Vega Turbocharged February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 http://ourstory.asia1.com.sg/war/headline/church.html Attacking is the best form of defence. We all know that. Even during , ww2. But the thing lacking is, resources. Do you think this is happening today? Military wise and otherwise? We all know what mist be done but we lack resources. Those who served ns before, I ask this. We have the biggest budget. But do we really have enoughr resources? Why not? in fact, it normally take more resources to do defence than attack. eg If I fire a $500K missiles to attack, the defender will need to use at least 2 interceptor missiles to shoot this missile down. the cost of a Patriot is about $2M a pcs...... and if I fire 50 attacking missiles, most likely the defender will run out of Patriot. ↡ Advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aukang 6th Gear February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 If someone can make a mess of the GPS network, then all the missiles would not be able to fire correctly ... Bro, still can fire, but wont reach the intended location. The US did it before...i think was during the Gulf War. Made the GPS less accurate except their own. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vega Turbocharged February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 Thanks for that - if it weren't for you, I wouldn't have known this tank ever existed. I believe it was formally called the VT tank, and featured before twin 105mm rifled guns as well as twin 120mm smoothbore guns but they did not perform favourably compared to the Leopard 2. I assume the one major downfall is the casemate structure that restricted its arc of engagement. The problem with such tanks is that they have to turn the whole tank - and we know that movement is the one thing that our eyes can easily pick up, no matter how well camouflaged the tank may be. Speaking of which, any World of Tank fanatics here? maybe dual guns more suitable for artillery. This is what finland and Sweden have. 120mm mortar. Russian version. 153mm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Throttle2 Supersonic February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 Military exoskeleton in development. http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2014/10/29/first-look-at-a-darpa-funded-exoskeleton-for-super-soldiers/ http://youtu.be/p2W23ysgWKI f**king carry so much weight for f**k? Too much emphasis on strength, take the exoskeleton to jungle and into water and mud and see how thats gonna do. Hopefully the plants and vines dont entangle onto it. Muayhahahahah Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philipkee Twincharged February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 Why not? in fact, it normally take more resources to do defence than attack. eg If I fire a $500K missiles to attack, the defender will need to use at least 2 interceptor missiles to shoot this missile down. the cost of a Patriot is about $2M a pcs...... and if I fire 50 attacking missiles, most likely the defender will run out of Patriot. Those are hard resources. What about soft ones like competent leadership and morale? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vega Turbocharged February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 Those are hard resources. What about soft ones like competent leadership and morale? We got to assume both sides leadership are c@ck. As for morale that will very much depending on the purpose of the war. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kusje Supersonic February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 (edited) If someone can make a mess of the GPS network, then all the missiles would not be able to fire correctly ... Ok lah... just my goondoo thinking Might have worked 15 years ago but there are so many alternatives now. Chinese : Beidou Russian: Glonass (My Samsung phone uses this as well) EU: Galileo India: IRNSS Edited February 8, 2015 by Kusje 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolicense Turbocharged February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 Given your line of thought, would you have disagreed with Singapore buying and operating AH-64D Apache "Attack" helicopters? Any highly offensive or counter attack asset is a big multiplier and strategic game changer. This includes MLRS, air superiority, subs and troop lift/mobility. Any asset that can destroy the enemy where they are. The HLT does not do that. as a mobile air support platform, it is slow exposed easy target and needs to hug the coast to support helos. Its pretty much understood that the size of Singapore dictates that her defence is likely to be a pre-emptive strike against an aggressor massing for an attack. Unlike Strike Eagles and Joint Strike Fighters which do not have a secondary search and rescue, coordination, communication, or facility provision function, such as the Endurance class of landing platform dock ships have been providing. Again, why bother with the dual role? it does not perform either one well enough to deserve money. During the Boxing Day tsunami, RSS Endurance was first into Aceh - sure, we were eager to help, and we also showed that we are always ready when the button is pressed. Though showing no aggression in taking other countries' land, displaying our ability to defend ourselves is a good reminder that we won't be pushovers to anyone. Small ship easy to load and go. HLT with the function of C&C and supplies take more time. but why talk about this? not relevant to my argument that the HLT is a waste of money. As to your question about threats - we all know it is multi-dimensional. The black-and-white, East-vs.-West clear-cut world of the Cold War has turned grey, the fight can be with organized military forces, or irregulars that require a different sort of weaponry. What is definitely required, however, is logistics to support whatever that mission may be. Logistics to support what? SAF go after Abu sayyaf? not on our soil ok? support the Philippines army? so we buy HLT for fighting in Philippines? you keep talking about logistics support for unconventional conflicts using the HLT and this will not be in Singapore. so we can operate in other countries for what you are saying? I'm no MINDEF or Navy strategist, but the logistical advantage of such a ship in bringing a complete array of equipment to wherever it is needed has to be valued highly. In peacetime operations I doubt anything more than a token air wing would be deployed, as rotary aircraft would be more useful. I'd like to think of it in terms of this phrase, "walk softly, but carry a big stick". It doesn't mean we start bullying our way around in the region, and would severely undermine our national image as a trading and economic hub. It just means we have the equipment to put up a good fight if anyone wants to mess with us. Again you cannot land a fixed wing on the HLT. F35 is still a dead duck. and the logistics to support an F35 is tremendous. Stop using gobbledegook to talk about complete array of equipment and valued highly. I already pointed out, HLT cannot carry many men, cannot land vehicles and no beaching craft (which I think is an obsolete idea in modern warfare) walk softly and carry a big stick also means you don't buy expensive TOYS. this is what the HLT is. an expensive toy that is not a stellar performer in either role. The only reason it came up is the haiyan relief talk of a C&C ship. I didn't know I paid so much tax and so many years of reservist so that the SAF can buy an expensive C&C toy to go show off in relief missions. P.S: Thank you mods, for correcting the typo in the title! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolicense Turbocharged February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 f**king carry so much weight for f**k? Too much emphasis on strength, take the exoskeleton to jungle and into water and mud and see how thats gonna do. Hopefully the plants and vines dont entangle onto it. Muayhahahahah it all depends on the area of ops. but technology will improve and maybe we all can have our own ironman suit.. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xefera 6th Gear February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 it all depends on the area of ops. but technology will improve and maybe we all can have our own ironman suit.. If insertion by air is not possible and objective is 6000 ft up there Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toothiewabbit Supersonic February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 (edited) f**king carry so much weight for f**k? Too much emphasis on strength, take the exoskeleton to jungle and into water and mud and see how thats gonna do. Hopefully the plants and vines dont entangle onto it. Muayhahahahah You could be right. But I dun care. Women just look dam sexy in it. Edited February 8, 2015 by Toothiewabbit 10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vega Turbocharged February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 http://youtu.be/RwA4RaaJSeI Really hope saf can drop the idea of getting the f35. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldbug 6th Gear February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 interesting read Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evillusion Supersonic February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 http://youtu.be/RwA4RaaJSeI Really hope saf can drop the idea of getting the f35. Canada.....US always bitch slap their neighbours.........hahaha! And the best part is they are none the wiser. Arrow Canada is another programme they got arm twisted by US and the resultant loss was US gain. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lala81 Hypersonic February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 (edited) LST maybe useful for some stuff like prolonged force projection on somewhere like eg. pedra branca. Say maybe a stand off with our neighbours for a small island. Or maybe a band of really gungho pirates start terrorising our shipping lanes. Helicopters on site + maybe special ops. The frigates and whatever other ships likely only have resources to feed and house their own crew. So i won't say LST is usless. It may not need to house a big expeditionary force but it maybe useful to keep some amphibious troops + pple around an area of concern. Just my thoughts. I still see LSTs as something useful. But maybe not the helicopter carriers. Don't think we'll ever need one. Edited February 8, 2015 by Lala81 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vega Turbocharged February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 It actually depends on the mission and terrain. if need to send troops fast and in large numbers deep inland, heli carrier is a better choice. LST carrying tanks and APC will take a long time to swim ashore and fight its way inland. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocus Turbocharged February 8, 2015 Share February 8, 2015 (edited) Thanks TS for this thread, will post interest military related stuff periodically. Before it happen folks, let's try to keep this thread clean from politics. Got grievance or resentment better to start a separate thread. But I guess a little geopolitical stuff are inevitable still they are sometimes closely knitted to military stuff. Edited February 8, 2015 by Pocus 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macrosszero Turbocharged February 8, 2015 Author Share February 8, 2015 Any highly offensive or counter attack asset is a big multiplier and strategic game changer. <<snip>> I didn't know I paid so much tax and so many years of reservist so that the SAF can buy an expensive C&C toy to go show off in relief missions. I didn't realize my use of what I thought was simple language counted as gobbledegook to you. I mean, I haven't even started saying stuff like "force multiplier", "route interdiction" or "C4I". Perhaps you're limited by what you don't understand, or don't have a complete picture of our armed forces commitments over the past ten years? While I'm pretty sure you will still rant about the RSN buying the LHD (which is the better description for the Endurance 160), I'm ready to move on to other, more interesting topics, its one NSman's opinion to another's, we both are entitled to what we want to think, or perhaps limited to understanding. At the end of the day, the guys in Gombak are still going to do what they do, regardless of what you or I, think - I don't recall being asked if I wanted the Army to keep the M-16 assault rifle or switch to the SAR-21, or the RSAF should move out from Paya Lebar air base. ↡ Advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Related Discussions
Related Discussions
SAF Day Promotions
SAF Day Promotions
Military things
Military things
SAF eyeing F35 fighter jets & new submarines
SAF eyeing F35 fighter jets & new submarines
NS55
NS55
Aircraft Carrier in SG
Aircraft Carrier in SG
Military talk thread
Military talk thread
China's Military Has An Achilles' Heel : Low Troop Morale
China's Military Has An Achilles' Heel : Low Troop Morale