Home > Military Nuts

Malaysia poised to bring ESSM aboard new frigates

Arthas79
27 Jun 07, 19:27

I don't claim to be an expert on the ESSM but if I am not mistaken its effectiveness with regard to the US is because of the highly sophisticated Aegis combat system and not because of the missile itself. In fact judging from the details of the Jane report, it isn't even clear that the ESSM offered to the RMN is supported by the Smart-S/Ceros for S/X band mid course guidance. If not, then the system will have to rely on Homing All the Way mode/ Inertial HAW mode at best, which would of course, make it far less capable against a missile attack. The Aegis system is clearly off-limits to Malaysia both on political and economic grounds. What I'm trying to say is that I am well aware of the bureaucratic hurdles faced by Malaysia in purchasing this weapon but I don't think that it would be unsurpassable. If the sale was to take place, perhaps the RMN will have to make some technical compromises but ultimately it would still go through. I do agree that it would not a major coup for Raytheon on the basis of the quantity purchased. But surely the important thing for them is simply to get a foot in the door, in a country which traditionally had looked towards BAE systems and now MBDA for their naval defence needs, the idea being that one purchase would lead to the next...First the Hornet and then the Superhornet being the most obvious example.
Yes, as I`ve said, there would probably be hurdles which would take time to resolve. It would not simply pass through the process like water. And time itself would make it easier for Malaysia to get such weapons; especially if newer systems are to evolve; competing systems from other countries or otherwise. But I would like to add that it may take so long that the potential sale is eventually dropped in favour of the orginal Asters or Micas or worst even Seawolfs which would mean the original requirement for local area defence would be changed.

But I disagree with your comment about one Raytheon purchase leading to another. Surely, Raytheon is not myopic enough to know how fickle weaponry purchases are in Malaysia. And it is not as if Malaysia has not bought US weaponry before. To me, it just another sale which Raytheon has made if it is made. And Malaysia is not exactly a trend setter where weapons purchases are concerned in the sense that other countries will follow Malaysia`s lead because of an astute procurement process.

I have got friends in the PM's office, Treasury, MINDEF, and the RMAF, that's how I know it was a generous offer. Although I was not privy to all the actual negotiations, I have a fair grasp of the salient points involved. While it is true that the negotiations stalled on several points, some of it because of the US reluctance to provide the RMAF with some of the items they wanted, such as the AESA APG-79 radar, alot of the problems were actually caused by the Malaysian side, especially on the basis of cost because of the after effects of the economic crash in 1998. Later it was complicated by Anwar, the War on Terror...etc. But on almost all the points the US were wiilling to compromise and judging from some recent news the FA-18F is back on track. Again, the point I'm trying to make is that is the US is not as intransigent as some people believe, they are actually very open to negotiation, and even if the RMAF does not receive the full package which they wanted, a downgraded FA-18F is still more than sufficient for their defence needs. After all, who gets a full-spec US weapon? Even the UK and Australia are sometimes unhappy with the package they are offered especially with regard to sensitive items such as software for the F-35.
Surely, you would not have me believe you for a second based on what you`ve said about your friends. They are speculation to me. Or speculation based on more speculation.

However, we do know about MAF`s difficulties in getting clearance on some equipment as they were indeed published in the media and the net too. I remembered some netizens posted them as well over the years. This is compunded by the time it has taken for Malaysia to actually purchase the Super-bugs.

You are probably right in that you might get the F-18 E/F chassis and a downgraded radar if the sale goes through; if ever. Getting an F-18 E/F post-2010 would be a mistake though. But you might not have a choice in this.

I donÂ’t think you would want to use the F-35 as a barometer at this stage but when the latter is ready to built for the customers and purchased. If you`re referring to source codes, etc, it is still a `no-go' even for the closest of allies. But equipment-wise, it is definitely the case. For example, the US is willing to sell Singapore the global Hawk but is reluctant to pass to us the source codes which would allow us to the modify the software.

Nobody is saying the US would not sell at all. But there are varying levels of purchasing access; quantitatively or qualitatively based on other interests other than economics.
LazerLordz
27 Jun 07, 20:50

Originally posted by coolant:
http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.163/pub_detail.asp
Coolant, there's a saying that one should keep their friends close, and any potential Tangos closer.

In any case, I definitely welcome the PLAN to join in multilateral patrols in the South China Sea. With more eyes watching them, and having them engaged in an institutional framework with the rest of her neighbours, China will be less prone to falling to the influence of the hawks in her government.

This should not be construed, however, as a sign of weakness on the part of ASEAN's armed forces and security commands.

Cooperation and engagement is one thing, but knowing that there are no permanent friends and only permanent national interests, does help greatly. The RMN may purchase PLAN's LPDs but I would not be wrong if I were to assume that the ESSM system is one of many deterrant systems that the MAF will choose to outfit the RMN with, considering any possible future naval threats in the region.
johngage
28 Jun 07, 00:44

But I disagree with your comment about one Raytheon purchase leading to another. Surely, Raytheon is not myopic enough to know how fickle weaponry purchases are in Malaysia. And it is not as if Malaysia has not bought US weaponry before. To me, it just another sale which Raytheon has made if it is made. And Malaysia is not exactly a trend setter where weapons purchases are concerned in the sense that other countries will follow Malaysia`s lead because of an astute procurement process.

Obviously. Raytheon is a multinational company and I am sure they have done thorough research on Malaysia arms procurement. But they are also pragmatic enough to know that the possibility exists of future sales so why not hope for the best? They are intelligent enough not to hedge their bets but like all successful companies, they keep their options open.

Surely, you would not have me believe you for a second based on what you`ve said about your friends. They are speculation to me. Or speculation based on more speculation.

Frankly, its completely irrelevant to me whether you believe me or not. This is a public internet forum board and its not like I am going to lose money or sleep if a complete stranger thinks I'm being mendacious. But turn it around and think, what possible profit or gain would there be in me lying? Its not like I am going to gain a million dollars by making wild speculations or boasting of high connections. In fact I was responding to your statement:

How do you know that Boeing has made a generous offer? Were you privy to the actual negotiations? The negotiations took a long time due to a variety of issues. Costs is one thing. The Malaysians had a tough time trying to get systems cleared as well. This is what i have read.

Nobody is saying the US would not sell at all. But there are varying levels of purchasing access; quantitatively or qualitatively based on other interests other than economics.

Its basic common sense. And I believe that many countries who purchase weapons from the US understand this principle. We know that buying weapons from the US involves more scrutiny than say from Russia or France. We accept that there are probably strings attached depending on what Tier you are on. But the US themselves are pragmatic and have shown in the past that they are willing to compromise within reasonable limits, and I don't see that the ESSM deal in a special category by itself.
Shotgun
28 Jun 07, 01:16

I really think the effectiveness of the ESSM will really depend on the level of support the M'sians will receive to integrate into their existing system. It would be interesting to find out how the ESSM would fit into a largely non-American radar, fire control and combat systems.

As for intercepting missiles, I would think that that would rely heavily on the fire control radar, and the mid course update capability.
coolant
28 Jun 07, 08:44

Originally posted by LazerLordz:
...
Cooperation and engagement is one thing, but knowing that there are no permanent friends and only permanent national interests, does help greatly. The RMN may purchase PLAN's LPDs but I would not be wrong if I were to assume that the ESSM system is one of many deterrant systems that the MAF will choose to outfit the RMN with, considering any possible future naval threats in the region.

Everything is possible I didn't deny it, that's why I said it's MOST LIKELY. but you also have to know that end of the day what really counts is how high or low the possibility is. To know the high/low of the possibility, one needs to apply a reality check. If you buy 1 dollar Dodo, you're possible to hit the Jack's pot but will you every time counting that 1 dollar possibility to illustrate how rich you are by winning multi thousands of dollars prize?
Arthas79
28 Jun 07, 09:36

Obviously. Raytheon is a multinational company and I am sure they have done thorough research on Malaysia arms procurement. But they are also pragmatic enough to know that the possibility exists of future sales so why not hope for the best? They are intelligent enough not to hedge their bets but like all successful companies, they keep their options open.
Yes. Which is why this event is not as `bigÂ’ as it has been made out to be. It is just a potential sale; and a small one admittedly. And to a country which changes suppliers as often as they could. It is not a major `coupÂ’ for Raytheon whichever way you see it. Admittedly, it is an exaggeration of Malaysia`s importance to the world`s arms market.

Frankly, its completely irrelevant to me whether you believe me or not. This is a public internet forum board and its not like I am going to lose money or sleep if a complete stranger thinks I'm being mendacious. But turn it around and think, what possible profit or gain would there be in me lying? Its not like I am going to gain a million dollars by making wild speculations or boasting of high connections. In fact I was responding to your statement:
Well, of course it is irrelevant to you Im sure. But what matters is the credibility of what you have said. They are unsubstantiated. I think it makes complete sense that without the full wealth of information at hand people would tend to lean on the best of possibilities. So, credibility is low. I could say that I am in the loop where defence sales are concerned given where I am working right now. But that is completely redundant unless I am able to furnish a full report on what I said which are nothing more than claims i have just made.

In retrospect, there have been plenty of potential arms sales to Malaysia where it has been nothing more than hot air seeing how the announcements were framed or presented to the public. So, you can understand where I am leaning with respect to this matter. Fact of the matter is that credibility is low.

You`ve used the term `generousÂ’ in a preceding post. Apart from the speculation that whirls around that word, that term by itself is relative. Malaysia`s `generousÂ’ could be `stingyÂ’ to many countries depending on the terms of reference unique to a particular country.

Its basic common sense. And I believe that many countries who purchase weapons from the US understand this principle. We know that buying weapons from the US involves more scrutiny than say from Russia or France. We accept that there are probably strings attached depending on what Tier you are on. But the US themselves are pragmatic and have shown in the past that they are willing to compromise within reasonable limits, and I don't see that the ESSM deal in a special category by itself
You had previously compared the ESSM to rifles. The ESSM`s passage trhough the corridors of power would be completely different then weapons which you have compared the latter with; rifles, etc. They are definitely in a different category. Yet, as I`ve mentioned, I do not discount the probability of the latter being passed. You are probably right in saying that there might be compromises; quantity, system, etc. Hence, we can infer that it will take a longer time as it is certainly not in the same category like your run-of-the mill weapon. It may be dropped totally in favour of the Asters, micas or Sea-wolfs if that were to happen; if the need for a anti-missile weapon is urgent.
johngage
29 Jun 07, 08:11

Yes. Which is why this event is not as `bigÂ’ as it has been made out to be. It is just a potential sale; and a small one admittedly. And to a country which changes suppliers as often as they could. It is not a major `coupÂ’ for Raytheon whichever way you see it. Admittedly, it is an exaggeration of Malaysia`s importance to the world`s arms market.

As Raytheon, I'm sure are well aware. But which successful multinational arms company is going to say no to money? A small sale is still a sale, and as I said they are willing to keep their options open regardless of whether any further deals materialise in the future.

Well, of course it is irrelevant to you Im sure. But what matters is the credibility of what you have said. They are unsubstantiated. I think it makes complete sense that without the full wealth of information at hand people would tend to lean on the best of possibilities. So, credibility is low. I could say that I am in the loop where defence sales are concerned given where I am working right now. But that is completely redundant unless I am able to furnish a full report on what I said which are nothing more than claims i have just made.

In retrospect, there have been plenty of potential arms sales to Malaysia where it has been nothing more than hot air seeing how the announcements were framed or presented to the public. So, you can understand where I am leaning with respect to this matter. Fact of the matter is that credibility is low.

[b]Arthas79, You were the one who wanted to know where I received the information regarding Boeing's proposal regarding the Superhornets. But if you are inclined to disbelieve me from the start, then no matter what I write, is not really going to matter. With regard to substantiation of my claims, and a full report, do you honestly think I am going to start writing names, dates, companies involved, who the ministers were, who the generals were, addresses, phone numbers, amounts of money involved, which Minister is going to get his cut, who is the middleman involved in the deal, full technical details of what the RMAF wanted, full technical details of what Boeing was willing to offer, on a public internet forum board??? We have the Official Secrets Act in Malaysia but even if this was not involved, I am not going to start writing the names of my sources in public. As I said in my previous post you are free to doubt my credibility as much as you please.

You`ve used the term `generousÂ’ in a preceding post. Apart from the speculation that whirls around that word, that term by itself is relative. Malaysia`s `generousÂ’ could be `stingyÂ’ to many countries depending on the terms of reference unique to a particular country. [/b]

It does not matter if many other countries consider it 'stingy'. The proposal was considered generous by the actual people in the government/military responsible for approving the deal. Again, I expect you would like me to disclose the full details of what off-sets Boeing was offering Malaysia in return, but I have said in my previous post, I am not prepared to disclose this kind of information on a public internet forum board. Again, we are at an impasse.

You had previously compared the ESSM to rifles. The ESSM`s passage trhough the corridors of power would be completely different then weapons which you have compared the latter with; rifles, etc. They are definitely in a different category. Yet, as I`ve mentioned, I do not discount the probability of the latter being passed. You are probably right in saying that there might be compromises; quantity, system, etc. Hence, we can infer that it will take a longer time as it is certainly not in the same category like your run-of-the mill weapon. It may be dropped totally in favour of the Asters, micas or Sea-wolfs if that were to happen; if the need for a anti-missile weapon is urgent.

Which is a possiblity. If I am not mistaken the selection is still subject to contract and knowing the fickle nature of Malaysia's arms selection process it would not surprise me in the least if another weapon is selected, simply because a certain crony had spoken to a certain minister regarding the proposal he wanted.
Arthas79
29 Jun 07, 10:36

As Raytheon, I'm sure are well aware. But which successful multinational arms company is going to say no to money? A small sale is still a sale, and as I said they are willing to keep their options open regardless of whether any further deals materialise in the future
What are you going on about? It is definitely not a coup of sorts; of the magnitude in the original report . We have already discussed that. Yes. It`s a just another sale like I`ve said.

You were the one who wanted to know where I received the information regarding Boeing's proposal regarding the Superhornets. But if you are inclined to disbelieve me from the start, then no matter what I write, is not really going to matter. With regard to substantiation of my claims, and a full report, do you honestly think I am going to start writing names, dates, companies involved, who the ministers were, who the generals were, addresses, phone numbers, amounts of money involved, which Minister is going to get his cut, who is the middleman involved in the deal, full technical details of what the RMAF wanted, full technical details of what Boeing was willing to offer, on a public internet forum board??? We have the Official Secrets Act in Malaysia but even if this was not involved, I am not going to start writing the names of my sources in public. As I said in my previous post you are free to doubt my credibility as much as you please.
I think you should calm down. What on earth is wrong with you ? You have posited certain things and I wanted to know the source in order to ascertain their veracity. Now I know that they are unsubstantiated and probably true or false. So, I know where the issue stands. And no, I was not going to ask you to reveal who your contacts are; all the way to the Prime Minister even. In truth, I wanted to know if there are links and references for which I can refer. Guess not then. But rumours do abound in Malaysia in spite of the OSA. So, it adds to the atmospherics.

It does not matter if many other countries consider it 'stingy'. The proposal was considered generous by the actual people in the government/military responsible for approving the deal. Again, I expect you would like me to disclose the full details of what off-sets Boeing was offering Malaysia in return, but I have said in my previous post, I am not prepared to disclose this kind of information on a public internet forum board. Again, we are at an impasse.
Again, you have misread the issue. I am simply making a point as per how interpretation(relative to countries)matters when it comes to description of weapons purchases. So, it may be big issue for some countries but less so for others.
johngage
29 Jun 07, 12:19

I think you should calm down. What on earth is wrong with you ? You have posited certain things and I wanted to know the source in order to ascertain their veracity. Now I know that they are unsubstantiated and probably true or false. So, I know where the issue stands. And no, I was not going to ask you to reveal who your contacts are; all the way to the Prime Minister even. In truth, I wanted to know if there are links and references for which I can refer. Guess not then. But rumours do abound in Malaysia in spite of the OSA. So, it adds to the atmospherics

Arthas 79: there are not going to be any internet links or references when it comes to sensitive decisions made at cabinet level. The only substantiation you are going to get is from Boeing or the Malaysian team involved. Rest assured, I am not making these details up in my head, or listening to the Malaysian media, just to post them on an internet forum board. You are absolutely free to agree or disagree as you wish, but I daresay that what the open media reports is not always the full picture. For that you need to speak to the people directly involved.

Again, you have misread the issue. I am simply making a point as per how interpretation(relative to countries)matters when it comes to description of weapons purchases. So, it may be big issue for some countries but less so for others.

I can only give the opinion of the people who were engaged in the negotiations. To a man, they all thought it was a good deal for Malaysia and the RMAF. Granted, this is a subjective matter, and one man's meat is another's poison, but I saw no reason to second guess them. Its true that the package offered did not include all the items which the RMAF wanted but they all thought that what was on offer was satisfactory, and what was not included could perhaps be included after more negotiation. But again this is a matter where opinions might differ.
Arthas79
29 Jun 07, 16:25

Even better; people who were involved in the negotiations ? Im sure this would come in handy.

I am aware that the package deal was less than what the Malaysians wanted. This is widely reported in the media. Does it not contradict the `generousÂ’ deal which you mentioned previously then ? So, the offered package is now `satisfactory.Â’

I honestly would think that it is more credible to believe a report from a reputable news agency than someone who says that he has spoken to a dozen people from the government. So, would many other people. You are right in saying people are free to make their own judgements and comments. However, your comments are simply unsubstantiated and while some may be true, it may just be your own conclusions. I trust people will know what to make out of this.
[/quote]
johngage
29 Jun 07, 23:07

I am aware that the package deal was less than what the Malaysians wanted. This is widely reported in the media. Does it not contradict the 'generousÂ’ deal which you mentioned previously then ? So, the offered package is now `satisfactory.Â’

Again, you have misunderstood the point which I was trying to make. The Boeing deal WAS considered 'generous' by the people involved in the negotiations especially with regard to the off-sets. The RMAF was 'satisfied' with the technical requirements of what was offered. It may not have included all the items they wanted but what was on offer was to their liking to the point where they recommended that the purchase go through. Again, the words 'generous' and 'satisfactory' are relative terms. What is a 'generous' deal for Malaysia may not be considered 'generous' for the UK. What is considered 'satisfactory' for the RMAF, may not be considered 'satisfactory' by the standards of the RAF. But we live in the real world, not in a fantasy world when we are likely to get everything that we wish for. In other words, the deal was considered 'generous' by the people involved in the actual negotiations.

I honestly would think that it is more credible to believe a report from a reputable news agency than someone who says that he has spoken to a dozen people from the government. So, would many other people. You are right in saying people are free to make their own judgements and comments. However, your comments are simply unsubstantiated and while some may be true, it may just be your own conclusions. I trust people will know what to make out of this.

Arthas 79: The report that the Raytheon deal was considered "significant" DID come from a reputable source, namely Jane's Defence Weekly. You disagreed with this statement. Then you asked me how I knew that the Boeing deal was 'generous' and whether I was involved in the actual negotiations. When I pointed out that I had spoken to the people involved in the actual negotiations, you questioned the veracity of my claims, and my credibility, and now desire a report from a reputable news agency. As I have tried to explain to you in the previous post, I am not at liberty to substantiate my claims by pointing out the technical and financial details in the open. As I have also pointed out in a previous post, these reputable news agencies are not privy to all the details that are included in these deals. As I am sure you can appreciate, some of the details are confidenctial and will not be reported to the media. If you are don't wish to believe me it does not really matter WHAT I write, or how many links that I post. I happen to think that speaking to the people negotiating the deal is actually more credible than a report from a news agency, simply because they are privy to certain aspects of the deal which are not going to be reported in the media. For e.g I am sure that there are members in Singapore's military and government who know more about F-15SG deal than Jane's Defence Review because they have access to the full technical details which JDW's reporters do not, but that is just my opinion.
Arthas79
3 Jul 07, 18:11

Again, you have misunderstood the point which I was trying to make. The Boeing deal WAS considered 'generous' by the people involved in the negotiations especially with regard to the off-sets. The RMAF was 'satisfied' with the technical requirements of what was offered. It may not have included all the items they wanted but what was on offer was to their liking to the point where they recommended that the purchase go through. Again, the words 'generous' and 'satisfactory' are relative terms. What is a 'generous' deal for Malaysia may not be considered 'generous' for the UK. What is considered 'satisfactory' for the RMAF, may not be considered 'satisfactory' by the standards of the RAF. But we live in the real world, not in a fantasy world when we are likely to get everything that we wish for. In other words, the deal was considered 'generous' by the people involved in the actual negotiations.
That is a point of clarification which I wanted from you. Whether the deal is `generousÂ’ or `satisfactoryÂ’ is completely relative for the mythical Super Hornet deal which the RMAF has been `discussingÂ’ for more than a decade. This was not made clear in your initial post about this matter. At the end of the day, the RMAF is getting less than she wants or what some other countries can get.

The report that the Raytheon deal was considered "significant" DID come from a reputable source, namely Jane's Defence Weekly. You disagreed with this statement. Then you asked me how I knew that the Boeing deal was 'generous' and whether I was involved in the actual negotiations. When I pointed out that I had spoken to the people involved in the actual negotiations, you questioned the veracity of my claims, and my credibility, and now desire a report from a reputable news agency. As I have tried to explain to you in the previous post, I am not at liberty to substantiate my claims by pointing out the technical and financial details in the open. As I have also pointed out in a previous post, these reputable news agencies are not privy to all the details that are included in these deals. As I am sure you can appreciate, some of the details are confidenctial and will not be reported to the media. If you are don't wish to believe me it does not really matter WHAT I write, or how many links that I post. I happen to think that speaking to the people negotiating the deal is actually more credible than a report from a news agency, simply because they are privy to certain aspects of the deal which are not going to be reported in the media. For e.g I am sure that there are members in Singapore's military and government who know more about F-15SG deal than Jane's Defence Review because they have access to the full technical details which JDW's reporters do not, but that is just my opinion.
I think the point I am making is that anyone can say they have spoken to a who`s who list of people. They are less credible than newsworthy sources. You do not have to keep harping about the fact there is really nothing you can do about the veracity of your claims. They are not believable. We know that already. And yes, how about I`d say, Singapore has a secret arrangement to dispose off the F-15s come 2020 for the F-22s because I have spoken to my friends in the air-force and colleagues in the defence establishment? It `s a definitive statement but hardly verifiable. And that is how people should take whatever you have put here.

The fact that I find newsworthy sources more reliable has got nothing to do with the fact that you can, on occasions, disagree with them naturally. In this case, I do not doubt that the RMN is interested in the ESSMs but I disagree with the degree of importance for which the report has portrayed this potential deal in the scheme of things where global arms sales are concerned. Im sure you can discern the difference.
johngage
4 Jul 07, 04:06

That is a point of clarification which I wanted from you. Whether the deal is `generousÂ’ or `satisfactoryÂ’ is completely relative for the mythical Super Hornet deal which the RMAF has been `discussingÂ’ for more than a decade. This was not made clear in your initial post about this matter. At the end of the day, the RMAF is getting less than she wants or what some other countries can get.

As the RMAF is well aware. After all, this is not the first time they have bought weapons from the US and they are realistic enough not to expect to get everything on their wish-list due to political/economic factors not in their control. But as long as they feel that the overall balance of the deal is to their advantage, then all well and good.

I think the point I am making is that anyone can say they have spoken to a who`s who list of people. They are less credible than newsworthy sources. You do not have to keep harping about the fact there is really nothing you can do about the veracity of your claims. They are not believable. We know that already. And yes, how about I`d say, Singapore has a secret arrangement to dispose off the F-15s come 2020 for the F-22s because I have spoken to my friends in the air-force and colleagues in the defence establishment? It `s a definitive statement but hardly verifiable. And that is how people should take whatever you have put here.

As I said in the previous post, you are free to believe or disbelieve whatever I write. After all, this is a public internet forum. I was merely responding to your demand to know my sources, and whether I was involved in the actual negotiations. I revealed them and you doubted my credibility. I am really beginning to regret not lying through my teeth and claiming that I was involved in the negotiations, or that I was working for the RMAF, or Boeing, or the Malaysian government. After all, if you wish to lie, you might as well lie big. But again, this is your right, and short of meeting me in person or conducting a thorough background check on me, I don't see any way of convincing you. You can only judge me on what I have written, or based on previous posts on whether the person has expertise on what he/she has written. For e.g., I have no problems believing that some members on Military Nuts or Defence Forum have some connection with the military or the aerospace industry based on the posts that they have written. But whether I can prove this in a court of law is of course another matter.

The fact that I find newsworthy sources more reliable has got nothing to do with the fact that you can, on occasions, disagree with them naturally. In this case, I do not doubt that the RMN is interested in the ESSMs but I disagree with the degree of importance for which the report has portrayed this potential deal in the scheme of things where global arms sales are concerned. Im sure you can discern the difference.

I can. Which is why I said that talking to the military people sometimes reveals details which are not going to be reported in the open media but more importantly they have the necessary insight to see how a decision will impact on the armed forces concerned. I am not questioning JDW's credibility but merely suggesting that because they are not going to have access to all the necessary facts, this might affect their judgement, especially on technical matters.