Can singapore hold its own?

[paskal]

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.



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.



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.

Althugh im a malaysian but i agree that the RSAF is the strongest in south east asia[not included australia]
As what you said that the RMAF should go for the MIG-35 i dont think that will happen in the far decade.
The RMAF is now planning to buy another 18 MRCA to add to their previous 18 su-30 that they had already bought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Malaysian_Air_Force

I think malaysia will go for AWACS and more MRCA in the RMK 10 time line.
By that time the MIG-29 will be out of service.I think the RMAF will likely go for the su-30 mkm again as it is a good MRCA aircraft.The RUSSIANS are willing to give malaysia the bombs they needed badly.

I think if the malaysian economic is growing at this fast pace think by the 2015 malaysian will have about 50+ su-30 mkm.

But still i think in this time of era there is no SEA forces that could take malaysia

 

[Transient]

Ever heard of the term 'All eggs in one basket'?

Only true if they have a weapon with the destructive power of a nuke.

Now if you look at the Malaysian territory of 'Sabah' island

That would make the planes almost operationally irrelevant, tankers notwithstanding. Try taking a look at the distances involved. Besides, there is no evidence that they have the necessary infrastructure/equipment in place to facilitate the operations of their jets there.

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.

True, but they didn't take up that option for their fulcrums.

 

[Awang se]

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.

Yep!! Malaysian ADNAN has lighter armor than the BIONIX, but that make ADNAN Amphibious.

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.

You touch a sore spot there buddy. Plus, i have little faith for T-72 variants. should've go for T-85.

 

[Chino]

The "all eggs in one basket" is not valid.

When Egypt concentrated massive air defences at the Sinai during the Yom Kippur War, the mighty IDF air force was rendered ineffective. Any foray into the concentrated SAM umbrella resulted in heavy loss. The Egyptians didn't even bother to pit their planes against the IDF planes. Just SAMs and AA batteries.

So unless we are taken completely by surprise - unlikely - or communications and radars are jammed etc, an intruding air force would not likely achieve much.

...

If the threat is arty, then it really makes no difference whether our bases are near each other or far apart.

The only concentration is the civilian centres of population. If someone decides to hit them "accidentally", casualties will be heavy.

 

[Viper7]

The "all eggs in one basket" is not valid.

When Egypt concentrated massive air defences at the Sinai during the Yom Kippur War, the mighty IDF air force was rendered ineffective. Any foray into the concentrated SAM umbrella resulted in heavy loss. The Egyptians didn't even bother to pit their planes against the IDF planes. Just SAMs and AA batteries.

So unless we are taken completely by surprise - unlikely - or communications and radars are jammed etc, an intruding air force would not likely achieve much.

...

If the threat is arty, then it really makes no difference whether our bases are near each other or far apart.

The only concentration is the civilian centres of population. If someone decides to hit them "accidentally", casualties will be heavy.

Giving the example of Egypt in the Yom Kippur is not sensible at all. My pointing out Singapore's geographical weakness was that it would not be able to manouvre its forces when threatened with a concentrated attack. In the case of Eygpt, if Israel had managed to somehow break through the Sinai SAM Umbrella. Eygpt always had the option of pulling further back from the area of attack. Singapore, does not have that choice.

Where would they fall back to? Indonesia?

What if Malaysia decides to concentrate a barrage of missiles to rain down on Singapore? Where would the Singaporean Air Force run to then?

Lets not kid ourselves, there is a geographic drawback which they face and Singapore knows that very well. And the fact that Malaysia doesn't have any IRBMs, is the only thing that really keeps everyone sleepin at nights. Also, in my opinion, Malaysia would not risk loosing its economic stability at the cost of waging war on a tiny Island State. It would be foolish on their part to do so.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The "all eggs in one basket" is not valid.

When Egypt concentrated massive air defences at the Sinai during the Yom Kippur War, the mighty IDF air force was rendered ineffective. Any foray into the concentrated SAM umbrella resulted in heavy loss. The Egyptians didn't even bother to pit their planes against the IDF planes. Just SAMs and AA batteries.

So unless we are taken completely by surprise - unlikely - or communications and radars are jammed etc, an intruding air force would not likely achieve much.

...

If the threat is arty, then it really makes no difference whether our bases are near each other or far apart.

The only concentration is the civilian centres of population. If someone decides to hit them "accidentally", casualties will be heavy.

The IAF was rendered ineffective? Sorry I don't really remember that war. Are you referring to the Six day war perhaps or Yom Kippur where the Arab states actually managed to last 20 days (still losing more territory than they lost in 1967 overall) before agreeing to a ceasefire...

The IADS system put in place by the Arab countries (read: Soviets) presented a challenge to the IAF that they had to work to overcome. They did so, but not without loss.

It hardly rendered them "ineffective".

 

[funtz]

The IAF was rendered ineffective? Sorry I don't really remember that war. Are you referring to the Six day war perhaps or Yom Kippur where the Arab states actually managed to last 20 days (still losing more territory than they lost in 1967 overall) before agreeing to a ceasefire...
The IADS system put in place by the Arab countries (read: Soviets) presented a challenge to the IAF that they had to work to overcome. They did so, but not without loss.
It hardly rendered them "ineffective".

nfloorl:

In my armchair opinion any nation that has the physical depth similar to Singapore will be much better at
- Having good relations with their neighbors with limited or no boundary disputes.
- If all else fails, have the capability to be the first one to strike and strike hard at the military and infrastructure assets of their opponent hence negating the primary disadvantage they face.
with out giving the figures again (as they already have been produced too many times), this capability in the immediate neighborhood is available with the military forces of Singapore.

 

[Chino]

The IAF was rendered ineffective? Sorry I don't really remember that war. Are you referring to the Six day war perhaps or Yom Kippur where the Arab states actually managed to last 20 days (still losing more territory than they lost in 1967 overall) before agreeing to a ceasefire...

The IADS system put in place by the Arab countries (read: Soviets) presented a challenge to the IAF that they had to work to overcome. They did so, but not without loss.

It hardly rendered them "ineffective".

I quote myself:

"When Egypt concentrated massive air defences at the Sinai during the Yom Kippur War, the mighty IDF air force was rendered ineffective. Any foray into the concentrated SAM umbrella resulted in heavy loss."

So was I talking about the Six Day War or the Yom Kippur War?

...

Secondly, I said "ineffective".

The IAF flew, I didn't say they were GROUNDED. But Egyptian forces operating under the SAM umbrella were prevented from being annihilated by the IAF.

...

- All the IAF needed to do during the initial phase of the invasion was to destroy the pontoon bridges where Egyptian tanks were pouring into the Sinai. The IAF couldn't even achieve that. So in your opinion, is that not considered "ineffective"?

- If the Air Force wasn't rendered ineffective, how come the Egyptians were not only able to cross the canal, establish multiple beachheads and afterwards lay siege and capture nearly ALL the IDF forts along the canal?

- If the Air Force was not rendered ineffective, they would've pounded the Egyptians back to the stone age.

- By your estimation, what percentage of the battles fought on the ground in the SInai had air support?

- Most accounts of the battles involved tank and infantry slogging it out without the benefit of air support. Troops in beseiged positions were wondering when the vaunted IAF would show up. It didn't. On the rare occasions the IAF appear, they suffered heavy casualties without achieving much.

The IAF did work out tactics to counter SAM during the late part of the war. But by then, the ground action has already broken the back of the Arab resolve.

The Egyptian SAM umbrella of 1973 was the heaviest the world had ever seen up till then.

And, sorry, who's debating about who won the war? Just because the IAF was rendered ineffective doesn't mean Israel did not win.

 

[Chino]

My pointing out Singapore's geographical weakness was that it would not be able to manouvre its forces when threatened with a concentrated attack.

Please define this fearsome concentrated attack. If the US 7th Fleet decide to hammer us, yes, we're scre.wed. But MAF or TNI? Not there yet.

What if Malaysia decides to concentrate a barrage of missiles to rain down on Singapore? Where would the Singaporean Air Force run to then?

How many missiles are there in a barrage? And how many "rain" of missiles do you think Malaysia have?

Why would the RSAF need to run from a missile attack? Ever heard of concrete hangars?

Lets not kid ourselves, there is a geographic drawback which they face and Singapore knows that very well.

You obviously do not understand the strategic implications of this "geographic drawback" of Singapore you keep ranting about.

If a land force from Johore or a seaborne force arrive onto Singapore island itself, yes, we're scre.wed. We have nowhere to go.

But I was talking specifically about an air attack (non nuclear). In which case, your case about geographical size is rubbish. A small country like ours suffer no more or no less than a big country in an air attack scenario. Our small size actually allows us to concentrate our air defences instead of having to disperse them over a big land mass. But someone's already told you that.

 

[Viper7]

Please define this fearsome concentrated attack. If the US 7th Fleet decide to hammer us, yes, we're scre.wed. But MAF or TNI? Not there yet.How many missiles are there in a barrage? And how many "rain" of missiles do you think Malaysia have? Why would the RSAF need to run from a missile attack? Ever heard of concrete hangars?

Listen buddy, I got no idea what you're trying to prove with a repetitive replies. If you didn't read my post carefully in the first place, then I suggest that you do it again. And this time try to focus on the words where I specifically stated that Malaysia does not have IRBMs.

My argument, was based on a hypothetical circumstances. Not in reality. I was simply trying to illuminate the possibility of Singapore facing a geographical handicap, incase things (God forbid) take a turn for the worse and Malaysia aquires a large stockpile of IRBMs.

In such case, military assets are placed in danger of being wiped. Where Singapore does not have that much land area to move its assets out of the "hypothetical" Malaysian missile range.

Oh .... and yes I have heard of concrete hanger. Better question would be, if you've ever heard of "Bunker Busters"!!!! Ringa bell!!!???

You obviously do not understand the strategic implications of his "geographic drawback" of Singapore you keep ranting about.

You gotta problem? Cuz I don't recollect being rude to you. You really don't wanna use words like 'ranting' toward me. I'm debating the issue, without showing any emotional malfunction and accusing my fellow debator of 'ranting'. I suggest that you do the same!

If a land force from Johore or a seaborne force arrive onto Singapore island itself, yes, we're scre.wed. We have nowhere to go.

Look pal, my assesment of Singapore wasn't in any manner motivated to degrade its capabilities. It was just to state that despite Singapore's awesome military might, it too faces a very real disadvantage. Thats all, nothing else!

But I was talking specifically about an air attack (non nuclear). In which case, your case about geographical size is rubbish. A small country like ours suffer no more or no less than a big country in an air attack scenario. Our small size actually allows us to concentrate our air defences instead of having to disperse them over a big land mass. But someone's already told you that.

If that is what you believe, I respect that and would only wish for peace b/w both Malaysia and Singapore. As the saying goes, war never solves anything, except wreak destruction and carnage.

 

[Awang se]

Our small size actually allows us to concentrate our air defences instead of having to disperse them over a big land mass

But the small size will put every Singaporean SAM systems within range of artillery strike. Unless they find some way of masking the ground radar signal, malaysian ESM can easily pinpoint their location and send a barrages their way.

Yom Kippur where the Arab states actually managed to last 20 days (still losing more territory than they lost in 1967 overall) before agreeing to a ceasefire...

What territory? instead, i believe Israel lost Sinai. Golan was already captured during Six day war, though Syria recaptured the heights during Yom Kippur and lost it again. the gain of 20 square kilometres in Bashan is small in comparison.

 

[cm07]

Somehow i find it hard to believe, that giving SAF's military, we actually face a great disadvantage when we fight in our territory. Arty within range of my country = your arty within range of my arty. Your planes carrying bunker busters bombs having to face interdiction of F5s and F-16s carrying amraams + jamming + SAMs. If we are vigilant and guarding our borders, we will be able to not be caught off guard by air strikes or massive troop movement.
What's Malaysia's stance of firing artillery rounds and rockets into civilian buildings?

 

[crusader91]

Somehow i find it hard to believe, that giving SAF's military, we actually face a great disadvantage when we fight in our territory. Arty within range of my country = your arty within range of my arty. Your planes carrying bunker busters bombs having to face interdiction of F5s and F-16s carrying amraams + jamming + SAMs. If we are vigilant and guarding our borders, we will be able to not be caught off guard by air strikes or massive troop movement.
What's Malaysia's stance of firing artillery rounds and rockets into civilian buildings?

I think even singapore will even fire into civilian buildings if necessary.There is no more this kind of " civilians are not involved in war,thus we will not fire into their homes" situation. The last time this kind of policy may have been implemented is probably during world war 1.And firing into our homes may even cause panic and demoralise our soldiers which is something what the enemy want to achieve.

 

[Awang se]

Soldiers may fight in the battlefield, but it is the Civies that grow the food that feed the army, it's the civies that run those factories making critical components for weapon systems. In fact, attacking civilian targets may have a far more impact on the war then just attacking the military targets.

 

[swerve]

Soldiers may fight in the battlefield, but it is the Civies that grow the food that feed the army, it's the civies that run those factories making critical components for weapon systems. In fact, attacking civilian targets may have a far more impact on the war then just attacking the military targets.

Only in a long war. In a short war, you fight with what you have.

 

[swerve]

...What territory? instead, i believe Israel lost Sinai. Golan was already captured during Six day war, though Syria recaptured the heights during Yom Kippur and lost it again. the gain of 20 square kilometres in Bashan is small in comparison.

Israel did not lose Sinai in 1973. The Egyptians recaptured a strip of land on the east side of the Suez canal (only a few percent of the area of Sinai), but the Israelis forced them out of a section up to the canal, crossed it, & occupied a larger chunk of land on the west side, surrounding the Egyptian 3rd army. Egyptian troops were still occupying part of Sinai when the war ended, but Israel had made a net gain of territory on that front. The Israeli withdrawal from Sinai was part of the peace settlement with Egypt several years later. Treaty signed 26-03-1979

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace Process/Guide to the Peace Process/Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty

Israeli withdrawal took 3 years. Complete 26-04-1982.

On Golan, by the end of the war the Israelis had recaptured everything lost in the first days, & was occupying much more Syrian land than on October 5th.

 

[Chino]

But the small size will put every Singaporean SAM systems within range of artillery strike. Unless they find some way of masking the ground radar signal, malaysian ESM can easily pinpoint their location and send a barrages their way.

As a precaution against radar-homing missiles from aircrafts, SAM batteries usually don't illuminate their radars till the last minute.

And we have SAMs on that are mobile.

 

[Chino]

Israel did not lose Sinai in 1973. ....The Israeli withdrawal from Sinai was part of the peace settlement with Egypt several years later. Treaty signed 26-03-1979

The Egyptians made many brilliant tactical moves and her troops fought very well in the Yom Kippur War even though they lost in the end. This allowed the Egyptians to regain the pride they lost in 1967. This regained sense of pride allowed Sadat to make lasting peace with the Israelis.

And with peace, Sadat got back all the territory Egypt could never win by force. I think the war was a brilliant political stroke by Sadat.

 

[paskal]

The RSAF now may have an advantage over all SEA forces including the aussies[only for now].
The only thing that the SAF should worry is the land that they have.
If not now i can bet in 2015 or something the MAF or most probaly the TNI will purchased a strong missle[not nclear] that can devestate the city of singapore.
Whats the use of having tones of forces but being cramped at one place.
At the end of the day the land will play a big role in war.
For example if singapore attack the MAF with multiple bombing the MAF can easily hid in the jungle and only defence the major cities like johor and KL with lots of SAMS and JERNAS and tons more of anti-air missles.
As for singapore the MAF can easily strike from JOHOR with artilery and astros.
THe SU-30 MKM that they just purchased can unleashed the KH-59 ME from JOhor with quite a far range.
So if i was the SAF i would strike hard first before being attacked

 

[Schumacher]

.......So if i was the SAF i would strike hard first before being attacked

As has been said numerous times, SAF's doctrine & design are definitely to strike fast & hard deep in the early stage of any unlikely conflict with Malaysia, certainly deeper than just Johor.
It certainly will be a concern if ballistic missiles are introduced into SEA either 2015 or sometime in the future. But one only needs to look at GW1 & the effects of the Scuds to see how it's easy to overestimate BMs' effectiveness, unless of course nuclear armed. I suspect anti-BM tech will be much better in the future as well & have heard 'talks' of acquiring such capabilities for SAF.