boring thread

Ananda

The Bunker Group
6. Historically, Singapore's annual defence budget is around 2.6 to 3.6 times that of Vietnam, so there's a huge qualitative difference in equipment. The Vietnamese defense budget in 2011 is about 52,000 billion VND (US$2.6 billion), which is less than a third of Singapore's defence budget of S$12.08 billion (US$9.5 billion). Obviously, the Vietnamese air force does not have the same financial ability to maintain and upgrade their fighter fleet, when compared to the RSAF before even considering the difference in training and doctrine.
Permit me to deviate a little bit from the topic, however I fell this still very relevant on determining how 'modern' any military can be build by one country.

1. 'Nothings is free' anymore. Cold war is over, and everything need to be paid by hard cash (or one way to other). No hand out. Even (for example) the plan 'grant' by US to Indonesia of 24 F-16, it's not a'grant' per say. We have to pay those 24 F-16 with the money that's been originally allocated to buy 8 new Block 52 F-16. It's just that the money now being used not to procured new F-16 but to 'mordernised' used F-16. Mindef agree with this offered since it's provide us with 3 times the F-16 numbers with (after MLU) the US promissed the performance that only 'slighly' less than brand new block 52.

Thus the size of ones economy and the amount of money that any country willing and able to set asside for defense is relevant to see how ones Military will progress on 'sustainable' development for at least medium term in the future.

Thus comparing what your military already or can be done during 'cold war' era is different. I bet Vietnam can't get same (relative) price with Russian weapons this days. Just like with anybody else Russia now demand 'commercial' payment to their weapons. That's why Rosoboronexport being created.

2. Size of defense budget also can be missleading. For instances although in 2009, SIPRI put Indonesia defense budget at 2nd place in SEA after Singapore, but since TNI has much more manpower than SDF, then most of the money (close to 2/3) used for paying sallary and improvement on living facilities of the soldiers and their family. Thus left only 1/3 of budget for maintanance existing asset and procurement of new asset.

3. Size of Economy also can be misleading (in term of how much it can spend on Defence). Indonesia by far has GDP that close doubling Thailand as the Second largest Economy in SEA. But, so what..SIPRI say that Indonesian military defense accounted to 1%-1.5% of GDP. In reality after Soeharto's fall the defence budget never excedd 1% of GDP. It's political choice. The amount that we've spend on 'Energy/Fuel' subsidy in 2010 are more than twice the amount that India prepared for getting 124 MRCA. In short, the political and social conditions in each country society will determined the political will on 'defense budget' allotment.

4. Don't forget how your planning the defense spending. If your budget being prepared on 'singgle year' budget, it's going to be much different (with the same amount of budget) on how you can negotiate with defense vendors if your budget can be 'firm' for multiple years budget. One of the weaknesses in Indonesian budget, was the budget plan only for 'singgle year' usage. Thus we have difficulty to bargain with the vendors for long term project (i,e, bargain for lower price due to larger multiple years contract). It's been corrected this year, however it take 5 years debated with parlement to make it happen.

5. How about planning on your shopping list. What Singapore is good at also that they are dicipline on what they're going to procured on medium-long term. Something that the rest of SEA country are not as dicipline yet. I know for Indonesia, the people in Mindef can be 'side-tracked' depends on the offered. Only this last few years that dicipline are more implement, but still not in the dicipline level of Singapore or Australia yet.

6. Is your budget 'leaking' ?? Well it's the common 'sickness' in developing country. Indonesia one of the 'champion' on this :D. Even with more dicipline this last few years, and more intentions to get G to G deal on large Armed Procurement (to reduced the temptations from middleman), but in reality it's very hard to do. Since the Vendors (whether come from US, Europe, Russia, ROK, China, etc), loved to use this middleman as providing 'temptations' for weapons procurement.

Sorry if bit lengthy, just want to show, that building 'modern' military this days is complex and very expensive business. Many people in Indonesia like to be 'nostalgic' with the conditions of TNI in the first half of the 60's (before 65). At that time we have the most advanced weapons the Russian will give to a SEA nation (even some that Vietnam only get on late 60's already present with TNI in early 60's). However, despite popular demand that the Government must build TNI back to 'relative' strength like the early 60s as most equiped Armed Forces in SEA that's can't be done as fast as popular feeling wants. Afterall so many things has to be considered in building Modern Military right now.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
7. While the Vietnamese may have more fighters (with 202 fighters) than Singapore (with 99 fighters) in 2009, 146 of those are outdated MiG-21s. Further, Singapore has access to defence technology (European, Israeli and American links) and a defence industrial base that the Vietnamese would dream of having. IMHO, is is clear from the 7 points I made that the Vietnamese air force is not a peer threat to the RSAF - as they do not have the financial resources nor the requisite technical capabilities to be a peer threat.
A lot of good points. However consider the following hypothetical scenarios:

1. Singapore invades Vietnam. Forget it. In spite of a superior air force you don't stand a chance. The US, France and China all failed in Vietnam; so would Singapore.

2. Vietnam invades Singapore. In spite of a superior air force you don't stand a chance. 90 million Vietnamese will overwhelm tiny Singapore in no time. First taking Malaysia and then launching attacks across the straits. A few F-15 and F-16 simply will not make that much of a difference.

Not realistic? Of course not; the US would intervene and save Singapore's butt. (And why would Vietnam care about that tiny island nation in the first place)

Singapore has an impressive defence force but let's face it, it can only fight smaller threats like Malaysia and Indonesia on it's own. Medium-large countries will have Singapore for breakfast. Small countries like Singapore need to rely on alliances with major powers like the US. That's what Singapore is doing and that's what will save Singapore's butt if the going get's tough. Not a few F-15...
 

Triumf

New Member
Vietnam buying large number of Sukhoi Su-30MK2 (and intent to buy some MiG-29M2/MiG-35 or some Western Fighter for replacing outdated MiG-21Bis) just for self-defense not invade any neighbors.
 

CheeZe

Active Member
US intervention? I don't know... Last I knew, our main military alliances were with Malaysia, Australia, NZ, and the UK from the Five Powers Defence Arrangements. While Singapore and the US do have military arms deals, and we do allow the stationing of US troops in Singaporean facilities and conduct operations and exercises alongside them, there is no formal defensive alliance. The US is not legally obligated to help us in the case of invasion, though the presence of US military and civilian personnel along with historically good political and financial ties may cause them to do so.

Can we go toe to toe with Vietnam in the ridiculous hypothetical situations posed by Vivendi? Of course not. But that was never the point of OPSSG's post.

I know how this looks, random newbie Singaporean rushes in to defend fellow countryman's point. Put that aside and read the post.

He's not making any sort of declaration that our tiny nation can defeat Vietnam. He is simply pointing out that a lot of people (whose posts I have not read and thus cannot refer to) have been selling Singapore's capabilities short of what they really are.

As for what "a few F15s" can do, I must refer to the 1982 Falklands War where two squadrons of British Harriers (28 aircraft, if you trust Wikipedia) successfully opposed the much larger Argentine Air Force by working with naval assets to coordinate attacks. And one cannot make the argument that the Argentine forces weren't well equipped so the differences were in size and training.

While I dare not say we are anyway close to the level of capability of the British armed forces, the similarity can be drawn in terms of capability and size differences. Smaller, technologically advanced force versus larger, less well trained force. History is full of examples of smaller, well trained forces beating a larger less well trained one. And we're fighting on our own ground, which makes logistics much easier for us and more difficult for the invader. As OPSSG said, do not be so quick to discount the RSAF or any other part of the SAF's capabilities.

That said, this topic detracts from the discussion of Vietnam's military by placing the focus on Singapore. I suggest that if anyone really wants to respond to this, do so in the appropriate Singapore military thread.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
US intervention? I don't know... Last I knew, our main military alliances were with Malaysia, Australia, NZ, and the UK from the Five Powers Defence Arrangements.
The FPDA is not a binding defence arrangement like NATO is. In event of an external threat on Singapore and Malaysia, the other 3 FPDA members are officially only required to hold 'joint discussions' and are not required to provide military or even diplomatic assistance.

The US is not legally obligated to help us in the case of invasion, though the presence of US military and civilian personnel along with historically good political and financial ties may cause them to do so.
Well it works both ways. In the event of hostilities in the Pacific Rim involving the U.S. and some other power, Singapore by virtue of playing host to a U.S. logistics detachment and U.S. ships for regular mantiance stops, could be a target of attacks. Similiarly, if Australia was involved in a war, the Butterworth base in Penang, which is Australia's only permanent military presence out of Australia, would be a legitimate target, whether or not Malaysia was involved in the conflict.

As OPSSG said, do not be so quick to discount the RSAF or any other part of the SAF's capabilities.
We should be quick not to discount the capabilities of ANY armed forces regional or otherwise, eventhough they might not have the technological edge of the SAF or the level of funding.
 
Last edited:

CheeZe

Active Member
The FPDA is not a binding defence arrangement like NATO is. In event of an external threat on Singapore and Malaysia, the other 3 FPDA members are officially only required to hold 'joint discussions' and are not required to provide military or ven diplomatic assistance.


We should be quick not to discount the capabilities of ANY armed forces regional or otherwise, eventhough they might not have the technological edge of the SAF or the level of funding.
RE: FPDA - was not aware of that but good to know. Thanks.

Certainly, STURM, underestimating any armed force is a sure way to defeat. Vietnam certainly has an impressive force.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
1. Singapore invades Vietnam. Forget it. In spite of a superior air force you don't stand a chance. The US, France and China all failed in Vietnam; so would Singapore.
And why would we be interested in invading or attacking a fellow ASEAN country (with ASEAN as a 10 member organisation)? What is the incentive or motivation? Do you understand ASEAN's Treaty of Amity and Cooperation?

I hope you realise that Singapore is investing in and giving aid (in our usual limited fashion) to Vietnam. Further, we don't share a border with Vietnam and we are not a EEZ claimant in the disputed areas in the South China Sea region.

BTW, in the last few years, the SAF has grown smaller. In fact, we have reduced the size of our air force (and even transferred 7 F-16A/Bs to Thailand), stood down some army units (infantry and artillery) reduced the duration of conscription and length of reserve cycles - because there is no peer threat.

In future, there is little chance that a small country, like Singapore, would act alone especially in a cooperative defense scenario. There are various operational scenarios where SAF could participate in. In one of those scenarios SAF participation in a coalition event, could be as a junior partner (be it in war, operations other than war, non-combatant evacuation, or even in response to a specific humanitarian crisis). In limited circumstances, SAF could lead a coalition event as force commander.

2. Vietnam invades Singapore. In spite of a superior air force you don't stand a chance. 90 million Vietnamese will overwhelm tiny Singapore in no time. First taking Malaysia and then launching attacks across the straits. A few F-15 and F-16 simply will not make that much of a difference.
If you watch enough Star Trek and believe in teleportation. :)

Other that teleportation, you also need to understand 2 main limitations on Vietnam:

(1) the concept of 'local superiority' and the ability of the SAF to establish such local superiority; and

(2) the ability of the the potential aggressor to project his forces.​

Beyond the above limitations, you will need to discuss the route of advance. There are two choices (either by land or by sea). To meet the conventional threat presented by Singapore's forces, the aggressor will need to meet and exceed both the RSAF and the Singapore Navy operating in the 3 dimensions of: (i) air warfare, (ii) surface warfare, and (iii) underwater warfare dimensions of naval warfare before they can move their forces.

One, by sea, no chance in hell of them moving their forces over the distance, as the Vietnamese lack the means to project their power. Vietnam needs oil and unless a major power delivers oil to them via a land route (like China, as was the case during the Vietnam war). IMHO, good luck to Vietnam declaring war on Singapore or Thailand and hoping to ship oil through the maritime choke points at the Straits of Malacca and Sunda (where most of Vietnam's oil shipments are sent through).

(1) Beyond sea control at maritime choke points, the Singapore Navy can also put their oil drilling platforms in the South China Sea at risk. Like China, Vietnam's economy is growing and they are just as addicted to oil. However, I would caution that a country does not usually go to war for things you can buy in the market. Countries will however go to war over another country acting against their national interest. Keep in mind that countries are not people.

(2) By way of background, Singapore's Ministry of Defence signed an agreement with Kockums for the supply of 2 Archer-Class (formerly Västergötland class) submarines to the Singapore Navy on 4 November 2005. These 2 submarines have been rebuilt, life-extended and modernised and the Singapore Navy currently operates 6 submarines (4 of which are the even older Challenger-Class submarines). And this is a capability that Vietnam currently lacks.

(3) While the Singapore Navy (utilising all the assets of the SAF), as a standalone force, has an issue with Sea Control once we are out of range of our air bases, the Vietnamese navy is even more limited in naval capability. Keep in mind that while the 4 Endurance Class, the 6 upgraded Victory Class and the 6 Formidable Class vessels (see link) are capable vessels in their respective classes, they are also of limited tonnage (which can be an indicator of sea keeping endurance). Therefore, the Singapore Navy is a green water navy but is blue water capable within a coalition environment. Further, I also do not consider the Endurance-Class giving any division within the SAF true 'expeditionary capabilities', as our army and navy (plus their supporting arms in RSAF's Participation Command) are not designed to fight wars far away (but we are capable of forward defence in the near abroad). By design, there's still a logistics umbilical cord tied to Singapore or Thailand for us to sustain our forces at war. However, I do acknowledge that at the joint operational-level planning and warfighting level for amphibious operations, the SAF continues to face many inherent resource limitation issues. With the 4 Endurance-Class vessels, the SAF has gained an improved but limited capability to:

(i) conduct small scale amphibious operations in the near abroad, in the face of some opposition (but not too much determined opposition);

(ii) conduct air assault at extended reach from Singapore air bases, as these ships can serve as lily pads to refuel RSAF's helicopters (RSAF helicopters have done deck landing qualifications on both USN and RSN ships);

(iii) sustain deployments in Operations Other than War (OOTW) thousands of miles away (OOTW includes both counter pirate missions and oil platform protection or destruction in low intensity conflict scenario);

(iv) conduct Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Relief (HADR) missions (as in the case after the Dec 2004 Tsunami); and

(v) collect SAF equipment from overseas bases and bring them back to Singapore during a period of tension.​

Two, via the land route. Thailand, whose air force and army are not small (and Singapore maintains military bases in Thailand) and Malaysia (a fellow member of the FPDA) are in the way of the invading Vietnamese army. You did not even read a map on the basics of the region before commenting (you seem to have forgotten about Thailand, which is a US ally). :D

(1) While the SAF is small compared to the Vietnamese army, the network centric SAF has the most advanced armour (upgraded Leopard 2s and armour engineers), anti-armour (Spike ATGM teams and Apaches) and artillery capabilities (HIMARS, Primus, Pegasus and FH-2000; supported by artillery hunting radar) in South East Asia. If an artillery barrage starts, they would quickly discover the joys of Singapore counter-battery fire. Kindly read up on Ex Cobra Gold and Ex Cope Tiger (which is in its 17th edition, involving over a hundred aircraft, 2,300 personnel from the Royal Thai Air force (RTAF), the USAF and the RSAF), to get an idea of the military to military relationships. For example, the Royal Thai Navy (RTN) is one of the most frequent users of Changi Naval Base, where its ships call for replenishment as they deploy between the Andaman and the Gulf of Thailand. Most recently, the RTN launched an Endurance class vessel, which was built by ST Marine. The SAF and the Thai Armed Forces have also worked together in humanitarian relief operations.

(2) In December 1978, with Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia, during the cold war, Singapore and Thailand had to come up with a joint defence plan for the threat at that time. The combined armoured forces of Thailand and Singapore were and are still designed to fight a substantial force in echelon at Corps or higher level operations. The level of Singaporean commitment to Thai defence is not small and in the past, our forces conducted joint patrols at Thailand's northern border (including mantaining an ammo stockpile in Thailand). To give one historical example that can now be stated. Singapore's E-2Cs were not bought primarily to engage in the defence of Singapore within Singapore borders. They were bought to assist in the defence of Thailand against the then Vietnamese/Soviet threat. 2011 marks the 30th year of RSAF heliopter operations at Koke Kathiem, Thailand (KKT). Most recently in March 2011, a RSAF Apache detachment flew up to KKT to train with the RTAF. In fact, Singapore's infantry, engineer and armor units train in Thailand and the most common foreign airborne wing worn on SAF uniforms is the Thai airborne wing (reflecting our close ties and level of inter-operability).

(3) And if you could read a map, you would also know that there is a natural terrain chokepoint in the South of Thailand and that frontage is defendable against a northern threat (and defendable by a division plus sized force, if you understand the effects of terrain). In fact, as WWII has shown, a good defence plan for Malaya (against the then external Japanese invasion from the north) from should start at the appropriate geographical choke point in Thai territory (see Appendix 2 for Map of the opening blows in the Pointer Monograph on page 64). The Imperial Japanese Army landed in Thai territory and proceed to march south. There is also a Pointer Monograph on the mistakes in the Malayan Campaign, including a chapter on operational art shortcomings by LTC (NS) Singh. You don't seem to understand its military implications of terrain and just one of the SAF's three forward deployable combined arms divisions will be a handful, when deployed in the correct location. And Singapore, with Thailand's permission can land and support a division in Thai territory to conduct a joint defence.

(4) BTW, attacking an aggressor's rear areas is a key feature of any Singapore's forward defence and you will find that from time to time, the Singapore's Deputy Prime Minister (who retired as a Rear-Admiral) and former Defence Minister will refer to the deep battle in his speeches. This is so because the main fight for Singapore forces must be with the second echelon, otherwise it will become a battle of attrition. Singapore's current Prime Minister is a former artillery officer (who was trained in the US at both Fort Sill and Fort Leavenworth) and retired from the SAF as a Brigadier-General.​

In the case of Singapore, RSAF's ability to establish air superiority enables the SAF to conduct amphibious operations and to conduct heli-borne operations to aid in maneuver and resupply - which greatly aid offensive operations. Air power also provide combined arms support for our armoured forces. Further, the RSAF is capable of a full spectrum of air operations including: CAP, SEAD, CAS, BAI, ISR missions, Rebro for comms, insertion of recce elements and pathfinders, air assault, aero-medical evacuation, battle damage assessment, aero-resupply, SIGINT and EW. Further, Singapore has developed a procurement system that is widely admired for selecting solutions that are suited to operational needs. To give you an idea of how SAF sources for weapons - here's a limited list of countries that the SAF have bought weapons from, over the last few years:

(1) Swedish built submarines (Challenger and Archer class submarines) and mine sweepers (Bedok Class);

(2) French designed Frigates (Formidable Class), French built Super Pumas & Cougars, the Life Extension Programme of RSN's Swedish built Bedok class mine countermeasure vessels performed by Thales and so on;

(3) German made tanks (IBD evolved Leopard 2s for urban warfare, with the L44 gun), the M3 float bridges and the Lürssen designed Corvettes (Victory Class);

(4) American aircraft like F-15SGs, F-16C/Ds, Apaches, Chinooks, KC-135Rs and Seahawks naval helicopters;

(5) Russian designed SAM missiles (Igla); and

(6) Israeli supplied G550 CAEWs and the Barak missile system on the Victory Class vessels,​

making the SAF's supply network truly global. All discussions that are focused only at a platform level (be it about a particular fighter plane, tank or artillery) is totally meaningless and without context if we don't look at the systems supporting that particular platform. To me a platform is just a tool and I've listed some of the tools in the SAF's arsenal. In fact, Trefor Moss, writing for Janes had on 18 Jan 2010 said:-

"The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) of 2010, by far the most advanced military force in Southeast Asia, are the outcome of a long-held policy of allotting defence up to 6 per cent of GDP. While defence spending has dipped below this level in recent years – it was 4.3 per cent in 2009, an allocation of SGD11.4 billion (USD8.2 billion) – this remains very high by regional standards. As the Indonesian defence minister recently lamented, Singapore (population less than five million) spends more on defence in real terms than Indonesia (population 230 million)... The SAF not only enjoy a clear capability advantage over other Southeast Asian militaries, but it is also now close to becoming the 'Third-Generation' armed force, which recent procurement and reforms have been designed to produce."​

Therefore, IMHO, there is no way Vietnam can project her forces to move that far south against the most advanced military force in Southeast Asia.
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Not realistic? Of course not; the US would intervene and save Singapore's butt. (And why would Vietnam care about that tiny island nation in the first place)
Some element of truth but sadly lacking of a broad view of regional realities. It is also lacking a understanding of the history of the region. Further, armed conflict need not be invasion but rather war by proxy or some other means.

While Singapore and the US do have military arms deals, and we do allow the stationing of US troops in Singaporean facilities and conduct operations and exercises alongside them, there is no formal defensive alliance. The US is not legally obligated to help us in the case of invasion, though the presence of US military and civilian personnel along with historically good political and financial ties may cause them to do so...

Can we go toe to toe with Vietnam in the ridiculous hypothetical situations posed by Vivendi? Of course not. But that was never the point of OPSSG's post.
Agreed.

Further, if your country is in conflict with a country that is a regional threat, their goal may not be to 'invade' your country. Let's talk about two examples of external powers destabilising a country:

(i) Vietnamese support for Hun Sen's regime in Cambodia vs the royalist FUNCINPEC, which was in turn supported by the ASEAN-6. This covert support strategy was used by members of the original ASEAN-6 countries with regards to Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia via the region's support for FUNCINPEC against the Vietnamese installed Hun Sen regime. Conceptually, once there is sufficient external support in the supply of arms and money, the internal rebels never have to lay down their arms and the Hun Sen's forces could not achieve a decisive victory over the other groups. The name for this strategy is called fighting by proxy. And back then, Vietnam's occupation of Cambodia was not an acceptable status quo to the ASEAN-6, then.

(ii) The Konfrontasi was an undeclared war between Indonesia and United Kingdom-backed Malaya (which at that time included Singapore) over the future of the island of Borneo from 1962 to 1966. The origins of the conflict lay in Indonesian attempts to destabilise the new federation of Malaysia. Indonesia was lined up against Malaya, which was supported by UK, Australia and NZ. During the Konfrontasi, Indonesians set off 29 bombs in Singapore, between September 1963 and March 1965, which resulted in death and damage to property. This episode in history taught us many lessons, the main one being that it is crucial for Singapore to have a strong and credible defence force. Singapore’s two battalions, i.e. the First Singapore Infantry Regiment (1 SIR) and the Second Singapore Infantry Regiment (2 SIR), were placed under Malaysian command and deployed in various parts of Malaya to fight the saboteurs.​

Let me list some armed conflicts in Asia* alone, where state policy has resulted in armed conflict (see box below for list of armed conflicts). In fact, some members of the 10 ASEAN countries have been in armed conflict with each other. This includes a shadow war, the Konfrontasi, which involved Indonesia vs Malaysia and Singapore (supported by UK, Australia and NZ). This also includes Vietnam vs Cambodia (which then drew in a regional power, China), where Vietnam invaded Cambodia and imposed regime change. In the case of Vietnam, it was not an invasion for territorial conquest or for resources; rather it was to install a friendly regime.

*Select List of Armed Conflicts in Asia Post-WWII

1. Indo-Pakistan War of 1947
2. The Korean War (1950–1953)
3. The Vietnam War (1955 to 1975) - also known as the Second Indochina War
4. Sino-Indian War of 1962
5. The Konfrontasi (1963 to 1966)
6. Indo-Pakistan War of 1965
7. The Cambodian Civil War (1967–1975)
8. Indo-Pakistan War of 1971
9. Cambodian–Vietnamese War (May 1975 to December 1989)
10. Indonesia invaded East Timor in Dec 1975 following the Carnation Revolution in Portugal
11. Sino-Vietnamese War (February-March 1979)- also known as the Third Indochina War
12. Indo-Pakistani War of 1999
13. Cambodian–Thai border dispute (shooting started in 2009 and escalated to artillery exchanges by 2011)
Other countries DO NOT have to desire something from a country to choose to destabilise/attack that country. Aggression/hostility could be caused by external regional dynamics or even domestic political imperatives of the aggressor state. Therefore, armed conflict need not be invasion but rather war by proxy. You have to look the the political narrative that keeps the regimes in power and the regional security dynamics:

(i) invasion and occupation is not the only threat (and invasion is also a very unlikely scenario); and

(ii) resource competition and access need not be the ONLY reason for war.​

Singapore has an impressive defence force but let's face it, it can only fight smaller threats like Malaysia and Indonesia on it's own. Medium-large countries will have Singapore for breakfast. Small countries like Singapore need to rely on alliances with major powers like the US. That's what Singapore is doing and that's what will save Singapore's butt if the going get's tough. Not a few F-15...
Your responses reflect your lack of understanding of the history, the geo-political realities and the concerns of South East Asia. Three more basic points (to address the issue of ignorance of historical events):-

(i) Vietnam (which is by the way, has a population of 90.5 million with a land mass of 331,698 km2), Philipppines and Malaysia are much more concerned about China. Keep in mind the bloody conflict between Chinese and Vietnamese forces in the Chigua Reef area of the Spratlys in the late 1980s and Chinese maritime activities in the Mischief Reef and Scarborough Shoal are examples of the strategic interplay in the region. Beyond conflict in the maritime domain, the Vietnamese have actually fought a border war with China but not with us. Clear threats help set clear priority for the Vietnamese.

(ii) Indonesia, by the way, has a population of 229 million with a land mass of 1,919,440 km2 and the Indonesians were not given their independence. In their 1945-49 war of independence, they were able to drive out the Dutch, who were the colonial power of the day. You may think they suck but the TNI really don't care about what you think, as they have intend and are prepared to fight with a guerrilla ethos against any foreign power (like the Vietcong). Since their founding the TNI has been engaged in COIN type of 'constructive pacification' against internal rebels, such that, their war machine remains well oiled. As the 4th most populous country in the world, their point of view is that they have an endless supply of people and they have the benefit of terrain.

(iii) Singapore maintains at some cost (transfering to them 19 SF-260s and even a dive support boat to Indonesia), close relations with the Indonesians. After the Dec 2004 Tsunami, the SAF (with over a thousand soliders) was the first on the beaches of Meulaboh to deliver aid. IMHO, Singapore would not be able to play a constructive role in helping the TNI, if we were not capable of defending ourselves. Ironically, Singapore's strength enables us to have the confidence to give the Indonesians help in their time of need and helps build bridges between the two countries. Both the Singapore and Indonesian navies have a healthy respect for each other.​

With due regards to past history, the present issue is:-

How can the region deal with the shifting power dynamics?

And some Southeast Asian nations are taking the answer into their own hands by turning towards military modernisation. Modernisation not only to counter China’s efforts but also to prepare for a future in which the US may not be able to play the role of ‘offshore balancer’.

IMHO, the more interesting question is:-

How to build a security architecture robust enough to deal with such challenges as committing parties to an ‘Incidents at Sea’ agreement?

At this time, the region lacks the institutions necessary to make such actions credible. While establishing new mechanisms like the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting Plus (ADMM+) and expanding existing ones like the East Asia Summit (EAS) could potentially lead to a security architecture that produces tangible results, neither approach has yet borne fruit.

That said, this topic detracts from the discussion of Vietnam's military by placing the focus on Singapore. I suggest that if anyone really wants to respond to this, do so in the appropriate Singapore military thread.
Agreed.
 
Last edited:

nanoland

New Member
USAF F-15 pilots had declared that the Flankers were much more maneuverable than the Eagles. The rate of climb were faster and higher than the Eagles. Simply to say, the Flankers outclassed the Eagles in every aspect. The Eagles could only match the early variants of the SU-27 Flanker aircraft in 1-1 dogfight.

The discovery had prompt the USAF to come up with air combat maneuvering tactics to counter the Flankers in combat. The results were very disheartening for the Americans. To effectively intercept a Flanker, at least three Eagles were required. The other option was to have a next-generation fighter to supplement the Eagles, which was now known as the F-22 Raptor. Even up to know, there was no concrete evidence that the F-22 could outfight the Flankers.

To Counter the Flankers of the RMAF or Indonesia, how many Eagles does the RSAF require? What were the chances of the SG Eagles winning against the Flankers?

I think the best bet is not to have any conflict with our neighbours.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
USAF F-15 pilots had declared that the Flankers were much more maneuverable than the Eagles. The rate of climb were faster and higher than the Eagles. Simply to say, the Flankers outclassed the Eagles in every aspect. The Eagles could only match the early variants of the SU-27 Flanker aircraft in 1-1 dogfight.

The discovery had prompt the USAF to come up with air combat maneuvering tactics to counter the Flankers in combat. The results were very disheartening for the Americans. To effectively intercept a Flanker, at least three Eagles were required. The other option was to have a next-generation fighter to supplement the Eagles, which was now known as the F-22 Raptor. Even up to know, there was no concrete evidence that the F-22 could outfight the Flankers.

To Counter the Flankers of the RMAF or Indonesia, how many Eagles does the RSAF require? What were the chances of the SG Eagles winning against the Flankers?

I think the best bet is not to have any conflict with our neighbours.
A few things. I certainly that it is best to not have conflicts with one's neighbours, but that is not always an option.

As for the assertion that the F-15SG is/is not the right choice for Air Supremacy for Singapore... I suggest reading the Air Power 101 thread put up for members to read before continuing in this direction further.

For one thing, not knowing the source of the information, much of it sounds rather questionable, and some of it just is not relevant.

Unless something has gone seriously wrong in the lead up to an engagement, the days of fighter vs. fighter dogfighting are long gone. Air combat now is a system level event, of which a fighter is just one of the platforms which make up the entire system.

In the case of Singapore, the kinematic performance of a Flanker or Eagle is less important than whether the aircraft has better kinematic performance than the potentially inbound air-to-air missile (the aircraft will not) and whether in hostile aircraft has been or will be detected by any one of a number of most likely networked together sensor systems.

Given that Singapore has recently retired the E-2 Hawkeye AWACS for some presumably better performing G550 AEW aircraft, the F-15SG pilot would most likely be aware of a hostile Flanker in the area well before the Flanker pilot was aware of the F-15SG.

There is a general mantra for aerial combat currently that is basically, "He who sees first, shoots first. He who shoots first, wins."

The above example of an AEW-backed F-15SG, the inbound missile fired from the F-15SG could potentially be datalinked in the entire way and score a kill on the Flanker before the Flanker was even aware he had been fired up. That is what is potentially possible with a systems approach to air combat.

Also please note that Vs. threads are against the forum rules, partially because people interested in such threads virtually always ignore that aerial combat is a systems level event and focus solely just the fighter platforms, and partially because people also tend to make assumptions and assertions which have more to do with emotion and nationalism/pride than facts or reality.

-Cheers
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
USAF F-15 pilots had declared that the Flankers were much more maneuverable than the Eagles. The rate of climb were faster and higher than the Eagles. Simply to say, the Flankers outclassed the Eagles in every aspect. The Eagles could only match the early variants of the SU-27 Flanker aircraft in 1-1 dogfight.

The discovery had prompt the USAF to come up with air combat maneuvering tactics to counter the Flankers in combat. The results were very disheartening for the Americans. To effectively intercept a Flanker, at least three Eagles were required. The other option was to have a next-generation fighter to supplement the Eagles, which was now known as the F-22 Raptor. Even up to know, there was no concrete evidence that the F-22 could outfight the Flankers.

To Counter the Flankers of the RMAF or Indonesia, how many Eagles does the RSAF require? What were the chances of the SG Eagles winning against the Flankers?

I think the best bet is not to have any conflict with our neighbours.
I agree one shouldn't come to fisticuffs with ones neighbours. Very bad for ones economy. Can you provide a source for your claim because to make a claim such as you have one should be really certain of the accuracy of ones statement and the veracity of its validity. On here we tend to like accurate sources to back such claims because many things can be said, that in the benefit of hindsight, have turned out not to be so as claimed, then such claims can irritate the Mods who can be very irritable at the best of times. So we have found that it is ones best interest to avoid the irritable gaze of the mods because that avoidance makes life peaceful. Therefore I would be very interested to acquaint myself with your source. In simple words show us your source please or withdraw the post.

There are many variables that come to bear in air to air combat and although platform dynamics and ability is important, tactics and pilot capability play a large part as well. I have seen gun-sight video of post Kahu RNZAF A4Ks take out RAAF F18s in air to air combat exercises as well as F16s. We even had a BAC 167 Strikemaster sneak up and take out a USAF F16 in Ex Triad here in NZ back in 1984 (the 14 Sqn celebrations for that feat were legendary). So like Todjaeger suggests you need to go and read up on Air Power 101. It is a must.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I agree one shouldn't come to fisticuffs with ones neighbours. Very bad for ones economy. Can you provide a source for your claim because to make a claim such as you have one should be really certain of the accuracy of ones statement and the veracity of its validity. On here we tend to like accurate sources to back such claims because many things can be said, that in the benefit of hindsight, have turned out not to be so as claimed, then such claims can irritate the Mods who can be very irritable at the best of times. So we have found that it is ones best interest to avoid the irritable gaze of the mods because that avoidance makes life peaceful. Therefore I would be very interested to acquaint myself with your source. In simple words show us your source please or withdraw the post.
I'd love to see the source as it directly contradicts what we know of actual commentary by people who've done the tech evaluation at a Red Hat level

In fact, I'm inclined to say it's a questionable source.

We've seen the commentary on Mig29's and we know for a fact that they were never as capable as claimed.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
What's the Eagle's real world combat record now? 102-0? I'd be frankly a bit surprised to find that suddenly they need a 3:1 numerical advantage to take on a Flanker.

Source please :)


And not a "Russia:Strong" source - something that had some bearing on the real world.

The F15SG is probably the most advanced model out there with a very capable radar and Singapore appears to have purchased a very good raft of support features with the aircraft - making sure they're well specified, their pilots have good training opportunities and the aircraft will have a high availability rate.

This is in sharp contrast to a lot of other aircraft fleets in the region which often languish for lack of spares, maintainers or weapons.

The Su-30 was offered in the selection and rejected early on - I don't know the reasons but I'm sure they were sound.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
What's the Eagle's real world combat record now? 102-0? I'd be frankly a bit surprised to find that suddenly they need a 3:1 numerical advantage to take on a Flanker.

Source please :)


And not a "Russia:Strong" source - something that had some bearing on the real world.

The F15SG is probably the most advanced model out there with a very capable radar and Singapore appears to have purchased a very good raft of support features with the aircraft - making sure they're well specified, their pilots have good training opportunities and the aircraft will have a high availability rate.

This is in sharp contrast to a lot of other aircraft fleets in the region which often languish for lack of spares, maintainers or weapons.

The Su-30 was offered in the selection and rejected early on - I don't know the reasons but I'm sure they were sound.
and not to put too fine a point on it - but when people start waxing lyrical about a platforms performance and don't factor in the systems issues, then I am immediately and highly skeptical.....

have a look at singapores orbat.....

it's not just about the spear chuckers baby......:)
 

swerve

Super Moderator
...
There are many variables that come to bear in air to air combat and although platform dynamics and ability is important, tactics and pilot capability play a large part as well. I have seen gun-sight video of post Kahu RNZAF A4Ks take out RAAF F18s in air to air combat exercises as well as F16s. We even had a BAC 167 Strikemaster sneak up and take out a USAF F16 in Ex Triad here in NZ back in 1984 (the 14 Sqn celebrations for that feat were legendary). So like Todjaeger suggests you need to go and read up on Air Power 101. It is a must.
I remember reading of a Red Flag or some such (forgive me for imprecision: it was a long time ago) in which RAF Jaguars successfully bombed their target, shooting down the USAF F-15s which intercepted them en route.

The RAF pilots were rather rude about the over-confidence induced carelessness of the F-15 pilots. :D
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
USAF F-15 pilots had declared that the Flankers were much more maneuverable than the Eagles. The rate of climb were faster and higher than the Eagles. Simply to say, the Flankers outclassed the Eagles in every aspect. The Eagles could only match the early variants of the SU-27 Flanker aircraft in 1-1 dogfight.

The discovery had prompt the USAF to come up with air combat maneuvering tactics to counter the Flankers in combat. The results were very disheartening for the Americans. To effectively intercept a Flanker, at least three Eagles were required. The other option was to have a next-generation fighter to supplement the Eagles, which was now known as the F-22 Raptor. Even up to know, there was no concrete evidence that the F-22 could outfight the Flankers.
Your next post better be a reputable source for such a claim. If you don't you will be banned. I'll even give you until the 5th to provide it.
 

nanoland

New Member
Is the way you should reply to the forum user? Please click on the link and read the article

vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f15-su30-1.html

Another link is theboresight.blogspot.sg/2009/07/swirl-of-controversy-cope-india-and-red.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Is the way you should reply to the forum user? Please click on the link and read the article

vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f15-su30-1.html
AND

Another link is theboresight.blogspot.sg/2009/07/swirl-of-controversy-cope-india-and-red.html
No offense, but I get the impression you will not be staying here long. The first link your provided is hardly something to consider credible at this point.

For starters, the article is nearly 12 years old, a great deal more is now known about the capabilities of certain systems, and many systems in service in 2002 have been upgraded or replaced. Secondly, the article opens with the title of
Su-30MK beats F-15C 'Every Time'
but the first part of the opening sentence of the second paragraph is
In certain circumstances...
which means that it is NOT 'Every Time'.

Secondly, reading through the article it references simulations done in a Boeing facility in the US. Being a simulation, the performance data coming out cannot be better than the data going in. In other words, if the simulation capabilities for the Su-30 aircraft and missiles are greater than in real life, the sim results would be skewed towards the Su-30. Given that the sims are 12+ years out of date, and pre-date a HOBS WVR in US service and a number of other capabilities developed and/or entered service over the past decade... (IIRC F-15C's now have AESA)

Thirdly, from what was mentioned about the sim itself, that was still a platform vs. platform comparison. The Su-30MK's were given an advantage because their nosecone is larger, so the radar array inside can be larger than that of an F-15C. Aside from the potential issue of just how sensitive/accurate an Su-30MK radar actually is (i.e. sure it can be bigger, but was it actually more capable?) the sim ignored the fact that an F-15C in a warzone would be operating as component of an Integrated Air Defence System, and that much of the detection/tracking of enemy fighters would be done by allied AEW aircraft like the E-2 Hawkeye, E-3 Sentry, and now even more aircraft. Basically the sim automatically granted the Su-30MK aircraft a number of advantages which it would not realistically have in an actual combat/wartime situation.

As for the second link, that is newer than the first, instead being 'only' nearly five years old. Secondly it discusses the Cope India and Red Flag exercise 'results'. Before taking that blog post as the final word on what an F-15 can do, I would recommend searching here on DT and reading up on the discussion about Cope India and that particular Red Flag, as well as the significance of DACT (Dissimiliar Air Combat Training) and what that means for the 'results' of an exercise. It is also worth noting was (if any) offboard support like E-3 Sentry aircraft was supporting the F-15C. It has already been indicated that the F-15's were outnumbered 3:1, if force multipliers which do see actual use were not included. The second link also included the text quoted below:

1.) AIM-120 AMRAAM missile and AESA radars would have made little difference in BVR - as new jamming technologies (like DFRM) degrade or negate most of these (radio EM-spectrum) AIM-120 class capabilities - regardless. In one sense: active-homing (fire-and-forget) BVR class weapons have become increasingly ‘easier’ to elude - using DRFM-class deception techniques. Indeed this might be what effectively occurs during 'Red Flag' 2008, (so keep reading.)
Given the capabilities of newer AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles (C-7 and upcoming -D), coupled with what AESA radars have been found to be capable of, particularly with respect to BVR air combat, the quoted blog assertion above makes me question just how competent and relevant the blog is. Also worth looking at is towards the bottom of that particular blog posting where the blogger stated the following:

Conversely, we firmly conclude that procuring additional F-22s for the USAF will not resolve anything of this. One can purchase between three (3) and seven (7) Advanced Flanker for the cost of a single (1) F-22. To put it another way: if four (4) F-22 Raptors fly against twelve (12) to twenty-eight (28) Advanced Flankers - none (none) of the F-22s can survive this engagement. F-22 is simply far (far) too expensive for a real world.
Given how the US actually plans to have the F-22 Raptor fight and other limitations in air combat (i.e. if the Flanker cannot 'see' the F-22, it can hardly get a firing solution) the IMO the declaration that none of the F-22 Raptor's would survive is not accurate.

Again, I suggest re-reading the Airpower 101 thread and also pay attention to the role sensors and comms play in air combat, as well as the specific capabilities and limitations different types of sensors have. The first article for instance suggested using the IRST (Infra-red Search & Track) of the Su-27 to passively find and target an F-15C, an IRST because of what it is, does not do volume searches well. It is akin to gazing up into the sky while looking through a straw.

-Cheers
 
Last edited by a moderator:

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
s is the way you should reply to the forum user? Please click on the link and read the article

vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f15-su30-1.html
That's referring to the F15C - it's not a very scholarly article and again, you've been directed several times to look at the wider issues of how a particular force would fight as opposed to the platform vs platform view that you keep coming back to.

The particular scenario describes involves the Flanker getting off a first shot, then pulling a turn to kill off almost all airspeed, followed by firing by a second shot with an IR missile. Again, have a look at the F15SG and take a look at the other systems owned by Singapore - it's not going to be 1 v 1 with everyone staring out the window to spot the other pilot.

I did like this quote however:

"Firstly, the Tumansky engines are very suseptible to FOD (Foreign Object Damage). Now the reason thats a big deal is because they asked for a 1 minute spacing between take offs. At Red Flag with nearly 50-60 aircraft supposed to take off, if you have one person who will wait one minute between each take off to launch these six aircraft... yeah.... right, they can go find some other place to fly. So we trained with them, worked with them, and got them to shorten that down to 45 seconds, still not acceptable. But what we did was send these guys out first and ask them to wait for everyone else, since they had enough gas fuel, they would go up and wait for everyone else. They were very concerned about FOD and how Russian engines are not nearly as reliable as Americans. One of the things the Indians were very disapointed in, if an engine breaks down because of FOD, the Russians make them send the engine back to Russia, then you'll send you back a new one. So its not the ideal situation for them here in the United States because they have no spare engines here"

Doesn't sound like the Indians have had a great experience with Russian jets or supply chains, which goes right back to the first thing I said about Singapore's having been smart about buying spares and support, allowing them to fly instead of having them parked in a hangar.

This quote from the Cope debrief was interesting too...

"The Su-30? No problem. Big airplane. Big cross section. Jamming to get to the merge, so you have to fight close... he has 22 - 23 degrees per second sustained turn rate. We've been fighting the Raptor, so we've been going oh dude, this is easy. So as we're fighting him, all of a sudden you'd see the ass end kick down, going post stall - but now he starts falling from the sky. The F-15 wouldn't even have to pull up. slight pull up on the stick, engage guns, come down and drill his brains out."

I think if you read your own sources, the picture looks a bit less rosy for the Flanker.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Another link is theboresight.blogspot.sg/2009/07/swirl-of-controversy-cope-india-and-red.html
You have been warned about forum rules and one liners and you are also selectively quoting sources out of context. You appear to have taken the members of this forum as fools. Big mistake.
s is the way you should reply to the forum user?
Insulting too. We've tried to be nice and help you along but you haven't availed yourself of that opportunity. Back in the old days my people had a very direct way of dealing with insults like that. Then the white men came and put a stop to certain practises which, for some strange reason, they weren't very fond of. With all the spare time the Mods are going to give you I strongly suggest that you bone up on manners and what constitutes as etiquette amongst responsible forum users. Oh by the way, my people still have a very strong way of dealing with insults - it's just somewhat less involved than it used to be. Apparently we are civilised now.
 
Top