PT-91 MBT
-
Originally posted by papabear20046:
The so called mock exe with their restricted ROE and simulation cannot and will not tell us what will really happen in real battle!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by papabear20046:
True it will spark off an arms race. But its already on...[b]Just that they r racing with don't know whom. Who have artillery shooting standard ammo going out to 30km around here? Do we? They just keep buying n if they get good training on them it will be a differ story. In a test between MIG-29 n F16, MIG won in the dogfight before F16 could fire. Y? Better design thus having two pieces of tech the other don't(those the west didn't have)n good training but may not be a better one. The rest around want to buy new equipments too but no money or ppl suited to use them. But it not totally about having high tech stuff sometimes its a matter of having n not having. Look at iraq...US have more dead now than in the wars, who more high tech? Any kind of equipment if used correctly produces results, but u must have them in the first place....
Look at wat i last wrote in bold. Well u r right about 155mm 52 cal n MIG-29 never won in combat. But they r using 155mm 45 cal . In mock fight between Luftwaffe MiG-29s n USAF F-16s, pilots found that any aircraft within 45deg's of the nose of a MiG-29 in ACM was always under grave threat due to it's helmet mounted sight. Do we have Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Sys that's the question...USAF planes got them. N if they got the SA-11 SAM that's on their list, they then can simultaneously attack up to 12 targets flying at speeds up to 3000 km/h at ranges from 3 to 32 km n at alt between 15 n 22000 m. System reaction time is 8-10 sec. N yes they r getting Su-30...Now they have BVR missile too. Su-30 design retains the best features of the unsurpassed Su-27 air-superiority fighter boasts enhanced functional cap.Engines with thrust-vectoring nozzles enable Su-30 to perform such maneuvers as vertical reverse, roll in,turn in etc. In these maneuvers, an angle of attack can reach 180o. These are not aerobatic maneuvers as this supermaneuverability can be effectively used in combat. As for F-16, their max angles of attack are 30o n can't use armament at supercritical angles of attack.Su-30Â’s supermaneuverability gives it superiority in close air combat in which it excels F-16C Block 50 by 10-15%, F-16C Block 60 by 20-30%(as the high wing loading significantly limits its maneuverability in close-range combat).
N if they don't retired MIG-29s but upgrade them n add to Su-30s? They should have around 57 fighters in whole if they have enough crews.
Quote from mag Aviation Week and Space Technology:
Sukhoi Su-30MK, the high-performance fighter being exported to India and China, consistently beat the F-15C in classified simulations, say U.S. Air Force and aerospace industry officials.In certain circumstances, the Su-30 can use its maneuverability, enhanced by thrust-vectoring nozzles, and speed to fool the F-15's radar, fire two missiles and escape before the U.S. fighter can adequately respond. THE SCENARIO in which the Su-30 "always" beats the F-15 involves the Sukhoi taking a shot with a BVR missile (like the AA-12 Adder) and then "turning into the clutter notch of the F-15's radar," the Air Force official said. Getting into the clutter notch where the Doppler radar is ineffective involves making a descending, right-angle turn to drop below the approaching F-15 while reducing the Su-30's relative forward speed close to zero. This is a 20-year-old air combat tactic, but the Russian fighter's maneuverability, ability to dump speed quickly and then rapidly regain acceleration allow it to execute the tactic with great effectiveness, observers said. If the maneuver is flown correctly, the Su-30 is invisible to the F-15's Doppler radar--which depends on movement of its targets--until the U.S. fighter gets to within range of the AA-11 Archer infrared missile. The AA-11 has a high-off-boresight capability and is used in combination with a helmet-mounted sight and a modern high-speed processor that rapidly spits out the target solution. Positioned below the F-15, the Su-30 then uses its passive infrared sensor to frame the U.S. fighter against the sky with no background clutter. The Russian fighter then takes its second shot, this time with the IR missile, and accelerates out of danger.
End of quote
They wanted AWACS(looked at Brazilian Embraer EMB-145, E-2C Hawkeye 2000 n Boeing's 737 Wedgetail) but only money stopped them.
Very large numerical advantage in term of fighters didn't do israel any good did they? So superior training n tactics would put them ahead if their crews got them. For now, we r better trained but we should not stop even for a while to let them catch up.
[/b]
First thing , all our fighters have HMS plus high off boresight AAM now , remember Python 4 and future AIM-9X!!!!
Secondly no one will ever know how they will perform in the real battle with all the electronics warfare going on in the background and these will never be simulated becos it cannot be simulated and secondly all these data are hghly classified!!!
So how will Russian missile perform against Israeli plus US ECM and ECCM in real battle??? Likewise for the other way round.
No one truly know!!!
But things we do know are:
1) Mig-29s suck big time against any western made a/c in a real battle
2) it is commonly acknowledge that US and in some extent Israel are some of top in the world in term of electronics warfare as compare to the Russian.
So only the way we know for sure how good an a/c is thru real combat battle, so far Mig-29s sucks, will SU-30s perform better against Western made a/c???
It remain to be seen!!!! -
JMCS anyone ? ....
HMS on RSAF viper
well ... we don't have the JMCS yet (coming on the strike eagles), but we do have the Rafale equivalent ....
but that aside what's the whole point of this thread really ? ... to me it seems that some people were just intent on tooting our own horn ....
I'd rather see us be kiasu and kiasi and be paranoid about everyone than to get complacent .... we shouldn't let the lesson of the recent Israeli "picnic" into lebanon be forgotten ..... -
Well we would not want to be caught with our pants down do we? We can't afford to....Must KO ppl first...Cos there's no coming back. If mock exe with restricted ROE don't work tink all the outfield exe we did gone to waste already... Everytink we also mock then how like that? We have Python 4??? Like i said sometimes having it, is better than not having. Better to have n not need it then need it n not have it..... Russian stuff cheap may not be worse or more ex than western types but good enough...That's y the west kana shock sometimes when after USSR fell n they got their stuff to check performance compared to theirs. May not be high tech just have better ideas. We want to learn from other ppl experiences not our own. Sounds bad but true.Originally posted by gary1910:The so called mock exe with their restricted ROE and simulation cannot and will not tell us what will really happen in real battle!!!!
First thing , all our fighters have HMS plus high off boresight AAM now , remember Python 4 and future AIM-9X!!!!
Secondly no one will ever know how they will perform in the real battle with all the electronics warfare going on in the background and these will never be simulated becos it cannot be simulated and secondly all these data are hghly classified!!!
So how will Russian missile perform against Israeli plus US ECM and ECCM in real battle??? Likewise for the other way round.
No one truly know!!!
But things we do know are:
1) Mig-29s suck big time against any western made a/c in a real battle
2) it is commonly acknowledge that US and in some extent Israel are some of top in the world in term of electronics warfare as compare to the Russian.
So only the way we know for sure how good an a/c is thru real combat battle, so far Mig-29s sucks, will SU-30s perform better against Western made a/c???
It remain to be seen!!!! -
Is this Clutter notch maneuver as potent as the internet observers claim it to be? Come on, if u beam and dive after launching ur AA-12, whose gonna guide the missile until it goes autonomous? The AA-12's pk is gonna be drastically reduced without guidance.
When the RWR bleeps at u telling you a Sukhoi's painting u, (provided ur AWACs didn't tell u in the first place, u'd probably be asking for them for more info on it), u don't just stay there and get locked. U're not gonna wait for him to shoot first before taking actions of your own.
And being lower and slower due to recovery from a "clutter notch" manuever, he's more vulnerable to being shot at should u get a return shot at him, since he's at a lower energy state than you are. -
One issue I would like to point out is serviceability. I might be wrong on this but their armed forces hasn't proven to have had a stellar record as far as getting machines to the line (squadrons being disbanded, aircraft being grounded).
We are talking about high tech equipment here, be it main battle tanks or fighter bomber aircraft. How many aircraft can you serve up for a given mission to provide the critical mass required to ensure success?
Their most numerous fighter is the BAe Hawk and apparently there is 28 of them. Add the various F-5 derivatives, MIG-29 ( 18 ), and F/A-18s ( 8 ), and you have probably less than 100 aircraft to cover peninsula Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak.
Singapore no longer has brute numbers of A-4s since those are retired. There are 40 of the old F-5 Tigers (including reconaissance), and 62 Vipers of which an unknown number is in Singapore, the rest being in the US.
Plane to plane, the F-16 may have a hard fight with either the MIG-29 or the F/A-18, but combat is no longer fought in isolation, not as long as there is situational awareness (I would assume Malaysia's is ground-control-based, while Singapore's is more likely AWACS).
What I found on the web with regard to helmet mounted target cueing systems:
http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item44107.html
When all is said and done, RSAF has its own high tech niche and training, but our neighbours may not be as strong in this aspect, their experience and training in jungle warfare should never be underestimated.
We must always remember, if we ever had to set foot militarily across the causeway, we are playing in THEIR backyard.
Show some respect. -
Well said, well said
-
SU-30 was reported by Indonesian AF that it required 3x more maintenance than equivalent western made a/c and Mig 29 is even worse than SU30, FYI.
-
They've got very little to maintain liao. I've heard some rumors that they acquired their Su-30s without weapons and some communications equipment.Originally posted by gary1910:SU-30 was reported by Indonesian AF that it required 3x more maintenance than equivalent western made a/c and Mig 29 is even worse than SU30, FYI.
IMO, the Su-30's touted capabilities are over-rated. However, ironically it has a pair of really powerful engines, tho maintenance intensive if you light up the ABs. -
Well said, you have my respect.Originally posted by cleong:...We must always remember, if we ever had to set foot militarily across the causeway, we are playing in THEIR backyard.
Show some respect.
Too many people belittle Malaysia even though we have NEVER fought and won against them. Yet somehow many come to the conclusion we'll beat them with one hand tied behind our backs.
To quote an example our mighty friend the Israelis really underestimated the Egyptian fighting man after the Six Day War.
They paid the price in 1973 Yom Kippur War when they were completely taken by surprise, and then further surprised by the bravery, tenacity and professionalism of the new Egyptian soldier.
(It was Yom Kippur that allowed the Egyptian to win back their honour, and thus allowed them to make honourable peace with the Israelis.)
So never understimate anyone.
Malaysia is too big a country to be bombed into submission. So there would have to be a lot of ground fighting where the jungles can render aerial superiority of RSAF less effective.
So, when it comes to ground fighting, do we still have a huge superiority over the MAF?
I think not.
Furthermore, the average SAF soldier is city born and city bred - though we train in the forests all the time and some real JUNGLE training overseas. -
Recent Israelis Op n of cos Iraq have shown air power can only do so much...Air power is Infantry fire support....Its the BOOTS on the ground that will win the final battle. Only through a quick n decisive well planned movement can any war be won.Originally posted by moca:So never understimate anyone.
Malaysia is too big a country to be bombed into submission. So there would have to be a lot of ground fighting where the jungles can render aerial superiority of RSAF less effective.
So, when it comes to ground fighting, do we still have a huge superiority over the MAF?
I think not.
Furthermore, the average SAF soldier is city born and city bred - though we train in the forests all the time and some real JUNGLE training overseas. -
Who say we should underestimate our possible opponent???
I highllighting some the misconception and hype of some Russian weapon!!!!
Mig 29 is good example, it is one of the best in rmaneuverability plus Russian HMS , it seem invincible against westerm made a/c in the 80s especially in mock dogfight.
But that advantage has been slowly eroded as westen made a/c also came out with HMS and even higher off bore-sight AAM.
Other disadvantge of it is high maintenance and low availability that ppl seem to ignore, and the fact that avionics and electronics suite is quite outdated as compare to the west. And all that has reflected in it's poor actual combat record, that is the true acid test!!!
If SAF is to fight, we should never underestimate our enemy but use all our power to overcome enemy, not be restricted by so called " political correctness ", if we need to carpet bomb, we should, if we need to use cluster bomb/FAE, we should!!!
The only thing I am worry abt is not SAF, but the leaders , Israeli PM Olmert is good example, political correctness plus fear of int'l pressure, he delay the ground operation and did not allow IDF to use the full force of their capability( remember the original IDF commnader was replaced due to disagreement with political leader), becos if our enemy uses assymetical warfare , we need to be brutal in war, that is only to fight, otherwise we should not be in a warl!!!
Political correctness is weakness to be exploited by your enemy.
It also means delay and higher casualty to your men!!!!
If one worry abt collateral damage and our enemy will exploit that as in latest Lebanon war and in Iraq, Hizboallah and the like will use it against you!!!!
IF we go into a war, we(SAF) should be more kiasu and kiasi and use our full force to achieve a decisive victory asap, underestimating or rather worry abt in'tl pressure???
NO!!!! -
Wasn't referring to you, dude.Originally posted by gary1910:
Who say we should underestimate our possible opponent???......
IF we go into a war, we(SAF) should be more kiasu and kiasi and use our full force to achieve a decisive victory asap, underestimating or rather worry abt in'tl pressure???
NO!!!!
You were just talking about the MiG 29.
I was talking about the low opinion of MAF among our guys in general. There is always someone who thinks that out air force or navy or our 3G something will do the fighting and winning.
But when it comes to ground troops on ground troops, do we still have that superiority? And we can't always count on superiority of numbers and equipment. There would be occasions when it's the wrong time, wrong place etc. Whoever happens to be there will have to hold and prevail without air support, reinforcements etc...
There will be times when the PT-91 is approaching and your ATGM guys are not around and the Apaches are not coming...etc.
SAF Forward Defense was formulated to be aggresive, jiasu and kiasi - let's hope we adhere to these principles when war comes whether with MY or anyone else. -
So never understimate anyone.
No one is under any illusion as to underestimating anyone. It would most certainly be the case if the references(of the MAF)are fiction. But they are not. The MAF will be in a lot of trouble in the event of war because of a series of unfortunate events. And certainly fortunate for us. And discussing it certainly does`nt constitute disrespect. I have seen worser comments made the other round in thier forums. You might never know that somehow, one day, the government up north might acquire the right amount of rationality as to allow them to fix the MAF.Malaysia is too big a country to be bombed into submission. So there would have to be a lot of ground fighting where the jungles can render aerial superiority of RSAF less effective.
Are you sure? When the whole of RMAF and what little air defences are gone, the RSAF can bomb at her leisure and quite literally push back decades worth of nation building. I hardly think it is in Singapore`s interest to conquer and take over governance. The whole idea is to push back an invasion by bringing the fight to the enemy. If the Malaysian terrain is to be turned into a mass of rubble, would that be bring comfort to the government and people there? The MAF can retreat and hug the trees in the jungle for all they care; if the industries and technological centres are pummelled to the ground, they`re back to where they`ve started two-three decades ago and that brings a whole gamut of problems to the folks there .They would be incapacitated as an invasion force and that`s all that matters. And Singapore can do this again and again(does`nt this sound familiar). The whole world can pass you by as you`re stuck fighting in warrens. As a nation, where would Malaysia be then? It is not for nothing that some commentators have labelled Singapore`s approach a `dooms-day' tactic.So, when it comes to ground fighting, do we still have a huge superiority over the MAF?I think not.
We have numerical superiority. We have technological superiority. And the argument about conscripts versus professional soldiers has been rehashed so many times. How professional and how efficient a trooper would be depend on training and morale then other things. Some things which the MAF does not and cannot be said to have monopoly in.
Not unless you can quantify and qualify a city-bred soldier performs worser than a villager, this presumption is no different than saying a soldier from a Western country would be worse off in a different setting. The average Singapore soldier is certainly more more disposed and exposed to more `techy' equipment and doctrines than the average Malaysian soldier could hope. Advancements which have a multiplier effect on the whole battle situation.
Furthermore, the average SAF soldier is city born and city bred - though we train in the forests all the time and some real JUNGLE training overseas.quote] -
Recent Israelis Op n of cos Iraq have shown air power can only do so much...Air power is Infantry fire support....Its the BOOTS on the ground that will win the final battle. Only through a quick n decisive well planned movement can any war be won.
Oh really. The Israelis held back a lot. In a full-scale invasion, Lebanon, would be an Israeli province. The Israelis are not immune to death and destruction but who suffered more? Certainly not the Israelis. So who really won in this protracted confict. -
Su-30 design retains the best features of the unsurpassed Su-27 air-superiority fighter boasts enhanced functional cap.Engines with thrust-vectoring nozzles enable Su-30 to perform such maneuvers as vertical reverse, roll in,turn in etc.
Malaysian Sukhois don`t have thrust vector engines. In fact, they`re missing a lot of things Israeli which makes them good. hmm. I do hope they come with English or Malay manuals.
As for the 48 PTs, they will simpy be overwhelmed in the long run by our anti-armour weapons. The Malaysian peninsula is`nt a continent where they can hide. Especially when the skies are in the hands of the RSAF. Then again, we do have tanks of our own; plus the replacements for the AMX-13s. -
our armour would suffer under their hands too.
-
Winning depends on how u look at it. Who killed more,gain more land,gain more pride?,gaining peace be crushing the opposition? Gaining something is traditionally viewed as winning. But to get all that u need BOOTS ON THE GROUND.....U can't hold ground with planes,tanks(maybe for a while).....Infantry is still key in today's battlefieldOriginally posted by Arthas79:Oh really. The Israelis held back a lot. In a full-scale invasion, Lebanon, would be an Israeli province. The Israelis are not immune to death and destruction but who suffered more? Certainly not the Israelis. So who really won in this protracted confict. -
Don't underestimate or overestimate our enemy . Bomb them into submission? Don't think so but we sure can bomb the s**it out of them...Teach them a lesson they can't forgetOriginally posted by moca:Malaysia is too big a country to be bombed into submission. So there would have to be a lot of ground fighting where the jungles can render aerial superiority of RSAF less effective.
So, when it comes to ground fighting, do we still have a huge superiority over the MAF?
I think not.
Furthermore, the average SAF soldier is city born and city bred - though we train in the forests all the time and some real JUNGLE training overseas. But we can't n will not rely on the enemy's incompetence to win the battle....Even when we know they r half-f**k,we must treat them with respect,treat them as if they r a really good fighting force. From there we must think how to defeat them that way. Cos we fight how we train if we train thinking they r half-f**k we will fight half-f**k -
Knowing and showing facts are not estimating them amd become complacent, afterall we are not the planners for SAF development, so far we see SAF as kiasu and kiasi as ever!!!
A lot of this info are available from the nets and let me show something I have been posted elsewhere which actually based on info mainly from MY media:I really dunno what the fark how RMAF do their planning and maintenace?!?
So is it posting stuff that their own media reported as disrespectful!!!!
They have being self destructive all by themselves.
Lets me explain, bought abt 80s ex-USN A4 airframe to be refurnished and updated for use by RMAF, but due to delay, the cost escalated only able to afford to do it for abt 40 of them, and the rest of those airframes never even left US!!!!
After which they encountered some crashes for their A4-M and decided to retire them almost as as soon as they entered svc, max usage : abt 8yrs!!!!
Then they decided to buy 3 types of a/c, 28 Hawks, 18 Mig-29s and 8 Hornets. plus their existing F-5Es , total 4 type of a/c, making their infamous zoo of SEA!!!
Mig-29s has a lot of maintenace problem which result low availability of abt 30%, even with spare problem resolved , the availability hover around 50~60%, they just announced they going to retire them in around 2007, abt 12 years of svc, never see any AF that uses a new a/c that last so short!!!
Then the Hawk is crashing frequently recently, in fact RMAF's Hawks has the world highest rate of crashes per a/c than any country!!!
Lastly the Hornet, Dr M complained they have limited uses, in fact recently , it was reported that they going to upgrade them to fire PGM!!!
As for other co
By the end of decade, only abt 18 SU-30,abt 15 Hawks 200s, 8 Hornets and perhaps some(less than 10) upgrade F-5s i.e. slightly less 50 fighters, pathetic especially with so much money spent!!!!
All due to poor planning and maintenace, and the root cause is lousy leadership, even RMAF has the same amount of money as RSAF, it will never be as srong as RSAF!!!!
First thing respect has to be earned!!!!
Their own citizens have been complaining abt how their own corrupted leaders with all their cronies have been siphoning govt funds thru govt contracts especially defence contracts, delay and pump in more money for bailout due to non performing crony companies, extremely high cost weapons due to kickbacks, maintenance contract was not honour etc etc
Cases of such incident are plenty, and mostly reported by MY media, and I am not fabricating them , in fact, when I posted the above, not a single Malayisan disputed it becos they know it is the true!!!! -
Respect yr enemy not for yr enemy. We know all about the corruption i think its another problem all together. If we can buy them off in times of war(make them auto give up) then it will really become a point we would be serious about. B4 that happens ,think how to defeat them as well as in wat ways can they defeat us.........Originally posted by gary1910:First thing respect has to be earned!!!!
Their own citizens have been complaining abt how their own corrupted leaders with all their cronies have been siphoning govt funds thru govt contracts especially defence contracts, delay and pump in more money for bailout due to non performing crony companies, extremely high cost weapons due to kickbacks, maintenance contract was not honour etc etc
Cases of such incident are plenty, and mostly reported by MY media, and I am not fabricating them , in fact, when I posted the above, not a single Malayisan disputed it becos they know it is the true!!!! -
I've always suspected that the RMAF Mig-29s were not brand new as claimed.
What they really initially recieved were Fulcrum As. Ever seen what a Fulcrum A cockpit looks like? They had to upgrade their Fulcrums over the years in order to bring it up to modern standards. Which makes their actual "combat-ready" usage, less than 12 years. -
If we can carry out a preemptive strike ...I have not doubt SAF can easily march into KL .... not because we are superior or what ...given Msia is quite difficult to defend ... cos we just need to focus all our attack at one point... however Sg will also face a barrack of Msia rocket like in lebanon...our troop there will also be subjected to counter attack.... and in projected war we may not have the resources to outlast them... so in the end we will still lose .... we may capture KL but that does not mean victory for us
-
The SAF is not built to be an occupation force.
We are more of a joint operations corps.Strike fast, hard, air dominance, but not for land occupation.
Think of the SAF as a Marine Corps style force. Tri-service.Able to deploy under 48 hours, expeditionary in nature but unable to hold foreign land beyond a certain limit of time. -
Not sure what you're geting at, all due respects.Originally posted by Arthas79:Are you sure? When the whole of RMAF and what little air defences are gone, the RSAF can bomb at her leisure and quite literally push back decades worth of nation building. I hardly think it is in Singapore`s interest to conquer and take over governance. The whole idea is to push back an invasion by bringing the fight to the enemy. If the Malaysian terrain is to be turned into a mass of rubble, would that be bring comfort to the government and people there? The MAF can retreat and hug the trees in the jungle for all they care; if the industries and technological centres are pummelled to the ground, they`re back to where they`ve started two-three decades ago and that brings a whole gamut of problems to the folks there .They would be incapacitated as an invasion force and that`s all that matters. And Singapore can do this again and again(does`nt this sound familiar). The whole world can pass you by as you`re stuck fighting in warrens. As a nation, where would Malaysia be then? It is not for nothing that some commentators have labelled Singapore`s approach a `dooms-day' tactic.
Perhaps we can look at the wars Israel fought with her heighbours. In all the wars, Israeli did not seriously threatened her enemies' capitals beyond hitting military targets like airbases etc. But the IDF never made any real effort to march into Cairo, Damascus etc not because it couldn't. Perhaps they were leaving room for possible peace in future. Similarly, I do not see RSAF pushing back any body's "decades of nation building" like the US did to Hanoi.
IMHO RSAF will keep to military targets as opposed to your prediction of levelling civilisation. So that's why it will still be a ground fight. And in a ground fight in the jungle, airpower is an advantage but will not win the war.
Sure, that's what SAF is hoping. And I hope SAF is right, too. But in a ground fight, in the end, it is the man, his weapon, and his will. "techy" but soft troops can easily lose the fight like in Vietnam and Somalia.Originally posted by Arthas79:The average Singapore soldier is certainly more more disposed and exposed to more `techy' equipment and doctrines than the average Malaysian soldier could hope. Advancements which have a multiplier effect on the whole battle situation.
Of course, where our opinions differ is that you feel that the average SAF conscript is a tough a jungle fighter as the average MAF trooper. I seriously do not think so.
Finally, I am not saying SAF is gonna lose the fight against MAF. I am quite confident we will win, but I have heard many remarks in the past that many SG ppl seem to think that war with MY will be a walk in the park.