Jump to content

Military talk thread


Macrosszero
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

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.

So you like throwing highfalutin words. only people who want to make their work sound important come up with sophisticated words to substitute simple words. I hope that is not you.

 

Why do you ever not stop to think the military never stops to come up with new jargon?

 

Again, this thread is just a talk thread. nothing about influencing SAF is it? You think too highly of yourself if you claim you have a complete picture of SAF and yet claim Gombak will ignore what you think.

 

More interesting topics? Code for talk about interesting hardware? so you are just a hardware fanboy?

Nothing wrong with that. I never accuse you of not understanding geopolitical issues and the type of capabilities the SAF should have.

 

The only opinion I expressed which you seem so offended by is the suggestion that the "LHD" is an expensive TOY with no true purpose.

 

If you can even come up with any strategy here to explain how such an "LHD" is useful in military strategy, I would be happy to hear from you.

 

I am after all expressing just my simple opinion how such an asset really is with its salt in a war situation.

You claim the "LHD" is critical to the fight with irregulars and so on.

Does that include catching Mas Selamat swimming across the causeway?

Does that include fighting for pedra branca? like amphibious landing on the light house?

 

please illuminate me especially how a "LHD" is a force multiplier, route interdictor and how intelligent it can make the battalion.

 

History is littered with Generals who believed too much in the BS they peddled to the defense ministry to get money to buy weapons that eventually didn't work.

 

I believe the same thing is happening in Singapore. from the way they are upgrading, I see the old conservative and value for money upgrades fading. New tech is being adopted. All these are good, but I think the pendulum may have over swung.

 

NSmen like us chiong suah but never see the new toys. how long does it take for new tech to filter up to the lao peng?

we are still using very old equipment. only the uniforms are new. and even the boots fall apart after a few months.

What does this tell you?

 

End rant. sigh

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Bro, I suggest "military hardware" is what you should call this thread, Not "military talk".

 

any military talk without geopolitics is to miss the forest for the trees.

 

Grievance and resentment from NSmen or from other countries? If the latter, that is politics.

if the former, it is not politics.. Not sure what to call it.. maybe can call it b1tching? lol

 

seriously, I am not b1tching. just what to inject common sense which seems to be sorely lacking when we talk about toys.

its all about fire power, specs and sleek beauty, but we forget what the primary purpose if for....

 

Military is To KILL and DESTROY swiftly and decisively the enemy where he stands.

Politics is to disarm the enemy before they can act.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

...... and because I'm ready to move on to a new topic, instead of engaging in a point-by-point debating opinions, I'm more than happy to concede everything you question or suspect with nary a protest. I'll let someone else bring up Endurance-160 next time. [:)]

 

The United States Air Force 4477th test and evaluation squadron was (is??? Maybe, who knows?) a pretty unique outfit based in Tonopah, Nevada. If it sounds familiar, that's because that is where the F-117A Nighthawk was originally flown when it officially didn't exist. But more importantly, the 4477th flew cladestinely-sourced Soviet-bloc fighters to test technology and develop tactics against them. Think Top Gun, Red Flag, but one level deeper in the rabbit hole......

 

While airspace was restricted so that no one could see them accidentally, radio transmissions ranged further, and these aircraft were assigned 100-series F-designations (following on from the F-110, which became the F-4 Phantom) to fool listeners into thinking these were prototype aircraft. Apparently, it was more important to hide the fact the US were operating Soviet fighters than prototype aircraft.

 

4477th_Test_and_Evaluation_Squadron_MiG_

 

4477th_Test_and_Evaluation_Squadron_MiG_

 

4477th_Test_and_Evaluation_Squadron_MiG_

 

One of the biggest things to happen during the squadron's existence was the loss of a retiring three star Air Force general having a joyride in a MiG-23, and losing control and being killed in the subsequent ejection - the media smelt something fishy and pursued the trail till the Air Force admitted that he was flying a Soviet fighter at the time of the incident.

 

As of 1990, the unit has officially been disbanded - however, there have been a few sightings of Flankers being spotted in Nevada skies recently, so who knows which unit may have been stood up to take over the 4477th TES? However, there are officially two ex-Ukrainian Air Force SU-27 registered to private owners in the US. Who knows who these operators are? Read more on the Wikipedia page:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4477th_Test_and_Evaluation_Squadron

Edited by Macrosszero
  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

...... and because I'm ready to move on to a new topic, instead of engaging in a point-by-point debating opinions, I'm more than happy to concede everything you question or suspect with nary a protest. I'll let someone else bring up Endurance-160 next time. [:)]

 

The United States Air Force 4477th test and evaluation squadron was (is??? Maybe, who knows?) a pretty unique outfit based in Tonopah, Nevada. If it sounds familiar, that's because that is where the F-117A Nighthawk was originally flown when it officially didn't exist. But more importantly, the 4477th flew cladestinely-sourced Soviet-bloc fighters to test technology and develop tactics against them. Think Top Gun, Red Flag, but one level deeper in the rabbit hole......

 

While airspace was restricted so that no one could see them accidentally, radio transmissions ranged further, and these aircraft were assigned 100-series F-designations (following on from the F-110, which became the F-4 Phantom) to fool listeners into thinking these were prototype aircraft. Apparently, it was more important to hide the fact the US were operating Soviet fighters than prototype aircraft.

 

4477th_Test_and_Evaluation_Squadron_MiG_

 

4477th_Test_and_Evaluation_Squadron_MiG_

 

4477th_Test_and_Evaluation_Squadron_MiG_

 

One of the biggest things to happen during the squadron's existence was the loss of a retiring three star Air Force general having a joyride in a MiG-23, and losing control and being killed in the subsequent ejection - the media smelt something fishy and pursued the trail till the Air Force admitted that he was flying a Soviet fighter at the time of the incident.

 

As of 1990, the unit has officially been disbanded - however, there have been a few sightings of Flankers being spotted in Nevada skies recently, so who knows which unit may have been stood up to take over the 4477th TES? However, there are officially two ex-Ukrainian Air Force SU-27 registered to private owners in the US. Who knows who these operators are? Read more on the Wikipedia page:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4477th_Test_and_Evaluation_Squadron

 

WOW! Interesting . . .

Link to post
Share on other sites

it all depends on the area of ops. but technology will improve and maybe we all can have our own ironman suit.. [bounce2]

 

knowing our NSF mechanics, I wouldn't be surprise it can bend the wrong way back...

no thank you very much.... [laugh][laugh]

Edited by Vidz
Link to post
Share on other sites

...... and because I'm ready to move on to a new topic, instead of engaging in a point-by-point debating opinions, I'm more than happy to concede everything you question or suspect with nary a protest. I'll let someone else bring up Endurance-160 next time. [:)]

 

 

No hard feelings bro. I only want to see if somebody can give a logical answer to my questions. If you believe E-160 is useful, there must be some logic where I see none. I am not rebutting you.

 

These are crucial spending. They must be studied not because of just the amount of money involved.

More importantly is, would it be effective in accomplishing the defense/attack mission? would it have more bang for the buck than other competing strategies?

or would it eventually prove to be a mistake paid with lives of those onboard? (ok a bit extreme but still valid)

 

Neither am I happy that I get no answer. I am, after 3 posts, still not enlightened and suffer from a deficit in the need for E-160 in strategic thought.

just saying....

 

knowing our NSF mechanics, I wouldn't be surprise it can bend the wrong way back...

no thank you very much.... [laugh][laugh]

aiyah.. NSF dun do this things one... all is buy from ST or regular mechanic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbocharged

No hard feelings bro. I only want to see if somebody can give a logical answer to my questions. If you believe E-160 is useful, there must be some logic where I see none. I am not rebutting you.

 

These are crucial spending. They must be studied not because of just the amount of money involved.

More importantly is, would it be effective in accomplishing the defense/attack mission? would it have more bang for the buck than other competing strategies?

or would it eventually prove to be a mistake paid with lives of those onboard? (ok a bit extreme but still valid)

 

Neither am I happy that I get no answer. I am, after 3 posts, still not enlightened and suffer from a deficit in the need for E-160 in strategic thought.

just saying....

But bro nolicense, there's no answer yet.

Cos RSN or SAF are not buying the 160s, neither did they announce any long term plans too buy them.

 

What is happening is just ST Marine showing their capability to built such a ship.

 

It's just like the F35s, sure SAF pumped a few mios back in the 90s to obtain access to the project and were later given the option to buy, but they didnt and still hope they stick it that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

LST is for coastal hook. not force projection in the superpower sense.

pedra branca is a very small rock. no standing room for a platoon. maybe can build a floating pontoon.

 

for patrolling our sea lanes, the US, Chinese have an interest to keep it open too.

if chase pirates, we cannot go into Malaysia and indo waters to chase. some times their fishermen/police work part time if you know what I mean.

 

the frigates actually include a detachment of spec ops/naval divers. but like u said its endurance is limited not just to food and living quarters.

 

LST also cannot feed a battalion of men for long. it is meant to send the people and vehicles in. cannot hang around due to endurance also.

 

there is a logical need to have maybe 2 helicopters on a ship to increase its capabilities, anti-sub warfare, insertion and pilot rescue.

but air craft strike capabilities from ship is only effective with fixed wing due to payload, range and speed.

2 helos would really tax the frigates too much I guess, but there are frigates with 2 helos out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But bro nolicense, there's no answer yet.

Cos RSN or SAF are not buying the 160s, neither did they announce any long term plans too buy them.

 

What is happening is just ST Marine showing their capability to built such a ship.

 

It's just like the F35s, sure SAF pumped a few mios back in the 90s to obtain access to the project and were later given the option to buy, but they didnt and still hope they stick it that way.

It is strange that ST Marine should even suggest this capability given that they work closely with SAF. Overseas customer? not likely.

 

Haiyan relief? based on the RSN wishlist for disaster relief? not wise to take on this role.

 

ok this horse maybe flogged to death now.

 

I spoke to some people and they still honestly believe the F35 is still viable and capable. (maybe they are buying the hoopla and drinking the cool-aid)

like you said, no answer yet, but from the video posted on the F35, I highly suspect the program got hijacked by the 3 armed services into a monstrosity that cannot be saved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole program is too heavily-invested and too expensive to fail. You could even say that people are throwing good money after bad into the program to try to save it despite the litany of very public problems. One can only wonder what other problems have been classified from public scrutiny......

 

As i mentioned in the opening post, entire nations have placed their eggs in this basket, not least the United Kingdom, who are building two new aircraft carriers on the premise that the sole fixed-wing aircraft type they would be operating would be the F-35. Oh well, if they get desperate, they could perhaps scare up some Harriers from the USMC if they need to defend the Falklands again......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbocharged

 

Ya. I don't think turretless tank will work. Germany most probably has squeeze out every drop from the Leo2 platform with A7. Need a Leo3 to stay relevant to compete with the Russian.

 

Talk about VT tank, this is China export version of their VT-4. Take the M1 chassis and the leo turret.... [sly]

103638ud5wk6t8kll81tdk.jpg

 

Looks like M1 chassis nia. it's only 6 road wheels, the Abrams got 7

Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbocharged

I spoke to some people and they still honestly believe the F35 is still viable and capable. (maybe they are buying the hoopla and drinking the cool-aid)

like you said, no answer yet, but from the video posted on the F35, I highly suspect the program got hijacked by the 3 armed services into a monstrosity that cannot be saved.

 

The F35 was already meant for 3 arm services since the JSF program in the 90s. I clearly remember SG pumping some moola then to gain access to exclusive data from the development program and giving the option to purchase in the future. IIRC, we went in shortly after Israel committed too. Stealth fighters in the 90s is a big deal and I really thought we could own a stealth fighter soon. (I was still school then)

 

The problem with the F-35 is it tries to be a "1 size fits all" kind of fighter and was clearly under quoted. Along the way I presume inflation, bad management and technical/budget constrains cos it to fail and like what one of the bro said, it's too expensive to fail and die die must fly.

 

If they just develop a specific F-35 like the A variant without VTOL capability, the plane would have been flying for years. It's the B variant with VTOL or STOL capabilities that delayed everything. Heck because of the VTOL feature it can't even do 3D thrust vectoring. And it's the reason Russian and Chinese fighters are catching up, they don't need VTOL/STOL capabilities.

 

It's like a kickstarter gone bad!

Edited by Pocus
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Looks like M1 chassis nia. it's only 6 road wheels, the Abrams got 7

 

Despite sharing similar communist ideology roots, China and the USSR were pretty strained in the past - from 1960 onward, relations were pretty bad, marked by border conflicts and nuclear strike threats. Occasional thaws and cladestinely-obtained hardware did continue to influence Chinese weaponry to be Eastern-bloc biased however. As a result, China has been developing their indigenous armor - the Type 98 and Type 99 are two of their current first-line tanks. The add-on armour and ERA bricks hide some of the Soviet origins of the designs, there is a lot of similarity in form factor and concepts to the T-series, such as the T-62 and T-72.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am a great admirer of the WW II USAAF's twin-engine P-38 "Lightning":

 

p38_real_03.jpg

 

So when the Americans name their sleek wonder stealth jet F-35 "Lightning II", was some how bemused that its initial flaw was that it reportedly cannot be flown near lightning.

 

Lockheed+Martin+F-35+Lightning+II+1+top+

 

 

What a irony [rolleyes]

 

Anyway looks-wise, the old Lockheed sure beats its modern stealth counterpart hands down for yours truly [laugh]

Edited by Vulcann
  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbocharged

 

Looks like M1 chassis nia. it's only 6 road wheels, the Abrams got 7

China want to keep it light as the power plant is not strong enough.

This tank is only 50+ ton. I doubt the armor is not that strong.

Pakistan is the likely customer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The F35 was already meant for 3 arm services since the JSF program in the 90s. I clearly remember SG pumping some moola then to gain access to exclusive data from the development program and giving the option to purchase in the future. IIRC, we went in shortly after Israel committed too. Stealth fighters in the 90s is a big deal and I really thought we could own a stealth fighter soon. (I was still school then)

 

The problem with the F-35 is it tries to be a "1 size fits all" kind of fighter and was clearly under quoted. Along the way I presume inflation, bad management and technical/budget constrains cos it to fail and like what one of the bro said, it's too expensive to fail and die die must fly.

 

If they just develop a specific F-35 like the A variant without VTOL capability, the plane would have been flying for years. It's the B variant with VTOL or STOL capabilities that delayed everything. Heck because of the VTOL feature it can't even do 3D thrust vectoring. And it's the reason Russian and Chinese fighters are catching up, they don't need VTOL/STOL capabilities.

 

It's like a kickstarter gone bad!

 

The last truly tri-service aircraft in the US inventory was the F-4 Phantom - I think they were trying to duplicate that success. Aside from being a fighter, it took on roles of reconnaissance, aerial refuelling, electronic warfare, bombing, but it was never the only basket that the US had placed their eggs in at any given time. For recce, they had the RA-5C Vigilante, U-2, tankers there were KA-6D Intruders and KC-135, electronic warfare, there was the EF-111 Aardvark and EA-6 Prowlers, and a whole bevy of bombers - F-111, A-6, etc.

 

They never tried to make the Phantom do VSTOL - they bought the Harrier. If they tried to incorporate that feaure, the resulting land- and carrier-based aircraft would have been deeply flawed. Jack of all trades but master of none comes to mind.

 

If I were the British, I'd either be looking at reconfiguring both Queen Elizabeth class carriers for CATOBAR operations, or starting development of a successor to the Harrier, because the F-35 looks like its going to be a dog.

↡ Advertisement
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...