Republic of Singapore Air Force Discussions

Red

New Member
There is an article in one of a leading Defence journal mentioning that the RSAF is operating 74 F-16 C/D Block 50
/52+ and the RSAF is keen to procure C-17A Globemaster and Boeing is pitching for the RSAF to procure more F-15 focusing on the newly unveiled F-15SE. The article also mentioned that RSAF had procured Israeli made SPYDER air defence system to replace their Rapier 2000 missile which will be kept in storage. The RSAF will also be sending RFI to replace I.HAWKS & RBS 70.Anyone have any information on the development above?

Regards.
I concur. There will be another F15SG batch purchase for commissioning in the 2012-2013 timeframe to replace one squadron of F5 S/T. Hopefully, the rest can be replaced by F35s followed by more F35s to replace the F16s in stages.

Im thinking next year Singapore Airshow we will probably hear news about this.

Not sure about F15SE. F15SGs are good enough.
 

SGMilitary

New Member
I concur. There will be another F15SG batch purchase for commissioning in the 2012-2013 timeframe to replace one squadron of F5 S/T. Hopefully, the rest can be replaced by F35s followed by more F35s to replace the F16s in stages.

Im thinking next year Singapore Airshow we will probably hear news about this.

Not sure about F15SE. F15SGs are good enough.
My apology, the RSAF is operating 76 F-16 C/D Block 50/52+.

As for F-15, the next procurement is 24 + 12, total at 60, depending on JSF development

additional 20 will be procured to operate up to 80 F-15.

Regards.
 
Last edited:

STURM

Well-Known Member
Apologies in advance for being off-topic but I didn't know where else to post this.
Is it possible to get issue RSAF squadron patches in Beach Road?

Thank you.
 

bear_bear_sg

New Member
Maybe it digresses from the topic at hand but sometimes I don't see much sense comparing aircraft to aircraft capability like that ...

Rather than choose to duke it out with the RSAF with AWACS, planes, etc... a potential adversary may well undertake a sudden strike by stealth - attacking the airfields by MLRS or commandos. The airfields (even Lim Chu Kang) will shut down and no matter how good those planes are, it would not matter.

I could perhaps write a book ala Tom Clancy style... Red Monsoon Rising
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Maybe it digresses from the topic at hand but sometimes I don't see much sense comparing aircraft to aircraft capability like that ...

Rather than choose to duke it out with the RSAF with AWACS, planes, etc... a potential adversary may well undertake a sudden strike by stealth - attacking the airfields by MLRS or commandos. The airfields (even Lim Chu Kang) will shut down and no matter how good those planes are, it would not matter.

I could perhaps write a book ala Tom Clancy style... Red Monsoon Rising
First of all welcome to DT. Please introduce yourself in the intro thread.

If you are Singaporean, you should know that most of us do not like to speculate on specifics greater than what was mentioned in post #259 of this thread. As a responsible former citizen soldier, a Singaporean like me would not want to talk about defence in greater specifics than what is already mentioned. This is because such specific speculation can be easily misunderstood and sensationalized by the media in neighbouring countries. IMO, certain types of speculation can be counter productive and potentially harmful to bilateral relations.

If you are interested in more details you can start by reading up on the roles of air force UAVs, army UAVs and land based recce elements (like the military intelligence battalion, the commandos who are LRRP trained, the brigade recce companies, who are MRRPs and the scouts in each battalion). And further discussion should be conducted in a relevant thread in the relevant section of DT (especially if you want to discuss land based recce elements).
 
Last edited:

bear_bear_sg

New Member
I know it digresses a bit but i think it's still related to the RSAF - which this thread is about. And as I'm not privy to any secret stuff and all my thoughts are based on what what is in the public domain, I'm pretty sure MSD won't come looking for me... :) I have my hands full in my day job, all this military stuff is just a hobby / interest.

My point is that billions are being spent on those expensive planes and the focus on comparing aircraft to aircraft capability - which at the same time are so vulnerable to airfield denial / sudden strike methods.

Don't get me wrong, those new planes and stuff that we're getting are great toys (and probably really meant for a bigger purpose than just 1 potential northern adversary... ;)) but a smart foe will know what the strengths of his opponents are and will deploy methods / tactics that seek to negate these advantages. My young kid will find 'comfort' objects like teddy bears, trains, toys to cuddle up to when he sleeps... all that hardware Singapore is buying kinda seems like that sometimes...

To take an example, the Israeli engagement in Lebanon in 2006... the Israelis had all the sophisticated weaponry (land, naval, air), technical intelligence capabilities but everyone recognizes who won that battle...

Technical assets are obviously... assets ('comfort' objects)... but harder to qualify elements such as strategic surprise, tenacity and good old cunning... over thousands of years of warfare, these are still frequently the determining factors.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
I know it digresses a bit but i think it's still related to the RSAF - which this thread is about. And as I'm not privy to any secret stuff and all my thoughts are based on what what is in the public domain, I'm pretty sure MSD won't come looking for me... :) I have my hands full in my day job, all this military stuff is just a hobby / interest.
Please introduce yourself in the intro thread (with some background info), so that we can respond with an appropriate level of complexity or simplicity appropriate to you, as the case maybe.

My point is that billions are being spent on those expensive planes and the focus on comparing aircraft to aircraft capability - which at the same time are so vulnerable to airfield denial / sudden strike methods.
Kindly read the prior posts in this thread. Further, you do not seem to have clicked on the prior link provided which deals with the points you raised. You are currently repeating your talking points (which I disagree with) without an attempt to read the prior posts. What you suggest, of a surprise attack by artillery/MLRS that leads to airfield denial, is not so easy to achieve on a sustained basis (given our artillery orbat). I further note that you make no attempt to address the fact that Singapore has Apaches, hardened airbase shelters and even alternate runways, which are points covered in the thread and contrary to your talking points. If you don't agree with what has been posted, you'll need to address these points of disagreement with more facts and data or put some effort into explaining yourself on the action/reaction dynamics to a surprise attack.

Please note that there is also a thread called 'The best strategy to defending Singapore Island'. It would be best if you read what was written previously before posting, as there is a limited willingness to repeat the same discussion again and again. I believe your above post:

(i) presents your purely subjective point of view;
(ii) does not contain any analysis or data; and
(iii) is not supported by links or references.

Don't get me wrong, those new planes and stuff that we're getting are great toys (and probably really meant for a bigger purpose than just 1 potential northern adversary... ;)) but a smart foe will know what the strengths of his opponents are and will deploy methods / tactics that seek to negate these advantages. My young kid will find 'comfort' objects like teddy bears, trains, toys to cuddle up to when he sleeps... all that hardware Singapore is buying kinda seems like that sometimes...
You may want to consider posting in a teddy bear forum, if that is your area of interest.:D

To take an example, the Israeli engagement in Lebanon in 2006... the Israelis had all the sophisticated weaponry (land, naval, air), technical intelligence capabilities but everyone recognizes who won that battle...
There is an old thread discussing the 2006 Israeli action in Lebanon and there is a thread called '2008-2009 Gaza Conflict: Discussion & Analysis'. In the thread mentioned, I previously posted a link to a monograph from the Combined Arms Centre by an Israeli, Ariel Siegelman called 'From Lebanon to Gaza: A New Kind of War'. The Siegelman monograph should be read with an article by Stephen D. Biddle and Jeffrey A. Friedman, called 'The 2006 Lebanon Campaign and the Future of Warfare: Implications for Army and Defense Policy'. You may want to reconsider your position after reading the links provided.

If you want to discuss further, please post there so that the other defence professionals can explain why what you have posted about the Israelis is factually wrong and your current stream of thoughts is lacking in coherence. I'm sure that they will be more direct in sharing their thoughts.

Technical assets are obviously... assets ('comfort' objects)... but harder to qualify elements such as strategic surprise, tenacity and good old cunning... over thousands of years of warfare, these are still frequently the determining factors.
There are a number of threads discussing Clausewitz as a theoretical basis to understand warfare. What you say is nothing new. Please use the search f(x) in this forum and you'll find that Firn's a big fan of Clausewitz.

Lastly, please consider reading DT's forum rules.
 
Last edited:

bear_bear_sg

New Member
Whoa there... I wont reply any further but don't you think you are over-reacting a bit? Maybe one needs to switch off the computer and walk around... look at some green trees. Watch some Seinfeld comedy or something.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Whoa there... I wont reply any further but don't you think you are over-reacting a bit? Maybe one needs to switch off the computer and walk around... look at some green trees. Watch some Seinfeld comedy or something.
Just a friendly warning, don't repeat Hezbollah's BS talking points of 'victory' in DT, it will be challenged. Hezbollah, went to war with Israel in 2006, and declared victory largely on the basis that Hezbollah still existed after the shooting stopped. Keep in mind that much of southern Lebanon was blown up. Please read Abraham Gubler's and Wooki's responses in the Merkava 4 thread and you should note eckherl's response to BS by another forum member.
 
Last edited:

battlensign

New Member
Whoa there... I wont reply any further but don't you think you are over-reacting a bit? Maybe one needs to switch off the computer and walk around... look at some green trees. Watch some Seinfeld comedy or something.
Don't panic.

OPSG is not saying you cannot comment. Its just that there is a level of debate that has been informed by the previous 22 pages of discussion and debate that your posts do not seem to have taken into consideration.

For example, you talk as though the RSAF's fighters were the 'silver bullet' of Singapore's defence. It is true that they are very potent weapons, but its not that simple. It is implied by you that loss of the ability to conduct fighter-based Air Operations A) was possible as a result of an MLRS attack (or similar) and B) would be catastrophic to the defence of Singapore. What OPSG is saying is that neither is it that as easy or as likely as you seem to believe and that it also ignores other assets in Singapore's arsenal. In this case you seem to have forgotten about the potential disruptive effects of defensive systems such as AA weapons and platforms such as Apache AHs. Additionally, the ability to conduct sustained operations would be limited by the vulnerability of the launch platforms (in this case, MLRS) and the requirement for supporting force-protection units would be noticed by Singaporean Military Intelligence.

Brett.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Excuse me for butting in unvited;)

bear_bear_sg... It is extremely hard to shut down an airfield permanently or even for an extended period. Even if one has large numbers of air assets, artillery and MLRS's, the best one can hope to achieve is to temporarily disrupt an opponents air operations by the hitting runways and if lucky, aircraft and ground support personnel. In Singapore's case its even harder due to the availibility of dispersals, HAS's and airfield construction teams, plus in event of any hostilities breaking out, a strike on its airfields is the first thing the RSAF would expect an enemy to do. In the first Gulf War, a number of Iraqi airfields which were hit numerous times by large strike packages were still operable up until the ceasefire. Granted, many Iraqi airfields were 4 times larger than Paya Lebar or Tengah and had more runways but i'm sure you get the point I'm trying to make.
 
Last edited:

bear_bear_sg

New Member
Hi Brett, contradicting my earlier post of not replying further, I am certainly not panicking... Why should I be? :confused:

I did read those pages. After reading the to-and-fro on 1 capability over another, what I interjected was that in the narrow focus on technical aspects of a platform versus another, what is perhaps lost is the broader perspective of the non-technical, less quantifiable aspect of warfare. The thread is afterall broadly labeled RSAF Discussions.

I am certainly aware of Singapore's other capabilities. Obviously, some will help mitigate the various unique vulnerabilities the country has. I'm sure these are all considered in one way or another by defense planners in their threat assessment and wargames.

OPSSG obviously spends a heck of lot of time in this site and I am certainly impressed enough to come in and stay for a while. There is an obviously amount of emotional ownership but I didn't think I had in any way infringed on the desired values on this forum. I have been to others and there are lots of nationalistic whackos that turn folks off.

What was surprising to me was the para by para reply. That was a bit contradictory to the professed values and to put it mildly... a bit condescending?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
What was surprising to me was the para by para reply. That was a bit contradictory to the professed values and to put it mildly... a bit condescending?
I think you might be reading too much into the response.

OPSSG is a highly regarded and va,ued member of this community because he not only does have a background, but because his engagement is always considered and coherent.

People will respond piece by piece wherever they think it's relevant to address specific points - I and many others do it. If the initial thread has lots of elements then it's one of the ways to make sure that there is an itemised addressing in detail.

The fact that someone bothers to respond and in detail should be an indication of effort - because if you were regarded as a troll you would be dismissed and turned off via other means very very quickly.

I'd be pausing and looking at the spirit of intent in those responses before I started wondering whether someone was being patronising.
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
What was surprising to me was the para by para reply. That was a bit contradictory to the professed values and to put it mildly... a bit condescending?
Sorry about appearing to be condescending.

I wrote it point by point so that you can understand what areas I disagree with (and hopefully you will take the time to address them). How else can I communicate disagreement, accurately?

BTW, a sudden conventional surprise attack on Singapore is one of the least worrisome war start-state scenario I can imagine. This is because the SAF will be entitled to respond with all of the tools in our arsenal and for the city dwellers of such an aggressor nation, living without electricity will be the least of their concerns.

I did read those pages. After reading the to-and-fro on 1 capability over another, what I interjected was that in the narrow focus on technical aspects of a platform versus another, what is perhaps lost is the broader perspective of the non-technical, less quantifiable aspect of warfare. The thread is afterall broadly labeled RSAF Discussions.
Agreed.:)

I am certainly aware of Singapore's other capabilities. Obviously, some will help mitigate the various unique vulnerabilities the country has. I'm sure these are all considered in one way or another by defense planners in their threat assessment and wargames.
Have you taken part in our wargames or been to our wargame centre? It's quite interesting to see the action/reaction dynamics at work. :duel
 
Last edited:

Red

New Member
Don't panic.

OPSG is not saying you cannot comment. Its just that there is a level of debate that has been informed by the previous 22 pages of discussion and debate that your posts do not seem to have taken into consideration.

For example, you talk as though the RSAF's fighters were the 'silver bullet' of Singapore's defence. It is true that they are very potent weapons, but its not that simple. It is implied by you that loss of the ability to conduct fighter-based Air Operations A) was possible as a result of an MLRS attack (or similar) and B) would be catastrophic to the defence of Singapore. What OPSG is saying is that neither is it that as easy or as likely as you seem to believe and that it also ignores other assets in Singapore's arsenal. In this case you seem to have forgotten about the potential disruptive effects of defensive systems such as AA weapons and platforms such as Apache AHs. Additionally, the ability to conduct sustained operations would be limited by the vulnerability of the launch platforms (in this case, MLRS) and the requirement for supporting force-protection units would be noticed by Singaporean Military Intelligence.

Brett.
Indeed, there are obvious "knowns" and obvious "unknowns". It would be ludicrous for the Singapore government, as you know it presently, not to be aware and done something about such threats. RSAF even has an entire division devoted to air power generation; i.e continuous generation of air power. The specific means to do so remain thier privileged knowledge. However, people generally are aware that there are alternative run-aways, hardened shelters stong enough to with-stand the largest blasts so our jets and key equipment et al remain safe, quick recovery of air-fields, public roads/high-ways which are convertible to run-aways, etc. In addition, Singapore has one of the best air defence missile/gun arsenel in the region and arguably electronic defence as well.

Artillery threat(be they shells, mortars and rockets) against Singapore main island has been around for as long as they have been invented. It is not something new. It is very much a key part of SAF`s plans. That is in addition to aerial strikes by a belligerant air force and covert stikes by specialist units.

Let me end by saying that realistically, a surprise invasion/attack on an island state like Singapore is very unlikely. You would need to mobilize a large amount of resources and move them to prepare for the attack and obvious counter-attack/invasion from Singapore. The latter takes time.

Singapore will know and see and hear it all. You can be rest assuared that alert levels would have gone up and contigency plans initiated. Like Israel, the SAF has been training to moblize its resources in just a few hours, for decades. Everything. The 350,000 conscripts and 73,000 active forces.The latter excludes other paramilitary units.

Singapore reserves the right to stike first and the fire-power the SAF has is several times sufficient to knock-out any adversary in a massive blow bar middle and world powers long before they can launch any strike.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
battlensign, STURM, gf0012-aust, and Red thanks for the replies.

BTW, VC-25A or more commonly known as "Air Force One" just landed in Singapore at around 7.50 pm (Singapore time). To ensure that we provide adequate security for the US President, a E-2C Hawkeye and F-16 Vipers are buzzing around Tengah Aerodrome Traffic Zone.

RSAF even has an entire division devoted to air power generation; i.e continuous generation of air power. The specific means to do so remain their privileged knowledge. However, people generally are aware that there are alternative runways, hardened shelters strong enough to with-stand the largest blasts so our jets and key equipment et al remain safe, quick recovery of air-fields, public roads/high-ways which are convertible to runways, etc.
Being lazy, I'll just provide a link to a Pointer article called 'Generating Air Power', which would give the reader an idea of the air power generation command's concept of operations, which in gist, is what Red wrote. If you read the enclosed article, it would be clear the Singapore's 4 military air bases (Changi, Paya Lebar, Sembawang and Tengah), have detailed contingency plans. And we have at least 11 runways (not counting alternate runways or aprons). There is even a runway on uninhabited Pulau Sudong (click to see satellite image), which is in the middle of no-where.

Please also see the newspaper article in post #29 of this picture thread for the Straits Times info-graphics on the SAF's ability to hunt aggressor artillery. And bear_bear_sg should read what David Boey wrote in the Straits Times last year:

Straits Times said:
1 December 2008 - THE 20 minutes of air activity at the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) exercise at Lim Chu Kang Road yesterday ranked as one of the air force's shortest war games. Despite its brevity, however, the conversion of a public road into an improvised military airstrip during Exercise Torrent VI provided a vivid demonstration of the degree to which Singapore's air power resides with the RSAF's Air Power Generation Command (APGC).

Some 400 personnel from the command took 48 hours to transform the 2,500m long road into a runway. Twelve warplanes - representing all of the RSAF's fighter types in service and one E-2C Hawkeye Airborne Early Warning plane from the RSAF's Air Combat Command - broke the speed limit along Lim Chu Kang Road as they showcased the air force's little-known capability to launch and recover aircraft using a public road. Even less known is the fact that the groundwork for Exercise Torrent was laid more than 30 years ago. The capabilities the RSAF demonstrated yesterday can be traced to the Operational Master Plan (OMP) for RSAF air bases that the Ministry of Defence drew up in the mid-1970s. Dr Goh Keng Swee, the architect of the Singapore Armed Forces, was defence minister then and Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the prime minister. Singapore's defence planners recognised even then that attacks against air bases could clip the RSAF's wings.

The RSAF's warplane fleet would count for nothing if runways were damaged and its air power grounded. Lack of air cover would, in turn, jeopardise the mobilisation of SAF units during the critical hours of an emergency when large numbers of citizen soldiers reporting at mobilisation centres would present the enemy with a target-rich environment. The OMP mapped out how the RSAF would plan, develop, test and revise operational concepts for air bases during periods of tension and hostilities. This led to the formation of specialised, non-flying squadrons in the early 1980s. These included squadrons tasked with runway surface repairs, disposal of enemy ordnance such as unexploded bombs or munitions with time delay fuses, as well as the maintenance of essential services such as power, fuel and water. Also, a network of fibre optic cables was buried in hardened conduits to reduce the air force's reliance on radio communications which can be intercepted and jammed by a tercraft in the right sequence, armed with the right weapons and put in the take-off queue according to operational priorities.

With more than 100 combat aircraft in the RSAF's fleet - not to mention hundreds of weapon, fuel tank and sensor configurations for each aircraft - this was no simple task. The APGC's tagline, 'Air power starts with us', sums up how the sharp end of the RSAF relies on, and is sustained by, robust air base infrastructure.

The RSAF helicopter fleet has also practised out-of-base operations, deploying and rearmih of combat aircraft in the right sequence, armed with the right weapons and put in the take-off queue according to operational priorities. With more than 100 combat aircraft in the RSAF's fleet - not to mention hundreds of weapon, fuel tank and sensor configurations for each aircraft - this was no simple task. The APGC's tagline, 'Air power starts with us', sums up how the sharp end of the RSAF relies on, and is sustained by, robust air base infrastructure. The RSAF helicopter fleet has also practised out-of-base operations, deploying and rearming choppers from places such as open fields and golf courses. Only a handful of air forces, including those of Finland, Korea, Sweden, Switzerland and Taiwan, practise such capabilities.

A clear signal of the importance of such capabilities occurred in April 1986, when RSAF fighters soared off a road for the first time. The landmark war game, held when Singapore was recovering from the 1985 economic slump, underlined the nation's commitment to investing in defence even during tough times. The RSAF has staged Exercise Torrent six times in the past 22 years. The speed with which the air force has transformed itself into a Third Generation fighting force becomes evident when one considers that the only common elements between the first and latest exercise are these: the road itself and the professionalism of RSAF personnel.

Everything else, from the warplanes used to the RSAF's uniforms and insignia, has evolved or been upgraded. Even the term Mindef uses to describe Lim Chu Kang Road has changed. It is now called an 'alternate runway' as opposed to 'emergency runway', a term which probably connotes that something dire to the aircraft's function may have occurred. Lim Chu Kang Road is a key element in Singapore's defence infrastructure. Its absence from databases that purportedly rate military power shows that simply counting soldiers and war machines as a measure of a country's military muscle is inadequate.

Such capabilities inject uncertainty into the calculations of hostile powers that may want to cripple Singapore's air power. A larger number of runways means the enemy would have more targets to hit. This in turn would call for the enemy to deploy more military assets - be it rocket artillery units or air strikes. And the larger the attack force, the higher would be the chances of it being detected by the SAF's intelligence network. A larger force would also be more vulnerable to the comprehensive suite of the SAF's defences.

Combat readiness aside, Singapore also places emphasis on defence diplomacy as a key element in maintaining peace in its neighbourhood. This is why foreign military observers were invited to yesterday's Exercise Torrent VI. Closer to home, defence diplomacy includes overtures to community leaders, who helped residents in the vicinity understand, and appreciate, the RSAF's mission.

One hopes that no one makes a strategic miscalculation that would force Singapore to deploy its air power islandwide, because the torrent of air strikes the RSAF can muster will be robust, continuous and devastating.

The writer was this newspaper's former defence correspondent.

One hopes that no one makes a strategic miscalculation that would force Singapore to deploy its airpower islandwide, because the torrent of air strikes the RSAF can muster will be robust, continuous and devastating.
Perhaps bear_bear_sg would like to tell us:

How many aggressor artillery batteries will be needed to put consistent pressure on the 4 military airbases (given that the aggressor will need to displace within minutes of firing and constantly because of the promise of counter battery work by Singapore artillery)?​

In fact to be successful in the conduct of air field denial, the aggressor's artillery batteries will need hit all 11 runways (which is even more difficult).

Artillery threat(be they shells, mortars and rockets) against Singapore main island has been around for as long as they have been invented. It is not something new. It is very much a key part of SAF`s plans.
Agreed. Our lack of strategic depth has been a security planning issue since our independence. BTW, our airbases are all within 6 km of the Malaysian coast and also within artillery range of a number of Indonesia's Riau islands.

There can be no substitute for constant vigilance for a small country like ours.

Let me end by saying that realistically, a surprise invasion/attack on an island state like Singapore is very unlikely. You would need to mobilize a large amount of resources and move them to prepare for the attack and obvious counter-attack/invasion from Singapore. The latter takes time.
IMO, while we strive to be prepared for a variety of contingencies (which includes providing aid and responding to earthquakes and other natural disasters), the chance of conventional war breaking out between Singapore and our neighbours is very, very, very, very low.

What we are more worried about is the possibility of a 'troubled peace' (click to see Teo Chee Hean's recent speech which has a reference to 'troubled peace').
 
Last edited:

Red

New Member
Nice article OPSG. Thanks for posting. Undeniably, opsec(operational secrecy) still applies. And the author could only reveal a portion of the RSAF`s actual plans, including the number of actual and available runaways and landing sites available.

I agree with you in regards to counter-battery fire. Singapore has an overwhelming superiority of artillery units(Himars lacunhers and 52 and 39 cal 155mm howitzers(god knows how many we built). New munitions like the Vulcano extends the range of the tube artillery units to 100km and beyond. I would not be surprised if Singapore`s DSTA/DSO have developed thier own versions. They have invested a lot of time and tech into ballistic research. It would be naive to go toe to toe with Singaporean artillery presently.

I forgot to add previously that the constant presence of USN/USAF and other allied units at our bases makes the possibility of an already unlikely surprise attack/invasion even more remote. Nevertheless, constant vigilance is critical.
 

Red

New Member
The RSAF is also in the process of replacing various anti-air defence missile systems.

RBS-70 -?

Rapier - Israeli Spyder(There are reports that Singapore has purchased the Spyder missiles system to replace the Rapiers. Typically, SAF could make the announcement later or when units are ready to be commissioned)

I-Hawks- They have been recently upgraded to cater to multiple targets simultaneously whilst a replacement is purchased. Possible replacements include Patriots and land-based Aster-30s. Something new just appeared in the market and that is the Barak-8 which could be cheaper than the other two systems. There is also the currently in development Magic Wand. (Edit: RSAF has shown the usage of extended missile defence systems in her promotional videos.)

Interestingly, an unknown country has apparently purchased the Iron-Dome anti-rocket system from Israel. I read it at another forum.I think that system could be useful to Singapore as it is useful for protection against rockets and mortar rounds up to range of 70km. It would work in conjunction with other anti-missile systems.
 
Last edited:

SGMilitary

New Member
The RSAF is also in the process of replacing various anti-air defence missile systems.

RBS-70 -?

Rapier - Israeli Spyder(There are reports that Singapore has purchased the Spyder missiles system to replace the Rapiers. Typically, SAF could make the announcement later or when units are ready to be commissioned)

I-Hawks- They have been recently upgraded to cater to multiple targets simultaneously whilst a replacement is purchased. Possible replacements include Patriots and land-based Aster-30s. Something new just appeared in the market and that is the Barak-8 which could be cheaper than the other two systems. There is also the currently in development Magic Wand. (Edit: RSAF has shown the usage of extended missile defence systems in her promotional videos.)

Interestingly, an unknown country has apparently purchased the Iron-Dome anti-rocket system from Israel. I read it at another forum.I think that system could be useful to Singapore as it is useful for protection against rockets and mortar rounds up to range of 70km. It would work in conjunction with other anti-missile systems.
RED, I'm really hoping that the I.HAWK will be replaced with ASTER 30 SAMP/T Block II missiles with an extended range of up to 200KM. BARAK 8?I doubt so as DSTA/RSN had selected ASTER 15/30 over BARAK 8 that was earlier offered to Singapore Formidable FFG.
As for the RBS 70, what about Crotale NG with Shikra 200 radar? and perhaps replacement for the 35MM AA guns as well.

Best Regards.
 
Top