Singapore purchases 12 more F-15SG
-
Have a wide angel to view thingsOriginally posted by Shotgun:There was China's Role in the Vietnam War, and the Chinese Invasion of Vietnam...
Lee Kuan Yew told the cause of the sino-vietnam war the best in his memorior about Deng Xiao ping.
The war ultimately is a proxy war between then USSR & US and served a few purposes.
1) Formost, it was a plot between Deng and US to strengthen the
alliance against USSR.
2) A war would help to establish Deng himself (he came to the power only
the year before)
3). Vietnam was annoying and ambitious expanding in SEA and need to be punished, for both China and USA. And for the rest of ASEAN. Remember, Vietnam then is NOT a member of ASEAN but a member of USSR Camp which ASEAN viewed as a threat.
Now understand why ASEAN never view China’s “ invasion of Vietnam” as aggressive? -
The first sentence is just an extrapolation of your initial reasoning for the question "are they (China) a threat to South East Asia?" France still have significant interest in Asia, though more in China than even the ASEAN combined. There is no reason to consider them a threat for what they did in Vietnam in the past. The same way there is no reason to consider China a threat to any SEA countries based on what China did in Vietnam.Originally posted by Shotgun:Oh come on. France few interests down in SEA today. If you still want to consider France a "threat" to SEA, go ahead.
With the majority of the military clashes involving China, sinking of vietnamese gunboats, I don't see how any ASEAN nation not consider this to be a security matter of great importance.
I'm not saying that China is hell bent on projecting its military prowess to cower us into submission. In fact, I feel that China has gone quite the opposite in positive diplomatic engagements with ASEAN. However, with its last shot in anger fired less than 2 decades ago, its wise to remain vigilant.
The power in play in the region also include India and Russia, besides China, US/Australia, Japan and the EU. It is to the interest of Singapore to stay engaged to all these power without taking side. We don't see all SEA countries having a common or solidarity stand on this.Originally posted by Shotgun:Oh please, I've never suggested a military confrontation with China either. Stop putting words in my "posts."
Fact of the matter is, China is a security challenge, it is also an economic challenge for ASEAN. There's need for both deterrence and cooperation in facing the security challenges it poses, and to prevent Chinese Dominance in our region.
ASEAN has to constantly to engage US, Japan and even Europe to counter the effect of the China's rise, and prevent the hegemony of any one power.
A paper published by somebody in the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, 6 June 2007 stated that the spratlys dispute has actually de-escalated in recent years, it is no longer perceived as a security flashpoint capable of undermining order in the region. The territorial dispute has been shelved to some extent and the parties involved have de escalated what remain inherently a security issue. It is important we recognise the change of events and move on.
If any country is identified and recognised as a threat to us, unless we do not take it seriously, we would need to be prepared for such threat. and if the other party responds to our preparation, this would easily lead to a military confrontation, no?
In security cooperation, Singapore works closely with many nations, besides some of the powers in play in the region. We have avoided any form of military cooperation with China, due to sensitivity in the american and european hardware we are using. It is also for similar reason, SAF is never welcome to train even within ASEAN, and we have to send our troops all the way to South Africa for training. Such is the trust and cooperation WITHIN ASEAN.
In short, anybody can view China a threat for all you want, but do not expect the SAF to prepare to use our F15 for strike into territories far away from Singapore, such as the Spratlys, to defend SEA. On the other hand, we all know that we need to be prepared for potential threats which are real, terrorists who are trained in neigboring countries, foreign leader who want to skin us like cat, countries who would just re draw their map to include Singapore as part of their territory.......
F15S must be equipped to fly deep in to take out known terrorists training camps wherever that may be when necessary,........ -
I know where I stand based on my assumptions and opinions and I know where you stand based on your assumptions and opinions. What is the actual foreign policy? I hope it is not your stand.Originally posted by LazerLordz:You have no idea where we stand in the strategic scheme of things do you.. as in actual foreign policy considerations and not your assumptions and opinions.. -
Good post.Originally posted by coolant:Have a wide angel to view things
Lee Kuan Yew told the cause of the sino-vietnam war the best in his memorior about Deng Xiao ping.
The war ultimately is a proxy war between then USSR & US and served a few purposes.
1) Formost, it was a plot between Deng and US to strengthen the
alliance against USSR.
2) A war would help to establish Deng himself (he came to the power only
the year before)
3). Vietnam was annoying and ambitious expanding in SEA and need to be punished, for both China and USA. And for the rest of ASEAN. Remember, Vietnam then is NOT a member of ASEAN but a member of USSR Camp which ASEAN viewed as a threat.
Now understand why ASEAN never view China’s “ invasion of Vietnam” as aggressive?
But I've always subscribed to Kissinger's theory that it was an attempt by Beijing to achieve sinic-hegemony over Vietnam. But due to the failure of the operational phase, political objectives were not accomplished. Hence the blizzare Chinese statement of how the gates of Hanoi were open and then the sudden withdrawal. The invaders were getting chopped up, no point losing the entire force. -
What if it is..? I'm not saying yes or no though.Originally posted by sgdiehard:I know where I stand based on my assumptions and opinions and I know where you stand based on your assumptions and opinions. What is the actual foreign policy? I hope it is not your stand. 
NB : RSIS working papers differ in many ways according to different authors. While the Spratleys threat may be seen by some to have de-escalated, it can be seen as a reactionary view, and we all know that what is not loud and noisy in the open, may not necessarily be picked up as part of the currents. -
Good point noted. Every member of ASEAN has their own views and policies towards China.
China's military buildup is a security concern to ASEAN. That is an acknowledge fact. The US's report on China's military also notes that. They have newer and quieter diesel submarines capable of patrols out to the Spratly's, and have also conducted air-refueling exercises over the South China Sea with their Su-27 Flankers.
While tensions around the disputed isles have indeed de-escalated, it does not change the fact that they did open fire on foreign vessels around the disputed Isles.
Again, I'm not saying that we send our Strike Eagles out to the Spratlys. That was not the intention behind the Strike Eagle purchase. Nor do I support hostile confrontation EVEN in the event of an unprovoked invasion of Taiwan by the Chinese.
What I'm saying is that, as China grows, we need to show that ASEAN is not hostile against China, nor do are we dominated by them. Which is why I agree to the idea that, ASEAN's security lies in multilateralism. -
actually no point having so powerful attack when our defence is so vulnerable.
-
Our defence is not vulnerable. Where did you hear all these..Originally posted by xchangehub:actually no point having so powerful attack when our defence is so vulnerable. -
Am curious...for night ops...will our Tiger, Viper and Eagle drivers be wearing NVG rigs?
-
Fully agree. Merry Christmas.Originally posted by Shotgun:What I'm saying is that, as China grows, we need to show that ASEAN is not hostile against China, nor do are we dominated by them. Which is why I agree to the idea that, ASEAN's security lies in multilateralism.
-
come along, let's look at this hypothesis, what if one day an enemy fighter jet or terrorist just flies over singapore and dumps a bomb, do you think our defence forces fcan shoot themdown immediately. they still have to go through protocol, permissions, disucssions and permits before being able to shoot the plane down. they have to discuss tactics or whaever, but by the time, it would only take a minute to launch the bomb. so it's too late.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Our defence is not vulnerable. Where did you hear all these.. -
Originally posted by xchangehub:come along, let's look at this hypothesis, what if one day an enemy fighter jet or terrorist just flies over singapore and dumps a bomb, do you think our defence forces fcan shoot themdown immediately. they still have to go through protocol, permissions, disucssions and permits before being able to shoot the plane down. they have to discuss tactics or whaever, but by the time, it would only take a minute to launch the bomb. so it's too late.
It's alright. Think what you must.
(Btw, have you served NS? If you have, perhaps you did not see the larger picture while in service.) -
I think you are right LazerLordz...this guy haven't serve yet...Originally posted by LazerLordz:
It's alright. Think what you must.
(Btw, have you served NS? If you have, perhaps you did not see the larger picture while in service.) -
He doesn't read newspapers too. Remember the single seater plane that illegally entered S'pore air space? Two A4s were scrambled to escort it down to Seletar. If it didn't comply, I'm quite certain they'd have shot it out of the sky.Originally posted by tankee1981:I think you are right LazerLordz...this guy haven't serve yet...
If they can respond that fast to a civilian single seater, why can't they respond as fast if not faster to an enemy fighter?
Really getting sick of kids who know sh*t about the military, only know how to play CS and Command & Conquer, and come in and act like idiots!
-
ya la, maybe some countries have more than 1 single seater plane and erm, maybe fighter jet faster than single seater plane, anyway, before the jet's escorted or shot down, they have already disposed what they need to.
-
Maybe before the planeS even reach our airspace, we would have disposed of the hostile jets with our defences. Ever heard of threat assessment?Originally posted by xchangehub:ya la, maybe some countries have more than 1 single seater plane and erm, maybe fighter jet faster than single seater plane, anyway, before the jet's escorted or shot down, they have already disposed what they need to.
maybe you should go serve first before we can even comprehend half the maybes you maybe thinking.
Or maybe you are a troll -
maybe he is from the land of the big horse...Originally posted by CM06:Maybe before the planeS even reach our airspace, we would have disposed of the hostile jets with our defences. Ever heard of threat assessment?
maybe you should go serve first before we can even comprehend half the maybes you maybe thinking.
Or maybe you are a troll -
alamak, with thinking like that you can't even pass mission 2 in Red Alert.Originally posted by xchangehub:ya la, maybe some countries have more than 1 single seater plane and erm, maybe fighter jet faster than single seater plane, anyway, before the jet's escorted or shot down, they have already disposed what they need to. -
Can't blame him. They don't have AWACS over there, so naturally he's not heard of AWACS.Originally posted by tripwire:maybe he is from the land of the big horse... -
how about long range ballistic missiles? we don't have defence at every side or our border, all concentrate at the west no point, anti missile vs missile explode in air, we sink
-
May i know what exactly are you talking about? I can accept the fact that you do not have much military knowledge but at least post in a way which makes sense so that the rest of us can undertsnad.Originally posted by xchangehub:how about long range ballistic missiles? we don't have defence at every side or our border, all concentrate at the west no point, anti missile vs missile explode in air, we sink -
How come this thread has become into another "How to attack Singapore" thread
Any chance that we might buy the SLAM-ER for our eagles since the Korean Eagles are fitted for/with them.With all the talk about getting the brahmos up north and south, i guess the US might allow this capability to be introduced into this region -
Actually we have planes and pilots on 24hr standby in Alert hangars, ready to fly off in a jiffy, storm climb to intercept bogeys ( Fighters on red-alert standby to interception is less than a few minutes : ) Our fighters on red alert interception ( proven in many air excercises) of unfriendlies in our airspace is unsurpass.Originally posted by xchangehub:ya la, maybe some countries have more than 1 single seater plane and erm, maybe fighter jet faster than single seater plane, anyway, before the jet's escorted or shot down, they have already disposed what they need to.
Also we must not forget our multi layered Air defences. It is very difficult for an authorised plane to fly into our airspace, period. -
yup....and we have multiple radar systems....airborne and ground....can't penetrate in at any altitude - its fully covered for hundreds of km..
we would have ample time to read our air defence, and fighters and everything for a response.....nobody dares to try and test us. -
During high tension when plane & pilot standby, pilot is in the cockpit till next shift. Theoritical time to scramble off is around 1 min. You may verify with the source.