Defence Budget 2011
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
Sorry AFOL, us lao peng don't get. Really kenna con, 2.5 years + low pay, no bonus.
And goverment pay into CPF, so they don't really get the $ also actually. In 5 year installments I think.
ICE, those two topics may not be totally unlinked, not like save either family or country, sometimes the best way to defend your family is through banding in a bigger group. After all, if country X invades and you try to protect your family solo, you'll be like kitchen chopper vs M-16. At least grouped in an army, you at least got an AR and arty and air support. Much more effective. And it's this "bigger group" that people call a "country", so you protect your family, and other families, in return, their guys also protect yours. Country is more than PAP. PAP cannot live without a country, a country can live without PAP, though it might be much tougher for a while.
why wld i protect other families where 1/2 of them are FTs? n why would i protect a country which is led by the pap who treated the ppl like slaves?
-
Originally posted by Ice kosong:
why wld i protect other families where 1/2 of them are FTs? n why would i protect a country which is let by the pap who treated the ppl like slaves?
HA HA HA HA......YOU SUCKS.......( just for laughs )
-
Originally posted by Ice kosong:
zhou enlai did said to the us in korean war - "u can have have all the better weapons but u under estimated the motivation of our soldiers"
using scare tatics with better waepons n no motivated soldiers to fight a war, its just pathathic.
The defence budget is to support those garmen companies.
the chinese didn't win the korean war, hundreds of thousands of Chinese soldiers died.
sending soldiers to war with outdated weapon is a crime!!
The question remains, will the weapon serve its purpose. Don't talk politic.
-
Originally posted by Underpaid:
Cutting the NS term further is not practical for the more complicated specializations, if you are just a plain infantryman, you probably learnt everything in the 1st 6-9 months, but for sergents and LTs, their training term is MUCH longer and they need hands on practice as well, otherwise you'll have officers who finish NS only 3 months after posting to a unit.
(3 months BMT, maybe 3 months SISPEC for the SISPEC intake, 9 months training term = 15 months) This is excluding the conversion courses to specialise, so total is ~18 months. If we reduced it to 15-18 months, the officer will graduate and go into the NSman pool without ever having been posted to a unit. NOT someone I'd have confidence passing me orders. To be really honest, the 6 months for being posted to a unit now is, opinion-wise, on the borderline of short, at least with 2 1/2 years, he would have had 1 year to get up to speed. Now, it's only 6 months of working experience. Almost like touch and go.
Some things you just HAVE to hands on practice, theory is just that. Theory.
Doesn't OCS include vocational training in the 9 months?
-
To Alize,
Dont forget that S Korea is facing a real threat from N Korea althought I am personally not so sure abut the seriousness of China's threat to Taiwan is really that serious. So the duration of conscription of at least 24 months is appropriate for these countries. Israel also has long conscription time as it is being threatened constantly & already has a long history of war with its neighbors - so long conscription is no surprise.
For other countries such as Switzerand and Germany where threat is minimal or next to non existent especially when the threat fo the former Warsaw pact is no longer around, no surprise again that conscription is shorter or now shortened.
Again, as also pointed out by others, to be effective and competent one really needs to have the time to be trained and exercised to ensure competency and effectiveness. 12 to 15 months is just too short.
Also, to maintain the numbers of available combat units, one needs NS to be of longer duration. Too few combat units also make for ineffective combat power.
-
Originally posted by Sepecat:
To Alize,
Dont forget that S Korea is facing a real threat from N Korea althought I am personally not so sure abut the seriousness of China's threat to Taiwan is really that serious. So the duration of conscription of at least 24 months is appropriate for these countries. Israel also has long conscription time as it is being threatened constantly & already has a long history of war with its neighbors - so long conscription is no surprise.
For other countries such as Switzerand and Germany where threat is minimal or next to non existent especially when the threat fo the former Warsaw pact is no longer around, no surprise again that conscription is shorter or now shortened.
Again, as also pointed out by others, to be effective and competent one really needs to have the time to be trained and exercised to ensure competency and effectiveness. 12 to 15 months is just too short.
Also, to maintain the numbers of available combat units, one needs NS to be of longer duration. Too few combat units also make for ineffective combat power.
I cited the European countries NS duration when the Warsaw Pact was around. Their military effectivenss is not in question.
I also point out that all NS officer roles are at Platoon Commander level, any roles above are filled by regular officers or volunteer NS officers who assume key appointments by attending courses after NSF or by extending their NS. That is not a significant length of time to "gain experience".
Hey, where is my post that Sepecat was referring to? Did it get deleted?
I was showing how Western European countries like Germany, Switzerland, Greece, Turkey and the UK had shorter NS periods (6 months, 10 months, 9 months, 15 months, 18 months) even during the Cold War and some don't have NS anymore.
Compared to Asian countries (South Korea 24 months, Singapore 20 months, Taiwan formerly 24 but now 12 months), and former communist bloc countries (18 months to 2 years, in Russia's case 3 years).
Looking at the facts, notice Asian countries have long NS periods, perhaps due to cultural factors like kiasuism and insecurity.
Also in cases where leaders remain in power for a long time, they have vested interests in making NS long to secure their stay in power (South Korea and Taiwan were not democratic until recently).
How did this post get deleted? How about letting people see the facts and wonder about the opinion stated themselves?
If not acceptable, why don't you go after posts like the guy who keeps bashing the jews or the ones making open insults to singapore leaders? I read the rules. This is not a hate post, a duplicate post or country vs country post. Please let it be.
-
I see a trend towards small professional armed forces and conscription either being abolished or being very short in duration.
But again we have to face the unfortunate fact that we are just too small in terms of both manpower and land area do away with NS.
But even NS officers and men both need that 18 to 24 months to be fully proficient in the weapons, operational procedures and tactics for the gamut of exercises needed from section to battalion & right up to at least brigade level to be effective.
It is similar to being proficient in a new job - it takes a bare minimum of 12 months.
-
Too many Leopard 2A4 Tanks were purchased. And yes the F-15 was the wrong fighter to buy
-
Originally posted by alize:
I cited the European countries NS duration when the Warsaw Pact was around. Their military effectivenss is not in question.
I also point out that all NS officer roles are at Platoon Commander level, any roles above are filled by regular officers or volunteer NS officers who assume key appointments by attending courses after NSF or by extending their NS. That is not a significant length of time to "gain experience".
Hey, where is my post that Sepecat was referring to? Did it get deleted?
I was showing how Western European countries like Germany, Switzerland, Greece, Turkey and the UK had shorter NS periods (6 months, 10 months, 9 months, 15 months, 18 months) even during the Cold War and some don't have NS anymore.
Compared to Asian countries (South Korea 24 months, Singapore 20 months, Taiwan formerly 24 but now 12 months), and former communist bloc countries (18 months to 2 years, in Russia's case 3 years).
Looking at the facts, notice Asian countries have long NS periods, perhaps due to cultural factors like kiasuism and insecurity.
Also in cases where leaders remain in power for a long time, they have vested interests in making NS long to secure their stay in power (South Korea and Taiwan were not democratic until recently).
How did this post get deleted? How about letting people see the facts and wonder about the opinion stated themselves?
If not acceptable, why don't you go after posts like the guy who keeps bashing the jews or the ones making open insults to singapore leaders? I read the rules. This is not a hate post, a duplicate post or country vs country post. Please let it be.
I agreed that ns reduction should be studied by mindef and ministers. Look at Taiwan (as posted above) from 24 to 12 mths. Shouldnt we start doing this? Or are we fear of changing it.
-
Originally posted by Ice kosong:
why wld i protect other families where 1/2 of them are FTs? n why would i protect a country which is led by the pap who treated the ppl like slaves?
Yeah bums like u like to sit down n stare at the computer all day long, talk like u so damn smart.Go get a job bum.
Military spending is to benefit the garmen companies? What???
Eh, I know yer maths is bad but now I realise yer analytical skills are worse than a 10 year old.
Unless Sg has 1 million troops like North Korea, yeah, the garmen industry will benefit. But how much can it benefit from a small army and reserve army?
Wif technological edge, in event of any war, Singapore will bring the war to the neigbouring countries, tat is wat these high tech weapons r for. Dumb ice. Stupid fat boy wif penchant for fat arse.
-
Originally posted by Color of Money is Honey:
Yeah bums like u like to sit down n stare at the computer all day long, talk like u so damn smart.Go get a job bum.
Military spending is to benefit the garmen companies? What???
Eh, I know yer maths is bad but now I realise yer analytical skills are worse than a 10 year old.
Unless Sg has 1 million troops like North Korea, yeah, the garmen industry will benefit. But how much can it benefit from a small army and reserve army?
Wif technological edge, in event of any war, Singapore will bring the war to the neigbouring countries, tat is wat these high tech weapons r for. Dumb ice. Stupid fat boy wif penchant for fat arse.
yo stupid fat boy, why are u so stupid?
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
Its a big risk to spend just for the sake of spending. UK has the 3rd largest defence budget in the world and in a few years will have a navy and air force smaller than Turkey with less stealth a/c. Spent $8+ BILLION on a MRA-4 aircraft and finally had zero-aircraft which ended up scrapped.
If Singapore spent $8 BILLION on nothing, it will have no deterrence.
The key is not just more spending but efficient spending. That means constantly re-examining sacred cows for effectiveness eg NS, big ticket purchases. Procurement needs to be transparent. Any leakages need to be plugged.
Lucky for SG, the current Government has had very many multi-$$$$$$$$$ projects which have been very well executed.
That includes:
(a) Formidable frigate - lower personnel to run same sized ships. Made in Singapore some more...
(b) F-15SG - highly effective 3rd gen a/c that unlike its other competitors can still be relevant into the next gen.
(c) G-550 replacement - introduced with minimal risk and cost unlike the highly problematic RAAF AEW program which was delayed with massive cost-overrun. They started their procurement earlier but we got ours earlier.
(d) S-70 helicopters. Australia had the massive S-2G cancellation again due to cost-overrun and manufacturing issues.
Other very cost-effective programmes with cheap 2nd hand capabilities include
(i) Submarines - 2nd hand hulls but upgraded with 1st hand weapons/electronics
(ii) Leopard 2 tanks - 2nd hand use but upgraded with 1st hand weapons/armour
(iii) KC-135s - cheap 2nd hand tankers
A lot of other examples. Some very cheap programmes but highly effective eg ACMS. All with a specific role that is highly calculated to meet specific and clear defence needs.
The F-15 was not a good value for money purchase
-
Originally posted by amanda.lu862:
I think some people might call it lying if you added your opinion as someone's original quote. Despite your lack of common courtesy, in your case, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by reading it as your technical inability to differentiate the quote and your opinion which happens to be in the last line.
Also, it would be credible to back up your single liners with facts rather than relying on opposition style sound-bites.
-
Originally posted by likeyou:
I dnt like them to use $9k to buy our hearts for serving ns.
Are we that cheap?
ya lor.. can i pay some ah neh 9k and let them do to 2yrs and 10 cycle for me?? plus free food and a roof for them leh... so good right? -
Originally posted by weasel1962:
I think some people might call it lying if you added your opinion as someone's original quote. Despite your lack of common courtesy, in your case, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by reading it as your technical inability to differentiate the quote and your opinion which happens to be in the last line.
Also, it would be credible to back up your single liners with facts rather than relying on opposition style sound-bites.
one mistake doesnt mean an inability.
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
I think some people might call it lying if you added your opinion as someone's original quote. Despite your lack of common courtesy, in your case, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by reading it as your technical inability to differentiate the quote and your opinion which happens to be in the last line.
Also, it would be credible to back up your single liners with facts rather than relying on opposition style sound-bites.
And where do you give any references? Pray tell? you are just as non-factual
-
Actually, have been posting for almost a decade or more now at various defence forums. Most people would know I'm more than happy to share my sources and justifications.
If you can indicate which of the facts posted requires my source or justifications, do feel free to indicate. I do not even expect anyone to agree with my justification but I do put down my reasons for certain positions.
Specifically posts like this,
[quote="amanda.lu862"]Too many Leopard 2A4 Tanks were purchased. And yes the F-15 was the wrong fighter to buy[/quote]
would be far more credible with at least some justification.
-
It is foolish to increase the budget annually as our potential enemies are weak. Even if they combined forces, our superior military hardware can incapacitate them. It is wise if we maintain an edge over them.
-
I don't think it was "increased" as a percentage, it's always been a fixed fraction of the GDP, and since last year we had a very large economy increase (28% I think?), the budget automatically shot up to reflect this. It's not really a spending increase and depending on how "generous" the SAF is feeling, a lot of it might just go back into the budget surplus pool later.
Though Malaysia is getting a lot of nice equipment like new fighters, upgrading their MEKO 100s and artillery rockets like the ASTROS. A worrying potential buy is the Brahamos for their Kedah/MEKOs. That thing is a genuine threat to ships.
Amanda, the Leo and Typh are opinions, not hard fact. You have to factor in the retiring of the SM-1, which means we have a shortage of tanks and an excess of crew, and that the Typhoon can't do air to ground very well, so is not suitable for Singapore. We have a lack of air crew, so a plane has to multi-task i.e do air superiority AND ground support due to our lack of manpower. The Typhoon can only do air.