion for the tracks first, of course.

 

[Red]

In the case of Singapore which has only tube artillery, the M270 will be a quantum boost to its capabilities esp when it has already a well-established military network.

The current artillery systems from forward observers to SPHs, howitzers, etc are already very tightly networked and digitized. So, if one misses, another one can fire almost instantly.


A video from 2003;

mms://media.mindef.gov.sg/army/21SA_hi.asf

I wonder if the SAF would undertake to make a Primus 2 with a 52 cal gun now that she is looking at MLRs systems. The current 52 cal FH2000s are solid guns but I like more mobility. Afterall, they would not call the 1st system, Primus 1 no?

The Primus 1 is designed smaller than other SPHs systems so that she is small and light weight enough to move around in the jungle, hide and follow armoured columns. A bigger SPH system would probably have stick to the main roads though SEA is getting more accesible and modern as time goes on.

 

[Manfred2]

Thank you Gary, that looks like a very good ADA situation for Songapore.

Now, I might have given a false impression when I was talking about fixed defenses. In the modern world, it is not bunkers and super-heavy artillery that qualify as fortifications. Today, it is mines, "infernal gardens" backed up by units that can observe them and bring fire down on anyone trying to clear them.

For an island, that means naval mines.

I did not notice a thread on this in the Naval section. Does Singapore have mine-layers and sweepers, or a significant store of those weapons?

 

[gary1910]

Thank you Gary, that looks like a very good ADA situation for Songapore.

Now, I might have given a false impression when I was talking about fixed defenses. In the modern world, it is not bunkers and super-heavy artillery that qualify as fortifications. Today, it is mines, "infernal gardens" backed up by units that can observe them and bring fire down on anyone trying to clear them.

For an island, that means naval mines.

I did not notice a thread on this in the Naval section. Does Singapore have mine-layers and sweepers, or a significant store of those weapons?

SG does have 4 modern Swedish Landsort MCMV. As for naval mines , not sure whether we have any in storage.

Other equipment that are useful for mine clearing are Israeli Protector Unmanned Surface Vessel(USV) and Spartan USV, joint project between USN, France and SG, Remus unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV) etc.

Anyway I doubt that we will be mining our waters as it is an impt int'l sea lane, not only it is impt to SG that it is clear of mines, other nations in Asia will not take it kindly as well.

Here some reading for you, though it is bit outdated:

http://navyleag.customer.netspace.net.au/fc_07ros.htm

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Manfred2]

the very small possibility of a chinese incursion into SE Asia (possibly via Burma or through Vietnam as they tried to do in 1979). There is also the build-up of Indian forces which may lead to potential gunboat diplomacy.

Ah, now that makes sense; The rich guy in the neighborhood steps up and builds a force that can help his neighbors keep the bad-guys out. Thank you!

So... what is Singapore's attitude toward the muslim terrorists, based in Malaya, who are attacking southern Thailand?

 

[funtz]

These systems are required by any armed force to complete the basic inventory

This might be a bit off the topic, having been to Singapore a lot of times, does Singapore has the land required to carry out live firing testing of these systems at near their maximum ranges and to carry out military coordination exercises between their armed forces.

if no then which countries do they tie up with for the excercises and practice.

 

[Schumacher]

.............. that threat has been replaced by the very small possibility of a chinese incursion into SE Asia (possibly via Burma or through Vietnam as they tried to do in 1979). There is also the build-up of Indian forces which may lead to potential gunboat diplomacy.

This is a wrong understanding of the 79 Chinese attack on Vietnam. The attack was to 'punish' Vietnam for invading Cambodia. According to MM Lee in one of his interviews, that stopped the domino from further falling from Thailand all the way down to S'pore.

 

[Schumacher]

These systems are required by any armed force to complete the basic inventory
This might be a bit off the topic, having been to Singapore a lot of times, does Singapore has the land required to carry out live firing testing of these systems at near their maximum ranges and to carry out military coordination exercises between their armed forces.
if no then which countries do they tie up with for the excercises and practice.

Australia, NZ, Taiwan, Thailand, Brunei, South Africa, US, France. S'pore has various levels of access to these countries' facilities for joint exercises as well as their own trainings.

 

[gary1910]

These systems are required by any armed force to complete the basic inventory
This might be a bit off the topic, having been to Singapore a lot of times, does Singapore has the land required to carry out live firing testing of these systems at near their maximum ranges and to carry out military coordination exercises between their armed forces.
if no then which countries do they tie up with for the excercises and practice.

Arty live firing are conducted in Taiwan(at least used to be, not sure now), New Zealand and India.

Large scale exe from Bde to Div level in Australia and perhaps India in the future.

Smaller scale exe are conducted locally as well as in Thailand, Brunei(Jungle training), India and perhaps Indonesia in the future.

Basic Flying School in Australia and Advanced pilot training in France, some trainess are also sent to NATO Flying Training School in Canada.

There are training detacment for F-16, Chinook and Apaches in US.

All the above are with bilateral agreement with the nation concern.

In 2005, SAF even conducted unilateral exe in US ,and just this month, bilateral exe with US army in Fort Wainwright, Alaska.

Here are some info abt recent exe in Alaska:

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=6906884

 

[Investigator]

[Comments deleted.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[gary1910]

The first post included the option of wheeled Infantry Fighting Vehicles I thought various people thought they were of little value? From the limited amount of Singapore I saw on a stopover at Changi airport, it seems as though the terrain would fit the wheeled option.

Due to our "Forward defence" doctrine, atm all the AFVs that are meant for that role are tracked in view of the terrain that they may encounter.

For operation within SG, People's Defence Force( PDF) and the Field Defence Sqn for airbases are using the 4x4 wheeled V-200s.

But it seem that there are great changes to SAF not only in 3G(NCW) revolution but based on the report, there is also apparent changes structurally of some those "Forward Defence" Div.

The Bde of wheeled IFV that they are looking at as well as the training over in Alaska seem to suggest that SAF is preparing for a wheeled IFV mechanised Bde specialising in Urban warfare in towns and cities similar to US Stryker Bde.

 

[Chino]

Singapore defensive doctrine is borne out of WW2. The defence of Singapore failed in 1942 due to the inability of the British Army to stop the Japanese in Malaya. Accordingly, the defence doctrine is to defend the island as far forward as it possibly can. The island itself, is not really defensible from a ground attack.

Actually the Brits invented Forward Defense for WW2. They may not have called it "Forward Defence" but such was the nature of their plan.

We didn't invent it. But it is a logical plan whose merits are obvious then as it is now. We are a small island, if enemy lands, we will pay dearly.

The Brits fully expected the Japs to be coming from the North by early 1940's and that's why the bulk of the Brit/Indian/Aussie forces were in Malaysia.

They fully appreciated the need to stop the japs in Malaysia. (In fact, they were there at the Kota Bahru beach and nearly wiped out the initial Jap landing force.) The Brits fully understood that once the Japs come into Singapore all it lost.

The last ditch line was in Johore where the Aussies - a supposedly formidable force - would hold, should all else fail.

That the Allies failed to stop the Japs in Malaysia merely tells us that no plan/doctrine is failsafe. A superbly-led, well-equipped and determined enemy can still disrupt your best-laid defence plans once your initiative is lost.

Of course to those unfamiliar to the history ... not only were the Allies were poorly-equipped in nearly every aspect compared to the japs, many horrendous mistakes were made by the Allies.

The Jap advance down the Malay Peninsula equals the German blitzkreig and ended in the biggest single defeat for Great Britain ever.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Chino]

That's not accurate. The british defensive deployments was less forward and more like trying to cover everywhere.

How is it not accurate?

When it was identified the invasion is coming from the North, the Brits went up to Malaysia to stop them in earnest. In fact, they even wanted to invade Thailand (Ops Matador) much earlier to prevent just such a Jap landing which they predicted.

If this isn't "Forward Defence" thinking on their part, I don't know what is.

I am a Singaporean, too, but it is folly to think that we invented everything and the Brits nothing. They lost not because they were hopelessly crap. They lost because the Japs were just so much better.

...

In essence, what I meant by Forward Defence already being the policy in WW2 is that the Brits recognised that it will be very difficult to fight an enemy already on Singapore soil - the island is too small and does not permit defence in depth.

If such a situation occurs - as it did in WW2 - there will essentially be no front line or rear.

To risk further annoying you - isn't our current defence deployment also "cover everywhere"?

What if the attack come from elsewhere - say the South?

Would we still activate "Forward Defence" and go North into Malaysia anyway?

 

[DavidDCM]

I don't think so, because that would force Malaysia into joining the conflict, as an enemy of Singapore, and that would definately not be what Singapore wants. Might be an interesting topic in the Strategy and Tactics Forum, I think.

 

[swerve]

...I am a Singaporean, too, but it is folly to think that we invented everything and the Brits nothing. They lost not because they were hopelessly crap. They lost because the Japs were just so much better.
...

The British forces had a very poor commander (Weasel's right about how pathetic Percival was), & the misfortune to be facing a very able Japanese general. I've seen speculation about what would have happened if Yamashita & Homma had swapped places, so Yamashita commanded the Japanese invasion of the Philippines. The general opinion seems to be that the Japanese would still have won both campaigns, but the Philippines would now be remembered as the lightning victory.

Interesting discussion in the Straits Times some years ago. Worth looking through the letters linked to.

http://ourstory.asia1.com.sg/war/headline/church.html

I

 

[Chino]

The British forces had a very poor commander (Weasel's right about how pathetic Percival was), & the misfortune to be facing a very able Japanese general.http://ourstory.asia1.com.sg/war/headline/church.html

Weasel's original post in question implied that SG formulated our current "Forward Defence" doctrine out of the Brit's failure to stop the Japs in Malaya.

My contention is that the Brits' defence in WW2 was essentially "Forward Defence" doctrine in action. Brilliant as we may think ourselves to be, we didn't invent this doctrine.

...

Agreed...There is no doubt Percival was a poor commander compared to Yamashita - one of Japan's ablest.

However, a more recent book like "Singapore Burning" by Colin Smith begins to take a more broad-view of Percival failure. He stops short of exonerating him - that Percival is a weak commander, indecisive, etc is beyond a shadow of a doubt.

But the book examines some of the problems facing him that Yamashita was (unfortunately) free of.

Not my own views, but that of the author:

• Being the attacker, Yamashita held the initiative and never lost it. He decided every move and the Brits had to react accordingly.

• No fault of Percival, Allied forces were not as well-equipped as the Japs. In fact, Percival had long before asked for planes and other assets that he never received.

• Again not his fault, many Allied units were green whereas the Japs were seasoned troops from China.

Furthermore...

• The Japs were a determined homogenous force, the Allies were an uneven patchwork of Brit, Aussies, Indians and local troops all of varying quality. Some Brit, Indian, Aussie units were excellent including a Malay platoon under Adnan. But some others broke and ran sometimes before a shot is fired. An airbase was abandoned even before the enemy approached.

• Some commanders disobeyed Percival and acted on their own initiative. A Royal Navy commander while persuing Jap navy decided not to inform SG HQ command his flotilla was in serious trouble, One Aussie commander shifted his forces during the defence of Singapore opening a gap.

...

The Allies were bad, but they were not hopelessly so. There were excellent troops who gave a very good account of themselves despite the odds. And many heroic sacrifices.

Cowardice and insurbodination by certain units or individuals cannot be blamed on Percival.

Brit intel was mostly good. They knew Jap will land in Thailand. Brit recce planes spotted the Jap armada etc etc. But the follow-up action wasn't so hot.

Against a lesser enemy, these mistakes may not have guaranteed defeat.

But they were fighting against some of the best and most seasoned troops in WW2 under one of the best field commander.

 

[Chino]

Interesting discussion in the Straits Times some years ago. Worth looking through the letters linked to.

http://ourstory.asia1.com.sg/war/headline/church.html

I

Just read the link.

From the website:

"The concept of forward defence was propounded as early as 1918, even before the idea of the Singapore naval base came up."

So, "Forward Defence" is older than I thought.

Further...

"The book cited a War Office note sent to Churchill which stated categorically that "effective protection from landward attack can only be given by holding the Peninsula in northern Johor or beyond."

"The backdoor to Singapore could only be bolted by holding the hinterland ... by in-depth defence of Johor and the Malay Peninsula," said the book.