Can singapore hold its own?

[gary1910]

Army
132+ Leopard 2A4 (C)
18 HIMARS (P)
8x8 wheeled IFV for one Bde (P)

Note:
1) It is likely that we will be getting more BX and Bronco Mortar Tracked Carrier as more M113 be replaced in the frontline Div.

2) There is a original plan to replace the SM1 with new LT, but with the offer of cheap Leo 2 from Germany, there may be a new plan, especially there is a plan to mechanised all infantry Bde with a wheeled IFV, so will the SM1 be replaced by Leo 2 and a new wheeled tank destroyer instead of a tracked LT?

3) It is expected that we be going for more unmanned system as DSTA continue with their R&D, newer mini UAV and even micro UAV, more UGV and even armed UGV could be expected as some were displayed during AA2006.

Air Force
24 F-15SG (C)
4 G550 CAEW and 2 G550 in unknown configuration (C)
1 sqn of advanced jet trainer (AJT) (P)
New LR SAM system (P)
2 Global Hawk HALE UAV (R)

Note:
1) It is likely that we will be getting F-35 in the next decade as reports stated that Israel and SG is working on a common configuration.

Navy
All 6 Formidable class Stealth FFG to be commissioned (C)
6 Sikorsky S-70B Seahawk
2 Upgraded Vastergotland AIP SSK (C)
1 Fully-integrated ship and submarine rescue system (C)

Note:
1) There is report that we might be looking at replacing Fokker50 MPA.
2) It is rumour that SG is one the observer of the Swedish A26 SSK project.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(C): Confirmed with contracts signed
(P): Plans with reliable sources from SG or other foreign govt agency.
(R): Reports from foreign military publications and news media only.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I writing this from the top of my head, it is likely that I might miss out something.

 

[cm07]

On my personal opinion regarding ATGWs or all armour/personal weapon sights in general, if you cant see the target, it doesnt matter how far away your weapon can fly and kill in the distance.

While i understand the nationalistic feelings on both sides of this thread, i would really appreciate if my country men are more modest and (brag less)

Again in my personal capacity, Paskal, i have confidence in -my- Ultra vehicle and it's systems. It's definitely not as good as the BX but it's better than most infantry standing out in the open.

With regards to the lack of ATGM weaponry mounted on our Ultras, we operate in teams.
What you can kill with the 40/50, you use the 25mm. What the bushmaster will only scratch, you use the Matador. Few things(in our region) can live through that combination. If we expect greater threats, the SM1 and Spike/84 RR will be there to handle it.

 

[paskal]

kidding you?!?
You have been saying that for don't know how many times here, time and time again you are proven wrong due to your lack of knowledge about MAF and it's weaponary.

You don't even know that ACV-300 is actually a upgraded M113, and that the 211 Adnan actually come in 10 variants etc.

Since you have given the actual cost of the BS ATGM purchase, I now know for sure it is 450 missiles!

RM440mil comes to about USD116mil, so with 450 BS missiles plus a small number of launchers and plus 500 Anza II missiles and small number of it's launcher sound about right at that price.

2ndly, MAF only have and I quote from the link I provided earliar

And if it is 450 launcher as you suggested then 1 Bn will have abt 13 BS launchers?!?

I don't think that even the US army has so many ATGM launcher in one infantry Bn!!!

So far only 8 launchers are supposed to be installed onto Adnan, which was displayed during MY NDP, so if there were 450 launchers , some should be installed on G-Wagen, landrover etc, so where are they?

Why is it not displayed during the NDP?

Is it because that there is no 450 launchers!!!



Since it is classified, that means no one outside should know!!!

One thing , BX is I believe is the heaviest IFV in SEA about 22~23 tons, that means it has a lot of heavy armour which also means that it is most well protected IFV in SEA, plus the fact it has a fully stablised 30mm cannon with thermal imaging etc. No IFV is SEA can match that, so when I said it is overkill, I am not certainly not exaggerating it!

As for NYAMUK UAV with the Condor etc, it seem that they are using those platform as a mean to operate the UAV and gathering info from the UAV, does not sound like BMS.

Anyway NCW just not consist only with UAV but very much more, SAF has been working on it for more than 7 years, there is a lot more, first need to develop a secure wireless network plus all the mobile Sat Comm stations, then you need to develop various system that all your units down the level of individual vehicle , squad, various sensors etc to be connected to the same network, then you need to intergrated the whole army , airforce and even navy to work togther seamless in that same network.

A lot of R&D and money to develop them, MY with their limited budget and expertise, will not able to develop such NCW army within a decade, most possibly longer.

Bla,bla,bla,bla!

Im to tired quoting with you....
Its is written clearly in front of you naked eyes that the MAF has procured 450 launchers!!!!
You try see the other ANTI-tank weaponary it is stated the missles and the launchers are different!!!

Dude i dont now if you now how to think logically if the MAF only procures up to 8 of it why does it reach the cost of RM 440 million.
Do the maths malaysia bought 500 ANZA MK II from pakistan and 450 launchers.
If you said that the MAF only has 8 that means the price 1 anza MK II is around RM 880,000.[US 266,666$] [suicide because most pakistan weapons is known to be cheap]

Im not in the mood to quote all the others but please dont just assume the MAF is not cappable of buying this.I bet you can realise now that the malaysian economy is growing at a really really strong pace this will improve the MAF budget and even the RMK 9,and the RMK 10 will contribute to the MAF shopping spree. The prove is in front of your naked eyes and still you never realise.Even a 15 year old boy or better a 7 year old kid can do better maths then you:lul !

Please man i dont get it whats wrong with you but in this matter you cannot deny it......
http://www.geocities.com/kbmyaf/TDM_Equip.htm
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_4.shtml

Do your maths then you can start quoting again ok!

 

[paskal]

gary 1910 heres the deal that the MAF did to equipped the ADNAN with the BAKTAR SHIKAN
http://www.malaysia-today.net/Blog-e/2006/02/acv-300-adnan-from-symbol-of-heroism.htm

 

[paskal]

On my personal opinion regarding ATGWs or all armour/personal weapon sights in general, if you cant see the target, it doesnt matter how far away your weapon can fly and kill in the distance.

While i understand the nationalistic feelings on both sides of this thread, i would really appreciate if my country men are more modest and (brag less)

Again in my personal capacity, Paskal, i have confidence in -my- Ultra vehicle and it's systems. It's definitely not as good as the BX but it's better than most infantry standing out in the open.

With regards to the lack of ATGM weaponry mounted on our Ultras, we operate in teams.
What you can kill with the 40/50, you use the 25mm. What the bushmaster will only scratch, you use the Matador. Few things(in our region) can live through that combination. If we expect greater threats, the SM1 and Spike/84 RR will be there to handle it.

Yeah i agree with you
But could you just imagine if they fitted it with any anti-tank weaponaries on it

WOW it will be the strongest in SEA well thats too my oppinion though

 

[Transient]

Hello again, 15-yr-old-minus-a-brain Paskal. You have just confirmed you don't have a brain. Let's see your link.

The bureaucratic excellence of Malaysia:
"The Star screamed “Armoured vehicles lying idle” while the New Straits Times headlined “Bogged down by red tape: Armed forces unable to buy spares for vehicles”."

From the JDW article:
"One of the variants ordered by Malaysia is the ATGW configuration armed with the Baktar Shikan launcher mounted on a pedestal "

Let's see what the 15-yr-old-minus-a-brain Paskal said earlier:
"It is said that all the ADNAN will be fitted with it!" :nutkick

 

[cm07]

Actually i have stated that why we do not need ATGW mounted on our Ultras since i have already listed the weapons available and are for armour penetration in order of increasing ability.

Regarding the 116USD million deal with Pakistan, here's an estimation of what is available. I took the cost from the US Army budget for FY 2003.

Please correct the following if you have more accurate data!

Cost of Stinger Launcher/Missile: 177,000/97,000
Cost of TOW Launcher/Missile: 105,000/69,000

Performance of Anza MK II is greater than the Stinger.
Performance of BS is similar to the TOW

Cost of 500 Anza MKII (Est 110,000) = 55 mil
Cost of 450 BS Launcher (Est 90,000)= 40,5 mil
Cost of Est 100 Anza Laucher (Est 180,000) = 18 Mil
Cost spent on BS Missiles = 4 mil, (Est dirt cheap cost of 50,000 you get 80)

Which does not add up.

A more probable case would be:
Cost of 500 Anza MKII (Est 110,000) = 55 mil
Cost of Est 100 Anza Laucher (Est 180,000) = 18 Mil
Cost of 450 BS Missles (Est 60,000)= 27 mil
Est Number of BS launchers (EST 90,000) = 177

I find a case where 100 units of BS Launchers and 500 BS Missiles purchased more convincing. Some numbers are probably under declared anyway.

 

[paskal]

Hello again, 15-yr-old-minus-a-brain Paskal. You have just confirmed you don't have a brain. Let's see your link.

The bureaucratic excellence of Malaysia:
"The Star screamed “Armoured vehicles lying idle” while the New Straits Times headlined “Bogged down by red tape: Armed forces unable to buy spares for vehicles”."

From the JDW article:
"One of the variants ordered by Malaysia is the ATGW configuration armed with the Baktar Shikan launcher mounted on a pedestal "

Let's see what the 15-yr-old-minus-a-brain Paskal said earlier:
"It is said that all the ADNAN will be fitted with it!" :nutkick

Hello again you old headed transient did i even said that the link is stated that all the ADNAN will be equipped with it.
I just wanna show the link that proves that some of the ADNAN is equipped with the BAKTAR SHIKAN and by who!

 

[paskal]

Actually i have stated that why we do not need ATGW mounted on our Ultras since i have already listed the weapons available and are for armour penetration in order of increasing ability.

Regarding the 116USD million deal with Pakistan, here's an estimation of what is available. I took the cost from the US Army budget for FY 2003.

Please correct the following if you have more accurate data!

Cost of Stinger Launcher/Missile: 177,000/97,000
Cost of TOW Launcher/Missile: 105,000/69,000

Performance of Anza MK II is greater than the Stinger.
Performance of BS is similar to the TOW

Cost of 500 Anza MKII (Est 110,000) = 55 mil
Cost of 450 BS Launcher (Est 90,000)= 40,5 mil
Cost of Est 100 Anza Laucher (Est 180,000) = 18 Mil
Cost spent on BS Missiles = 4 mil, (Est dirt cheap cost of 50,000 you get 80)

Which does not add up.

A more probable case would be:
Cost of 500 Anza MKII (Est 110,000) = 55 mil
Cost of Est 100 Anza Laucher (Est 180,000) = 18 Mil
Cost of 450 BS Missles (Est 60,000)= 27 mil
Est Number of BS launchers (EST 90,000) = 177

I find a case where 100 units of BS Launchers and 500 BS Missiles purchased more convincing. Some numbers are probably under declared anyway.

PLease give me any source where you got all of this....
You should now ones a deal is made theyll be negotiations and i don now cost for 1 anza mk II cost 110000 us dollars!
Thats too expensive..
One igla cost to about only 60000 to 80000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igla
So i can bet that the anza wont be more expensive than the igla as pakistan is nown to sell things in a cheap price.
1 anza launcher cost a whopping 180000 youre gonna be kidding me!

You could see here clearly written that MY have 450 BS and it never stated the missles,
http://www.geocities.com/kbmyaf/TDM_Equip.htm

If it wanna write the missles it will write it down as it goes the same as the picture beside the BS in that website.

common man IGLA should cost more than the mear ANZA especially when it is only MK II not MK III.
Please show me your source

Btw you got everything wrong malaysia only have 72 ANZA launcher and 500 of the missles.
http://www.geocities.com/kbmyaf/TDM_Equip.htm

could you please do me a favour and try look at this website first.
You can see the metis-m beside the BS.Its quantity states the launcher then its states the missles quantity.

 

[gary1910]

All the links provided only stated that 450 units of BS, never state whether they are 450 missiles or 450 launchers!

If it is 450 launchers, then using the same ratio of Metis M ( which is actually a very small ratio), then it should be at least 450x5= 2,250 missiles!?!

Is it logical to have so many missiles especially when MY already has plenty of other AT weapons like Metis-M, Eyrx, 106mmRCL, 84mmRR, RPG-7 etc?

The total number of AT rds and missile is already more than SG and Thai and perhaps even TNI combined number of AFVs?!?

Now I have a copy of Military Balance 2007 from the Institute of Strategic Studies of UK on MY inventory:

I highlighted the HJ-8 which is BAKTAR SHIKAN , it stated that MY only has 18 launchers, enough said.

 

[gary1910]

Actually i have stated that why we do not need ATGW mounted on our Ultras since i have already listed the weapons available and are for armour penetration in order of increasing ability.

Regarding the 116USD million deal with Pakistan, here's an estimation of what is available. I took the cost from the US Army budget for FY 2003.

Please correct the following if you have more accurate data!

Cost of Stinger Launcher/Missile: 177,000/97,000
Cost of TOW Launcher/Missile: 105,000/69,000

Performance of Anza MK II is greater than the Stinger.
Performance of BS is similar to the TOW

Cost of 500 Anza MKII (Est 110,000) = 55 mil
Cost of 450 BS Launcher (Est 90,000)= 40,5 mil
Cost of Est 100 Anza Laucher (Est 180,000) = 18 Mil
Cost spent on BS Missiles = 4 mil, (Est dirt cheap cost of 50,000 you get 80)

Which does not add up.

A more probable case would be:
Cost of 500 Anza MKII (Est 110,000) = 55 mil
Cost of Est 100 Anza Laucher (Est 180,000) = 18 Mil
Cost of 450 BS Missles (Est 60,000)= 27 mil
Est Number of BS launchers (EST 90,000) = 177

I find a case where 100 units of BS Launchers and 500 BS Missiles purchased more convincing. Some numbers are probably under declared anyway.

You forgot to add in 20~30% commission to all the cronies, the number above is not deflated numbers but rather inflated prices!!!nfloorl:

 

[paskal]

All the links provided only stated that 450 units of BS, never state whether they are 450 missiles or 450 launchers!

If it is 450 launchers, then using the same ratio of Metis M ( which is actually a very small ratio), then it should be at least 450x5= 2,250 missiles!?!

Is it logical to have so many missiles especially when MY already has plenty of other AT weapons like Metis-M, Eyrx, 106mmRCL, 84mmRR, RPG-7 etc?

The total number of AT rds and missile is already more than SG and Thai and perhaps even TNI combined number of AFVs?!?

Now I have a copy of Military Balance 2007 from the Institute of Strategic Studies of UK on MY inventory:

I highlighted the HJ-8 which is BAKTAR SHIKAN , it stated that MY only has 18 launchers, enough said.

You forgot to put the prove of this source....
Its just not logic ......
where did all the money go then?
If the MAF only have 18..
Do the maths so thats mean that malaysia paid 100,000,000 US$ for the 18 BS and all the missles.....IMPOSSIBLE!
Now im tyring to find a way to print my PERAJURIT book to show you that malaysia have the 450 launchers.
Please be noted that that the agreement got the 1st pase than the other.
Dont tell me because the MAF never displayed them thats mean that the MAF doesnt have them all.
OBviosly it will take time to recieve all of the BS.

 

[kato]

You forgot to put the prove of this source....

http://www.iiss.org/publications/the-military-balance

On another note, SIPRI lists 450 HJ-8 delivered by Pakistan to Malaysia in 2002-2003. These are explicitly stated as missiles, not launchers. Deal was worth $8.1 million.
The HJ-8 / Baktar Shikan is operationally similar to TOW. I.e. the ratio of missiles to launchers is quite a bit higher than that 5-to-1, and a 25-to-1 ratio (450 missiles for 18 launchers) actually sounds quite good for the HJ-8's operational use.

 

[gary1910]

Tks, Kato.

Paskal,

I did not bother to post the link because it is not free.

Individual print copy is USD170, student rate is USD116.

 

[swerve]

...
Paskal,

I did not bother to post the link because it is not free.

Individual print copy is USD170, student rate is USD116.

And online rate is even more, IIRC.

 

[Awang se]

PASKAL, you should learn to put a little doubt in everything you've heard from anyone. Perajurit are good for overview of Malaysian Military overall, but as an accurate source of information i have my doubt. many of it's contents sound's more like a propaganda.

I admired Singapore for it's efficient weapons program, as compared to Malaysia. In Malaysia, corruption run rampants and defence sector were also affected. in many cases, we have to pay several times the original price of a weapon system. so don't be surprise PASKAL, if we pay premium price a low number of cheap weapons. in the Bakthar Shikan case, i bet half of the money goes to Swiss and only half goes to Islamabad.

 

[Mr Ignorant]

Is this a Technology thread or a Military thread?

Paskal,

The Tentera Darat is toning down in numbers and going through the motions in training and administration. The quality is there, but not the equipment. We cannot continue to operate a mixed bag of weapons. Not enough Arty and Tanks as well.

Awang Se

The list is useful for general purposes only. MAF can defend, whether it can do so effectively is another thing, now.

Is technology in Warfare a decisive factor?

As far as I am concerned, I haven't said anything negative about the SAF. I just don't rate their experience that much, although I do envy the BIONIX, The Chieftains, The Leo 2s, The FH guns, etc that they appear to possess.

For now, Is it a arms race? and to whose benefit?

 

[Viper7]

Singapore has a formidable Air Force, possibly one of, if not the best in South East Asia. With the likes of F-15SG Eagles & F-16 C/D Fighting Falcons in its inventor, the Singapore Air Force has the ability to challenge its adversary for Air Dominance. Its main rival, the Malaysian Air Force, is also a tough opponent with the likes of Su-30MKMs entering its service. But its likely that Singapore has the upper hand.

The only disadvantage Singapore has is territorial. Land .... its crammed for space on a tiny island, where as Malaysia has the advatage of relocating its fighters if their bases are threatened by enemy fighter attack. And even if Singapore aquires bases elsewhere, it would be a tough ask to find anywhere in the vacinity to attain a good response time and scramble fighters. And if Malaysia aquires a bigger Flanker force, possibly MiG-35s as well, then Singapore would really find an adversary up to the task of challenging it for Air Dominance in the war.

 

[Transient]

where as Malaysia has the advatage of relocating its fighters if their bases are threatened by enemy fighter attack. And even if Singapore aquires bases elsewhere, it would be a tough ask to find anywhere in the vacinity to attain a good response time and scramble fighters. And if Malaysia aquires a bigger Flanker force, possibly MiG-35s as well, then Singapore would really find an adversary up to the task of challenging it for Air Dominance in the war.

Changing bases is not as easily done as said. All the equipment to maintain and weapons (if uncompatible) to equip the aircraft will have to be brought over to the new base as well, unless that new base has been designated as a fallback and has been stocked up with the necessary equipment prior. Then all that's needed is ferrying the people over. Regarding weapons mentioned above, I'm sure you see the disadvantage of Malaysia having a diverse source of aircraft requiring two different sets of ammunition.

Singapore has a large number of bases concentrated in a small area. This is a two-way situation. The benefit is that protection of assets from air raids is made simpler. Less AD assets cover more area. Look at Malaysia's AD assets and see them try to cover all the major bases.

Getting Mig-35s won't improve the RMAF much. An effective airforce is made up of more than just numbers/quality of fighters in inventory. Singapore has a comfortable lead in the major areas of concern. Look through this thread to find out what those areas are.

 

[Viper7]

Regarding weapons mentioned above, I'm sure you see the disadvantage of Malaysia having a diverse source of aircraft requiring two different sets of ammunition.

This is true, which is why I suggested that it would be a better option for the Malaysians to go for MiG-35/Su-30 fleet. This would streamline their inventory and would be logistically a more feasible option.

Singapore has a large number of bases concentrated in a small area. This is a two-way situation. The benefit is that protection of assets from air raids is made simpler. Less AD assets cover more area. Look at Malaysia's AD assets and see them try to cover all the major bases.

Ever heard of the term 'All eggs in one basket'? Well that is what I meant, when I was referring to Singapore's land disadvantage.

Lemme give you an example, when in 1965 in the Pakistan-india war, the indians moved their aircrafts to air bases deeper into its territory and away from the reach of incoming Pakistani fighters.

Now if you look at the Malaysian territory of 'Sabah' island (divided b/w Malaysia & Indonesia). There they have the advantage of an optional airbase which would be sort of safer for them in times of war. And eventhough, in todays air forces, tankers eliminate the range disadvantage, there is still an air of threat looming with such tactics.

Getting Mig-35s won't improve the RMAF much. An effective airforce is made up of more than just numbers/quality of fighters in inventory. Singapore has a comfortable lead in the major areas of concern. Look through this thread to find out what those areas are.

Yes, agreed. However, Malaysia has the available option of utilizing western avionics in their Russian fighters. Like the Su-30MKM Flankers, they could incorporate similar avionics and weapons, which would make the Fulcrums a very deadly opponent to face.

Having said that, there is no doubt that Singapore has one of the most formidable air force in the region (as I had already stated in my previous post). As far as I am aware of it, Malaysia still hasn't any AEWs. Where as Singapore operates E-2C Hawkeyes. This is one major advantage which the Singaporeans have over the Malays and could play a decisive role in the battle to gain Air Dominance.