are u some army radical or some shit, if u think the conscripts will love the new training regmine u gotta be kidding. Coz most of us dun give a shit, we don’t even want to be there. So unless ur the best performing soldier there, please shove it up your ass.

Originally posted by foxtrout8:


I doubt the existence of such confriguration. Firstly Mindef nv breath a word abt such intergration and there are no photo susgesting it's existence. Even if there are such confrIguration available, we still have to consider arming our Deltas with wire guided missiles.

U see , if our Deltas aint armed with precision wire guided missiles , she will face problems of which she can detect enemy vessels approaching however unable to engage due to the constraints posed by the surrounding environment. Imagine if 2 enemy vessels will to be posing threat in the northern end of the Malacca straits and due to the crowded environment of the strait , the Deltas cant engage the enemy with her main Harpoon SSM. So now , are we going to wait for PVs to arrive or wait for the enemy vessel to strike?

For our Delta Frigate to be a [b]all roundedcombatant , we must equipped her with the different classes of weaponaries for different classes of engagement. It will certainly explain why the Israeli DF is arming her Saar5 Corvette with the Harpoon and the Gabriel SSMs eventhough that ship is very obvious a blue water combatant.[/b]

IMHO, thats where the naval helicopter will come in. Armed with 2 penguin or sea skua missiles, it will be able to disable or take out the enemy vessel. After all, one can hardy expect the gabriel to sink a large combantant

If I am not wrong its 2 seater. all D version like the F-15 I

Hi how many of you are going for the VJ bash tomorrow at Milieu hear that its an R&B nite… free flow and stuff…... $20 dollars sounds good, any one going?

Originally posted by Master -_-:

Me!!! my friend the organizer so can go in freeeeeeeeee~~

Me from sch of BA..

Hi wat is the name of your friend? .... and wats your name?

Hi, there will be an NP bash at melieu this tuesday, I hear the tickets will be 20 at the door with free flow… Thinking of going how many forummers interested?

Originally posted by YourFather:

Let's not get so enamoured by the G6 system. Sure, the G-6 is a bloody long ranged weapon, but at max range of 67km, I'd sure like to know what is the accuracy of the projectiles? (remember, dispersion increases as range increases for unguided projectiles) At such a range, the projectile would need to be guided to be effective, otherwise you would need a large amount of ammo to service each target at such ranges. Remember too, that the rounds which can fire to such ranges are special rounds (V-LAP rounds) and are going to cost quite a bit more.

Oh, by the way, our SPH is a -39 cal system.

So I guess it will more or less a clone of the M109 paladin gun....

Originally posted by CX:

at best, that will only disable APCs and IFVs... it won't take out a tank... the best way to take out a tank in a tank vs tank battle, is either to dismount troops to shoot ATGM, or to use another tank.

just for info, people in armour will know that during exercises, bionix are not used to engage an enemy tank.

opps.. sorry for the typo. It should be to disable IFV and APCs, we do not need the AMX-13, we can use the bionex 25 or even the amx-10P firesupport vehicle which has an even larger cannon than the amx-13.

Originally posted by foga:

hmmm.... they all look like longbow to me lei.

Yup if you go to boeing homepage and click on the apache link you will see it. In most air assult battlions in the us army, I read somewhere can't remember that only 15 out of the 25 apaches are longbow. The rest are just normal AH-64 D apache. Just food for thought, I sort of noticed that the kiowa scout has not been active in this war.

Originally posted by BaKa NeK0:

Hmmm Does singapore's apache have the Longbow Fire Control Radar hehe newbie to such stuff

In fact, even in the US not all apaches are armed with longbow radar. Most of the Ah-64 Ds do not have longbow radar as it will be too costly to maintain the fleet. After all, if 1 radar on 1 helicopter can do the job why do you need 20?

Originally posted by Innocent_Malaysian:

So is it cpnfirmed that the SAF's SOF are called Singapore Special Operation Force.?
And they dont have any specific name?

Hmm lets see

Rapaid airborne deployment we have the guards... (Not republican guards.... just guards) Deployable from super pumas and chinooks. Armed with sar-21 LSV and vickers 155mm air portable howizters. Possbility in getting light armour in the future in the wheeled vehichle similar to that of the LAC III used in the states. Also new equipment include 155mm air portable, self propelled howizters.. As for the rest no one knows.

Navy special ops.. Its called the Naval Diving Unit or NDU...
Army commandos... They are called commandos and are similar to that of the british armys paratroopers.. They are the only official troops certified to use the parachute. No one knows much about them.
SOF... This is a specialised force.... No public info on them

Originally posted by foxtrout8:

I believe our Apache fleet will surely be more than 20 in the future. As 20 is simpily not enough. I believe it got to do with the allocation of defense funds for other project that we limit our Apaches to 20. The fleet will increase easily if every year 3% of the budget is allocated for the apache team , so must wait . ( something like the F-16s)

On other helis , i believe is not needed , as Apache is currently the best available. By obtaining a variety of helis will bring in logistic problems. I believe wat Mindef shld do is to reason with the US to allow us longbow radars for every helicopters.

IMHO, I think we might be limited with 20 apaches. If we look at coutries like Israel, Egypt and UAE, they are only armed with about 40 apaches. Hence, if they these countries face armour in such huge numbers and only have 40 of them, malaysian armoured brigades would not be too much for Saf to handle. In addition, if we want to get the MAF's armoured vehicles out of the way, we still have the bionex 25 with the 25mm bushmaster cannon

Originally posted by CenturionMBT:

they may be able to operate in the jungle, but it is going to slow them down like hell. so some may simply choose the highway instead.

If they choose the highway, It makes the job even easier for the airforce. Just send a squardron of A-4 skyhawks to go after them with laser guided bombs and mavrick.

Originally posted by Innocent_Malaysian:

http://www.bernama.com/B2002v2/news.shtml?general/ge1104_8

Yo bro, cash is king... And if thats the case, I guess Mindef would go and form a air assult brigade.

Originally posted by foxtrout8:

For wat i know , the Sadral system isnt manual launch so comparing it to the manually launch Simbad , the six cell is a much reliable one. However still i find that the 4 km range missile have to be replace by one with longer range to increase reliability.

I think u made a mistake , the Simbad is Twin-celled while the Sadral is Six-celled .

pardon me I must have misread the dcn webpage

Originally posted by laser51088:

Cos a carrier got other ships protecting it, and in terms of air defence, its fighters are supposed to take care of it! Mistral is seriously lacking in range and capability. . ., if any enemy launches an anti-ship missile at the Mistral armed ships, they might as well sit there and wait to die. . . .

what I meant is that mistral is meant for point defense. Not for long range defense against cruise missiles.. for the following reasons

1) Fearless PC are supposed to be steath and connot be detected at cruise missiles max range

2) Fearless class PC are supposed to protect our coast and will probably fight with other Patrol craft armed with within the horizon weapons like the sea skua. which can be stopped using the mistral

3) Why only a 2 cell launcher is another question I wish to ask RSN.. My guess is the 6 cell laucher is too large for it. Or if it can be manually fitted when necessary, RSN can unveil its capability at the time of need

Originally posted by foxtrout8:

I think u are comparing more of an apple to an orange.

The LSV is to increase mobility of the Guards in our Jungle / Tropical terrain which not many vehicle can do that. The Humvee surely is a no no in such condition. Other than that , the LSV is choosen because it can be transport in reasonable numbers by helicopter to suit our rapid deployment requirement while again not many jeep can provide such luxury.

Abt protection , i dun think it is a problem because the LSV's agility allows it play hit and run warfare. During fighting , firepower from other vehicles will cover the LSV as it run the frontline. Notice that the LSV are armed with rather long ranged and heavier lnfantry weapon. The spike alone give them a strike range of 4 to 8kms.

Abt recon , i believe the LSV are designed for light recon mission where not much resistence will be seen. Ambush frequented LRRP will be carry out mainly by Commandos , Infantry scouts and Fennec Light Heli.

My two cents...

Also, any idea what is the strenght of a guard division, 3 brigades worth of guards and their support equipment? The funny thing about the 101 Airborne is that they and the guards are similarly equipped.

Singapore 101 Airborne
AH-64 Apache Ah 64 apache
Super Puma Blackhawk
Chinook Chinook
LSV Humvee
105 mm Giat Howitzer M119 105mm Howitzer

Any idea what is the purpose of the guards as a lightly armed rapid deployment force will be mince meat when it meets a heavy division? As far as the war in iraq is going on, it seems that the 101 airborne is used as crack troops to sweep up the remnents of saddam's fighters and to create forward bases for arming of apache helicopters. In our case, is there really a need for such a force considering that they are so lightly armed and will be vunerable to sharpnal and small arms fire?

Originally posted by foxtrout8:

Our Navy is rather cute i would say. We run one of the world's smallest craft as our main surface Combatant , however yet one of the most well equipped , with relatively up to date technology (as a whole) and supported by a well formated logistic network. Yet i would say , there are still very clear loopholes in some of the Naval system.

The twin Mistral system is one major example. With the growing naval air threats in the region , its rather pathetic to see our well armed ship being protected with this short ranged , manual launch SAM. In previous threads , one could argue that our past naval doctrine was more onto littoral defense , thus a longer ranged SAM isnt necessary . However still I dun think these Mistral system well protect our ship well agaisnt incoming SSM , which are a threat even in littoral mission.

Could we discuss on ur views whelther is the Mistral System obsolete to enemy air threats and if so , will there be a replacement .

Mistral is being used on the charles De Gulle the newest french carrier and is far from outdated. The purpose of the mistral is to provide point protection for a ship and is similar to that of the RAM. However, I agree that the 2 missile launcher is insufficient to meet our needs today, maybe the Navy can consider upgrading it to the 6 cell simbad laucher instead

Originally posted by foxtrout8:

Aegis Combat System is the man. I will like to see it in our Delta Frigate , one Aegis system along the Strait of Singapore and near the strait of Johore can protect the whole of Singapore from air threats ranging from aircraft to rockets. If it can protect such a big area , one ship in midst of one strike fleet will be enough to counter air threat in our region.

As for the replacement of the Mistral , i will vote for the Barak Missile defence system. 10km range Barak will be sufficent for the PVs as they are armed for Littoral defense. If the PVs will be missioned to follow a strike package , i believe a large combatant such as the Delta will have the enough fire power as the first line of defense.

Delta frigate is too small for such a system. However, it might have a similar abiet shorter range system called the arabel which can be used to guide 8 aster simutaneously.

Compared to the US humvees of the 101st Airborne, our LSV seem to be under armoured with no protection for the crew at the sides and at the head level despite the fact that both of them perform the same function. What do you guys think?

Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:

Wah... apparently their M1A1 tanks drove at top speed (43mph) for 2+ hours over rough terrain nonstop unopposed by iraqi resistance

Frankly I'd like to see their clown of an information minister trip up and ahve nothing to say for once...

that is why I call him the misinformation minister..

Originally posted by trainner:

USD 2000 per hour per F-16 cheap?
What do you consider expensive then?

USD 20,000 per hour for F-14

Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:

Siao, all M1 games always downplay the metal magic that is the Abrams, have you tried any? The M1s there are ridiculusly easy to destroy.

It stands, it dosen't sound like a non-recoverable hit.

"Destroyed" is a word to be used carefully when it comes to describing systems that are extremely survivable. What exactly counts as a destroyed? Ammo brew up? Not likely considering there were several cases of that happening in the gulf war and withing a few hours the tank was back in action following turret replacment. Engine knocked out? Happened before. I think the only way it could be truly considered destroyed if it was in pieces all over the place or burned out to a husk. The fact is, it's extremely hard to destroy an Abrams the way Iraqi tanks go up in, the american crew surviving without serious injury an indication that their tank was relatively intact.

If knocked out of action is considered "destroyed", as it seems in this case, what they consider "destroyed" here is a lot different from what we assumed it.

agreed. It really depends what between how one interprets the world destroyed and damaged. If the tank was truely destoryed like in the case of the marine Amphibious troop carrier which was blown to bits by RPG, it is impossible that the crew could have not suffered injuries. On the other hand, with the report that the tank crew were not injured. This probably means that the tank was probably damaged and could go back in to action in a short time.

Originally posted by ETboy:

why is the helicopter still so good in condition ?? yet it was shot downed ??

can anyone tell me ??

Latest from CNN. The apache was destroyed by a LGB fired by a coalition aircraft...... Damn what a waste, SG wun mind one more free apache......

I recall that some time ago, there was some mention about a creation of a rapid deployment force similar to that of the 101 Airborne division for the army and the Marines for the navy which will comprise of only regular troops. What do you think will the size of the force what sort of equipment they will have. Btw is the 8000 troops for the combined force a fair figure?

So far I think that the force created will be similar to that of the UK Rapid deployment force which will have

1) Apache Attack Helo
2) Chinook Medium Lift Helo
3) Super Puma Helo (for landing troops)
4) 105mm mobile artillary
5) 155 mm sel propelled artillary
6) Light strike vehicles
7) tanks???

btw, does the 101 Airborne operate tanks?