Malaysian Army/Land forces discussions

[Chino]

Chino said fixed wing. A fixed wing aircraft is not necessarily a fast mover. I think Chino is concerned about survivability in his post.

IMHO, helicopters are much more vulnerable to AA missile coverage than fast movers. Dzirhan will correct me if I am wrong.

Yes, thanks for clarifying.

They are definitely more vulnerable to ground fire. Everything comes with a price.

Furthermore you need fixed-wing air-superiority otherwise these attack helos will also be vulnerable to enemy fighters well before they reach their destination. Which is why a fighter-bomber is more cost-effective.

 

[Tavarisch]

I see your point. Yeah, it's logical. But, however, I still think having Attack Helos wouldn't be a bad idea.

 

[nevidimka]

Yeah, well I have to agree. But you want the fixed wing to be fast right? If it were to be slow or just intermediately fast, it would be an easy target for section or squad level AAs to target them.

The plane must be able to get in there as fast as getting out. Otherwise, like I said, it could be toast.

And yes, I am also aware that helicopters are not safe from AA either. The Soviet War in Afghanistan comes to mind. Lost a lot of hinds and other equipment the Soviets did.

Some helicopters though have the ability to remain out of sight and still inflict casualties. (Longbow anyone?) However, a radar based AA missile would definitely get it.

I think you have read too much into Desert Storm. The Apache's were fighting in a desert where there was excellent view and had a great advantage. I'm not sure if attack helicopters like Apache's would fare well in the environment like in Malaysia. From the top of my mind I remember the Apache's having trouble in Kosovo and an incident in Iraq, where they were pulled back from the mission/deployment due to losses being inflicted by ground fire. But US did a very good job in trying to cover up or convincing everyone its not a great deal, coz a lot of future sales depended on its war time showing.

If you equip your whole infantry with good MANPAD's I doubt the Attack choppers can be much use full in the Malaysian tropics. In fact I'm not sure if MD should even buy heavy attack helicopters in the future.

If you can work around the problem with lesser $$$, why continue to invest so much in that expensive toy? The $$$ can be well spent in other area's that is more pressing.

 

[Transient]

I think you have read too much into Desert Storm. The Apache's were fighting in a desert where there was excellent view and had a great advantage. I'm not sure if attack helicopters like Apache's would fare well in the environment like in Malaysia. From the top of my mind I remember the Apache's having trouble in Kosovo and an incident in Iraq, where they were pulled back from the mission/deployment due to losses being inflicted by ground fire. But US did a very good job in trying to cover up or convincing everyone its not a great deal, coz a lot of future sales depended on its war time showing.

If you equip your whole infantry with good MANPAD's I doubt the Attack choppers can be much use full in the Malaysian tropics. In fact I'm not sure if MD should even buy heavy attack helicopters in the future.

If you can work around the problem with lesser $$$, why continue to invest so much in that expensive toy? The $$$ can be well spent in other area's that is more pressing.

Learning the wrong lesson is as good as learning no lesson. The reason why the US Army Apaches suffered so badly was because their tactics called for the Apaches to remain stationary when engaging targets, using cover to fire their missiles then mask behind terrain. But they got ambushed in the mountains, with fire coming in from all sides. In contrast the USMC used different tactics. They kept their Cobras moving constantly, and this made them far less vulnerable to the threat of small arms and RPG fire. This is why the USMC never suffered the way the Army Apaches did. This is a problem of tactics failure, not a platform problem. Attack helicopters still remain a very potent platform, but like all platforms they have to be properly utilised for the best combat effects. Countries are still acquiring attack helicopters, so evidently they don't share your view on attack helicopter obsolescence.

 

[Chino]

The Syrians did use small numbers of AT helicopters successfully against IDF in Lebanon. And as we all know IDF has a very powerful AF. So it is not out of the question. The thing to do is to attack enemy columns not escorted by aircrafts and get out before enemy fighters arrive.

The US lessons may not be completely relevant to MAF as US always has complete air superiority in the recent wars.

What this means is that before RMAF choppers worry about ground fire, they have to worry about being attacked by enemy aircrafts.

But this means they cannot "loiter" like AT choppers are suppose to be good for. They have to shoot n scoot. Which makes forking out cash for AT choppers for a small RMAF budget seem like a waste. They should just get more fighter/bombers.

 

[Dzirhan]

Just a slight correction, it's been decided that attack choppers, if any were purchased, would be operated by the Malaysian army and not the RMAF

 

[DavidDCM]

Similar to the aforementioned A109 already being operated by the Army Air Wing.

-----

In regards to Air Defence: There was some talking about the Malaysian Army purchasing the KS-1A medium range SAM system from China. Is this deal, which also included the manufacturing licence for the FN-6 Manpad, still on the table or obsolete? Quite a number of defence procurements seems to have been slashed or postponed due to the current economic crisis. Do you know something about it, Dzirhan (or another member)?

 

[Chino]

Just a slight correction, it's been decided that attack choppers, if any were purchased, would be operated by the Malaysian army and not the RMAF

This is interesting.

Are there any inter-services rivalry in MAF?

I've often wondered if the US system of each arm having over-lapping capabilities is a good idea. E.g. Army and Navy has air-assets, and Navy has ground troops e.g. Marines.

I wonder if SAF has this capability to what degree? For e.g. I know the Combat Engineers are responsible for at least some amphibious platforms and misc small motor crafts.

 

[Mr Ignorant]

To a certain extent, I think there is serious inter service rivalry between all the components that make up the MAF as it is correct for all armed services. As for the A109, we'll wait and see.

As for the US services having overlapping capabilities, you must be thinking of the USMC here. Who could say if there was, but if one service had more 'muscle' than the other, then some would perceive that as a threat. Hence, why the US Army, has it's own choppers, planes, tanks and guns and the USMC, has a little bit more with less, and the USN is effectively a naval and air power in it's own right.

 

[Dzirhan]

This is interesting.

Are there any inter-services rivalry in MAF?

Like all services there is, particularly when it comes to selecting who'll be CDF , the decision was pretty much made when the Army Air Corps was formed and also with the move towards better tri-service C4I, initially it was argued in the 90s that the RMAF should operate attack helos as they could coordinate better with RMAF aircraft, something given force also because of the limited communication capability between the three services, since then that has changed and the RMAF is also largely getting out of helos save for CSAR and heavy lift and add the fact that attack helos would have to come out of RMAF budget which would then affect the rest of RMAF procurement. The RMAF was pretty keen in getting the army to take over much of the helo roles as they seconded machines and men to get the Army Air Corp up and running.

 

[nevidimka]

Learning the wrong lesson is as good as learning no lesson. The reason why the US Army Apaches suffered so badly was because their tactics called for the Apaches to remain stationary when engaging targets, using cover to fire their missiles then mask behind terrain. But they got ambushed in the mountains, with fire coming in from all sides. In contrast the USMC used different tactics. They kept their Cobras moving constantly, and this made them far less vulnerable to the threat of small arms and RPG fire. This is why the USMC never suffered the way the Army Apaches did. This is a problem of tactics failure, not a platform problem. Attack helicopters still remain a very potent platform, but like all platforms they have to be properly utilised for the best combat effects. Countries are still acquiring attack helicopters, so evidently they don't share your view on attack helicopter obsolescence.

As opposed to saying US getting its tactics wrong, why not say the opponents got their tactics right? Is there a tactic that cannot be overcome by another better tactic just because 1 side operates Attack choppers? The US used the same tactics for those operations in Iraq and Kosovo, but they were not a problem nor classified as "wrong tactics", until they hit a snag didn't they? It just goes to show, that attack chopers are always vulnerable to ground fire that even and out numbered and out equipped Iraqis could take out those Apache's. Now when we consider that the Malaysian environment is more cluttered with terrains, buildings, etc2, the risk for the Attack helicopters are that much more. Is Malaysia not able to come with good tactics to deny the opponents who operate a few Attack Helo's to render them useless?

Coming to my point, I didn't say attack choppers are obsolete, rather saying that they may not be necessary for a cash strapped Malaysian military. The Army needs a lot more equipment b4 they can start looking at Attack Helo's which I think are more luxury items. There are countries that still buy attack helo's and there are countries that canceled their intentions of buying attack helo's like Sweden.

And Personally I think the Army should operate the Attack helo's and not the Air force, due to the close association of attack helo's role to the Army operations.

 

[Mr Ignorant]

So the shadow Army Air Corp is going to receive Augusta A109s and the RMAF Nuris? This is going to be interesting. I believe it when I see it, as for Malaysian terrain, this varies on what the theatre is. Is it just me or does anyone else notice a pattern here? Everytime we discuss military procurement and military capability, invariably we talk less about the type of terrain these assets would be operating on, and more worryingly, the number of Malaysians who contribute on this thread (including me) tend to talk more about defending the country rather than pre-emptive strikes or invasions Is it just me, or have we Malaysians inherited this bunker like mentality when talking about defence? We could invade Mindanao tomorrow if we wanted to or portions of Indonesia, but unlike our neighbours, Malaysians don't tend to discuss invasions :nutkick

I think it's a bit worrying, and it explains more about our fear of the neighbours next door, but really must we keep upgunning our Military, who exactly is threatening us that we need Attack Helicopters???

 

[DavidDCM]

I haven't seen any Indonesian or Singaporean here talk about invasion so far

Well, right now nobody is threatening you, but you don't know what's the situation in 2015 or beyond. Military procurement is always an investment in an uncertain future. I'm not commenting on attack helos in specific, as Malaysia is not planning to buy any, but maintaining and constantly upgrading a strong military is necessary for every country, even those not being threatened right now.

 

[OPSSG]

As opposed to saying US getting its tactics wrong, why not say the opponents got their tactics right? Is there a tactic that cannot be overcome by another better tactic just because 1 side operates Attack choppers? The US used the same tactics for those operations in Iraq and Kosovo, but they were not a problem nor classified as "wrong tactics", until they hit a snag didn't they?

No disrespect, but IMHO, Transient is developing an interesting point you may not have considered fully. It is after all a discussion board for us armchair generals.

It just goes to show, that attack chopers are always vulnerable to ground fire that even and out numbered and out equipped Iraqis could take out those Apache's.

Yes, what are you getting at? I think we've all figured out that Apaches/ attack helicopters are not invincible, especially if they are wrongly employed.

Now when we consider that the Malaysian environment is more cluttered with terrains, buildings, etc2, the risk for the Attack helicopters are that much more. Is Malaysia not able to come with good tactics to deny the opponents who operate a few Attack Helo's to render them useless?

Ah! I think I see signs of 'the opponent is stupid' type of argument. It could be a very dangerous assumption. :shudder

Coming to my point, I didn't say attack choppers are obsolete, rather saying that they may not be necessary for a cash strapped Malaysian military. The Army needs a lot more equipment b4 they can start looking at Attack Helo's which I think are more luxury items.

Ah! The other priorities argument. Conceptually sound. But you may want to consider identifying a few of the higher priority items, for your fellow arm chair generals.

There are countries that still buy attack helo's and there are countries that canceled their intentions of buying attack helo's like Sweden.

Relevance? Malaysia and Sweden have different defence needs right?

And Personally I think the Army should operate the Attack helo's and not the Air force, due to the close association of attack helo's role to the Army operations.

Wait... didn't you just say that Apaches/ attack helicopters are not very useful? Or are you saying that only the Malaysian army knows how to employ attack helicopters.

 

[OPSSG]

Is it just me or does anyone else notice a pattern here? Everytime we discuss military procurement and military capability, invariably we talk less about the type of terrain these assets would be operating on, and more worryingly, the number of Malaysians who contribute on this thread (including me) tend to talk more about defending the country rather than pre-emptive strikes or invasions.

nfloorl: Very funny.

Is it just me, or have we Malaysians inherited this bunker like mentality when talking about defence? We could invade Mindanao tomorrow if we wanted to or portions of Indonesia, but unlike our neighbours, Malaysians don't tend to discuss invasions :nutkick

Yes, it's just you.

We could invade Mindanao tomorrow if we wanted to or portions of Indonesia, but unlike our neighbours, Malaysians don't tend to discuss invasions :nutkick

Yes and by all means discuss the threat to use force (similar to Dr. M's approach - threats full of hot air). We are not here to discuss military capability right?

 

[Transient]

As opposed to saying US getting its tactics wrong, why not say the opponents got their tactics right?

Glass half empty or glass half full? 2 sides of the same coin.

Is there a tactic that cannot be overcome by another better tactic just because 1 side operates Attack choppers?

Certainly not, but the advantage lies on the side with attack choppers. Look at the recent Gaza conflict as well as the Iraq war. Which side do you think took a beating? Choppers or insurgents?

The US used the same tactics for those operations in Iraq and Kosovo, but they were not a problem nor classified as "wrong tactics", until they hit a snag didn't they?

They were working, but the insurgents had the time to digest American tactics and develop countermeasures. That exposed the weakness in the Army's heli tactics.

Now when we consider that the Malaysian environment is more cluttered with terrains, buildings, etc2, the risk for the Attack helicopters are that much more.

Jungles are not conducive to replicate the same kind of ambushes that the Apaches in Afghanistan were subjected to. Line of sight and fire problems. I thought that'd be obvious. In any case, as long as the Apaches are kept in motion the way the Israelis are doing in Gaza, they're safe from small arms fire. As evidenced by the lack of damage sustained even though there were reports of them coming under small arms fire.

Is Malaysia not able to come with good tactics to deny the opponents who operate a few Attack Helo's to render them useless?

There is the possibility that Malaysia can pull off a one-time ambush, but as is evident, people tend to learn from past tactics and develop countermeasures. An exact replication of the tactics used in Afghanistan won't work again. It certainly isn't working right now, or we would see Apaches dropping from the skies everytime they're used.

Coming to my point, I didn't say attack choppers are obsolete, rather saying that they may not be necessary for a cash strapped Malaysian military. The Army needs a lot more equipment b4 they can start looking at Attack Helo's which I think are more luxury items. There are countries that still buy attack helo's and there are countries that canceled their intentions of buying attack helo's like Sweden.

I think Malaysia will benefit from getting attack choppers, but they'd need more than just attack helis to make full use of them. Attack helis are potent platforms, but they'd need the necessary communications and sensor infrastructure to get the full benefits they offer. Or else they're just luxury items'. Does Malaysia have the money for it all? That I don't know.

 

[Dzirhan]

Similar to the aforementioned A109 already being operated by the Army Air Wing.

-----

In regards to Air Defence: There was some talking about the Malaysian Army purchasing the KS-1A medium range SAM system from China. Is this deal, which also included the manufacturing licence for the FN-6 Manpad, still on the table or obsolete? Quite a number of defence procurements seems to have been slashed or postponed due to the current economic crisis. Do you know something about it, Dzirhan (or another member)?

The KS-1 seems to be in limbo, when I asked the army chief about it last year in March, he insisted that it was only a deal between the Chinese and Malaysian companies and the MAF was not bound by it but the army did get a small shipment of FN-6 for China (16-18 launchers) last year in September. The Russians have been marketing aggressively on the medium range SAMs so the Chinese have been pushed back in that area.

 

[Chino]

So the shadow Army Air Corp is going to receive Augusta A109s and the RMAF Nuris? This is going to be interesting. I believe it when I see it, as for Malaysian terrain, this varies on what the theatre is. Is it just me or does anyone else notice a pattern here? Everytime we discuss military procurement and military capability, invariably we talk less about the type of terrain these assets would be operating on, and more worryingly, the number of Malaysians who contribute on this thread (including me) tend to talk more about defending the country rather than pre-emptive strikes or invasions Is it just me, or have we Malaysians inherited this bunker like mentality when talking about defence? We could invade Mindanao tomorrow if we wanted to or portions of Indonesia, but unlike our neighbours, Malaysians don't tend to discuss invasions :nutkick

I think it's a bit worrying, and it explains more about our fear of the neighbours next door, but really must we keep upgunning our Military, who exactly is threatening us that we need Attack Helicopters???

There are many very nationalistic Malaysians, maybe not here on this forum.

...

You are right about preparing for the "neighbours", but your threat scenarios differ from mine.

The real threats to Malaysian security come from Indonesia and Thailand. You share long borders with both these people and you have serious border/territorial disputes with both. (Not to mention Philippines, who claim the entire state of Sabah!!!)

If you look at the big picture, there is really no real strategic importance to all the spats that's occurred between SG & MY. It's all just "wagging the dog" politicking.

 

[Mr Ignorant]

You are right about preparing for the "neighbours", but your threat scenarios differ from mine.

The real threats to Malaysian security come from Indonesia and Thailand. You share long borders with both these people and you have serious border/territorial disputes with both. (Not to mention Philippines, who claim the entire state of Sabah!!!)

If you look at the big picture, there is really no real strategic importance to all the spats that's occurred between SG & MY. It's all just "wagging the dog" politicking.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it's true, our relationship with Singaporeans is like a torrid affair of keeping a Mistress happy, while making sure the Trophy wife is at home sipping champagne and being the domestic goddess that she should be nfloorl:

No, seriously, what warrants the need to have A109 Attack choppers?? I am fairly familiar with Malaysian Terrain, and whilst it is a novelty, I can't help but thinking the role and nature of attack helicopters is somewhat skewered because of it's image of many, many abuses against human rights, and not necessarily in a war context. I think our Army Air Corp is taking up my suggestion of an Airmobile Division a la Vietnam Air Cavalry nfloorl:

What we need is Arty, big massive guns, preferably mobile and dozens of them - ANd maybe pack animals like donkeys and horses for instance, I don't think Malaya would last a week without petrol supplies, if ever invaded. Our problem with the Phillipines is that, we've been more or less, and to a varying extent, involved in the dirty war there. So it is alleged.

And Indonesia??? Well, look at how many Indonesians have reached high political positions in Malaysia. As long as they agree to leave out their ethnic identities behind and adopt the wider Malay term, then they tend to go far in public life here.

 

[nevidimka]

Glass half empty or glass half full? 2 sides of the same coin.

Certainly not, but the advantage lies on the side with attack choppers. Look at the recent Gaza conflict as well as the Iraq war. Which side do you think took a beating? Choppers or insurgents?

What does Gaza and Iraq has in common? Both are plain dessert.

They were working, but the insurgents had the time to digest American tactics and develop countermeasures. That exposed the weakness in the Army's heli tactics.

Now, those are just insurgents, but we are talking military here.

Jungles are not conducive to replicate the same kind of ambushes that the Apaches in Afghanistan were subjected to. Line of sight and fire problems. I thought that'd be obvious. In any case, as long as the Apaches are kept in motion the way the Israelis are doing in Gaza, they're safe from small arms fire. As evidenced by the lack of damage sustained even though there were reports of them coming under small arms fire.

Maybe or maybe not.

There is the possibility that Malaysia can pull off a one-time ambush, but as is evident, people tend to learn from past tactics and develop countermeasures. An exact replication of the tactics used in Afghanistan won't work again. It certainly isn't working right now, or we would see Apaches dropping from the skies everytime they're used.

This is by saying that the military would just sit and wait to be attacked and only rely on ambushing with light arms. Who are we expecting to fight with? US?

I think Malaysia will benefit from getting attack choppers, but they'd need more than just attack helis to make full use of them. Attack helis are potent platforms, but they'd need the necessary communications and sensor infrastructure to get the full benefits they offer. Or else they're just luxury items'. Does Malaysia have the money for it all? That I don't know.

I think so too, when they have the funds. I'd like to see attack choppers, although I think they are luxury items. If the army is well equipped with proper C4I implementation and cash to spare, why not?