Can singapore hold its own?

[Mr Ignorant]

There is no basis to Aghra's claims on the relationship between the PAP and the DAP. It is how someone reads into it, that which counts.

There is a rather disconcerting ignorance about the roles played by Lee Kuan Yew and Tunku Abdul Rahman, especially leading up to 1965, on the history of Malaysia-Singapore relations. To put it mildly, Aghra's point of reference is Bangsar in Kuala Lumpur, when the PAP successfully campaigned and put up C Devan Nair's candidacy to the Dewan Negara. The MCA, at the time were PAP's immediate rivals in Malaysian politics, and whatever interpretation was offered on this, the historical turnabout point was Bangsar.

Tunku Abdul Rahman took a very poor view of Lee Kuan Yew's policticking in Malaya, within the then Alliance, and Singapore's removal/ejection from the Federation was anything less but cordial. It was vociferous on both sides, and the PAP was relegated to its own natural confines in Singapore. C Devan Nair remained until 1969, when a new successor, the DAP as we now know it, was taken over and helmed by Lim Kit Siang. In this sense the DAP is entirely a new organisation from the ground up, but as time has it, the DAP placed a maxim on its independence from the PAP, and to this day, I belief does not hold any reverence or links to the PAP or Lee Kuan Yew.

That was Agra's initial contention on the "Sister Party Aspect", but I hold and rightly so, no political party in Malaysia, in the opposition or otherwise holds or maintains any regard for Singaporean politics or its Leaders. Lim Kit Siang in his own right, has proven to be a formidable politician campaigning under greater stresses than Lee Kuan Yew, so I am somewhat sceptical on Aghra's claims that the DAP is somehow an irrelevant offshoot of the PAP and its senior politicians in Singapore.

What I find revealing is the constant intrusive comments on neighbours across the straits. The issue of the bridge and the sand being one of contention and Lee Kuan Yew's continued interest in Malaysia. Truly for the other side in Singapore, the "water has not passed under the bridge". It may perhaps be that one day, 60 years from now, when those water treaties are due to expire, Singapore will be an adjunct to Johor and not an equal part of Malaysia, when first achieved in 1963. And that seems to be the underlying discussion on this thread.

As a Malaysian, I think Aghra's views although novel, take on a flight of fancy at times, and as Chino points out, relations with Malaysia are sometimes lukewarm, but this is normal for both countries experiencing its peak and troughs.

As Renjer and I have pointed out, Malaysia's concerns lie not across the Johor causeways, but in Indonesia and the Phillipines. A naval base is planned for Semporna, and the needs of 25 million people come before the needs of Singapore.

Mr Ignorant

 

[gf0012-aust]

Note my prev request.

If people cannot read and pay attention to Admin requests, then threads get closed.

Thread now closed.

Can we please restrict definitions of political constructs to a different thread fellas?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thread re-opened. Please remember to stay within the parameters of the topic and not diverge too far into the political.

 

[paskal]

just wanna thankyou

gf-0012 aust.
by the way thanks for the picture of the malaysian "TAMING SARI"
i need that pretty badly because of an assignment im doing.
is the thread that[can malaysian holds it self] close forever or just for a moment?

 

[gf0012-aust]

gf-0012 aust.
by the way thanks for the picture of the malaysian "TAMING SARI"
i need that pretty badly because of an assignment im doing.

glad to be of help

is the thread that[can malaysian holds it self] close forever or just for a moment?

the thread is closed pending a decision by Web and the rest of the Mods. When we close a thread it goes up for internal debate within the Mod and Admin group re whether it stays closed or re-opened.

The decision is never made by one person.

 

[erich hartman]

too small.

MODERATOR COMMENT

Strike 1 to you on the pointless one-liner rubbish.

I refer you to Rule 2 of the following:-

http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

Read them, learn them

 

[Incognito129]

Not necessarily. Singapore can render blind deaf and dumb any combination of her neighbours comms and ewarfare systems. That puts her on a more even footing, and cuts down the engagement options for any attacker.

Singapores relationship with Israel shows in the sense that her force structure and procurement recognises that she can't win any war of attrition. She has to dislocate, decapitate and dismember her enemies capacity to wage modern warfare. Her entire force structure reflects that.

On another note, I'm unaware of any of her neighbours having ground penetrators - and any notional enemy will need them if they think that its a done deal.

They are technologically superior to any potential enemy, but I seriously doubt they have the capability of eliminating an entire military's offensive capability.

 

[Chino]

They are technologically superior to any potential enemy, but I seriously doubt they have the capability of eliminating an entire military's offensive capability.

I think he was talking about electronic warfare and of SAF targeting enemy's intel and other detection, communication networks and assets.

 

[Mr Ignorant]

Sun Tzu said:

A superior leader who calculates
the distance or proximity of dangers
and obstructions

and move with confidence anywhere in
his environment, is on the path to victory.

First, I would like to express my concern with the MODERATING in this forum. The Malaysian thread was closed, giving no reason whatsoever.

HOW ARE FORUMMERS EXPECTED TO CONTRIBUTE TO QUALITY DISCUSSION IF BOTH THESE THREADS ARE CONTINOUSLY INTERRUPTED BY WALTER MITTY BEHAVIOUR?

ANyway,

Hey there Chino, c u got back already with a few quick responses.

I personally think that Malaya is fairly difficult terrain to wage war in. Fair enough, there are certain highways that could be used, but by drawing on the Japanese invasion in WW2 seems to me a bit far fetched. Malaysian Geography is not a stroll in the park, and the 90% of the terrain excludes the use of armour.

And I doubt it if many here have ventured or seen primary forests. Actions take place in close quarters, and a distance of 10 metres is already too generous.

MAF skillsets are fairly comprehensive. In defence of Malaysia, the MAF will fight tooth and nail on their soil. In all fairness, any discussion on invasion will have to account for comparisons with the Vietnam War.

However, any invasion would have to be fairly large scale, and horribly swift in destroying the opposing forces - coupled to the fact that those Forces are modern and capable, I doubt any sweeping manouevres, flanking movement, or even guerilla tactics will work in Malaya. The problem is further compounded by issues of time, attrition and built up urban areas, which are a threat to Modern Armed Divisions.

Yes Kuala Lumpur is Urban, but KL, if you have travelled there is skirted by secondary and sometimes primary forests on hilly and difficult terrain. Several divisions can be pinned down in any heavily built up areas, let alone engage in "conventional warfare".

 

[paskal]

we should all stick to the question here.[can singapore hold itself]

well if you ask me, ill say yes but to certain army only.
they got a superior force in this region but they just dont have the ground.
if an enemy like indonesia attcks singapore we all must admit that singappore will be given a huge blow especially if it strucks the city.
how long do you thing a jet at the johor straits can reach the singapore city...
i think i will only take seconds.
but that will only happen if malaysia play dumb that will not probaly occur.


once that happens singapore will surely strike back with their f-16's.indonesia will take multiple hits of bombing in many areas.They will be force to surrender.
theres a but here, just imagine if all singapore jets were destroyed by indonesians anti air weapons what will happen next?

i think if in these year i think singapore can win but they will suffer some injury[thats war its normal] .

but in the future maybe not especially one's the indonesians goverment is negotiating to buy around 44 su-30 mki aircarfts .

once that happens i dont think singapore f-16;s or even the f-15 can defeat the su-30 in air combat.

aground invasion is the last that will happen especially when singapore only has 34000+ conscripts compared to indonesians army.The singapore goverment will never deploy their ns men especially when it is a long war.

its like 34000 fighting 240,000,000 including indonesians citizen.
The only hope is the SAF.without that singapore is in hot soup.

END.

 

[Chino]

I personally think that Malaya is fairly difficult terrain to wage war in. Fair enough, there are certain highways that could be used, but by drawing on the Japanese invasion in WW2 seems to me a bit far fetched. Malaysian Geography is not a stroll in the park, and the 90% of the terrain excludes the use of armour.

I don't remember saying anything was easy.

And why is drawing on the Japanese experience far fetched?

90% of the terrain excludes the use of armour? So armour shouldn't go to those terrain. That's not how armour would be used in an invasion.

Forget about the images of armour slogging it out with infantry inside the forest.

Like I said, the main armoured force would have the capture of roads, bridges, and cities as their objectives. Any MAF troops hiding in the forest will be dealt with by infantry mopping up.

And I doubt it if many here have ventured or seen primary forests. Actions take place in close quarters, and a distance of 10 metres is already too generous.

I have, probably more times than you. In Thailand, Peninsula Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak. Plus, I was an infantryman, and I have an unexplainable love for forests and jungles.

There's no comparison betweeen a primary forest and a secondary forest. But neither one is a picnic as the undergrowth in a secondary forest is very thick.

MAF skillsets are fairly comprehensive. In defence of Malaysia, the MAF will fight tooth and nail on their soil. In all fairness, any discussion on invasion will have to account for comparisons with the Vietnam War.

Disagree. The actions of the Vietnam War were COIN in nature and the US weren't driving to capture a city like they did in Iraq. Mostly, they were out hunting enemy troops in the jungles and had no other objectives other than to kill enemy troops. That'a why the body count was so important.

Whereas an invasion of the nature we are talking about, the objective goes beyong just racking up kills.

However, any invasion would have to be fairly large scale, and horribly swift in destroying the opposing forces - coupled to the fact that those Forces are modern and capable, I doubt any sweeping manouevres, flanking movement, or even guerilla tactics will work in Malaya. The problem is further compounded by issues of time, attrition and built up urban areas, which are a threat to Modern Armed Divisions.

Yes Kuala Lumpur is Urban, but KL, if you have travelled there is skirted by secondary and sometimes primary forests on hilly and difficult terrain. Several divisions can be pinned down in any heavily built up areas, let alone engage in "conventional warfare".

I think I know Malaysia quite well. I go to KL often, trek in Taman Negara, diving/snorkelling in nearly all its outlying islands including Perhentian and Redang. I have also trekked in the jungles of Sabah & Sarawak, fed a lot of bugs and leeches, swam in the upper reaches of its rivers where the swift flowing water is clear and COLD. And visited the biggest cave in the world.

I never said an invasion is easy and sure to succeed. But I don't think it impossible either.

 

[Chino]

My Ignorant

I would like to carry on this discussion with you but I really hope you would stop baiting the Moderators.

I tried to find the Private Message thing so I can say this to you privately but I can't find it.

This is their forum, and unfortunately, they can do what they please. I, too, do not like threads being closed but it seems this is one way to regulate things to their standards, so bear with it.

 

[paskal]

I don't remember saying anything was easy.

And why is drawing on the Japanese experience far fetched?

90% of the terrain excludes the use of armour? So armour shouldn't go to those terrain. That's not how armour would be used in an invasion.

Forget about the images of armour slogging it out with infantry inside the forest.

Like I said, the main armoured force would have the capture of roads, bridges, and cities as their objectives. Any MAF troops hiding in the forest will be dealt with by infantry mopping up.



I have, probably more times than you. In Thailand, Peninsula Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak. Plus, I was an infantryman, and I have an unexplainable love for forests and jungles.

There's no comparison betweeen a primary forest and a secondary forest. But neither one is a picnic as the undergrowth in a secondary forest is very thick.



Disagree. The actions of the Vietnam War were COIN in nature and the US weren't driving to capture a city like they did in Iraq. Mostly, they were out hunting enemy troops in the jungles and had no other objectives other than to kill enemy troops. That'a why the body count was so important.

Whereas an invasion of the nature we are talking about, the objective goes beyong just racking up kills.



I think I know Malaysia quite well. I go to KL often, trek in Taman Negara, diving/snorkelling in nearly all its outlying islands including Perhentian and Redang. I have also trekked in the jungles of Sabah & Sarawak, fed a lot of bugs and leeches, swam in the upper reaches of its rivers where the swift flowing water is clear and COLD. And visited the biggest cave in the world.

I never said an invasion is easy and sure to succeed. But I don't think it impossible either.

i agree wit you wit all the other aspect except one...
if you have been to malaysia ill bet yo will realize the road there is surrounded by forest from the left and right....
you will also realize that there is also lots of bridge if you want to reach KL.

if you think properly thats a huge advantage for the defender.
if an army was to use that area since that is the only road area maf forces could easily block the road and force the enemy to enter in the jungle.

if not the maf will launch assault from the jungle with anti tanks weapons and mortars that is quite enough to stop the enemy from advancing any further.

as for the bridges it could be easily destroyed to block enemy from using it.
The only option the enemy have is too destroy the defending forces in the jungle.
Then it will be like "you run and ill shoot"

the road to KL is perfect for defending if seen properly.The roads are covered by forest.The bridges,the roads, the forest all are perfect in a defending situation.

The only reason the japans forces got through all that is because they use secret paths while the British were defending the big cities.

Just a few days ago i also went to singapore.
i was looking closely on all the structures that may give advantage to them in a war.

i realize lots of things.The buildings are perfect for snipers.
If you see it properly nearly each road are surrounded by tall buildings

What an advantage that is if it was in a defending situation:nutkick

 

[levathan]

Imho, i think jungles are not that big an issue as have been made out here. Jungles might be tough on the individual soldiers and are prime locations for attribution warfare but what most people don't realise is the logistics involved to fight in a jungle. An infantryman carries about 100 to 200 rounds max, in a real war situation, that will probably only last 5mins of any contact with any enemies. The force in the jungle needs to control the roads in order to get re-supply. You might be able to get food/water in the jungles of southeast asia but ammunitions is a big issue and there is no point having lots of soldiers without ammo in the jungle. The same thing applies even more towards heavier weapons like anti-tank guns, air-defence manpads etc.
Roads are the key to any war in Malaysia. Granted, light infantry can travel through the jungles but how much damage can they inflict with limited supplies?
In conclusion, i don't think the jungles of malaya is an issue for any attacking/defending force, the key will be the roads.

 

[Chino]

i agree wit you wit all the other aspect except one...
if you have been to malaysia ill bet yo will realize the road there is surrounded by forest from the left and right....
you will also realize that there is also lots of bridge if you want to reach KL.

if you think properly thats a huge advantage for the defender.

Don't recall saying it will be easy but good point.

And it wasn't easy for the Japs either. Some of the Allied troops fought very hard and Japanese casualties was very high.

Ambushes from the jungles definite possibility.

But ambushes can be sprung even in the desert. The Egyptians in Yom Kippur War dug themselves into the sand and then sprung up and fired volleys of RPG and Sagger at close range at approaching Armoured columns.

In Korea and Afghanistan (Soviet) the ambushes were sprung from hills covering the roads.

There are ways to counter this. Nobody drives blindly forward.

In Korea, infantry were sent forward on the high grounds on both sides of the road in advance to clear it of potential enemy ambush. Bridges may be secured by commando drops or heliborne assaults ahead of the column.

Every problem you, or I can think of, there is theoretically a solution. How things actually play out, however, we can only find out if the real thing happens.

Like I said, I NEVER said success is guaranteed. In fact, I mentioned that we could get trapped and shredded. This could happen if we make stupid mistakes that the MAF can exploit. No one is infallible.

Contrary to what you might think, I DO NOT rate the MAF lowly. Nor do I overestimate them.

 

[Chino]

Imho, i think jungles are not that big an issue as have been made out here. Jungles might be tough on the individual soldiers and are prime locations for attribution warfare but what most people don't realise is the logistics involved to fight in a jungle. An infantryman carries about 100 to 200 rounds max, in a real war situation, that will probably only last 5mins of any contact with any enemies. The force in the jungle needs to control the roads in order to get re-supply. You might be able to get food/water in the jungles of southeast asia but ammunitions is a big issue and there is no point having lots of soldiers without ammo in the jungle. The same thing applies even more towards heavier weapons like anti-tank guns, air-defence manpads etc.
Roads are the key to any war in Malaysia. Granted, light infantry can travel through the jungles but how much damage can they inflict with limited supplies?
In conclusion, i don't think the jungles of malaya is an issue for any attacking/defending force, the key will be the roads.

My sentiments also.

If we control the air and the sea, any MAF troops hiding in the jungle cannot be resupplied. We don't even need to go into the jungle and fight them. We're not interested in the jungles. We want the roads and the bridges and the cities.

Let them hide in the jungle and when they come out to fight - or ambush like Paskal said - that's when they meet the overwhelming firepower we can bring to bear.

Our armoured columns will be heavily escorted by air assets and artillery support. And anyone meeting them headon will have to deal with more than just the tanks and troops in the column.

If MAF stay in the jungle, we will cut off their retreat route and resupply as we advance. They will do little damage inside the jungle and will evenetually run out of food and ammo. And our infantry will be flushing them out of the jungle even as the main thrust is cutting off their retreat.

And SAF won't be sticking around for years afterwards like US in Iraq and get eaten alive by insurgency. We would achieve whatever objectives we set out and withdraw or go to the negotiation tables from a position of strength to sort things out.

 

[gary1910]

we should all stick to the question here.[can singapore hold itself]

well if you ask me, ill say yes but to certain army only.
they got a superior force in this region but they just dont have the ground.
if an enemy like indonesia attcks singapore we all must admit that singappore will be given a huge blow especially if it strucks the city.
how long do you thing a jet at the johor straits can reach the singapore city...
i think i will only take seconds.
but that will only happen if malaysia play dumb that will not probaly occur.


once that happens singapore will surely strike back with their f-16's.indonesia will take multiple hits of bombing in many areas.They will be force to surrender.
theres a but here, just imagine if all singapore jets were destroyed by indonesians anti air weapons what will happen next?

i think if in these year i think singapore can win but they will suffer some injury[thats war its normal] .

With what to strike at SG?

The problem with TNI, it simply don't have the capibility to strike at SG at all!

Let's look at the some senario:

1) Airstrike

With their small and depleted AF plus the fact that they don't have any standoff weapon and PGM except a few old TV guided Maverick( max range of 27km).

And their small number of F-16A/B with only WVR AAM will be facing our large number of F-16C/D 52/52+ with BVR missile with Awacs support.It is simply no fight.

Let's say one F-16A/B does sneak through the SG's fighter defence, it will be facing large number of SAM cover including medium 40km range Improved Hawk, it will be fire upon even before it could release any munition that TNI-AU currently have, it is simply a suicide mission.

2) Expeditionary force

TNI does not have any Expeditionary force at all, the recent Tsunami over in Aceh clearly shown the deficiency of TNI because they don't have any modern LST/LPD , heavy lift helicopter etc.

Even with some LPD from Skorea which are still under delivery plus Mi-17 etc, current TNI-AU inventory will not be able to provide sufficient air cover for them.

So it is also another suicide mission.

As for whether RSAF could strike back, I think that is a lot of info regarding it's ELINT,EW capabilities etc has already been posted, so I will not repeat them.

Currently RSAF has standoff weapons like Longshot and the future AGM-154A Joint Standoff Weapons , PGM like the GBU-10/12 plus the future JDAM and whatever secret weapons from Israel etc, RSAF is more than capable to strike at whatever targets in Indonesia especially it has a very small number of modern fighters and only protected by VSHORADS like Rapier, RBS-70 and AAA.

Just look at what happen to Syria recently which is much better in term of numbers of fighters and SAM cover as compare to Indonesia, could not stop the Israeli F-16 and F-15 at striking at them, RSAF's F-16 and future F-15 which also contain proven Israeli EW suite, so RSAF ability to strike at Indonesia is certainly not in question at all.

but in the future maybe not especially one's the indonesians goverment is negotiating to buy around 44 su-30 mki aircarfts .

once that happens i dont think singapore f-16;s or even the f-15 can defeat the su-30 in air combat.

aground invasion is the last that will happen especially when singapore only has 34000+ conscripts compared to indonesians army.The singapore goverment will never deploy their ns men especially when it is a long war.

its like 34000 fighting 240,000,000 including indonesians citizen.
The only hope is the SAF.without that singapore is in hot soup.

END.

What evidence do you have that SU-30 will defeat F-16 and F-15?

Please don't post Indian media BS nationalistic report about those restrictive and unrealistic simulated exe or those from Russian manufacturer marketing gimmick reports, those are all biased.

In reality, so far there is no combat record of any SU-27/30 against any western made fighters, simulated exe will never be able to simulate any EW capabilities of the a/c and the AAMs.

For example the Mig-29, during simulated exe , look impressive but in a real combat, it failed miserably, having one of the worst combat record against other combat a/c.

So will SU-30 be similar to the Mig-29?

That remain to be seen.

As for ground invasion, SAF doing it or TNI doing it?

First thing, as I already mentioned, TNI, do not any expeditionary capability, so TNI ground invasion is a mooted point. SAF could possibly invade the Riau islands but I don't see the point for that as long as TNI has no capabity to invade SG so that it is not necessary at all.

Next is, what do you mean that SG will not deploy NS men during a war?

The point of our NS system is to prepare for war, if they don't deploy NS men during a war, then what's the point of having a NS system?

In reality both MY and Indon do not have capability to start a war with SG, SAF has both qualitative and quantitatve over MAF, so it is stupid for MY start a war with SG.

TNI only have quantitatve advantages in term of number of troops and navy ships but certainly not in quality, they have no strike and expeditionary capabilty , so that is not possible also.

Next is both MY and Indon have very low or no national reserve to sustain a war whereas SG has more national reserve than both nations combine plus the fact that SG has a very good arms industry to sustain a war effort by resupplying ammo and weapons for SAF.

Lastly , there is another thing that need to be calculated into the equation, FPDA and the presence of US forces in SG, TNI will be foolish not to consider that.

Afterall, SG is consider as a non NATO ally of the US, even without supplying of troops for the defence of SG, they will certainly supply more high tech weaponary for SG to win it.

So the question is , can singapore hold itself?

Yes, certainly can against the regional nations, that is why you see the discussion in the earliar postings by the neutrals in this thread switched from regional nations to China and even Australia, because the neutrals already dismissed regional nations as a threat to SG.

 

[paskal]

Imho, i think jungles are not that big an issue as have been made out here. Jungles might be tough on the individual soldiers and are prime locations for attribution warfare but what most people don't realise is the logistics involved to fight in a jungle. An infantryman carries about 100 to 200 rounds max, in a real war situation, that will probably only last 5mins of any contact with any enemies. The force in the jungle needs to control the roads in order to get re-supply. You might be able to get food/water in the jungles of southeast asia but ammunitions is a big issue and there is no point having lots of soldiers without ammo in the jungle. The same thing applies even more towards heavier weapons like anti-tank guns, air-defence manpads etc.
Roads are the key to any war in Malaysia. Granted, light infantry can travel through the jungles but how much damage can they inflict with limited supplies?
In conclusion, i don't think the jungles of malaya is an issue for any attacking/defending force, the key will be the roads.

yeas i agree with you fully....
thats what the malaysian army did to counter communist .....
but you should be aware that this is MAF country.They can get supplies anytime needed.
The enemy that enter the country can be cut off easily especially when they are out of ammunition.If the attacker finnish ammo is very hard to ressuply espicially when you are in a different country.
as you see in the vietnam war the americans finih thier ammo too fast and thier only choise is too use ak-47 that belongs to the vietnamese.
the communist there were supplied with weapons and never lacked of them in any such of way.
if vietnam can do that against the american why cant malaysia.

As chino were saying about cutting forces by the water i totally agree!
the iranians didi that to iraq so that they cannot get the supply of ammunitions they needed.
so the only way is to destroy the RMN that is likely quite hard but possible

I personally see that now in this age the SAF can cut air supplies easily but not the sea route.
Malaysia navy is one of the most strongest in this region

 

[paskal]

With what to strike at SG?

The problem with TNI, it simply don't have the capibility to strike at SG at all!

Let's look at the some senario:

1) Airstrike

With their small and depleted AF plus the fact that they don't have any standoff weapon and PGM except a few old TV guided Maverick( max range of 27km).

And their small number of F-16A/B with only WVR AAM will be facing our large number of F-16C/D 52/52+ with BVR missile with Awacs support.It is simply no fight.

Let's say one F-16A/B does sneak through the SG's fighter defence, it will be facing large number of SAM cover including medium 40km range Improved Hawk, it will be fire upon even before it could release any munition that TNI-AU currently have, it is simply a suicide mission.

2) Expeditionary force

TNI does not have any Expeditionary force at all, the recent Tsunami over in Aceh clearly shown the deficiency of TNI because they don't have any modern LST/LPD , heavy lift helicopter etc.

Even with some LPD from Skorea which are still under delivery plus Mi-17 etc, current TNI-AU inventory will not be able to provide sufficient air cover for them.

So it is also another suicide mission.

As for whether RSAF could strike back, I think that is a lot of info regarding it's ELINT,EW capabilities etc has already been posted, so I will not repeat them.

Currently RSAF has standoff weapons like Longshot and the future AGM-154A Joint Standoff Weapons , PGM like the GBU-10/12 plus the future JDAM and whatever secret weapons from Israel etc, RSAF is more than capable to strike at whatever targets in Indonesia especially it has a very small number of modern fighters and only protected by VSHORADS like Rapier, RBS-70 and AAA.

Just look at what happen to Syria recently which is much better in term of numbers of fighters and SAM cover as compare to Indonesia, could not stop the Israeli F-16 and F-15 at striking at them, RSAF's F-16 and future F-15 which also contain proven Israeli EW suite, so RSAF ability to strike at Indonesia is certainly in question at all.



What evidence do you have that SU-30 will defeat F-16 and F-15?

Please don't post Indian media BS nationalistic report about those restrictive and unrealistic simulated exe or those from Russian manufacturer marketing gimmick reports, those are all biased.

In reality, so far there is no combat record of any SU-27/30 against any western made fighters, simulated exe will never be able to simulate any EW capabilities of the a/c and the AAMs.

For example the Mig-29, during simulated exe , look impressive but in a real combat, it failed miserably, having one of the worst combat record against other combat a/c.

So will SU-30 be similar to the Mig-29?

That remain to be seen.

As for ground invasion, SAF doing it or TNI doing it?

First thing, as I already mentioned, TNI, do not any expeditionary capability, so TNI ground invasion is a mooted point. SAF could possibly invade the Riau islands but I don't see the point for that as long as TNI has no capabity to invade SG so that it is not necessary at all.

Next is, what do you mean that SG will not deploy NS men during a war?

The point of our NS system is to prepare for war, if they don't deploy NS men during a war, then what's the point of having a NS system?

In reality both MY and Indon do not have capability to start a war with SG, SAF has both qualitative and quantitatve over MAF, so it is stupid for MY start a war with SG.

TNI only have quantitatve advantages in term of number of troops and navy ships but certainly not in quality, they have no strike and expeditionary capabilty , so that is not possible also.

Next is both MY and Indon have very low or no national reserve to sustain a war whereas SG has more national reserve than both nations combine plus the fact that SG has a very good arms industry to sustain a war effort by resupplying ammo and weapons for SAF.

Lastly , there is another thing that need to be calculated into the equation, FPDA and the presence of US forces in SG, TNI will be foolish not to consider that.

Afterall, SG is consider as a non NATO ally of the US, even without supplying of troops for the defence of SG, they will certainly supply more high tech weaponary for SG to win it.

So the question is , can singapore hold itself?

Yes, certainly can against the regional nations, that is why you see the discussion in the earliar postings by the neutrals in this thread switched from regional nations to China and even Australia, because the neutrals already dismissed regional nations as a threat to SG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30

you should look at this very carefully before speking up your next words...
the su-30 is a multirole aircraft that is one of the best in air superiority while the f-15 sg is more for attacking land forces.
The f-16 is out of the topic against the su-30.

As about the NS men you should read my sentence properly before making a harsh move.
i was saying if it was a long invasion the Ns men will not likely go as it may destroy the singapore economy.Theres a fact that singapore is small.It will take them lots of time to deploy thier full forces.

About the malaysian and indonesian reserves.
You should now once war occur especially when the country is a defender nearly all people that are capable of holding a gun will be deploy.The israelis did this.They never even count it as reservist.To your surprise they won all combats wit the more stronger equiped arabs.That is an advantage of a defender.
Malysia has around 50,000 reservist that i do not count as reservist because every year they have a 3 months training with the MAF.
you should now that the reservist never include the womans army,rela,wataniah and lots of more.

A war with malaysia is the last thing that will occur.
If even it will be the SAF at the attacking side not malaysia.

Put malaysia out of this discussion.
Indonesia maybe because of the sand thats singapore needs badly.
You shouldnt under estimate a country.
The US did that and suffer a terrible blow.
The arabs did that and they also suffered.

So back to my point indonesia,malaysia even thailand cannot invade singapore but can hit it quite bad.but they will likely suffer back badly.It is easy take it like this.
singapore city destroyed,within one day KL or Jakarta is in smoke.

So the only country that i see that can invade singapore that is in this region is Ausrtalia .
They got the bombs they got the jets they got the technology.
It is nearly impossible that this scenario will occur.
What i mean is australian forces is the strongest in this region.

 

[SGMilitary]

Can Singapore holds its own?

I beg to differ.

If Australia have plans to invade Singapore, her military commanders have to think twice.
The proffesionalism and capabilities of SAF is on par with her Australian
counterparts.
The RSAF is capable to carry out multiple air sorties and can definitely matched the RAAF.
Any aggressors will have to face the entire nation of SINGAPORE and not the SAF alone.
Do bear in mind that Singapore has successfully intergrate the concept of TOTAL DEFENCE to her society.
TOTAL DEFENCE messages are being put across to all Singaporeans through the media masses, public education system, the SAF, the various government agencies, schools, institutions, the members of public etc,etc.
Usually refered to as 'a red dot on the map,' SAF does pack a lethal PUNCH.
We have 62 F-16C/D block 52/52+.
We have procured 12 F-15SG and trust me, RSAF will eventually operate at least 60 of such aircraft if not 80, depending on the developments of JSF35.
There's plan to procure anti-ballistic missile system within the next 2-3 years.
Our FORMIDABLE class stealth frigates is rated as equally powerful to the AEGIS equipped warships of the Japanese navy.
There are plans to augment the Aster 15 system with the Aster 30 system in order to deploy the ubiquitous European PAAMS naval defence system to the RSN.
However, the invasion by Australia or any other countries in the region is just a scenario of possibilities.
Let's look forward towards a better and intergrated multi-nation region.
Thank you.