SHAH ALAM: Army getting more units. The Army is getting more units in Sabah – one infantry brigade, three infantry battalions, three artillery regiments, one armor regiment and one Air Wing squadron. The announcement of the units was made by Defence Minister DS Ismail Sabri during a visit to Sandakan on 11 September. It must be noted that the Army plans for additional units in Sabah have been in the works following the Lahad Datu incident in 2013, culminating with the standing up of 5 Division in September, last year. The division is headquartered at Lok Kawi camp in Kota Kinabalu.
The division now have three Infantry brigades – the 13, 5 and the new 32 based in Kalabakan, Tawau, near the border with Indonesia. The 13 Briged is headquartered in Lahad Datu while the 5 Briged is at Kota Belud. Apart from other support units, the new brigade will also have a new Royal Artillery regiment attached to it. Another artillery regiment in Lahad Datu is likely to be part of the 13 Brigade. The third one will be with 5 Briged.
Other new units involved a new Rejimen Sempadan based in Kalabakan while the new Army Air Wing squadron likely to operate the MD530Gs will be set up in Sandakan with a forward operating base in Semporna
Under the 5 Briged , two new infantry battalions will be set up – the 27th RMR and 11th Rangers – both units were previously deactivated during the Army restructuring in 2000. The two other artillery regiments will be based in Kota Belud and Kudat. It is likely that the 5 Armor which sprung up out of nowhere is the armor unit as it is already headquartered in Kota Belud with a detachment based in Tawau.
The Defence Minister did not revealed any timelines but it is likely that the initial cadres of thesee units are already up and running as had happened before. As for the equipment and infrastructures like camps and quarters, it is likely to be funded during the next 10 years. In the meantime it is likely as new equipment are delivered to the Army, the old ones will be reuse by these new units and not retired as assumed previously.
The release by Tentera Darat.
— Malaysian Defence
If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment
@ marhalim
The 3rd brigade of the 5th division to be stood up is basically the 32nd Briged RS. It is the same structure as 1st division sarawak, 2 infantry brigades, 1 border guard brigade.
The 5 KAD is around since last year, but as of now it is still a nucleus with just 1 sqn of lipanbara.
3 new artillery regiments? will this be something now or units transferred from semenanjung? My guess
1x 105mm towed (the current 6 RAD in sabah)
1x 155mm towed
1x air defence regiment??
then dedicated artillery regiments are also needed for 1 division sarawak.
IMO improving our forces in sabah and sarawak is a must, but great care must be taken not to stir up the status quo of deployed forces on the borneo island.
IMO we should not be the one who will start permanently deploying stuff like ASTROS or MBTs on borneo island. But things like more APCs, more air defence systems, 155mm howitzers would be fine as they are already similar units deployed in borneo.
Another thing IMO is for both 1st and 5th division to have a more closer engagement with brunei army. Probably annual battalion sized (or larger) exercises should be conducted in both sabah and sarawak together with brunei army.
Great. Sabah is highly contentious now especially the Philippines parliamentary foreign policy vommittee has declared Sabah as part of the Philippimes n granting Philippine citizenship to all Sabahans.
With this new provocation we need to beef up all 3 arms in Sabah especially on its Eastern flank mearest to the Philippines.
Its not now just the Sulu claim but a national claim from the very gov themselves.
We must also boost up our special branch work. And yes remember Kg Tanduo. A special branch operative has withheld info from his superior. The special branch must overhaul this very special branch to weed out Philippine symphatisers. The army intelligence must be sent there for covert work n a central intelligence agency set up to collate intelligence from all services.
The navy must now station more permanemt LMS ships in Sabah.
We must take the Philippine claim seriously. If need be we should recall our ambassador n send the Phillipine ambassador home too
Lee – “With this new provocation”
It’s not a “provocation”. It has everything to do with internal politics. It is yet another attempt on the part of certain politicians to
curry favour with voters in certain areas.
The average Filipino remains indifferent to Sabah; they have other more pressing matters to focus on. The only people who really have an emotional attachment to Sabah are what outsiders call the “Sulus”. Even they are divided in the issue.
Lee – “We must take the Philippine claim seriously”
We do. If we didn’t we wouldn’t be protesting and sending diplomatic notes everything the issue arises.
Lee – “If need be we should recall our ambassador n send the Phillipine ambassador home too”
“If need be” …
At present there is no need to resort to such a move. We fully understand that what they do is driven by internal politics and that officially dropping the claim would be political suicide for the President. Also the latest measures are not the official policy of their government but moves undertaken by others.
As it stands our main external state on state concern with regards to East Malaysia is not the Philippines but with another neighbour…… This is a neighbour in which bullets actually came close to being fired on a number of occasions in recent years and also one which has acted aggressively including attempted ramming, throwing stones when ships were metres apart, entering our waters to seize and tow back our trawlers, etc.
Lee – “. The special branch must overhaul this very special branch to weed out Philippine symphatisers”
A lot of these people were born in Sabah and some were given citizenship by us. You have to take note that the vast majority of Tausugs who want Sabah as their own want it as an independent state; not as part of the Philippines.
Also take note that a lot of the issues we currently face there are also a consequence of previous actions/measures we took with regards to the Philippines and the civil war in the 1970’s; which was when when the bulk of refugees came over and were welcomed by us.
If anything the setting up of the new division is indicative of how time and resource intensive such an exercise is. The hardware is the relatively easy part. The hard part; especially for a all volunteer under resourced army is funding the needed manpower; not only for the combat but also the support and administrative elements. Lot of bureaucratic issues including promotions and other things at play. Takes times.
Not only will bases, camps and housing need to be organised and roads in certain areas constructed/improved but ideally; also a firing range which can handle 155mm.
Lee – “The navy must now station more permanemt LMS ships in Sabah”
In doesn’t necessarily have to be LMSs but patrols assets, including those from the MMEA. The main threat is still from non state actors. Not as if the Philippines is in midst of a military build up in the area.
on the Philippines claim of sabah
1) sultan of sulu once owned the eastern half of sabah (the western half was once part of Brunei), and Tarakan area of indonesia. what kind of hypocrisy is that they now are claiming the whole of sabah instead and is quiet about Tarakan indonesia??
2) The sulu sultanate as long lost any sovereignty of any of their lands and no longer a sovereign ruler of any lands. If they transfer their deal for sabah, what they actually can transfer is the annual payment of gratuity. Because the transfer deal is for perpetuity and cannot be revoked. But instead they did not and kept receiving gratuity from malaysia up till Lahad Datu conflict.
3) The sultan of Brunei, which is still a sovereign ruler of his own country to date and a close friend to all of malaysian sultanates, does not claim any part of sabah or sarawak to be territory of brunei now. So who is this nobody from sulu wants to claim the whole of sabah?
4) UN sanctioned referendum has already been done on sabah, and sabahans choose to join malaysia. What Philippines is claiming is exactly the same as what china is claiming to the 9 dash line in south china sea. Claiming an area based on historical precedences. It is totally hypocrite to claim sabah on historical basis while rejecting chinese historical claim to the south china sea.
So is it a new trend in brigade TO&E?
To have an artillery regiment organic to an infantry brigade.
AFAIK all artillery regiments (except for 10th para) are at division level.
Reply
Not really only the 10th Para one is publicised
Ultimately the claim and repeated mention of it is driven by internal political factors. Like all politicians; their politicians engage in a lot of political rhetoric and game playing to gain and maintain support and the power that comes with it.
The average Filipino (whether in Luzon, Mindanao or the Visayas, is indifferent to Sabah; it’s not in their national psyche; like how the Malvinas resonates with Argentines. The Tausugs are a small part of the population and have minimal political representation in Congress.
The main security concerns of the Philippines is over the Spratlys and non state groups like the NPA, BIFF and groups linked to AQ, JI and IS.
Nihd – “AFAIK all artillery regiments (except for 10th para) are at division level.”
Most things are “owned” by divisions but are parcelled out and can be organic or tasked to support specific brigades.
Similarly a “weapons company” is a battalion asset but can be used to support individual companies.
@Azlan
Understood. Akin to how the british are using the ‘battlegroup’ system.
Just wondering do we even have enough field artillery regiments to be organic or support to each infantry brigades?
Needless to say about other combat support services elements being enough or not.
@ nihd
” So is it a new trend in brigade TO&E? ”
The each artillery regiment to a sabahan brigade is just an assumption from marhalim, which I think it will not be. There is no need for the 32 Briged Rejimen Sempadan to have a dedicated artillery regiment for it (or any of the other rejimen sempadan brigades for that matter).
Anyway if we do want to attach an artillery regiment to each brigade (say a 105mm regiment, which is not a bad idea actually), we need to double the quantity of our 105mm pieces to around 200+.
IMO the arrangement of at least 1x 105mm regiment at each division, and 1x 155mm towed regiment at each of the Field Army would be what we can afford. Plus a dedicated regiment for the Para Brigade, and a dedicated 155mm SPH for the mechanized formations.
Then there is our Rocket Artillery Brigade. Why isnt it being given a dedicated Brigade number? Right now it is equipped with just 2 ASTROS regiments (while Indonesia is now getting nearly 100 ASTROS Launchers) and a single WLR regiment (how many units of ARTHUR do we have actually?). I would like us to add a single coastal antiship missile regiment to the Rocket Artillery Brigade. Something like the Polish NSM system would be great. It would add another dimension to our capability to respond to any SCS conflict.
Reply
Both the 155mm and Astros belongs to the Army Western Field Command and not to any divisions. If we bought more 155s and MLRS for Sabah/Sarawak both will be under the Eastern Field Command.
I reread the original press release…
Is the 3 artillery regiments brand new in addition to the current 6 RAD in Kem Lok Kawi?
Because the press release says the 3 new artillery regiments is to be stood up in Kalabakan, Lahad Datu and Kudat. If that is so, quite a lot of additional new howitzers need to be acquired. So a total of 4 artillery regiments to be stationed in Sabah? That would really be an overwhelming artillery firepower capability that we can wield to any party that tries to create trouble in Sabah 😁
Another thing is about the new armoured regiment in Kota Belud. Formerly 11 KAD operated Scorpions and Stormers in Kota Belud. The 5 KAD now is actually HQed in an unamed new camp in Tawau. So will 5 KAD transferred to Kota Belud, or another cavalry regiment stood up in Sabah for a total of 2 cavalry regiments?
Reply
Yes they already have a RAD at Lok Kawi camp. No, the 5 KAD is headquartered in Kota Belud with a permanent camp in Tawau.
@ marhalim
” Both the 155mm and Astros belongs to the Army Western Field Command and not to any divisions. If we bought more 155s and MLRS for Sabah/Sarawak both will be under the Eastern Field Command ”
yes i understand that. why i said that 1x 155mm towed regiment at each of the Field Army would be what we can afford.
But AFAIK the rocket artillery brigade is not under the western field command, but ditectly to the top like 10 PARA. Also IMO we should not put any permanent presence of ASTROS to east malaysia, but temporary deployment would be okay.
What we need to improve in east malaysia is to add permanent GAPU regiments there to protect strategic locations in noth sabah and sarawak (bintulu oil and gas installations and teluk sepanggar comes to mind).
My thinking now is that with this new emphasis on Sabah and Sarawak, the MRSS is even more important. We need to move our pieces between East and a West. Is there any further news on the MRSS, Marhalim?
Reply
AFAIK no
@ tomtom
MRSS is of course needed, but other plans can also be done.
Pre-positioned equipment stock can be set up in east malaysia to reduce the need for urgent equipment transfers.
Something like this, but can be stored in warehouses instead of caves
http://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/modern-day-marine/2015/09/20/cave-dwellers-inside-the-us-marine-corps-prepositioning-program-norway/
Expanding the current regular rotational deployment of semenanjung units can also be done. For example right now there is a permanent deployment of a single company of gempita IFVs from 19 RAMD. 10 PARA units also do permanent rotational deployment to ESSCOM. Previously RAD batteries also regularly deployed rotationally to sarawak.
off topic
nice clear pics of malaysian army camcopter.
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ehs1KJ9VkAArDSD.jpg
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ehs1K9QVoAAXWBX.jpg
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ehs1IsgUYAI0zKf.jpg
Nihd. -“Just wondering do we even have enough field artillery regiments to be organic or support to each infantry brigades?”
On paper yes – about 90-110 Model 56s and 28 G-5s. In reality in depends on the type of threat.
The Model 56s were bought at a time when our focus was internal
security and it’s lack of range wasn’t an issue. In a state on state conflict its maximum 18-20km range would be an issue; stuff such as counter battery fire, harassment/interdiction and other things which require range will only be able to be performed by the G-5s – as well as ASTROS which isn’t artillery.
Being able to hit as far as “x” in is great but the target has to be found. Our limited target capabilities is an issue. I’m of the opinion that the Royal Artillery Corps hasn’t received the same level of attention as other combat arms.
Reply
As others in the Army apart from the infantry
Nihd – “Understood. Akin to how the british are using the ‘battlegroup’ system”
I have no idea about the Brit battleground but as a general rule; whether it’s a German Kampfgruppe in Russia or one belonging to another army in a different period; battlegroups are as hoc temporary groupings created for a specific task/role. The CO is given various assets and how effective his unit will be is dependent on the ability for the different assets (from different units) to work together.
An eye opener for us was the MALBATT/MALCON battlegroup in Bosnia. This was our first idea of a mechanised combined all ants unit and gave us ideas when we later raised 4th Mechanised Brigade.
Back to arty; like a lot of things it’s “owned” by the division but it’s organic to brigades. It’s the brigade CO who decides on got to allocate support to the respective battalions. Bear in mind that in our army the division is mostly an administrative grouping responsible for specific areas. The main unit of manoeuvre is the brigade.
Tom Tom – “My thinking now is that with this new emphasis on Sabah and Sarawak, the MRSS is even more important”
In the coming years there will a major increase in the number of units in Sabah; compared to previously when we had a light presence there.
Should the need ever arise where we have to rapidly move men and equipment; the MPSSs would merely form one part of the component. Commercial sea and air assets would also be used. When it comes to delivering men and equipment to a port or base; as opposed to a beachhead with no facilities; a commercial ship can do the job just as well as a purpose built naval ship.
…. – “permanent GAPU regiments there to protect strategic locations in noth sabah and sarawak (bintulu oil and gas installations and teluk sepanggar”
GAPU regiments based there will defend anything that needs defending or things we feel should be prioritised. The issue is the large number of locations (military or otherwise, the size of the area and the limited number of AD assets. The question of whether the RMAF will have the needed fighter presence also arises.
There was actually a requirement for a RMN operated medium range system for Sepanggar. Like many things it has simply been added to the list indefinitely.
…. – “lso IMO we should not put any permanent presence of ASTROS to east malaysia, but temporary deployment would be okay”
Moving a ASTROS battery (never mind a larger formation) on temporary deployments involves quite a number of men and vehicles (support and admin ones included). Quite a bit of effort and resources involved.
There is also the fact that a unit based there temporarily might not have time to gain the needed working relationship with units there and the needed feel of the terrain.
In this time of hardship, only the Government is hiring people. Getting more troops is good and all that, but many have been complaining and this will add further complains (in loud voices, mind you) that our civil service already overbloated and this just adds on the bloat….
Nihd,
You’re probably aware but I’d like to point out anyway; an artillery “regiment” in our context (based on British practice) can just mean a single “battery”, subdivided into “troops”.
There will be exceptions; the G-5 regiment with 28 guns. The ASTROS regiments comprise 18 launch each; with associated command, metrological, supply and other vehicles.
In other armies a “regiment” could mean a grouping comprising of several “battalions”; each comprising several batteries. Some armies had artillery “bridges” and even “divisions”. The Brits in WW2 had “army group Royal Artillery; to support higher level formations; at corps and army level.
The small number of guns we have, in relation to the size of the army, is a legacy of the 2nd Emergency; during a period when external security was secondary.
105mms were sufficient for our operational needs. It also helped that there was no possibility of counter battery fire and ammo restocking was never an issue.
Some time ago I met a former brigade CO. During the 2nd Emergency he had just a “regiment” of arty to support 3 battalions. This was sufficient given the nature of the threat and the fact that not all the battalions needed to be supported simultaneously. At times artillery “regiments” would parcel out their guns; to a point where at times just a pair of guns were allocated to certain units.
@ azlan
All of our 105 , 155 and ASTROS artillery regiments consist of at least 3 batteries. Batteries might be located at various locations. For example recently one of 3 RAD batteries was located at Kem Sultan Abdul Halim in alor setar.
If it is an independent single battery, it will be called as such, not a regiment. For example the 41 bateri istiadat and 361 bateri PARA.
Azlan “You’re probably aware but I’d like to point out anyway; an artillery “regiment” in our context (based on British practice) can just mean a single “battery”, subdivided into “troops”. ”
In the context of Rejimen Askar Wataniah, the arm itself is known as a regiment. It is composed of numbered regiments that are themselves composed of battalions.
Some time ago it was noted here that PUTD squadrons are now known as regiments.
…. – “Batteries might be located at various locations”
In aware of that thank you. “Batteries” can and also did see component “troops” parcelled out.
…. – “If it is an independent single battery, it will be called as such, not a regiment”
No. There never was such a hard and fast rule. Depends.
We had a single battery (divided into “troops”) of 12 FH-70’s which was a “regiment – an operational battery with 8 guns and a training battery with 4. The first batch of 12 Oerlikons was grouped into a “battery” but designated a “regiment”.
Also as it stands not all the Model 56s regiments have the same number of guns. TOEs on paper is one thing, what we have in practice is another thing.
P.S.
…..
“Battery 361” is designated a “battery” not only because it has smaller numbers of launchers compared to other MANPAD “regiments” but because it is organic to 10 Para; under its direct administrative and operational control.
This is unlike other GAPU units which can remain under the administrative and operational control of GAPU despite being operating in support of other units.
Reply
And the fact the soldiers assigned to the unit are qualified paratroopers
@ azlan
“but because it is organic to 10 Para; under its direct administrative and operational control”
that is not a valid reason. 1 RAD PARA is also under direct administrative and operational control of 10 PARA, but it is still a regiment sized artillery formation.
AM – “In the context of Rejimen Askar Wataniah, the arm itself is known as a regiment”
Yes. A “regiment” in British practice can comprise any number of battalions.
AM – “PUTD squadrons are now known as regiments.”
Following British practice.
“but many have been complaining and this will add further complains (in loud voices, mind you) that our civil service already overbloated”
Those complaining about “bloated civil service” ,like that idiotic tycoon, don’t know what they are talking. Different countries have different definitions of civil service, in our case – anyone working in the government is in the civil service. That includes doctors, military personnel, teachers etc. Other countries don’t include these people in their civil service count therefore the ratio would be lower.
It’s high time the gov takes these matters seriously; it could be just bravado on the Pinoys’ part, but with Duterte nothing is really certain. I hope that the gov would beef up coastal defence along the shores of Sarawak too.
@ Azlan
AM – “PUTD squadrons are now known as regiments.”
Following British practice.
Comment
The British practice, in the AAC (army air corps), their squadrons is known as… er squadrons (not regiments like what we are trying to do). 2 or more squadrons are grouped under a regiment.
Reply
Honestly I think the decision to turn the squadrons to regiment is to justify the ranks to be the same as the other ones
…. – “1RAD PARA is also under direct administrative and operational control of 10 PARA, but it is still a regiment sized artillery formation”
Slight difference between both units.
It’s standard practice for arty units to be under the administrative and operational control of brigades they are organic to.
Battery 361 is different as it’s the only GAPU component organic to a specific unit. The reason it’s designated a “battery” isn’t only due to its size …..
ASM – “it could be just bravado on the Pinoys’ part, but with Duterte nothing is really certain”
It has to do with internal politics. The Philippines government has not dropped the claim and it would be suicide for any President to do it but maintaining the claim and making reference to it is all had to do with internal politics; the need for certain politicians at certain times to gain certain support or to be see as pursuing matters of national importance.
@ marhalim
Something important that we also need to mention. The budget.
http://www.bernama.com/en/general/news.php?id=1878918
“He said to further strengthen the security system in the state, the federal government will increase military personnel and assets, as well as set up eight military camps and an Army Air Force Squadron (TD) immediately, involving costs amounting to RM14 billion’
That is about USD3.3 billion just for Sabah!
That is a lot, and should need our defence budget for RMK12 (2021-2025) to be increased compared to RMK11 (2016-2020).
@ azlan
“It’s standard practice for arty units to be under the administrative and operational control of brigades they are organic to”
All artillery units (except Rocket artillery) will be under the control of a divisional artillery HQ (for example 1 division has its own 1 Div Artillery HQ, 2 division with its own 2 Div Artillery HQ etc etc ).
So far only 10 PARA Brigade is the only brigade with its own operational control of artillery (1 RAD PARA and 361 Bti RAD PARA). No other Brigades has direct control of artillery formations.
…. – “All artillery units (except Rocket artillery) will be under the control of a divisional artillery ”
As I pointed out in a discussion with Nihd; arty regiments are “owned” by divisions.
… – “”No other Brigades has direct control of artillery formations.”
When they are organic to brigades; they are under the direct control of Brigade HQ. Brigade HQ uses the regiment as it sees fit.
As for the Rocket Brigade it is under Army HQ control but in times of war the Brigade or sub elements will be parcelled out and for the duration it will be under the operational control of the unit it’s supporting whilst still being a Army HQ asset.
@Azlan
I think the mistake you made was adding “administrative” to the “operational”
IINM Artillery yes is opcon brigade or task force if attached to said brigade, OR opcon divarty if being employed in a division hq tasking, but clearly in our setup under administrative control of divarty or corps arty – which in our case is Army HQ since we don’t have a field corps
Incidentally I am a little confused. What are GAPU’s constituent units and control structure?
@ chua
“Incidentally I am a little confused. What are GAPU’s constituent units and control structure?”
I have tracked down GAPUs orbat but is it okay to discuss here?
@ chua
“which in our case is Army HQ since we don’t have a field corps”
we just recently setup our field corps (western and eastern field army) but i have not seen a field artillery HQ yet.
Chua,
GAPU is merely a grouping for the army’s AA assets. At times it will deploy and operate independently and at times various sub units will be organic to specific combat units.
At times assets will provide support to units whilst not necessarily being under the operational control of the said units. The only GAPU component permanently under the direct control of any unit is Battery 361; also the only GAPU unit organic to anything.
@…
If you got from public source rather than your best friend in the army then it should be ok, haha
Who are we kidding, whoever wants to know this kind of data probably knows much more than we do, with their kind of fact-finding resources…
All I know is GAPU comprises regiments 31 to 34 and 361 Battery Para.
GAPU HQ (Markas GAPU) is the central coordinator of all land-based air defence systems in Malaysia, and controls all of GAPU units directly except for 361 Bti RAD. One of the most low key unit in the army, not many mention about Markas GAPU.
Previously it was housed in Kem Perdana Sg Besi. Now it is in xxxx.
… – of the most low key unit in the army, not many mention about Markas GAPU”
The most “low key” unit I would think is is the sole intel battalion; under the direct control of Army HQ. Next to nothing is said about it. At one point there were a pair of battalions.
…. – “we just recently setup our field corps (western and eastern field army”
Are those “area theatre level commands” or “field corps”?
…. – “I have tracked down GAPUs orbat but is it okay to discuss here?”
Why wouldn’t it? “Perajurit” a few years ago ran a very detailed article on GAPU’s set up and history. Much of the info was also contained in a book published by the army some years ago.
@ chua
Yeah all my info are from OSINT.
Markas GAPU
31 RAD GAPU Oerlikon 35mm GDF-005, GDF-007
32 RAD GAPU Starstreak, Banshee 400, FN-6
33 RAD GAPU Igla Djigit, Anza Mk II
34 RAD GAPU Jernas
Some (if not all now) of our Oerlikon 35mm has been converted to fire AHEAD rounds.
Hopefully Marhalim will allow this picture, as this is rarely caught on camera.
http://www.monch.com/mpg/images/news/18-04/17-MalaysianArmyOerlikonsfiring.JPG
missed another one in my list
361 Bti RAD PARA Anza Mk II
The possibility of an arms embargo has been used to justify self sufficiency. If we really examine the issue objectively and dispassionately; several facts come into play.
Certain countries are better placed to withstand embargoes than others. If we were embargoed and SME was actually able to produce at short notice the ammo we need: in the long run we’d face difficulties obtaining spares for just about everything we operate – from the Hornets to the Lekuis to our missile systems.
Unless we embarked on certain adventures; chances of us being embargoed are slim. If it were to occur our main worry would be thr economy. .
@…
Ah, yes, that info has been going round for quite a while.
….
AHEAD rounds?
….
I’d like to know which regiment operates the Giraffes nor that the BOFIs are gone and who operates the TRS-3Ds.
… – “Some (if not all now) of our Oerlikon 35mm has been converted to fire AHEAD rounds”
I’m surprised. When was it announced?
If anything; assuming we plan on operating them for a while more: Skyguard should be replaced. An AA gun is only as good as its fire control.
I wi5nder if GAPU still sees a place for AA guns in its future force structure? AA guns have reached a stage where they, their fire control and ammo are extremely expensive.
Depending on one’s requirements and preferences; they still have a role to play.
Reply
Yes its expensive I was told one of the previous chiefs was rendered speechless for a few seconds when told of the cost of maintaining the Skyguards
So what the options for replacing aa guns? skyshield like indonesian? or mantis german or maybe land base/static korkut?..Just curious what equipment/gun we use to protect airbase/airstrip/high value location?
@ Azlan
” I’m surprised. When was it announced? ”
Sorry, got a wrong info. No ahead system for malaysian GDF-005.
Anyway IMO the skyguard system is still a potent FCS (with upgrades) for anti-aircraft guns. I for one thinks that anti-aircraft guns still have some use in our air defence structure, especially now with the proliferation of UAVs and stand off missiles. I would prefer us to have 2 regiments of GDF (could we scour around to get a few more used GDFs?) for both east and west malaysia.
There are some that sees a near future war in SCS that will be mainly consist of massive long range missile slinging fest. Why the US marines is reinventing itself into a expeditionary missile force. Also why like Australia is investing to get more long range anti-ship and land attack missiles. Something that we need to take into account of, and to beef up our ground based air defence capability.
20mm proximity fused rounds are extremely expensive? Were the fighting parties throwing diamonds into the sky during WW2?
…. – “Anyway IMO the skyguard system is still a potent FCS (with upgrades) for anti-aircraft guns”
It was the Rolls Royce of FCSs when it was first offered in the late 1970’s but its aged.
In 1982 the one at Stanley was easily jammed by the RAF and ours haven’t fared so well in FPDA exercises.
…. – “There are some that sees a near future war in SCS that will be mainly consist of massive long range missile slinging fest”
Between the U.S. and China it will be because IRBMs, cruise missiles and ASMs will form a main component of China’s plans to offset American superiority in various areas and to deny them the ability to do what they need to do.
…. – “Also why like Australia is investing to get more long range anti-ship and land attack missiles”
Australia also has the ISR and needed long range sensors needed for those long range stuff.
@joe
Guess rounds get smarter? The game is all about acquisition now. Because if you can see it you can hit it…
@…
Face it, barring like a huge amount of US Lend Lease like it’s 1942 we are not going to be able to match anybody in a SCS slugfest.
We don’t even have a counter to HIMARS right now never mind “then” against whatever the heck will be flying around.
…. – “our air defence structure, especially now with the proliferation of UAVs and stand off missiles”
The whole idea of having AA guns as part of a layered defence is to engage targets that have made it past other systems – so the theory goes
Low flying UAS (hard to detect because of low IR signatures) will be ideal for AA guns; provided there is early warning and effective fire control; as well as the right ammo being employed.
The “Karbala Raid” (one Apache down and various others damaged) is a classic example of what happens when all the right pieces fall in together. Using a combination of Iglas, ZSUs and S-60s the Iraqis were able to predict the correct flight path of the approaching Apaches and switched off and then on the town’s power grid to alert units.
If anything recent events in Syria, Libya, Yemen and Saudi reinforces the importance of having a layered defence (different systems for different threats) and the value in integration. early warning and fire control.
P.S.
The RAF for a period used Skyguards captured from Argentina; to detect pilots who flew lower than allowed during training sorties.
Chua – “we are not going to be able to match anybody in a SCS slugfest.”
We shouldn’t assume that a war between the U.S. and China will also involve all the other claimants. A likely scenario is both powers going head to head with the claimants sitting it out.
China’s main goal will be dealing with the U.S. and it will not want to engage in unnecessary actions which will drive other countries into the arms of the U.S.
In the event of war a concern will be the worldwide economy (the economic effects from Covid might pale in comparison) and a war in the SCS spreading to other areas; namely Taiwan and other parts of East Asia.
Chua – “” against whatever the heck will be flying around.”
A massive cyber/electronic attack which paralyses our computers, radars, radios, GPSs, combat systems, etc.
Chua – “Guess rounds get smarter”
Rounds like 3P and AHEAD can go up to tens of thousands of RM, each. What also drives prices up are the needed fire control/early warning.
@ azlan
Is the Argentinian FCS jammed the older Super Fledermaus FC, or the Skyguard?
@ chua
HIMARs, like ASTROS is an unguided rocked system. You can easily calculate where the shots are coming from.
The problem is what we see in Syria, where smart guided missiles are launched from long ranges (by both NATO and Russia), and the prediction for a SCS conflict is that it would be missiles flying around multitude of times greater than what we see in Syria.
So this is not about top gun style dogfighting in the sky. The future might see something like multiple FA-50s slinging 6-8 AAM missiles each being given targeting data through datalinks from AWACs (as ground based radars have limitations detecting low flying cruise missiles due to the curvature of the earth) to shoot down cruise missile waves.
With SHORAD and AA Guns doing point defense of strategic locations.
USA already tested concepts on how to defend themselves from cruise missile attacks. And things like this we need to follow closely.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/36345/mq-9-reaper-howitzer-rocket-toting-f-16-all-shoot-down-mock-cruise-missiles-in-huge-test
This is the future. And it will be on our doorstep.
…. – “prediction for a SCS conflict is that it would be missiles flying around multitude of times greater than what we see in Syria”
No surprises as China’s main means of targeting U.S. bases in Guam, Okinawa, Yokosuka, etc will be IRBMs and cruise missiles; some launched from bombers and some from bases on the mainland.
Together with other means long range missiles will also be used to keep USN carriers from where they need to be.
… – “ The future might see something like multiple FA-50s slinging 6-8 AAM missiles each being given targeting data through datalinks from AWAC”
As far back as the 1970’s plans were already in place for Tomcats to engage incoming ASMs with Phoenix. Even AMRAAM has some level of capability against certain missiles.
A Skyguard at Stanley was jammed by a EW pod mounted on a Vulcan. Our Skyguards (i won’t go into further details) have performed less than optimally during FPDA exercises against the RAAF – no surprises really given it’s a 1970’s vintage system.
… – “You can easily calculate where the shots are coming from.”
Pointless if it keeps relocating positions and if one doesn’t have the needed systems to be able to hit back in time sensitive circumstances.
The addition of a GPS round has transformed HIMARS from a area saturation to a precision weapon. Avibras has belatedly started work on a GPS guided round.
… – “detecting low flying cruise missiles due to the curvature of the earth) to shoot down cruise missile waves.”
The earth’s curvature is a reason why OTHT is needed for launches beyond certain distances (missiles can have a longer range than their targeting radars). The problem is also mitigated if one has various assets in place; their respective radars/sensors linked to provide a common picture.
P.S.
“The Fight for the “Malvinas”: The Argentine Forces in the Falklands War” Martin Middlebrook) also makes mention of Skyguard deployed at Goose Green and being easily disrupted by chaff.
@ azlan
“The addition of a GPS round has transformed HIMARS from a area saturation to a precision weapon”
It would still remain a weapon with a predictable ballistic trajectory, only with more precise impact point.
” “The Fight for the “Malvinas”: The Argentine Forces in the Falklands War” Martin Middlebrook) also makes mention of Skyguard deployed at Goose Green and being easily disrupted by chaff ”
Processing power of current iphones are thousands of times more powerful than 70s vacuum tubes and transistors. upgrades to include even COTS processors to the skyguard will increase its capability many fold.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/208106/rheinmetall-wins-€120m-to-upgrade-skyguard-system.html
… ” I for one thinks that anti-aircraft guns still have some use in our air defence structure, especially now with the proliferation of UAVs and stand off missiles. ”
We (and anyone else) also have to worry about low end UAVs -whether they are consumer grade quads or purpose built military models- which have been used to conduct recon or armed to carry out attacks. There are also loitering munition systems with substantially longer range.
Conventional gun and missile systems are not suited to counter such systems. One issue is that they are simply not optimised to detect and engage such small, low and slow flying and potentially numerous threats. The radar horizon with such threats is much reduced, they have a much smaller RCS than conventional targets and can come in numbers that overwhelm the magazines of any defensive system. Without a suitable system to cover them from such threats, even conventional air defence systems are themselves vulnerable.
Another issue is the current air defence systems cost much more than the threat and no one can afford to deploy the defence in all locations that are vulnerable to such attacks- which is potentially anywhere on and beyond the battlefield.
There is a need to equip units and installations with a system that is not only effective, but also affordable, easy to use, deploy and sustain in large numbers. So far, improvised and/or low end and loitering UAVs have been successfully used in several conflicts, but no country or military on earth has developed an effective counter to the threat and fielded it to protect a meaningful proportion of its forces and installations.
… – “It would still remain a weapon with a predictable ballistic trajectory”
Nonetheless; to counter it one would need the means to hit it before it relocates to another position. One would also need the ability to locate its position.
AM – “Conventional gun and missile systems are not suited to counter such systems”
That may be so but the best means available would be a layered defence comprising various systems; some to deal with targets at high altitude, some to deal with medium flying targets and done to deal with very low flying ones with very low IR signatures. On top of that is the need for a soft kill option to deal with UASs.
Everything of course is dependent on early warning and effective fire control and integration.
… – “”COTS processors to the skyguard will increase its capability many fold.”
On paper.
In reality an upgrade doesn’t necessarily mean it will be effective for specific threats one face in specific operational conditions.
Which is why thorough trials are needed to truly ascertain if any particular system can be effective.
A must read; articles detailing the issues confronting AD.
Google –
“How can Saudi Arabia secure its airspace? Here’s what the kingdom could do, and is already up to”
“Are air defense systems ready to confront drone swarms”
AM – “There is a need to equip units and installations with a system that is not only effective, but also affordable, easy to use, deploy and sustain in large numbers”
Yes but given the varied systems needed to confront various threats; from a high altitude fighter to swarms of UASs; plus the need for early waning systems and fire control, plus integration; nothing is ”affordable, easy to use, deploy and sustain in large numbers”.
In line with their increased effectiveness and complexity; the prices of AD systems have risen significantly; even guns; which at one point were a much cheaper alternative to misfile systems.
If one operated in a benign threat environment and faced unsophisticated threats; one could invest in MANPADs supplemented by low cost AA guns (i.e. ZSUs, S-60s, etc) with basic or minimal fire control and altering systems; we don’t.
Looks like our Finance Minister is a PSSTLDM member sice 2015.
With a defence minded minister at the helm of the finance ministry, hopefully more budget will be allocated for defence under his watch; also a proper closure and 6 frigates to be received by TLDM by 2025.
@ AM
” We (and anyone else) also have to worry about low end UAVs -whether they are consumer grade quads or purpose built military models- which have been used to conduct recon or armed to carry out attacks ”
Those consumer grade drones can be countered by jammers like this
http://photo2.tinhte.vn/data/attachment-files/2019/11/4836722_DroneGun_MkIII.jpg
http://photo2.tinhte.vn/data/attachment-files/2019/11/4836726_DroneGun_MkIII_6.jpg
This small device, bigger than a pistol but smaller than a rifle could be a standard squad issued device for all FIBUA operations.
” We shouldn’t assume that a war between the U.S. and China will also involve all the other claimants. A likely scenario is both powers going head to head with the claimants sitting it out ”
It will not be a war involving and invading american oil and gas, american seas, american territory.
How do you sit out of a war that involves others taking over your tanah air? Why do we invest in our defence if when the time comes we just sit and let aggressors take over what is ours?
@…
“HIMARs, like ASTROS is an unguided rocked system”
The G in HIMARS GMLRS is there for a reason. With GPS guidance the weapon becomes capable of point targeting rather than “spraying and praying” an area. Which in turn makes it capable of fast “artillery raids” like firing one or two rounds and then immediately relocating, while still being much more assured of achieving a kill compared to area saturation bombardment.
Yes it can be countered. But with what weapon in our inventory?
So my point is, right now we cannot even counter this small scale threat, please learn to walk before dreaming of flying and playing in the SCS with ballistic missiles…
…. – “It will not be a war involving and invading american oil and gas, american seas, american territory”
Obviously as America doesn’t have any claims there and it’s quite a distance from the nearest American territory – Guam ….
… – “How do you sit out of a war that involves others taking over your tanah air? Why do we invest in our defence if when the time comes we just sit and let aggressors take over what is ours”
Before jumping to conclusions; beating the war drums and claiming that I suggested “when the time comes we just sit and let aggressors take over what is ours”; try to understand what was said ….. It saves us time and effort on the keyboard.
We shouldn’t assume that a conflict between the U.S. between the China will automatically lead to other claimants being involved directly as the clash might be limited to the 2 powers on the periphery of the overlapping claims or even elsewhere in the South Sea.
Also in such a clash China will be focused on dealing with the Americans : we shouldn’t assume that it will make an attempt to seize by force areas claimed by others. Doing so will put it in the wrong side of global opinion, will drive others into the arms of the U.S. and will prove that what the Americans have been saying all the while about China has been right.
If the conflict is limited between both powers, if freedom of navigation is not denied to others and if China clearly displays no intent to seize anything by force; it would be presumptuous and silly to assume that others will automatically join the party as it might not be in their interests to do so.
Chua – “Yes it can be countered. But with what weapon in our inventory?”
Technically, on paper we have the hardware to locate it and the hardware to deal with it. Whether we actually can deal with it is something different.
First one has the locate the source of fire; by radar or other means. Then one has to target it before it relocates to another position. All this while hoping that the other side doesn’t interfere.
Reply
Or the means to destroy it, is not destroyed.
…. – “With a defence minded minister at the helm of the finance ministry, hopefully more budget will be allocated for defence under his watch”
Well I’m not sure whether he’s really “defence minded” notwithstanding his PSSTLDM participation. I’m also unsure of his desire and even his ability to focus on defence as it depends on various factors.
Secondly any increase in defence budget might be temporary (as it has been many occasions) and unless we adopt a more holistic approach; I’m not sanguine that the cash will be put to good use – politics and national interest might see us either buying the wrong things or us going about it in a flawed manner.
Ultimately it all boils down to us getting the prerequisites and fundamentals right; before things can really change.
… “Those consumer grade drones can be countered by jammers like this. … This small device, bigger than a pistol but smaller than a rifle could be a standard squad issued device for all FIBUA operations.”
Some issues here. These minuscule “drones” are very hard to detect in time. At very low altitudes and speeds, warning times can be very short. You will need some sort of detection and early warning beyond the human eye.
I would prefer a kinetic and more automated solution to a handheld jammer. A jammer assumes that the drone is operating under radio command links that can be jammed (when it could well operate autonomously either throughout its flight for a significant period of time), and even in the best situations takes too long to take effect and is easily saturated by drones approaching in any numbers. How well a jammer can be employed in poor light or weather is another issue.
Azlan “Yes but given the varied systems needed to confront various threats; from a high altitude fighter to swarms of UASs; plus the need for early waning systems and fire control, plus integration; nothing is ”affordable, easy to use, deploy and sustain in large numbers”.”
Air defence is never cheap. But in the case of low end UAVs, detection horizons and reaction times are typically very short. A networked air defence system cannot provide much warning and success or failure will often come down to local detection and engagement capabilities without the benefit of warning.
It is not possible nor desirable to give every small unit the means to confront every type of threat. But since units will tend to be on their own when it comes to attack by small and cheap UAVs, ideally they should have organic means of countering them.
… – “Those consumer grade drones can be countered by jammers like this”
Most of not all UASs – whether military purposes built or “consumer grade” – can be dealt with by soft kill means – we’ve seen various examples of such means being used with various levels of success.
The issue is that soft kill means have to be employed alongside other means and things becomes somewhat more difficult when or if UASs are deployed in ‘swarms.
It also depends on the UAS being detected first; whether passively or by radar.
@…
Right now with COVID killing the economy locally & worldwide, and RMCO extended till 2021 he got bigger things to worry than defence budget alone. That is the purview of Menhan and it is his job to justify why to increase defence expenditure, not the FM.
@Marhalim
Is this new additions part of TDM plans to mirror Western Command to their Eastern counterpart? I recall few years back that was the goal of previous TDM head to have 2 army commands with similar strengths. Is that plan still ongoing?
Reply
Yes thats the plan to enable the Eastern Command to cope with any future scenario short of an invasion from a peer army
@ chua
“So my point is, right now we cannot even counter this small scale threat, please learn to walk before dreaming of flying and playing in the SCS with ballistic missiles…”
Among many threats that our GAPU needs to counter, a precision guided rocket is one of the the easiest one to intercept.
if you understand how technically a rocket operates it is a non issue. A rocket is still a non maneuverable flying weapon, with easily calculated ballistic trajectory. If you can detect its launch (we have plenty of equipment to detect one, from our ARTHUR to the new ground master 200 radar) you can calculate its impact point in a few seconds. A GPS guided rocket does not transform a rocket into a supermaneuverable missile. Basically it transforms a weapon CEP (circular error of probability) of say 20m into one that has a CEP of 5m.
Then there are automatic systems that are designed to counter such a menance. Systems such as iron dome amd centurion C-RAM is created to counter such threats. South Korea is currently designing a system to be analogous to the iron dome to be ready by 2030, and it is a system we should be looking at closely.
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20200810000502
Anyway i never say that we should play around with ballistic missiles. What i infer to is the ability to intercept them.
@ marhalim
” Or the means to destroy it, is not destroyed ”
Destroying our AD system means that an agressor needs systems in place to destroy it, SEAD. As long as it does not have or practice SEAD as much as the US does, we still have the chance to shoot down missiles.
… – “should play around with ballistic missiles. What i infer to is the ability to intercept them.”
On paper there’s lots of things we need to do if we go on the basis that we adopt a threat driven approach. The reality is that we can only focus on specific threats.
At the moment we’re in need of additional MANPADs with alerting devices and we still don’t even have a medium range system for which there has been a requirement for for almost a decade.
Yes no doubt you’re talking about having a ABM capability some time in the future but there will be various things we need and we will have to decide on what focus on. If we want to worry about a much more powerful country lobbying IRBMs us; we’ll also have to worry about a lift of other options it can employ on us.
… – “ As long as it does not have or practice SEAD as much as the US does, we still have the chance to shoot down missiles”
Not exactly.
One does not exactly need the SEAD/DEAD capabilities of the U.S. to deal with us as we do have multi tired AD network providing wide coverage over various areas ….
Never mind the U.S.; there are actually neighbouring countries who have been steadily and without fanfare; developing SEAD/DEAD capabilities.
@ azlan
“It also depends on the UAS being detected first; whether passively or by radar”
Fortunately UAS for the near future will always have 2 way radio link to its controller, something that would always be easy to detect. Right now plenty of soldiers worn UAV detection system has already been designed and operational.
http://www.newsshooter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/RfPatrol_SideonInHand_withbackground-740×416.jpg
@ azlan
“Yes no doubt you’re talking about having a ABM capability some time in the future”
i don’t think we can afford those, but i am more into us having the capability to detect and shoot down cruise missiles, at least the subsonic kind by ground, air or sea based systems.
Why i am for us having AWACs capability before 2030. Why i am for the expansion of VERA NG electronic triangulation capability. Why also i am for GAPU SAM capability with the same missiles as TLDM, either CAMM or VL MICA NG, as a replacement for our Jernas before 2030.
” Never mind the U.S.; there are actually neighbouring countries who have been steadily and without fanfare; developing SEAD/DEAD capabilities ”
that neighbour is not going to side with an agressor against us or usa.
“Yes thats the plan”
Good to hear there is continuity inspite of the changes in TDM head and the Governments. I see there is a RM 14bil but likely will the new buys go towards Eastern side, or towards Western side with them handing me-downs to Eastern command, or half-half for both?
Reply
No idea
… – “that neighbour is not going to side with an agressor against us or usa.”
That is not the point ….
The point is you insisting that “as long as it does not have or practice SEAD as much as the US does, we still have the chance to shoot down missiles” – not true at all given the type of assets we have and the numbers ….
It’s not as if we have a nationwide multi tiered AD network for which an opponent would need capabilities akin to what the U.S. has to deal with.
…. – “i don’t think we can afford those, but i am more into us having the capability to detect and shoot down cruise missiles”
If MBDA is to be believed Jernas has the ability to deal with cruise missiles.
You earlier mentioned cruise missiles – “Anyway i never say that we should play around with ballistic missiles. What i infer to is the ability to intercept them.”
For which I replied that we need various things but we have no choice but to deal with certain things first. If we got to a point where a country was lobbying IRBMs or cruise missiles; we’d also have to worry about it employing various other means for which we have no answer to ..
… – “Why i am for us having AWACs capability before 2030”
Given the very limited number of AEW platforms we’d get (if ever)( chances are they’d spend most of the time providing early warning and battle management for our sensors.
…. – “Fortunately UAS for the near future will always have 2 way radio link to its controller”
Even if it doesn’t the main means of detecting it will by its data links.
back on the Malaysian army 5th Division in Sabah.
A lot of chatter in cyberspace is mentioning the future 32nd brigade as the 3rd infantry brigade in Sabah. Technically it is not, as the 32nd Brigade is a dedicated border defence unit (Rejimen Sempadan).
malaysian army brigade designations
x and 1x brigade designation is our frontline infantry, mechanised, PARA and probably in the future armoured brigades.
2x brigade is our SF brigade (GGK)
3x brigade is our border defence brigades (rejimen sempadan)
on the artillery regiments. official malaysian army release states 3 new regiments to be stood up. i am inclined to think it would actually be 3 batteries dedicated to sabah. The current 6 RAD batteries are covering both sabah and sarawak. I would prefer 1 dedicated 105mm regiment each (at least) for sabah and sarawak, with 1 155mm regiment assigned to eastern field command.
@ azlan
” It’s not as if we have a nationwide multi tiered AD network for which an opponent would need capabilities akin to what the U.S. has to deal with ”
Of course not right now and of course one we really should plan for and have by 2030. That is why i am for us having AWACs capability before 2030. Why i am for the expansion of VERA NG electronic triangulation capability. Why also i am for GAPU SAM capability with the same missiles as TLDM, either CAMM or VL MICA NG, as a replacement for our Jernas before 2030.
@ azlan
” Given the very limited number of AEW platforms we’d get (if ever)( chances are they’d spend most of the time providing early warning and battle management for our sensors ”
I want TUDM to get AWACs platform, which is why i think getting 2 new MPA platform instead of modifying all 6 CN-235 into MPA will leave us with no budget later for AWACs.
Anyway what you said is the exact purpose of AWACs. Early warning and battle management of our shooters, no matter if it is fighter jets, ships or GBADs, against agressor fighters, cruise missiles, or ships. If our MPAs are equipped with AESA based maritime search radar, those could also be used to detect flying targets too, especially those flying below the MPA.
” Even if it doesn’t the main means of detecting it will by its data links ”
and those data links, link to?
… – “and those data links, link to”
Why ask a question for which you already know the answer.
Getting back; I stated that the main means of detecting UASs are via their non passive data links ….
… – “I want TUDM to get AWACs platform”
Well the RMAF would seem to agree with you given that it’s wanted then since the 1990’s.
I also see a need for them; primarily because we’ll never be able to get the best out of whether fighters we have; without an AEW platform.
… – “Of course not right now and of course one we really should plan for and have by 2030”
Getting back; and “of course” why a potential opponent does not need a comparable level of capability as the U.S. to degrade our present; limited AD network.
… – “Early warning and battle management of our shooters, no matter if it is fighter jets, ships or GBADs, against agressor fighters, cruise missiles, or ship
I’m all for networking; after all I’ve constantly stressed the need for “connectivity” for everything; from figures to arty to ships; leading others to suggest I’m over emphasising it.
There are various things we can do with a AEW but in a full blown conflict we have to realistic in what our limited number of AEWs will spend most of their time doing …
… – “would prefer 1 dedicated 105mm regiment each (at least) for sabah and sarawak, with 1 155mm regiment assigned to eastern field command”
I would “prefer” for us to not only
get the needed hardware but also invest in ISR capabilities and improve the whole way we do about conducting the business of arty; including the creation of FDCs and experimenting with organisational changes to enable us to do things more effectively.
I would also like the army to start giving the attention the various support arms require. The way a large part of the army is still structured; as well as the number of engineering and logistical assets; is a reflection of the time when internal security was the focus.
@…
“CN-235 into MPA will leave us with no budget later for AWACs.”
As a maritime nation with contested seas, IMHO the priority is to fulfill the MPA requirement firstly then AWACS. The intended AWACS will need to link up closely with MRCA so that means we have to fixed which 5th gen plane to get first before we consider the AWACS platform.
@ joe
” The intended AWACS will need to link up closely with MRCA so that means we have to fixed which 5th gen plane to get first before we consider the AWACS platform ”
You really have no clue how datalinks work…
@ azlan
” degrade our present; limited AD network”
our present everything is not ideal, from lack of fighters, ground based radars, GBADs, frigates, basically everything.
if you want to talk just about present, then no need to whine about networking, ISR and such.
@ azlan
“also invest in ISR capabilities and improve the whole way we do about conducting the business of arty”
yes something which i would also want (i cant be listing every other thing that i want when discussing about something)
I have talked about getting fulmars for RAD (spanish army is getting them too, and at just USD1.1 million per system it is affordable for our army)
http://static-abcblogs.abc.es/wp-content/uploads/sites/46/2018/05/Fotos-Vuelo-Fulmar-X-Unvex-18-3.jpg
i have talked about additional WLRs.
I have talked about getting small fixed wing aircraft for PUTD (PC-6 or PAC 750XL) that can be equipped with something like the SCAR pod for ISR
http://www.ainonline.com/sites/ainonline.com/files/styles/ain30_fullwidth_large_2x/public/uploads/2015/06/webscar-pod-on-pc-9-.jpg
I have talked about using MPAs for GMTI and pattern of life tracking on the ground, using maritime search radars and ViDAR.
I have also suggested small uavs that has no links to chinese servers.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/new-disd-boss/#comment-432803
@ azlan
” The way a large part of the army is still structured; as well as the number of engineering and logistical assets ”
What could be done is to have our GLC civil engineering and logistics companies stand up dedicated reserve civil engineering and logistics battalions. We have done the same for TNB, KTM and MISC, and this could be expanded to other companies as well.
…. – “yes something which i would also want (i cant be listing every other thing that i want when discussing about something)”
Nobody is asking you to list every single thing you want in the lifts you often provide
… – “i have talked about”
… – “I have also suggested”
Just because certain things are not listed in the lists you often provide doesn’t mean there others are implying you see no need for certain things or you have overlooked them. Still, if you see fit to list down everything you’ve “talked about” or “suggested” …
…. – “What could be done is to have our GLC civil engineering and logistics companies stand up dedicated reserve civil engineering and logistics battalions”
Those will be TA unit’s who will help fill in the gap when the need arises, Unfortunately TA unit’s providing specialised/niche services hardly get the training opportunities they need alongside regular units.
There is still a paramount need for regular units of this sort to expand on what there currently is. Unfortunately emphasis seems to be on expanding the sexy hardware without the needed corresponding attention being placed on the support arms on which the combat will be so dependent on.
on engineering units…
recently this cropped up.
http://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2020/09/13/two-company-directors-arrested-by-macc-over-rm800m-road-project-in-sarawak/1902775
why the heck is the defence ministry paying RM800 million to a private company to do jiwa murni projects? isn’t jiwa murni projects is supposed to be done by army engineering corps with the manpower support of local army units to fill up peacetime free time?? Rm800 million if spent on army engineering equipment will get them so many things…
@…
“Then there are automatic systems that are designed to counter such a menance. Systems such as….
Anyway i never say that we should play around with ballistic missiles. What i infer to is the ability to intercept them.”
Yes we know they exist. The question is whether we actually have them or can field them effectively.
What I’m saying is we should develop a ROBUST capability to deal EFFECTIVELY with the current problem before moving to the next.
This is where you and I have always disagreed, you want to have a tiny bit of this and that capability whereas I want us to focus on doing one job, managing one threat level, before going to the next.
Otherwise where does it end? Must we have a tiny nuke capability as well? Develop our own little Davy Crockett just so we can claim our own so-called “24/7 deterrence”?
@Azlan
Jernas can probably manage slow cruise missiles like Tomahawk which is said to be slower than most combat aircraft when travelling at long ranges.
That’s not to say it’s very effective, just that maybe it has more chance than a snowball in hell.
@ chua
” you want to have a tiny bit of this and that capability ”
???
i am for tiny bit if this and that capability??
wanting a whole brigade of AV8 is a tiny bit of capability?
wanting at least 12 frigates of a single type is a tiny bit of capability?
pushing for 6 scorpenes and 6 smaller subs is a tiny bit of capability?
or need to have at least 50 LCA/LIFT is a tiny bit of capability?
wanting a full spectrum of air defence capability with AWACs, GBADs etc is a tiny bit of capability?
you must be mistaking me for someone else.
@ chua
what would be a tiny bit of capability?
pushing for small quantities of brand new MPA. getting super expensive MRCA in tiny quantities. getting yet another type of expensive IFV in the shape of 6x6s.
do you see pushing those?
Chua – “Jernas can probably manage slow cruise missiles like Tomahawk which is said to be slower than most combat aircraft when travelling at long ranges”
You may be right. It also depends on the FCS.
MBDA and British Aerospace before that use to claim that Seawolf during trials effectively intercepted a 4.5inch shell. No doubt it did but under what conditions?
Chua – “ whereas I want us to focus on doing one job, managing one threat level, before going to the next”
Correct; rather than developing a token “little bit of everything but not enough of anything” capability which we’ve long been doing.
If we were faced in a situation where a country restored to lobbing IRBMs and cruise missiles at us; we’d be pretty buggered anyway as it would also have other ways of hurting us for which we have no answer for.
My personal worry is actually the use of a massive cyber/electronic attack which will paralyse our radars, radios, cellular phones, GPS, etc, even before actual hostilities start to persuade us from taking sides.
Yes we do have a preventive cyber warfare capability but against a side which spends billions on it and thousands?
@ azlan
“My personal worry is actually the use of a massive cyber/electronic attack which will paralyse our radars, radios, cellular phones, GPS, etc, even before actual hostilities start to persuade us from taking sides”
Yes this is a big worry, but we have made them easier as we are using Chinese 5G systems.
we need to make sure our basic services, like electric, water and comms would not be easily downed by cyberattack, and if it is, a redundant backup system to make it up an running again quickly.
I would also suggest that we should allocate specific budget for cyber defence starting RMK12. Probably we should set up a tri-service cyber brigade to protect our electronic (both military and civil strategic resources) networks.
Could we also start a TA brigade of IT specialists, so that we have a pool of IT experts in times of crisis?
@…
>”wanting a whole brigade of AV8 is a tiny bit of capability?
wanting at least 12 frigates of a single type is a tiny bit of capability?
pushing for 6 scorpenes and 6 smaller subs is a tiny bit of capability?
or need to have at least 50 LCA/LIFT is a tiny bit of capability?
wanting a full spectrum of air defence capability with AWACs, GBADs etc is a tiny bit of capability?”
Completely honestly? Yes.
A brigade of AV8 isn’t going to stop any of our neighbours. 12 frigates and 6 subs isn’t going to deter SCS claims. 50 LCA isn’t going to contest the air in any way other than against a rogue A330. And a handful of AWACs and a battery of Patriots isn’t going to adequately defend us from anyone equipped to sling BMs other than maybe the Houthis.
Basically the way I see it, we’ve pretty much failed to keep up a sovereign state defence capability against anyone other than the Thais and Filipinos… and we may well live to see them overtake us too. So in that case, I’d much rather we secure the borders against nonstate actors, focus on building up the economy, and pray for diplomatic assistance in case anything happens.
If you disagree, well, you look at our stronger neighbours and tell me how you expect to DECISIVELY DEFEAT them in a fight. Don’t give me the stuff about “not laying down and surrendering”. That’s mere sentiment. I’m asking for a solid appraisal, solid numbers here.
@Chua
“DECISIVELY DEFEAT”? No. But we can DECISIVELY GIVE THEM A BLOODY NOSE and make them pause a bit instead of steamrollering thru us…. otherwise, why the heck do we even bother spending so much money on defence? In a fight against such OP entity, it will be our economy and people that will suffer firstly before the first shots even fired. No point talking about defence matters if by then our people are ready to give up and concede.
Chua – “pretty much failed to keep up a sovereign state defence capability against anyone other than the Thais and Filipinos”
For the foreseeable future the main security concern of the Philippines will be the Spratlys and the long standing and serious threat posed by the likes of the NPA, BIFF and elements linked to AQ, IS and JE. Focus on the Spratlys and internal security; together with funding issues will hamper the AFP’s ability to acquire a balanced tri service external defence capability. The AFP also has a king shopping list and a long list of things which are overdue for repacement.
The Thais have long overseen us in terms of conventional capabilities. They have the numbers in manpower, armour, artillery, aircraft, etc (there is a certain quality in numbers). The RTAF is the 2nd in the region to make the transition from a platform to a systems centric air arm. Also, unlike us the RTA also has experience (irrespective of how it actually performed) in operations other than low intensity ones; border clashes against Myanmar and Laos (MBTs, arty and airpower were involved).
Chua – “we secure the borders against nonstate actors, focus on building up the economy, and pray for diplomatic assistance in case anything happens.”
Our defence planning when it comes to the possibility of trouble with a much more powerful opponent has always been based on a scenario in which we’d have external help; the external party helping us not because of a strong affinity towards us but because it’s in its national interests to do so.
We plan for a whole list of contingencies but we are under no illusions as to what types of threats we can realistically handle and whet we can’t (based on our defence budget as well as a whole list of other factors).
Well honestly … is asking for at least 12 frigates/ type so around 36 frigates for ASW, air defence and general purpose surface roles. That’s alot of frigates.
12 subs are alot too. I don’t think SG has that many.
Realistically our Armed Forces will not be able to go up against China that’s for sure. However a regional conflict among the SEA countries I think we can hold our own in terms of land warfare. Sea and air, I am not sure
@ASM
“regional conflict among the SEA countries”
When you say regional conflict, how sure are you that China will antagonise everyone for all of ASEAN to join up against it? Some of China’s claims have no bearing onto other countries (ie SG) so what would be the cause for them to join in the fight against China?
ASM – “Realistically our Armed Forces will not be able to go up against China that’s for sure”
Yes and this is so plainly obvious that it doesn’t really have to be said but if stop people from suggesting otherwise. Whether head to head or relying on asymmetric tactics; in the long run we’d just suffer from attrition; not to mention other difficulties inherent with a country our size, with our population and our dependence on imports.
China knows fully what whet others are capable of, how long they can sustain things and has achieved a vast overmatch. Things have even reached a stage where the likes is the U.S. will face difficulties.
ASM – “However a regional conflict among the SEA countries I think we can hold our own in terms of land warfare”
How can we “hold our own” on land when doing that is dependent on having command of the skies? All of our immediate neighbours have a numerical superiority: two of them have a clear qualitative one. Without command of the skies the army wouldn’t find it hard to do anything.
@ chua
” Completely honestly? Yes ”
if that is so, if all that i am pushing for is considered just a tiny bit of capability, so what did you suggest instead previously that will massively increase our defence capability?
@ joe
” No point talking about defence matters if by then our people are ready to give up and concede ”
ditto.
@ azlan
” Our defence planning when it comes to the possibility of trouble with a much more powerful opponent has always been based on a scenario in which we’d have external help; the external party helping us not because of a strong affinity towards us but because it’s in its national interests to do so.
We plan for a whole list of contingencies but we are under no illusions as to what types of threats we can realistically handle and whet we can’t (based on our defence budget as well as a whole list of other factors) ”
This is what we need to always take note whenever we are discussing about our future defence needs. We always need to have other like minded countries in our good books (why i have talked about taking note of, and possibly joining the British carrier deployment to SCS next year, taking into account aussie P-8 deployment into our MPA needs, having close interoperability with brunei armed forces, having naval exercises with vietnam navy etc.).
Any SCS conflict will not start by just simply china fighting usa. It will be most likely to start by china taking over resources of relatively weak countries surrounding the SCS and the big powers getting in to intervene.
Whenever i proposed something, i will always take into account our defence budget before anything else. I dont propose something that we cannot possibly buy with our existing budget. Why sometimes i will propose used stuff much to the annoyance of most here. Why i sometimes suggest something that is not the best item that there is out there (getting cheap JLTV instead of expensive 6×6 IFV to afford more AV8 and jernas replacement). In other times i would want the best in quantity (like arguably the best LCA/LIFT in TA/FA-50). It is to have the best possible chance to increase our overall defence capability within what little defence development budget that we have.
I want the best in defence for Malaysia. i want to leave a Malaysia to my children and grandchildren that can fight and hold up any aggressor that wants to take our tanahair.
@ ASM
Previously i am proposing 9 Gowinds by 2030 and 4 Type 31e by 2040. Now with the gowinds not looking good, probably 12 HDF-2600 by 2030 and 4 Type 31e by 2040.
Subs, yes total of 12 by 2040, which will be our main deterrence factor in SCS.
… – “ It will be most likely to start by china taking over resources of relatively weak countries”
It will be most likely an encounter between the U.S. and China at sea rapidly spiralling out of control.
Such an encounter may not necessarily take place within the Spratlys but along the periphery and might not necessarily see the various claimants being denied access to their reefs/islands. It would also be presumptuous and speculative to assume that in such a scenario other claimants would be automatically involved.
Unless it directly impacts them ;to the extent that freedom of navigation is disrupted or their reefs are being seized); the various claimants might do what smaller countries have been doing for centuries; sitting it out and weighing their options. Backing the loser or even the winner might lead to long term consequences detrimental to national interests.
“How can we “hold our own” on land when doing that is dependent on having command of the skies? All of our immediate neighbours have a numerical superiority: two of them have a clear qualitative one. Without command of the skies the army wouldn’t find it hard to do anything.”
*sigh*…
so looks like that our armed forces are useless then, semua tak betul.
Seems that if any of neighbours decides to attack (for any reason) then its guaranteed we will not be able to hold them back even for a day. Not only that we will be steamrolled flatter than roti kosong.
… – “I want the best in defence for Malaysia”
Yes you keep saying. Unless I’m mistaken the same applies to everyone here; irrespective of the fact that they might and do disagree with things you and everyone here (me included naturally) says or suggests.
You are not the only one here who’s convinced he has sound ideas and proposals; irrespective of whether sound or not. Everyone has an opinion.
…. – “Whenever i proposed something, i will always take into account our defence budget before anything else”
I take into account the budget, that things may change )for the better or worst) in the future, that the MAF is resourced stretched (including manpower – I previously pointed out why expanding SF unit’s remains an issue) and that the services buy or plan to buy what they feel suits their requirements; even though some may disagree with the choice of equipment.
…. – “sometimes i will propose used stuff much to the annoyance of most here.”
I can only speak for myself that we must be highly selective in buying pte owned and that what works for others may not work for us. No point buying pre owned to achieve short term savings if in the long run we spend an arm and leg on support maintenance. No point buying something ore owned and cheap of it significantly raises our support/logistics footprint.
That’s why I’m very selective in pre owned stuff.
… – “JLTV instead of expensive 6×6 IFV to afford more AV8”
That is your opinion. We have spoke about this numerous times.
My opinion is that if the army sees a need for a 6×6 there is a reason for it and a 6×6 IFV can’t be replaced by a multi role tactical vehicle.
It’s also my opinion that the army should only get follow on AV-8s if it actually has a need for it. Not because Deftech can achieve economics of scale or recoup its investment.
P.S.
Without command of the skies the army “would” find it hard to do anything.
… – “Subs, yes total of 12 by 2040, which will be our main deterrence factor in SCS”
It has to be subs with a combination of other assets; namely airpower. Subs by themselves – as proven historically – have limitations; irrespective of their plus points in comparison to other assets.
Yes I’m aware that you can’t mention or list everything but I would also like to point out (again) that how effective any sub is; is dependent on various factors. If an opponent has his own subs in the area; as well as ships and command of the skies and is able to freely deploy airborne ASW assets; then one’s subs might be prevented from doing their job. An opponent will also full knowledge of acoustic conditions in the area and will be aware of the limitations inherent with diesel boats and will capitalise on this.
No I’m not suggesting our surface ships have a better chance; merely that subs have to operate in conjunction with other assets to be truly effective and despite being non visible might not necessarily have an easier time compared to other more visible assets.
P.S.
If we ever significantly expand the sub force; ideally we’d also have another base equipped with shore support facilities (an extremely expensive undertaking).
Placing all our subs in just one base; the only base equipped with the needed facilities; would place us in a very vulnerable position.
@joe
>”we can DECISIVELY GIVE THEM A BLOODY NOSE”
>”No point talking about defence matters if by then our people are ready to give up and concede.”
As I said, what’s the objective assessment here? Is it in the realm of possibility? Leave sentiment behind… Malaysians for the past 60 years are all about sentiment because we don’t want to lose face, or appear to lack nationalism. That is exactly the kind of attitude that led us to where we are today: refusing to face facts and take the appropriate remedies.
@Azlan
>”we are under no illusions as to what types of threats we can realistically handle”
Some people here seem to be.
@…
>”so what did you suggest instead previously that will massively increase our defence capability?”
Nothing we can realistically accomplish is going to massively increase our defence capability, short of eliminating “local industry support”, spending 2% GDP on defence for the next 30 consecutive years AND simultaneously pumping up our economy.
As such, my recommendation is to forget about contesting sovereign threats and focus on securing our borders against smuggling, illegal immigration, piracy, and insurgents – something which we still can’t do today. Tell me what’s the use of your powerful AWACS if a KOPASSUS can just slip in through the illegal route and sabotage the engine or whatever? What’s the use of spending your effort on preparing to die gloriously against superior forces – janji putih mata ya – when you can’t take care of day to day crime?
It’s like forgoing locks for your doors in order to build a nuke shelter under your house.
THAT is what I mean by learning to walk before dreaming of flying.
>ASM
>”semua tak betul”
It all starts with corruption. Corruption is like a hole in your pocket, with half your salary dropping out constantly. However hard you work, you will always find it is not enough, whatever you do. So yes… semua will indeed tak betul if you have a fundamental problem to start with.
ASM – “so looks like that our armed forces are useless then, semua tak betul”
“Useless” is too strong a word. – depends on the type of situation we’d find ourselves in. The MAF will obviously be at a severe disadvantage if faced against an opponent who is better equipped and has other advantages.
That is the penalty we’d pay for years of under resourcing/neglecting the MAF.
…. – “I would also suggest that we should allocate specific budget for cyber defence starting RMK12”
We have already taken steps to address cyber security. The problem is how much can we actually allocate and how effective will it be if a country which spends billions on it and who employs thousands just for this task; decides to “attack”?
It’s worrying when you factor in that other more advanced countries have been hit by cyber attacks.
Same goes with other niche stuff like EW. We can have a basic capability in the form of a EW tri service centre, a RMN EW school and having the armed services have some level of capability but can we realistically do more given that budgets are tight and we have no local EW industry at all? Even much better funded militaries from time to time neglect EW to focus on other areas.
@ azlan
” My opinion is that if the army sees a need for a 6×6 there is a reason for it and a 6×6 IFV can’t be replaced by a multi role tactical vehicle. ”
A few years ago your opinion was that the airforce sees a need for MRCAs in the form of typhoons or rafales and there is a reason for it, rather than going for LCAs which i am for. So lets see where this goes.
For me we need additional 8×8 AV8 to create a fully gempita mechanized more than getting 6×6 IFV for cavalry regiments. Compared to the 2, a fully gempita mechanised infantry brigade would give a higher increase in overall capability to the malaysian army. Having a mixture of AFV30 30mm and LCT30 ingwe armed AV8 with JLTVs does not cause significant differences in capability compared to the more expensive option of having a mixture of AFV30 30mm and LCT30 ingwe armed AV8 with 6×6 IFVs.
I would prefer if we could convert 3rd division to a fully mechanised/armoured formation. Short term, the cheapest would be to form 2 tracked brigades, and 1 gempita brigade, but when the time comes to replace those tracked vehicles, it would be expensive. Long term it would be better to have 2 gempita brigade and 1 tracked brigade. That would need a multi batch build of gempitas probably up till 2035 to fill up 6 mechanised infantry battalions with gempita IFV25 variants.
Long term i am looking at
1x mechanised armoured division
3x infantry divisions (each with 2 motorised APC infantry battalions in addition to normal BIS battalions)
1x urban warfare division (protecting the klang valley)
http://scontent.fkul16-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/118969197_3824437597585127_7774234746637299665_o.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_sid=8024bb&_nc_ohc=xyPwn2-V_ZgAX-xqHmX&_nc_ht=scontent.fkul16-1.fna&tp=14&oh=130ea9836f28d86fa9c452da69ae75d8&oe=5F88E348
a nice picture of 2 KAD AV8 AFV30 and LCT30 gempitas, with a ferret at the front. other variants allocated to 2 KAD such as the SURV are missing, probably on Ops Benteng mission.
I didn’t realised that air support has become so important in modern warfare to the point that an army would be paralysed without it. That losing control of the skies a modern army would not be able to function at all. All this while I thought the traditional thinking is each branch is capable to operate independently, and main some level of functionality in the event control over a domain is lost.
I wonder if our army planners have planned for such contingencies; looks like that isn’t case. The RMAF is hopeless as it\’s lacking assets, and with RMAF gone, the Army is a gone case too. The Navy will be probably gone too, no air cover.
Oh dear…such a bleak scenario….
@joe
“When you say regional conflict, how sure are you that China will antagonise everyone for all of ASEAN to join up against it? ”
I said regional conflict among SEA countries, I never mentioned that China is the cause of said conflict. I specifically mentioned SEA countries only as there’s no way we can stand against China in straight up fight.
“why the heck is the defence ministry paying RM800 million to a private company to do jiwa murni projects?”
From what I saw on Belaga-Menjawah jiwa murni road, not all works done by combat engineers in dark green heavy machineries from start to finish. Contractors with their own heavy machineries was involved. Yup paving the road with “super thin tar” was done by contractor,our sapper did not have the appropriate machines for road paving. The Belaga Bailey bridge was laid by sapper,but support pillars was put up by contractors.
‘isn’t jiwa murni projects is supposed to be done by army engineering corps with the manpower support of local army units to fill up peacetime free time??”
Again from my observation, local army units never showed. Only sappers with their contractors. Even local PWD was kept out.
The sorry state of jiwa murni roads should not happen if PWD was involved from the start. Some quarters dubbed it “jalan jiwa tak murni” due to its subpar condition.
P.S.
If you want an Armed Forces capable of actually fighting large scale decisive battles in the name of sovereign defence in this region, I’d say you need something like:
200 modern MBTs
800 modern IFVs
100,000 troops in full gear; helmet, armour, etc
10,000 RPGs, recoilless rifles or anti-structure weapons
600 ATGMs, medium range top attack
120 MANPADs or SHORAD
1,600 GPMGs or GMGs
1,000 mortars
200 artillery pieces 155mm, preferably self-propelled
60 guided MLRS vehicles
40 SAM launchers medium range
400 AA guns radar guided, preferably more
6 surveillance radars, preferably more
50 fighter jets, with 300 AAMs
50 LCA jets, with 200 AAMs
Guided and unguided bombs, HE and cluster
200 antiship missiles, preferably more
10 MPA medium sized
Not sure about helicopters and transport aircraft
40 antiship missile boats fully equipped
Full engineering support
Full communications support
Constant maintenance, training and exercise
Yep. See, I can draw up a shopping list too, if that helps to “prove” my patriotism.
Is it realistic? Well I price all these at about $40 billion give or take. (Probably more.)
It would be nice to have ASW frigates and subs too, say 6 each, and 12 ASW helicopters. Let’s say another $8 billion.
To achieve this in a reasonable period of 16 years, that is before everything goes too obsolete, we would need to spend USD 3 billion a year in acquisition costs, plus anticipate increased operating costs… let’s say another USD 5 billion a year.
USD 8 billion a year. RM 33 billion. Hey, it’s only a bit less than 3 times what we spend now, and about the same as what (one of) our neighbours spends. You want to match the neighbour don’t you? Can’t do that with an early-90s army.
P.P.S.
ABM and AWACS costs more.
US vs China is the real potential conflict not Aming Asean. MY and all asean should focus on that. SCS is Asean front door. Like it ir not the conflict will drag asean in. Whether you with US or against US.
No need for delutional scenario among asean conflict. There wil only border issue as always among asean which be settle on the table or status quo. I just want to say conflict among asean is close to impossible will be happened. Don’t waste too much energy on that.
Let’s put effort to join together and give contribution as big as MY can to strengthen asean defence capability and interoperability. No one in Asean can face China one on one.
…. – “A few years ago your opinion was that the airforce sees a need for MRCAs in the form of typhoons or rafales and there is a reason for it”
If you want to mention something; mention it in it the full context and the whole narrative ….
At a time when the requirement was for a MRCA; you were gung ho about the F/A-50. You were claiming that it could perform most of whet a MRCA did. I pointed out that it was a “light attack/trainer” and was even described as such by its OEM. I also said that if the requirement was for a “light attack/trainer” it would be a good candidate but for the moment the requirement was for a “MRCA”.
You expressed annoyance that I kept pointing out the requirement was for a “MRCA” and questioned whether I had financial motives for pushing Typhoon. I actually wasn’t pushing anything in particular; merely pointing out that whether you disagree or not; the requirement then was for a “MRCA” at a time when you were pushing F/A-50.
P.S.
…. – “A few years ago your opinion was that the airforce sees a need for MRCAs in the form ”
It wasn’t my opinion. During the period we had the discussion; the requirement was for a “MRCA”. The requirement for a “LCA” only came later; some time after the “MRCA” requirement was dropped …..
ASM – “ All this while I thought the traditional thinking is each branch is capable to operate independently”
How can any one service operate independently in the event of a full blown state on state conflict; especially in this day and age?
If you recall; in previous posts there is lots of mention off “jointness”; the importance of having it and difficulties in actually achieving it in service parochialism and that each service is competing for a limited slice of the budget.
You’re forgetting carriers. We need aircraft carriers at least 2 of them. And medium range surface to surface missiles with conventional payload instead of the NBC variety
ASM – “I wonder if our army planners have planned for such contingencies; looks like that isn’t case”
You’d be surprised at the number and types of contingencies we plan for. The problem is having ability to carry out/implement certain things is difficult given the difficulties we operate under.
We can handle certain contingencies; certain ones we can’t.
@ chua
” janji putih mata ya ”
brush up on your malay proverbs. it is jangan putih mata, which means dont regret so much that you cried until you turn up blind. That is the whole meaning of biar putih tulang, jangan putih mata. Its better to end up dead with only bones remaining fighting for a cause, rather than regretting it later so much that you cried yourself until you turned up blind.
“As such, my recommendation is to forget about contesting sovereign threats and focus on securing our borders against smuggling, illegal immigration, piracy, and insurgents – something which we still can’t do today”
We are coping with that even with current resources. If we cant, how come we have big fat 0 ongoing insurgency problem in malaysia, unlike the Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia?? Yes we need to improve our ISR capability but that is just a small portion of what we need to improve overall.
” If you want an Armed Forces capable of actually fighting large scale decisive battles in the name of sovereign defence in this region ”
The main concern in the next 10 years is really not our neighbors, it is china colonizing our seas and with it our resources that is one of the main source of income to the country. We need to concentrate on preparing to defend from a large scale maritime conflict in SCS. Biggest worry for land in the near future is a repeat of something like marawi (fighting non state actors, not our neighbouring countries) in east malaysia.
” Yep. See, I can draw up a shopping list too, if that helps to “prove” my patriotism ”
Yours cost 3 times more than what i planned with only a bit better in the area of MBTs and 155mm howitzers. my navy plan is twice as big as yours (13-16 frigates and 12 subs). Almost similar sized air force (22 MKM, 32 KFX, 52 FA/TA-50) but with AWACs (ERIEYE ER) and airborne EW attack aircraft (HavaSOJ). I tailored my plan to USD5 million per rancangan malaysia to 2040, which comes to around USD1 billion of acquisition cost per year.
So how come my plan is tiny bit of capability while yours is a massive increase in capability?
“You want to match the neighbour don’t you?”
No. We tailor our forces to our perceived principal threats.
@ ASM
” I didn’t realised that air support has become so important in modern warfare to the point that an army would be paralysed without it ”
It has been so for like the last 80 years of human civilization. Not so much of the need for air support, but the need to have air superiority (controlling the airspace above where we operate) and the ability to deny the enemy from having air superiority.
@ azlan
” You were claiming that it could perform most of whet a MRCA did ”
i did not.
i said that we just had our MRCA in the form of those MKMs (at the time just around 5 years old), so we should not spend massively to get yet another MRCA in such a small time gap.
i said what we need rather than getting another MRCA, we should get a cheap fighter in numbers to be able to shoulder the QRA tasks of the MiG-29s (that means a need for supersonic capability), and to recapitalise the depleted hawk fleet.
So rather than MRCA to replace the MiG-29, something like FA-50 can actually do 80-90% of what the MiG-29 can do for QRA tasks for significantly less operating cost.
@ romeo
” No need for delutional scenario among asean conflict ”
Agreed. Not to say that there is no possibility of that happening, but that should be the least of our concerns for the next 10 years.
@romeo
Sorry, but that’s even more hilarious.
How may billion US DOLLARS do you wish to spend on countering the PLA Rocket Force’s thousands of ballistic and cruise missiles?
Or never mind the missiles; Fiery Cross can host at least 100 strike fighters (and more) and the new carriers can add at least another 50 more, with ground-based radar and SAM coverage all the way into our airspace – how do you intend to counter that?
You can try of course, in the name of pride – jangan putih mata ya – and get swatted like a fly.
(Or you could also ask to be a USA client and maybe they’ll give us some Patriots and F-18s… oh wait too proud for that as well…)
@ nimitz
” Yup paving the road with “super thin tar” was done by contractor,our sapper did not have the appropriate machines for road paving ”
what is wrong with having unsealed macadam type gravel roads? it will be stronger and will resist damage better than just cosmetically nice to see thin tar.
” Again from my observation, local army units never showed. Only sappers with their contractors. Even local PWD was kept out ”
Wow, i am waiting to see if any of the army top brass to be hauled up for this. RM800 million wasted down the drain is a big amount of money. To compare, even the MD530G contract is just RM322 million.
@ Chua
” How may billion US DOLLARS do you wish to spend on countering the PLA Rocket Force’s thousands of ballistic and cruise missiles? ”
What we need is to be able to counter the first few rounds of attack. Then we would need to rely on our allies to beef up our GBADs.
Vietnam is a proof that a small country could fight off a major power. Our small size does not mean we need to surrender what is ours to a bigger and stronger power.
” Or never mind the missiles; Fiery Cross can host at least 100 strike fighters (and more) and the new carriers can add at least another 50 more, with ground-based radar and SAM coverage all the way into our airspace – how do you intend to counter that? ”
We could strike that reef and aircraft carriers with our subs. Getting stealthy sub launched NSM-SL with (200km land attack capability) for our scorpenes to add to the SM39 sub-exocets we already have would be a priority for our sub fleet.
Fiery reef cross is at least 2-3000 km from here. Any SAMs have that kind of range?
… – “Vietnam is a proof that a small country could fight off a major power.”
Vietnam is just one of the numerous examples of “small” countries fighting larger more powerful ones.
A lot is said about Vietnam but let’s examine the facts. Yes they had the spirit and determination but they also benefited in various areas. The U.S. for one was handicapped by political constrains which prevented it from utilising all its resources.
– Vietnam had the full support of China. The Chinese put all a lot of resources towards supporting North Vietnam which also benefited from material and diplomatic support from the Soviet Union and other socialist countries.
– For fear of widening the war to include China and the Soviet Union; the U.S. operated under very strict and silly constraints. The port of Haiphong and others in which a lot of supplies came in was not allowed to be hit; it was mined later but at that point it was too late. With a few exceptions during Rolling Thunder and the Christmas Bombings; U.S. planes were not allowed to relentlessly hit strategic targets in North Vietnam, including power plants, MiG airfields (some operated in China), what few factories they were, etc. What targets were allowed to be hit were also governed by strict ROEs; e.g. recce planes were only allowed after a target had been hit; not before.
– North Vietnam, in addition to giving China as a safe sanctuary; also operated practically freely in Laos and Cambodia. The U.S. was never able to significantly interdict the flow of supplies running via the Ho Chi Ming Trail which ran through Laos and Cambodia.
– The Vietnam war is touted as a prime example of a small country fighting a big power. What about the long list of other smaller countries which ultimately had to soften their stance : Finland a prime example. It held off the Soviets for a period but attrition and weight of numbers eventually forced it to sign a peace deal which involved surrendering territory.
… – “We could strike that reef and aircraft carriers with our subs. Getting stealthy sub launched NSM-SL with (200km land attack capability”
On paper everything sounds great and possible …. In reality things can be different …
– How much damage can the small number of missiles on the small number of subs we have cause? What happens if after the attack China simply repairs the damage. replaces its losses and carries on as usual?
– What happens if China decides to retaliate by striking various targets in Malaysia which a much larger number of missiles and causes much more damage than we caused? Do we conduct another strike?
– The “paper range” notwithstanding; what happens if we have to get in closer to launch and the subs find that there are minefields in the area? What happens if China has subs in the area; as well as ships and airborne ASW assets which are in the lookout for enemy subs?
– We’d actually have to integrate NSM – SL to SUBTICs. Never the the expense and technical stuff involved; the French have proven to be very uncooperative when users want to integrate non standard stuff to their stuff.
… – “Our small size does not mean we need to surrender what is ours to a bigger and stronger power.”
Just because others do not talk about the “tanah air” and don’t indulge in chest beating nationalistic rhetoric; doesn’t mean they advocate “surrendering what is ours” ……..
You keep mentioning about “surrendering what is ours” when people don’t agree with you on the subject but from the very start nobody here has advocated we sit back and let ourselves be buggered from the rear ….
I’ve long maintained that whatever tactics we adopt (asymmetric or not) in the long run and much more powerful power will wear us out through attrition and sheer material weight. Is what I said fundamentally wrong or indicate I’m being unpatriotic?
@…
“You really have no clue how datalinks work…”
Yup. I wasn’t aware a purely Russian SU-57 could linkup and share data flawlessly with a Western AWACS. Thanks for the insight!
@Chua
“As I said, what’s the objective assessment here?”
Well honestly what are our chances against a superpower? Do you think our people are nationalistic enough to do a ‘Vietnam’? And yet despite the odds we can’t just let them win without a fight. I’m sure our boys & girls in the forces are well aware of their disadvantages and odds of winning but I doubt they will take the rational option and run to a safe country leaving us to fend for ourselves. When the orders to fight is given, I’m sure they will fight no matter who the opponents may be.
Chua – “Or never mind the missiles; Fiery Cross can host at least 100 strike fighters (and more) and the new carriers”
Never mind Fiery Cross. Even without its reefs the Chinese are still able to inflict terrible damage on us if there was a need to.
As for PLAN carriers there is no way China is going to play to the strengths of the U.S. by deploying them where there is a heavy USN presence. Chances are they might not even be in the South China Sea in case of troubles but elsewhere.. They have more than enough means to project sustainable power in the region without their carriers.
As for subs bring used against the carriers; they are high value assets and would be protected by a screen of air, surface and sub surface escorts/protection.
I would like to stick to the realms of reality and see us better preparing for the threats we are likely to face and those we can realistically handle. Chances are if we do get in a tiff with someone; it will be with an immediate neighbour with which we have unresolved overlapping claims in several areas and with which things have really got heated on several occasions in recent years.
@ASM
“I said regional conflict among SEA countries”
Unless we have generals running the country, highly unlikely it will happen. Despite all their political upmanships and bravado, we always had good and effective backchannels to mediate any disputes before it turns FUBAR. We have a higher chance of going to war with China than we are with Thailand, and even that is slim. We shouldn’t concern with regional countries other than ensuring we keep pace with their defence expenditure.
@ azlan
” but from the very start nobody here has advocated we sit back and let ourselves be buggered from the rear …. ”
i am relpying to chua’s statement that
“As such, my recommendation is to forget about contesting sovereign threats ”
” French have proven to be very uncooperative when users want to integrate non standard stuff to their stuff. ”
err isnt our gowinds with NSM is also french? isnt our scorpenes currently using Italian torpedoes?
” I’ve long maintained that whatever tactics we adopt (asymmetric or not) in the long run and much more powerful power will wear us out through attrition and sheer material weight. Is what I said fundamentally wrong or indicate I’m being unpatriotic? ”
It is a fundamentally right statement like all people must eat to stay alive. And you are repeating that over and over again. So why do you say it? My concern is that in whatever scenarios that we can think of, we cannot afford to use conventional tactics on a larger aggressor that is a major regional if not a world power now. Planning for one (conventional tactics) will get us to a worse outcome than if we from now prepare ourselves on using asymmetric tactics to face any future regional conflicts in SCS. We have already gone for some kind of asymmetrical response, for example the army to face a bigger armoured capability turned to equipping our soldiers with plenty of low cost RPG-7s instead of trying to match the numbers of armoured vehicles one to one. I am suggesting something similar for our navy, with the expansion of our underwater fleet.
@ azlan
” Chances are if we do get in a tiff with someone; it will be with an immediate neighbour with which we have unresolved overlapping claims in several areas and with which things have really got heated on several occasions in recent years ”
Indonesia? We could more than able to settle this bilaterally, and at worst, take it to ICJ (which we have done before with Singapore and Indonesia). Not as if they are claiming huge chunk of our land or EEZ o historical basis like china or the Philippines. The Philippines while making similar claims like China, isn’t in a position to take its claim by military force, and if to be taken to ICJ will have its claims officially and legally rebutted, with a big consequences to any Filipino ruling party at the time.
@joe
I was replying to some of the comments (I don’t remember which one and I don’t want to go looking for it) about our Armed Forces capability and I was using our ASEAN neighbours as a yardstick.
But I do agree with you that any conflicts with them will be solved through negotiation.
…. “rr isnt our gowinds with NSM is also french? isnt our scorpenes currently using Italian torpedoes?
The LCS was a French designed but integrated with various systems; per our requirements. They had no choice in the issue given the ships were built here and we bought the rights …
Blackshark from the start was integrated and offered with Scorpone …. It was never and has never been integrated with anything else …..
…. – “ And you are repeating that over and over again. So why do you say it?”
The …. pot shouldn’t be calling the Azlan kettle black; especially given …. “s long tendency to also repeat things ….
… – “Planning for one (conventional tactics) will get us to a worse outcome than if we from now prepare ourselves on using asymmetric tactics to face any future regional conflicts in SCS”
First of all I never said that we should rely on conventional tactics.
What I am saying (which you’ve overlooked) is that asymmetric tactics can only go so far, that a opponent can also rely on asymmetric tactics and that eventually despite asymmetric tactics we’d suffer attrition wise from sheer material weight and much stringer opponent is able to throw at us ….
… – “for example the army to face a bigger armoured capability turned to equipping our soldiers with plenty of low cost RPG-7s instead of trying to match the numbers of armoured vehicles one to one”
The idea to increase the number of shoulder fired weapons is due to various factors; not because we don’t have the capacity to match “one by one”; again you are conflating to separate issues and drawing your own conclusions …. Even if we had twice the number of MBTs/IFVs we’d still see fit to equip our units with shoulder fired weapons; which anyhow are used for a variety of purposes apart from anti-tank/armour ….
… – “i am relpying to chua’s statement that”
Granted but you’ve also responded in a similar way when I’ve disagreed on certain things and when I pointed out that a war in the Spratlys doesn’t mean the non powers would automatically be involved and that the actual fighting could even take place further afield and not in the Spratlys per see: you spoke something along the lines of “why should we allow others to take what’s ours” when that was never event implied.
On a previous occasion (in another thread) you questioned my patriotic spirit when I said something that didn’t fit in with your narrative and didn’t follow the chest beating national rhetoric tone.
…. – “Not to say that there is no possibility of that happening, but that should be the least of our concerns for the next 10 years”
For the past few decades what do you think has driven our arms procurement? It’s long been our policy to have a minimal (based on financial and other realities) deterrent capability driven ability; against the possibility of trouble with regional players; for a variety of reasons.
To suggest that diplomacy and back door channels will always prevent open conflicts is true but not the whole narrative. The remaining narrative is the part where border clashes can erupt (we have seen this). Nationalistic factors plus the fact that countries are much better equipped now; lead to the possibility that border clashes can rapidly lead to something more serious.
On a side note; we have never publicly stated that arms buys are a response to what others are doing but the Thais and Indonesians have. Have you ever wondered why in private we see a strong Singapore as a counterweight against another country and why in addition to new concerns/challenges (e.g. the Spratlys) we see the value in the FPDA providing some level of assurance and security against another country? One that has been a traditional source of worry.
… – “ our scorpenes currently using Italian torpedoes?
Blackshark was and remains the only torp integrated with SUBTICS. The French were unable to offer anything apart from the older and inferior F17; which is why from the onset Scorpene was offered with Blackshark.
err
Of all the major defence suppliers the French are well known for their reluctance to allow or cooperate with customers who seek to integrate non French stuff; unless the French industry can’t offer something comparable.
@ azlan
” For the past few decades what do you think has driven our arms procurement? It’s long been our policy to have a minimal (based on financial and other realities) deterrent capability driven ability; against the possibility of trouble with regional players; for a variety of reasons ”
yes of course i did not deny that. Obviously all of our defence thinking since merdeka is being driven by security concerns with our immediate neighbors.
But now is not the time for that anymore. We dont live in the past few decades. Our concern right now should be for our future. And our biggest immediate near future concern is not with our immediate neighbors but with a raising global power that is using its newfound powers to start on a new colonisation move. The concern with our neighbors is still there, but now there is a newer concern that is bigger than that.
RPG-7? Pfft! As someone insinuated now we are using the same equipment as Somalia. And yet with RPG-7, part time militia had defeated the most elites of US Armed Forces.
@ azlan
“First of all I never said that we should rely on conventional tactics”
If asymmetric response is not the way, and you never said that we should rely on conventional tactics, so what should be our response when missiles start flying and our seas got annexed? White flags?
And i never ever overlooked that asymmetric response can only go so far.
I always say that realistically in a SCS conflict (which a the start would not be to our choosing), we can only able to afford (however much we upgrade our forces with the budget available to us) to hold our line, strike back a few times to give the aggressor a bloody nose and force the whole world to get all parties to the negotiation table. But going the asymmetrical response path can get us much more further along and closer to the negotiation table than a conventional response (that we can never be able to properly afford to against our immediate neighbors, more so against a nation with nearly unlimited budgets for its military) can ever be.
” The …. pot shouldn’t be calling the Azlan kettle black; especially given …. “s long tendency to also repeat things …. ”
I have long tendency (and will continue to) repeat my personal opinions and stands (that is not a fundamental statement) on various matters that is very close to my heart.
You on the other hand tend to repeat fundamentally obvious statements that does not add anything to the discussions.
” The idea to increase the number of shoulder fired weapons is due to various factors ”
Our armys move to quip every squad with their own RPG-7s (obviously won’t be carried in every mission, like GPMGs but it is allocated to them) isn’t just increasing the number of shoulder fired weapons. Conventional western tactics does not call for such. Its main purpose as the army itself describes it use as a “weapon to counter armour in both the offensive and defensive phases of war” So how can such a widespread rollout of RPG-7s not be described as a asymmetric tactic?
…. – “We dont live in the past few decades. Our concern right now should be for our future. And our biggest immediate near future concern is not with our immediate ”
Actually no. With a few capability driven exceptions our arms buys will largely remain capability driven. Whilst you’d like us to focus most of our attention on China; in reality there are various areas of concern we we continue to focus on.
@…
>”What we need is to be able to counter the first few rounds of attack.”
>”Vietnam is a proof”
>”We could strike that reef and aircraft carriers with our subs. Getting stealthy sub launched NSM-SL”
>”equipping our soldiers with plenty of low cost RPG-7s instead”
See, that’s the what I mean by “a tiny bit of capability”
A single minimal anti-ballistic missile system is going to run in at half a billion US dollars per battery plus three million dollars per shot. It’s also going to do nothing ultimately because any nation throwing ballistic missiles is going to first launch a wave of SEAD missiles and bombs. Also, how many shots do you think you’re going to have before your allies come in?
Vietnam, as Azlan has said, is not a proof of anything. Vietnam was in fact a proxy war, the Viets received huge support from both Russia and China down to the latest missiles and fighters and total recapitalisation of the NVA’s equipment stockpile at least a few times. How much equipment did North Vietnam produce during the war? How much did they import?
You want to attack Fiery Cross with sub-launched missiles? How many subs and how many missiles do you want to use for that? You have to take out the anti-missile network first you know. The 2018 Syria strike alone were performed with 100 American, French and British cruise missiles – it’s claimed between 10 to 30 were lost to anti-missile fire. A Scorpene carries 18 weapons… which you also want to attack carriers with. Carriers belonging to the largest navy afloat, swarming with anti-submarine ships and helicopters. Those carriers.
RPG spam is an outdated tactic. Everyone prepares for it nowadays (except us) with add-on armour, anti-missile systems and infantry support tactics. Yet you imagine that we’re going to be able to do it, because I dunno… we’re just that much better than Ukrainians and Iraqis and Kurds and Syrians, aren’t we?
Now you’re going to say it’s better to fight than to roll over and die… and so we go round and round and round again in the circle game…
This is delusional, man.
@joe
>”Well honestly what are our chances against a superpower?”
None. So don’t try.
>”Do you think our people are nationalistic enough to do a ‘Vietnam’?”
Vietnam had nothing to do with nationalism and everything to do with massive support from neighbouring superpowers.
>”And yet despite the odds we can’t just let them win without a fight.”
They are going to win regardless, so maybe we should spend our time preparing to fight the snatch thief rather than preparing to die gloriously against Hafthor Bjornsson. Risk management matrix, joe. A conflict against a superpower is highly unlikely, a neighbouring clash, insurgencies and piracy is much more likely. Where are our priorities?
… claims we have totally sealed off our borders and solved the illegal immigrant problem entirely. I question that.
To me, it seeems that you and … both have the mentality of “if they have 100 tanks and 100 jets, let’s have 10 tanks and 10 jets so we can get a few hits in before dying gloriously for great maruah”
I don’t think that’s useful in any way. I don’t want to die with glory fighting a hopeless battle, I want to win in an arena where we can win.
Think of it as a giant battlefield rather than as separate battles. Do you contest every square inch regardless of the odds? Or do you retreat in some areas, concentrate your forces in an area you know you can win, and win there? This is basic tactics.
…. – “ The concern with our neighbors is still there, but now there is a newer concern that is bigger than that”
It is hardly “new” …
It may be hitting the headlines more often now compared to previously but it’s not “new”. Concern over China has always been there – its ships started entering our EEZ as far back as the 1990’s; the only difference is it’s being done with more regularity, they stay and China is more assertive and confident to pursue the issue.
As far back as 1983 during a visit to the US. Maharhir had already appealed to the U.S. not to neglect smaller countries who would in the coming years be vulnerable to China.
The Spratlys is a major concern to us and is a major potential for trouble/conflict not necessarily for the smaller claimants for reasons I have given) but i won’t go to your extent of claiming that as far as we’re concerned; trouble is mote likely to break out there compared to other issues we have elsewhere.
… – “Indonesia? We could more than able to settle this bilaterally, and at worst, take it to ICJ”
As I’ve pointed out before things really got heated on a number of occasions – guns pointed, actual attempted ramming, stone throwing, their ships coming into our waters to detain our ships, etc (hasn’t happened with China). Yes negotiating will eventually settle things but they could be trouble before that (like the border clashes Thailand had with Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos( and things could actually spiral out of control fast ….
In short; even though they aren’t claiming our EEZ as you pointed out; we’ve come very close to actual troubles with them and they have long been a source of major concern for our planners. It’s for this reason we welcome as strong Singapore as a counterweight to Indonesia and new security concerns notwithstanding; why we are still enthusiastic about the FPDA despite it being a non binding agreement.
You yourself saw fit to suggest we beef up our presence in East Malaysia because of their future capital (I disagreed(). You constantly make reference to energy deposits in the SCS but have made little to no reference to Ambalat which has energy deposits. BTW the Indonesians themselves admit they were about to open fire in one of our Jerongs when it changed course.
joe “RPG-7? Pfft! As someone insinuated now we are using the same equipment as Somalia. And yet with RPG-7, part time militia had defeated the most elites of US Armed Forces.”
Define “defeated.” For the thousands of times the RPG has been fired, how many times has it been decisive or successful?
It is the world’s most common shoulder fired weapon. It is bound to score sometimes, just as how a Turkish Leopard 2, Saudi Abrams or even an APS-equipped Syrian T-90 can fall to dated weapons when tactics, coordination or plain luck are lacking.
Doesn’t mean your common RPG-7 shooter wouldn’t wish for a RPG-32 or MATADOR if he had a choice in the matter.
@ASM
Well, not SAM, but radar yes.
@romeo
I take the opposite view. China-USA is a superpower game that I do not think will become a true shooting war. Conflict with neighbouring countries is more likely than a superpower clash, because there is no nuclear deterrent, and also as proxy for the superpower war.
@joe
>”And yet with RPG-7, part time militia had defeated the most elites of US Armed Forces.”
Have they really?
@…
>”Yours cost 3 times more than what i planned with only a bit better in the area of MBTs and 155mm howitzers. my navy plan is twice as big as yours (13-16 frigates and 12 subs). Almost similar sized air force (22 MKM, 32 KFX, 52 FA/TA-50) but with AWACs (ERIEYE ER) and airborne EW attack aircraft (HavaSOJ). I tailored my plan to USD5 million per rancangan malaysia to 2040, which comes to around USD1 billion of acquisition cost per year.”
I worked on a basis of full recapitalisation with no legacy equipment, Western equipment rather than Asian copies, and generally costed based on contract prices rather than manufacturer-cited unit costs, with inflation updated to 2020 prices.
This is because I believe nearly every piece of equipment we have is obsolete. I costed my navy at 500 million per frigate/submarine, which I don’t know if you did because that would eat up half your budget by itself. My MBTs, IFVs and howitzers are Leo A7s, Boxer and CAESAR, I don’t know what yours are. These are the biggest ticket items.
>”So how come my plan is tiny bit of capability while yours is a massive increase in capability?”
I didn’t say it was. My little fantasy army is also a tiny bit of capability relative to the likes of the PLA or USA. It might be a little more than that versus a neighbour though.
>”No. We tailor our forces to our perceived principal threats.”
In risk management, there are four strategies to manage risk. There is risk avoidance, risk transfer, mitigation, and acceptance. If the threat cannot be avoided, maybe someone else can take it up. If we can’t find someone, then we have to spend money to mitigate the risk. If we don’t have the money… then we have to accept it.
I know your perceived principal threat is China. I’m saying that it’s not a threat that can be feasibly mitigated, so don’t waste your time trying.
… ” And our biggest immediate near future concern is not with our immediate neighbors but with a raising global power that is using its newfound powers to start on a new colonisation move. The concern with our neighbors is still there, but now there is a newer concern that is bigger than that.”
China’s actions in the SCS do give rise to better relations among our immediate neighbours.
I will say that the Philippines’ upgrading its claim on Sabah is both an exception to and a manifestation of the trend. An exception in the sense that both we and they face encroachment by China, and rather than making common cause with us they are raising the public profile of a forsaken dispute that they have no hope of winning.
A manifestation in the sense that while the Philippines is a long way from taking military action to press their claim, they would have been much nearer to doing so without China at the gates. They would then be as far gone as Laos or Cambodia, and much less encumbered in pressing their claim. China would probably lend its support to the venture as it would distract us from their own encroachment.
Azlan “To suggest that diplomacy and back door channels will always prevent open conflicts is true but not the whole narrative. The remaining narrative is the part where border clashes can erupt (we have seen this). ”
The issue here is that some see diplomacy and open conflict (with our neighbours) as a strict dichotomy when in fact there is much in between. Short of war and border clashes, there are shows of presence, force projection, stand offs and garrisons. Much of the same concerns that we have with China in the SCS can also become a concern with certain neighbours without all-out war breaking out.
One must possess substantial capabilities in order to give meaning to one’s diplomatic approaches and policy position. These capabilities must receive the investment they need, it won’t do to neglect them in favour of diverting all investment to preparing for the “big one”.
Azlan “Have you ever wondered why in private we see a strong Singapore as a counterweight against another country and why in addition to new concerns/challenges (e.g. the Spratlys) we see the value in the FPDA providing some level of assurance and security against another country? One that has been a traditional source of worry.”
Singapore and Malaysia are happy to see the other in a position of being able to hold our own against that country. Since if either country was sidelined or subordinated by that country and if the FPDA were rendered less credible, the other would be left to face that country’s attentions alone.
Not something that the average person in either country would care to recognise and admit. Nor something that we are keen to shed more light on, since the mere mention of cooperation with that third country in mind would lead to the most immature spectacle. We are happy to have each other play the bogeyman in the popular imagination. We come to an understanding on one part of the border and play out a sideshow on another, one that no one remembers by the next year, and we pass on tales of tanks having been mobilized to the incoming cohorts of NSFs to give form and meaning to the fact that they’ve been conscripted.
AM – “Doesn’t mean your common RPG-7 shooter wouldn’t wish for a RPG”
Yes and it’s often overlooked that way before Somalia and America’s Middle East wars; the RPG-7 (the RPG-2 before that) has already been used in numerous conflicts in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere.
… – “I will say that the Philippines’ upgrading its claim on Sabah is both an exception to and a manifestation of the trend”
The claim is driven by internal political factors; ultimately the vast majority of the population have no interest in the issue. Neither does the Philippines have any intention to pursue the claim other than by diplomatic means.
As it stands – despite a pre COVID economy fast improving – cash remains an issue; what cash there is being use to enable the AFP to have some external self defence means and to focus on the longstanding issue with non state actors. The AFP; long under resourced and still in urgent need of modernisation despite various purchases in recent years; has a very long list of stuff long overdue for replacement.
AM – “Singapore and Malaysia are happy to see the other in a position of being able to hold our own against that country”
Singapore would like to see Malaysia devote more attention to defence as a weak Malaysia doesn’t benefit Singapore. Despite whether differences; both countries realise that a serious threat to one; is a threat to both. Like our planners, Singapore defence planners have traditionally seen Indonesia as a source of concern: especially now with the Indonesian economy rapidly improving and with Indonesia’s desire to assume leadership position in the region; by virtue of being the largest and most populous country with a rapid growing economy.
AM – “the FPDA were rendered less credible, the other would be left to face that country’s attentions alone”
Indeed. Unlike say in the SCS where if serious strife erupts; we’d be in a similar position with others and wouldn’t be alone; in the event of troubles with a neighbour; we’d be alone until diplomacy comes into play; a lot of damage can happen before that.
In the past Indonesia has questioned why we still see the need for a FPDA: also asking if it was still relevant – from our perspective it very much is so.
Whilst I’m not suggesting that trouble with Indonesia is inevitable; the fact remains that we’ve had serious tensions with them before and the the issues which led to the tensions remain unresolved.
Whilst people assume that it’s due to concerns over the SCS which drives a lot of what we do; the reality is that it’s various reasons and that issues with immediate neighbours are still a major concern and drives a lot of what we do; notwithstanding our concerns over China.
Chua – “This is because I believe nearly every piece of equipment we have is obsolete”
Not really. We have a bit of everything in line with our flawed policy. Some of the stuff we have is indeed capable but the problem is the lack of numbers and the key “enablers” needed to work alongside what we.
Hanging over everything is our deeply flawed and self defeating defence policy; which unfortunately is so deeply ingrained in the system and so politically connected.
Chua – “China-USA is a superpower game that I do not think will become a true shooting war”
One hopes it doesn’t because the economic impact will make the Covid one pale in comparison and will lead to other long term consequences. A conflict in the SCS not only could spread to other parts of Asia but other powers could get involved. Not too mention the prospect of nuclear release if things get bad for either power.
Like all small countries have done for centuries; we and the other claimants will sit it out and weight our options. Backing the wrong side (not necessarily the winning side) can have detrimental consequences on our interests. We have to factor in not only military but also long term economic factors.
Unless we and the other claimants are directly involved or impacted by a “great power” clash; we might not even be participations in the conflict: a conflict which can take place further away from the Spratlys and one that doesn’t necessarily see our freedom of navigation compromised or our reefs seized.
@ azlan
I did not say the chances of a conflict with our neighbour is not there. It is still there, but there is a more higher concern than that right now and it is the risk of conflict in SCS. But you instead feel that a conflict with Indonesia will be much more likely than one with China.
Before the last 5-6 years, Chinese threat to our EEZ is way low in the list of our concerns. In the 80s and 90s our main threat to our spratleys claim was vietnam, not china. It was only in the past few years that china started putting a lot of effort to claim its 9 dash line, taking over reefs in Philippine EEZ and starting massive reclamation projects. It was in the last few years that they started to put permanent presence in our EEZ, a constant presence will be used in the future to justify their claim of controlling thr said waters.
As for East Malaysia, I have plenty of times said that my opinion on our build up of forces there should not upset the status quo of deployed forces in Borneo. That means no ASTROS, no MBT permanently deployed there. We should not make Indonesia feel like we are doing this mainly because of them. Yes we need to beef up our forces in East Malaysia, but it is to prevent a repeat of Marawi or Lahad Dato from happening on our soil. Our forces in East Malaysia should be able to tackle such a crisis on its own (against non state actors, not indonesia). Then I also suggested having GBADs in East Malaysia to protect key installations in the event of a shooting war in SCS. I have also said that we need to strengthen our east malaysia forces relationship with brunei military, with more frequent exercises to together in Sabah and Sarawak, and looking at sending a combined military HADR team to any disasters (floods, earthquakes, tsunamis) in south east asia.
IMO our main concerns affecting our military (in the order of priority) in the next 10 years would be:
1) a shooting war in SCS.
2) a repeat of marawi or lahad dato in east malaysia.
3) border frictions with our neighbors
then there is our civil security concerns
1) securing our borders to prevent illegal entries and illicit activities.
2) ensuring safe economic activities in our EEZ, free from harrasment of foreign powers.
@ chua
“I worked on a basis of full recapitalisation with no legacy equipment, Western equipment rather than Asian copies, and generally costed based on contract prices rather than manufacturer-cited unit costs, with inflation updated to 2020 prices.
This is because I believe nearly every piece of equipment we have is obsolete. I costed my navy at 500 million per frigate/submarine, which I don’t know if you did because that would eat up half your budget by itself. My MBTs, IFVs and howitzers are Leo A7s, Boxer and CAESAR, I don’t know what yours are. These are the biggest ticket items.”
I worked on the basis that we could only afford a development budget of USD5 Billion per RMK.
I also based my cost on contract prices, not manufacturer-cited unit costs.
For my navy, i have costed 4x more Scorpenes at USD500 million each, and 6x new DG350 small subs at around USD100 million each. Frigates, 12x HDF-2600 at 160 million each average (as the first 6 will reuse all the equipment we have bought for the gowinds) to get all 12 by 2030. then 4 more Type 31e at USD350 million each to replace the Kasturis and Lekius by 2040. No OPVs in the navy.
The airforce for the 52 FA/TA-50 is based on both Indonesian (TA-50 – USD400 mil for 16) and Philippines (FA-50 USD420 mil for 12) contract. 12 Bayraktar TB2 MALE UAV (USD70 mil) 3x Global 650 Erieye ER AWACs and 1x Global 650 HAVASOJ EA. Then 32 KF-X from 2030-2040. MKM to fly up to 2050.
The army to have at least USD100 million investment on Cyber every RMK. Continuing the build of AV8 to raise 2 mechanised brigades (5 more battalions). Most of IFV25 version so that costs about USD3 million each. Then in 2035 onwards replacement of ADNAN (3 regiments of around 200 vehicles) 300-400 JLTVs instead of 6×6 at USD350k each. 1500 KLTV in APC, ambulance and weapons carrier versions at USD120-150k each. Raybolt ATGM as our main anti tank weapon. Recapitalisation of 105mm regiments with LG1. Raising 2 new 155mm regiments. Getting chinese 155mm SH15 SPH and AH4/AHS4 towed lightweight 155mm. Air defence to be beefed up. 4 new sets of VERA NG systems for early warning. Investment in cheap, inaccurate but with the ability to sense VLO objects, VHF meter wave radars for early warning. 2 regiments of CAMM (plus CAMM-ER) as our main GBAD missile system (USD200 million per regiment. 24 launchers per regiment). Getting Chiron as a replacement of Iglas. Additional used starstreak (SP HVM launchers to be retrofitted onto JLTVs) and Oerlikon GDF guns. 1 regiment of shore based NSM anti ship missiles (USD220 million for 4 batteries). Free transfer of Blackhawks from Aussie army.
My main development focus is to increase our capability to react and defend ourselves to a SCS situation.
Other than that, for the army, better capability to hold the ground for the 4 divisions, plus rapid mobility for the mechanised division (including the ability to rapidly deploy 1x mechanised battalion to east malaysia at a short notice by MRSS). Improved artillery capability in east malaysia, and substantially increased GBAD capability by 2030 compared to current capability.
@ chua
” To me, it seeems that you and … both have the mentality of “if they have 100 tanks and 100 jets, let’s have 10 tanks and 10 jets so we can get a few hits in before dying gloriously for great maruah” ”
No i dont. we cannot fight aircraft carrier with aircraft carriers. we cannot fight their more superior frigates. Why I propose we reply asymmetrically and go for undersea warfare striking with Stealthy 5th gen NSM missiles. The ability to strike back will cause their progress to slow, forcing them to spend their resources not on the attack but on defense and hunting the subs. This will buy time for the world to react, and force everyone to the negotiating table.
“Think of it as a giant battlefield rather than as separate battles. Do you contest every square inch regardless of the odds? Or do you retreat in some areas, concentrate your forces in an area you know you can win, and win there?”
Yes, against china we need to concentrate on area that we can have a chance winning. Not just surrender to china. Look at vietnam. Are they planning to surrender to china? Study closely what Vietnam is doing, and you will find that yes they pick what they intent to fight very carefully.
“I know your perceived principal threat is China. I’m saying that it’s not a threat that can be feasibly mitigated, so don’t waste your time trying”
Does vietnam has the same thought as you? Let say we lost our seas and cannot do anything about it, and china will have major say in our domestic issues. Will you be happy about it? I dont want my children and grandchildren to face the same issues as people in HK, Tibet or Xinjiang right now. I dont want Malaysia in the future to be in the same situation of Eastern European countries faced in the cold war under soviet influence.
@ azlan
“Unless we and the other claimants are directly involved or impacted by a “great power” clash; we might not even be participations in the conflict: a conflict which can take place further away from the Spratlys and one that doesn’t necessarily see our freedom of navigation compromised or our reefs seized”
Of course i agree with that. We should sit out of a SCS conflict where our waters is not involved. But we need to prepare for a conflict where our freedom of navigation compromised or our reefs seized.
@Chua
“Vietnam had nothing to do with nationalism”
Vietnam has everything to do with nationalism. Massive firepower & support would come to nothing if the people were not steadfast strong in the face of even superior firepower & support. Take the Kuomintang having such example of superior materiel, training, support, manpower, and still lost to the Commie. Vietnam not only faced such disadvantages once but twice with the French and later Americans.
“Where are our priorities?”
Our priorities should be to balance out the other regional defence in terms of monetary expenditure & technological capabilities, filling in the capability gaps we identified, and to have sufficient logistical & manpower support for the more often HADR missions. Forget about going toe to toe against a superpower, but even then we still have to put up a fight no matter against odds at the start just so we don’t surrender easily and buying us time to prepare for asymmetrical responses. Yes it will be a sacrifice, it will be a massacre, but it won’t be our last stand.
@AM
“Define “defeated.””
See Battle of Mogadishu, Somalia 3-4 October 1993.
“he had a choice in the matter”
They would choose whichever they can buy that grants him the highest probability hit & kill rate, if that means 20 RPG-7s has a better ratio over MATADOR, that is what opponents will sensibly go for.
…. – “I did not say the chances of a conflict with our neighbour is not there”
And I did not say you did …
What I did imply is there you seem to be fixated in China; convinced that if trouble breaks out it will be with China and that there’s a very slim chance of the same happening with another country.
…. – “Before the last 5-6 years, Chinese threat to our EEZ is way low in the list of our concerns”
That is where you are mistaken. We have been wary of China for many years now; right back to the 1990’s when it’s ships started entering our waters. The only difference is that they are doing in more regularly now and being mote assertive. Another difference is that the press now gives it more attention. .
… – “As for East Malaysia, I have plenty of times said that my opinion on our build up of forces there should not upset the status quo of deployed forces in Borneo”
Not my intention to piss on your parade but the balance of power there has long shifted in Indonesia’s favour. What “status quo”? They have publicly openly stated that their build up is in response to possible threats from us and have steadily build up this presence – from the moving of new units, to a new air base at Tarakan; to the raising of a long inactive area command. They also have figures in Sulawesi which can be over the border area in minutes …
You seriously think that is basing ASTROS and other stuff there upsets the “status quo”?
… – “. Yes we need to beef up our forces in East Malaysia, but it is to prevent a repeat of Marawi or Lahad Dato from happening on our soil”
Seriously? You actuality think that after all the resources we put in the area; certain parties are going to be daft enough by playing to our strength by staging another Lahad Dato type incident?
As for Marawi; you’ve mentioned it many times. The conditions present in Mindanao which enables a Marawi type incident are absent from Sabah. There is no current insurgency in Sabah, no large number of guns, no weak central government, no dissatisfied armed minority which has long rebelled, no “no go” areas not under government control, no large scale AW, JI and IS militants, etc, etc.
I have been to Mindanao, including Marawi, let me assure you that the security and other conditions present they, which enabled Marawi, are not present in Sabah ….
The reason we are taking long overdue steps to increase our military footprint in Sabah is because of concerns mainly resisted to state on state threats.
… – “Then I also suggested having GBADs in East Malaysia to protect key installations in the event of a shooting war in SCS”
You see a need to remind others what you’ve suggested but nobody is implying you’ve been short of suggestions.
… – “. Our forces in East Malaysia should be able to tackle such a crisis on its own (against non state actors, not indonesia”
We need to prepare for a variety of threats but to suggest that we are putting emphasis on non state threats or that the reason we are building up our presence there is mainly driven by non state threats and not driven by concerns over Indonesia; is delusional.
… – “, with more frequent exercises to together in Sabah and Sarawak”
We already hold regular exercises with Brunei and have been doing so for quite a while now. Due to several factors there is a limit to how much we can expand the arrangement.
Of far more importance and of utility are the tri country air/sea patrols by Malaysia/Indonesia and the Philippines to curb varying non state threats. Unfortunately the patrols are mostly symbolic and political with all sides mostly doing their own thing with minimal coordination.
… – “Does vietnam has the same thought as you”
To butt in; we are not Vietnam …
What Vietnam does might not with for us. You mentioned about “studying” Vietnam : Vietnam has has a strife with China spanning centuries … It has fought a land war with China, has had islands/reefs seized by force and in more recent times has faced China under very different compared to us; thus its to be expected that Vietnam will handle the issue differently compared to us.
… – “”I dont want my children and grandchildren to face the same issues as people in HK, Tibet or Xinjiang right now”
The places you mentioned are either part of China or are areas long claimed to be part of the Chinese land mass. The Chinese are not making claims on any of our territories on land and the circumstances evident in all 3 places are very different to what we face – 2 very different issues which shouldn’t be compared. If you want to provide examples to back your narrative; find ones which have similarities to what we face.
… – “the same situation of Eastern European countries faced in the cold war under soviet influence”
There is a profound difference in the way China is currently doings things as a hegemonic power and how the Soviet Union (driven by ideology) went about cementing it’s position in Eastern Europe ..
… – “Of course i agree with that”
Well the last time I mentioned it you spoke about “letting others take what’s ours”. On a previous occasion you questioned my “tanah air” patriotic spirit.
… – “. But we need to prepare for a conflict where our freedom of navigation compromised or our reefs seiz”
We have contingency planing for a number of scenarios in which our core interests are threatened.
On top of everything is the economic and other long term impacts of a conflict – that’s what worries us.
Back to the SCS; a clash between the 2 powers might take place elsewhere and even if we were not involved; the post conflict impact might prove devastating. The U.S. might eventually go – as all powers do – but we’ll have to continue to live in the same region as China.
@…
>”The ability to strike back will cause their progress to slow, forcing them to spend their resources not on the attack but on defense and hunting the subs. This will buy time for the world to react, and force everyone to the negotiating table.”
Yeah well. I don’t think 6 Scorpenes are going to buy much time against the PLAN.
>”Yes, against china we need to concentrate on area that we can have a chance winning. Not just surrender to china.”
My meaning was, the entire area of a fight against China is one which we have no chance of winning.
>” Will you be happy about it?”
Obviously not. However it’s also not something I have control over. Hell, I’m not happy with a lot of things with the current Government, never mind any hypotheticla PRC one. But all that is out of my control as well.
@joe
>”Vietnam has everything to do with nationalism. Massive firepower & support would come to nothing if the people were not steadfast strong”
Very good.
With the power of nationalism, and steadfast strong people, we will manufacture the latest assault rifles, machine guns, mortars, anti-tank missiles, surface-to-air missiles and tanks just like the Vietnamese did.
I feel we can take the fight to the Chinese in SCS any time now, because we clearly have very powerful nationalism, unlike those sissy elite US Army in Mogadishu. After all, the powerful nationalism of our one battalion in Condors could defeat the Somali warlords when the elite US Rangers and Delta Force in their Blackhawks could not. We did most of the fighting in that battle, and won it with the power of our staunchly dedicated soldiers. RPGs in our hands can fly more accurately, penetrate more armour and withstand countermeasures by the power of our steadfast and strong nationalism. We don’t need no stinking Matadors when we have nationalism!
@Azlan
“Not my intention to piss on your parade but the balance of power there has long shifted in Indonesia’s favour”
Is this also related to the move of Indonesia capital from Jakarta to Kalimantan?
“They have publicly openly stated that their build up is in response to possible threats from us and have steadily build up this presence – from the moving of new units, to a new air base at Tarakan; to the raising of a long inactive area command. ”
Could you suggest any sites for further reading?
From the way you put it looks like Indonesia is still aiming for Indonesia Raya thing – and by the pace of procurement the government, during Najib & Mahathir time, wasn’t really too concerned by this.
Could anyone confirm was there any time Malaysian warship do some sort of show of force to the Indons, and then Indons showed up with “bigger” ship and chase us away? I read some of these things on tvtropes, written undoubtedly by an Indon so I appreciate any clarification.
joe “See Battle of Mogadishu, Somalia 3-4 October 1993.”
In Mogadishu the *assumed* RPG-7s were fired at US unarmoured vehicles, helicopters and our light wheeled APCs. As expected, they succeeded. This says nothing about the capabilities of an anti-armour weapon against the armoured targets it is supposed to engage.
If this is the job you have in mind, why buy RPGs at all when small arms fire will do the same job?
joe “They would choose whichever they can buy that grants him the highest probability hit & kill rate, if that means 20 RPG-7s has a better ratio over MATADOR, that is what opponents will sensibly go for.”
Fine if all you have to deal with are soft skinned vehicles. Shooting off “20 RPG-7s” will come to nothing if they cannot penetrate any of the ~200 SAF Leopard 2 Evolutions or TNI Leopard 2 Revolutions.
Or if penetration is so rare and achieved from such obscure angles that the enemy has not been prevented from achieving his objectives, and you’ve paid an unacceptable cost in ground surrendered, RPG gunners killed and units overrun. Consider that and your RPGs are starting to look not so cheap after all.
In the first place, you are using the terms “highest probability hit & kill rate” in the wrong way.
@ azlan
“Not my intention to piss on your parade but the balance of power there has long shifted in Indonesia’s favour”
For quite sometime i have been keeping track of all the units in Kalimantan. Yes right now they have the edge compared to our current forces in sabah and sarawak. But IMO what we should do is to just match theirs (add more IFVs, add 155mm howitzers, add GBADs; all items that Indonesia has deployed in Kalimantan) and not to start a competition as we cannot match their greater resources.
” thus its to be expected that Vietnam will handle the issue differently compared to us ”
you need to study not what vietnams background story with china, but how vietnam is building up their forces to counter chinese threat. look at what they are upgrading for their GBADs. What kind of early warning sensors they are putting their trust to. look at how they develop their navy. look at how they develop their coast guards. With the regards to the SCS predicament, they are in away in bigger risk of having issues with china. Taking cues on how they build up their forces to face china, we could build up a force that could be a deterrence to chinese colonialism dreams too.
” The Chinese are not making claims on any of our territories on land ”
Just look at what is happening to the Philippines. Leaders powerless to say no to china. China having political clout in local Philippines issues. That is just the beginning… If we lost our seas, and need chinese permission to continue with our economic activities, do you think everything will be situation normal in malaysia then?
” There is a profound difference in the way China is currently doings things as a hegemonic power and how the Soviet Union (driven by ideology) went about cementing it’s position in Eastern Europe ”
Their current actions in the world stage is highly driven by the CCP ideology too. It is the CCP ideology that as part of the 9 dash line, our beting serupai is Chinese most southern most “land” (it is 20m under the sea, which chinese pencil pushers thought it was land while trying to claim every island in SCS using britsh admiralty charts. This so called southernmost land is never ever mentioned before in any chinese historical texts) that is shaping their military actions towards countries around the SCS.
@ AM
” Shooting off “20 RPG-7s” will come to nothing if they cannot penetrate any of the ~200 SAF Leopard 2 Evolutions or TNI Leopard 2 Revolutions ”
The bulk of the singaporean armor isnt the Leo2s.
It is the 400++ Terrex 8×8 IFV, 300++ Bionix IFV, 400++ Broncos and if they are going to replace their M113 one to one, a future fleet of 600++ Hunter AFVs. Not to mention their numerous MRAPs like Belrex and Peacekeeper. That is more than 2000 armoured vehicle that is not the Leo2.
For the Leo2s we have our Metis-M, Baktar Shikan and Ingwes (coincidentally means leopard in Swahili too), which can at least cause a mobility kill if not an outright kill of Leo2s if you know where to hit. (plenty of vulnerable areas on singapore and indonesian leos, like the thin armor on the optics area)
http://www.btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/leopard2/Leopard-2A4-LOSy.jpg
When the time comes, i would like to see the Raybolt top attack ATGM (with twin launcher) to be bought as the replacement for Metis-M and Baktar Shikan
http://pds21.egloos.com/pds/201809/28/60/f0205060_5badab2375bf5.jpg
AM,
Things were really heated at one point; over Ambalat. They released a photo taken from an ex DDR Parchim showing a Jeromg. A statement was released; as well as a later TV interview with the CO saying he was about to open fire when our ship changed course for home.
They also moved a few Java based F-16s to Kalimantan and there was an incident when a crew of a TNI ship a few meters away from one of our ships threw rocks. Things at various points got heated.
Other incidents occurred at various times in the Straits of Melaka. One incident which appeared on Indonesian TV showed a Lynx having a deck gun pointed at it whilst try to prevent their ships towing out trawlers back to their base. At various times our ships actually had to force them to release out ships. Yes: their fisheries boats entering our waters to detain them or “tax” them is a common occurrence due to the unresolved boundary.
Do you remember the incident when we detained a few of their fisheries ships in our waters and found one of their skippers hiding in the engine room in his underwear? This led to the usual flag burning outside our embassy with protesters also hurling excrement.
A lot of the incidents were downplayed by us but were fully reported by their press with the obligatory chest beating rhetoric portraying us as an arrogant and unreasonable neighbour.
… – “If asymmetric response is not the way, and you never said that we should rely on conventional tactics, so what should be our response when missiles start flying and our seas got annexed? White flags?”
Kindly point out where I mentioned “white flags” ..
Depending on the situation; a combination of tactics will be utilised. You keep harping about your “asymmetric tactics”; I merely pointed out that China can also apply asymmetric tactics and that asymmetric tactics will only get you so far until a more powerful opponent wears you out via attrition and material weight.
… – “ You on the other hand tend to repeat fundamentally obvious statements that does not add anything to the discussions“
That’s rich. Coming from you …
Someone could also say the same thing about your tendency to say/repeat certain things. As for what “adds value”; we’ll I’m certainly not arrogant and opinionated enough to imply whet others say doesn’t “add value” merely because I may disagree with whet others are saying.
… – “” So how can such a widespread rollout of RPG-7s not be described as a asymmetric tactic”
You’re again being overtly simplistic and are shaping things to conform with your narrative which you’d like to believe is the right one.
The introduction of shoulder fired weapons was for various reasons to be employed in different circumstances; not largely due to us wanting to adopt asymmetric tactics .
… – “I have long tendency (and will continue to) repeat my personal opinions and stands (that is not a fundamental statement) on various matters that is very close to my heart”
Wow … Knock yourself out – nobody’s stopping you. Just don’t accuse others of doing something which you’ve also been doing.
Chua – “We don’t need no stinking Matadors when we have nationalism!”
Wake up Chua!
Nationalism and sheer willpower to never surrender will always overcome whatever limitations and disadvantages we face; irrespective of how big and powerful an opponent is …
C’mon guys, its the weekend lay off the heat a little bit….
What say I treat y’all to some roti kosong + kuah banjir at Rahman bistro?
I can not blame someone whose mindset focus on decades ago issues. Meanwhile there is a new real threat on SCS which is much much bigger impact not only to MY but also the world.
Border issue in asean will always be border issue. It is not new and not bring to any big open war. Hot tensions will be happened periodically. Blaming games is part of it. Everyone has the right to claim and push their claim to other.
Talking about indonesia/TNI. They have more money now, they purchased new and used hardwares. In general they still far from enough to protect their huge border. Not surprising the will move some asset here and there then return to homebase.
Indon is more peaceful now focusing in economy. Domestic security issues are handed over to the police. TNI is pushed to the borders. TNI has no military projection and they fed up of war. They have been involved in many wars since day 1 of independence.
China has different story. Their claim on SCS is absurd based on their history as if others have none but still china keep push it forward and heard to no one. China is considered a superpower now. They have economy and military power. The PLA has power projection. SCS can start WW3. There is never a nuclear war before but it doesnt means it wont be happened in the future. 2 nuclear bombs already dropped 70 years ago.
China is the real threat. If china win they can claim all SCS and all islands on it. Many asean nations including indon will lose their EEZ. Failure in asean unity only give china a benefit.
@ azlan
” Yes: their fisheries boats entering our waters to detain them or “tax” them is a common occurrence due to the unresolved boundary ”
We already have agreement with indonesia on this. But rogue enforcement officers often ignore it to ask for bribes from fishermens. This is the official agreement on this issue signed in bali 2012.
http://treaty.kemlu.go.id/apisearch/pdf%3Ffilename%3DMYS-2011-0127.pdf
actions taken apon encroachment/cases:
– inspection and REQUEST TO LEAVE AREA shall be conducted promptly towards all fishing boats except those using illegal fishing gear such as explosives, electrical and chemical fishing gears.
– notification of the inspection and request to leave the area shall be reported promptly to focal points; and
– conducting an open and direct communication among the maritime law enforcement agencies of the parties promptly and expeditiously.
” we detained a few of their fisheries ships in our waters and found one of their skippers hiding in the engine room in his underwear? ”
No. Indonesian enforcement agencies actually wanted to detain Malaysian fishing boats way inside kota tinggi waters, and ran away when malaysian enforcement came to the rescue of the fishermens. They left three of their officers on board the fishing boats when running away. This was in 2010, before the bali agreement was signed.
http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2010/08/25/calming-the-waves-of-wrath/
” A lot of the incidents were downplayed by us but were fully reported by their press with the obligatory chest beating rhetoric portraying us as an arrogant and unreasonable neighbour ”
We cannot do anything if their people are so jealous of malaysia that they resort to slandering and hating us. Its a malay race trait i guess to negatively hate somebody who is much more successful than you. Still we can see hundreds and thosands of indonesians trying to get into malaysia legally and illegally in search for work, not vice versa. But we should not resort to the same bad act like them.
” Kindly point out where I mentioned “white flags” ”
That was my question to you, not a statement, because you said both conventional and asymmetric response to a potential clash with china is not it.
” merely because I may disagree with whet others are saying ”
i dont repeat obvious fundamental statements. its not me who started mentioning about “calling kettle black”.
” The introduction of shoulder fired weapons was for various reasons to be employed in different circumstances ”
Introduction is one thing. Buying lots of them to able to equip every squad with one is totally different thing altogether. It can of course be employed in different circumstances, but what is the main use and purpose of a RPG-7? I repeat the army’s own description of the RPG-7s, a “weapon to counter armour in both the offensive and defensive phases of war”. Just because it can be used in other circumstances does not detract from its main purpose, which is to defeat armoured vehicles.
@Azlan
Because we have great nationalism, our T-72s will not suffer mobility kills from their Spikes.
Because they lack nationalism, their Leo 2s will suffer mobility kills from our RPGs.
@Chua
Aren’t our tanks T-90 though?
@ chua
be sarcastic as much as you want.
Our defensive posture, plans and (lesser) capabilities mean that we are not going to be the one that will be rolling our tanks on Singaporean streets.
As we cannot counter the massive quantities of armoured vehicles (from MRAPs, APC, IFV, AFV up till MBTs) by getting the same quantities of armoured vehicles, it is a sound decision to counter that with big quantities of cheap RPG-7 instead (enabling most infantry units to engage armoured vehicles), to complement smaller quantities of metis-m, baktar shikan and ingwe ATGMs.
… – “We already have agreement with indonesia on this”
The agreement is not worth the paper it was signed on because the boundary is still poorly defined and their boats still enter.
…. – “Just because it can be used in other circumstances does not detract from its main purpose, which is to defeat armoured vehicles”
Who said otherwise? I merely said it was for a variety of purposes and not primarily for asymmetric warfare. I never said it wasn’t for armoured vehicles or other types of vehicles
…. – “you need to study not what vietnams background story with china, but how vietnam is building up their forces to counter chinese threat. look at what they are upgrading for their GBADs”
Actually no. Vietnam’s way of dealing with China is heavily conditioned by the fact that they have a long history of strife – spanning centuries – and in more recent times they have actually been in shooting engagements and have lost reefs – we haven’t.
Thus the steps they are taking to deal with China is heavily driven by their history with China.
… – “ I repeat the army’s own description of the RPG-7s, a “weapon to counter armour in both the offensive and defensive phases of war”
That’s plainly obvious and applies to everyone. What’s the surprise?
Not only the RPG but everything else has a offensive/defensive function – we didn’t buy them largely because of the reason you claim we did.
…. – “i dont repeat obvious fundamental statements. its not me who started mentioning about “calling kettle black”.
No it was me. I’ll say it again – the …. pot shouldn’t be calling the Azlan kettle black; given you have a tendency to also repeat stuff. The difference is you’ve taken it upon yourself to decide what “adds value” and whet should be repeated – that’s rich and self serving.
…. – “ because you said both conventional and asymmetric response to a potential clash with china is not”
Depending on the circumstances; a combination of various tactics will be employed.
It’s great to talk about asymmetric tactics but they are not a panacea as an opponent can also resort to them and a weaker opponent relying largely on such tactics will eventually be worn out by attrition.
….. – “Their current actions in the world stage is highly driven by the CCP ideology too”
It is driven less by ideology compared to the Soviets and your Eastern Europe and HK/Tibet examples are oranges to apples ones given the very geo political and historical circumstances.
… – “you need to study not what vietnams background story with china, but how vietnam is building up their forces to counter chinese threat. look at what they are upgrading for their GBADs”
“You need to study” why the Vietnamese are doing what they do and why what they’re doing is very different from the other claimants
… “The bulk of the singaporean armor isnt the Leo2s. It is the 400++ Terrex 8×8 IFV, 300++ Bionix IFV, 400++ Broncos and if they are going to replace their M113 one to one, a future fleet of 600++ Hunter AFVs. Not to mention their numerous MRAPs like Belrex and Peacekeeper. That is more than 2000 armoured vehicle that is not the Leo2.”
First, despite what the SAF says the Hunter does not replace the M113. The SAF has a habit of saying “X replaces Y” when it actually isn’t the case, usually to make the case that the taxpayer has gotten his money’s worth from X and that spending on Y is justified. We’ve seen how the SAF said the F-15SG replaced the A-4 (in reality the A-4 left service before the first F-15SG was built) and how the Formidables replaced the missile gun boats.The M113 has long been out of active and reserve service except for some limited applications (RSAF Igla launcher, OPFOR surrogates and for beach landings via RSN landing craft). Hunter will replace the Bionix 1 and eventually Bionix 2.
As to the meat of the matter, most SAF combat vehicles (and some others) will be fitted with RPG cage armour in time of conflict. It’s an open secret, the mounting points are plain to see. One won’t get far with the single stage RPG rounds that we have.
To say nothing of the facts that 200 Leopards isn’t a small number to deal with within the time and space we have available, and that their shoulder fired weapons, issued two per section, CAN defeat any of our type-A vehicles aside from the Pendekars (frontally, at least).
… – “Indonesia has deployed in Kalimantan) and not to start a competition as we cannot match their greater resources.”
Well nobody said anything about a “competition”.
I did say that the reason we are improving our military footprint in the area is because of external reasons (for reasons I’ve provided we are unlikely to see a Marawi type situation as the conditions don’t exist or another Lahad Dato), that the “status quo” (to quote you) has long gone and that we can and that we should place whatever we want on our sovereign soil; whether it’s ASTROS or anything else.
… – “” Just look at what is happening to the Philippines. Leaders powerless to say no to china”
This doesn’t change the fact that ifs not claiming anything on our land mass – mentioned this to show why your Tibet, HK and Xinjiang comparisons don’t apply.
@ azlan
” The agreement is not worth the paper it was signed on because the boundary is still poorly defined and their boats still enter ”
The exact reason for the agreement is because of the current poorly defined boundaries. It is important that we Malaysia as a responsible country, uphold what we have agreed to, no matter if the other country chooses to flout it.
” not primarily for asymmetric warfare ”
If we can reply symmetrically, we should have gotten equal numbers of MBT and IFVs, not every squad with RPG-7s.
.. – “cheap RPG-7 instead (enabling most infantry units to engage armoured vehicles), to complement smaller quantities of metis-m, baktar shikan and ingwe ATGMs”
Both will be used in different circumstances. Along highways or places with open ground our ATGWs will be the primary means. In restricted terrain the short range shoulder fired weapons will be the primary means. In restricted terrain – whether a city or palm oil estate – infantry will also be able to hit their targets from various angles, including above. Depending off course on how well a target is protected by its infantry.
In addition to the unguided shoulder fired weapons we have: the guided MBT LAW will also be used in restricted terrain or confined places. Thus it bridges the gap between the ATGWs we’ve long had and the shoulder fired weapons.
@…
Okay, I will cease.
We’ve been down this road. Objectively speaking, RPG-7s are no longer feasible as anything other than close-range anti-structure and anti-personnel munitions, regardless of the “party line” which our army puts out… for morale purposes… They are notoriously inaccurate over distances beyond carbine range, and modern armies are well aware of its operating parameters and well prepared to enact countermeasures. It is getting to the point where even IFVs can be equipped with APSs to defeat ATGMs never mind RPGs. Nor can swarm tactics be relied on as the numbers are not on our side either.
For me, I favour the Carl Gustav M4 issued at one weapon per section, AND the latest munitions.
The quantities of Ingwe acquired is only sufficient to provide ATGM capability for 3 to 6 battalion groups, and at rather precarious numbers. The least-equipped NATO formations have 6 ATGMs per infantry battalion; the best have 15 to 18. There are literally more tanks in any one opposing army than there are Ingwe-equipped IFVs in the entire ATM. Think about that.
Going back to infantry weapons, Metis-M etc are also outdated. Tanks are more well-armoured and capable of deflecting front-aspect shots – in fact, even side armour in the case of modern models of Leo 2. That is why most every modern ATGM – Spike, Javelin, MMP – relies on top-attack. Not because the procurers thought “oh we have too much money to spend, let’s include this snazzy feature”. Even IFV applique armour are able to defeat all but the most ideal of shots from tandem-warhead PG-7 rounds… which we DON’T have, as you know.
Again, we cannot expect to take flank and rear shots to compensate for penetration. Two armies; one’s weapons allow them to take all-aspect shots, the other’s can only penetrate in the rear. No prizes for guessing who wins… even before factoring in range and accuracy.
Lastly, we cannot rely on “mission kills” as well. One side inflicts mission kills only, the other side can inflict “catastrophic kills”. You don’t need to play with Lanchester modelling to guess who wins the attrition game. Modern AFVs can be put back into action in a matter of days.
On the flipside, it also means our top IFV, the AV8 is in need of more protection systems, and that a more well-protected IFV is a real force to be reckoned with, should we acquire it. That is why I’d suggest forgetting the AV8 and buying Boxer direct… well, I’m a fan of Western systems, apologies for that. It is the most well-protected wheeled IFV that I’m aware of.
It is a pure fantasy that we have quantitative overmatch to the point where we can be confident of shooting 20 RPGs per AFV, never mind the fact that with our warheads it would be mencurah air on daun keladi against a modern tank. As such we MUST update our equipment to at least achieve some kind of qualitative parity.
@AM
“This says nothing about the capabilities of an anti-armour weapon against the armoured targets it is supposed to engage.”
I never said it was. I only said, quote: “with RPG-7, part time militia had defeated the most elites of US Armed Forces”
“come to nothing if they cannot penetrate any of the ~200 SAF Leopard 2 Evolutions or TNI Leopard 2 Revolutions.”
Neither will a single MATADOR.
“starting to look not so cheap”
Our doctrine would likely employ them for target of opportunity at weakpoints or mobility kills. Unless we train like Somalian militia, standing out in open while firing RPGs.
“you are using the terms “highest probability hit & kill rate” in the wrong way.”
In what way would be “your right way” then? The more you fire the higher chance of hitting a target, the more you overwhelm its defences, the higher chance of killing, is it not?
… “actions taken apon encroachment/cases:
– inspection and REQUEST TO LEAVE AREA shall be conducted promptly towards all fishing boats except those using illegal fishing gear such as explosives, electrical and chemical fishing gears.
– notification of the inspection and request to leave the area shall be reported promptly to focal points; and
– conducting an open and direct communication among the maritime law enforcement agencies of the parties promptly and expeditiously.”
All sounds good on paper but when actually at sea but hasn’t resolved the issue and it can mean nothing, especially when one is at sea and gas to act fast with no or vague orders to fall back on.
Whilst some of what happens is due to “rogue” personnel; it’s simplistic to suggest that this is the main cause; e.g. a Malaysian ship detected in radar will be shown on charts as being in Indonesian waters and orders seeking clarification may result in being told to detain the boat anyway; irrespective of wherever agreement has been reached at national level.
Romeo – “can not blame someone whose mindset focus on decades ago issues. Meanwhile there is a new real threat on SCS which is much much bigger impact not only to MY but also the world.”
Yes; discussing anything about how great a threat China is and how it should be our main security concern is paramount. Those who discuss others issues are not enlightened and are living in the past. If only they’d wake up and see the error of their ways …
@…
I’ve given up trying to reason with Chua. Might as well roll out the red carpet and get our children to wave the mini red flags when China comes rolling in.
Chua – “hat is why I’d suggest forgetting the AV8 and buying Boxer direct… well, I’m a fan of Western systems, apologies for that. It is the most well-protected wheeled IFV that I’m aware of.”
People will say that we can’t something heavy. Doesn’t make sense as there’s no overcoming the fact that with extra protection comes increased weight. As for the operational penalties which come with extra weight; adequate engineering support can mitigate that.
joe “I never said it was. I only said, quote: “with RPG-7, part time militia had defeated the most elites of US Armed Forces”
Lets look at your full quote: “RPG-7? Pfft! As someone insinuated now we are using the same equipment as Somalia. And yet with RPG-7, part time militia had defeated the most elites of US Armed Forces.”
Unless you expect our enemies to always attack us with only light unarmoured vehicles and fly their helicopters slowly within RPG range, this is just another useless statement of yours because it is completely irrelevant to our context.
Obviously we did not buy RPG-7s because our enemies are so cooperative. Our enemies will come at us with much more heavily protected platforms, but we bought the RPGs because of national interests and political motivations.
joe “Neither will a single MATADOR.”
Our RPGs can’t take out the bulk of their vehicles while their MATADORs can take out the bulk of ours. As mentioned, most SAF vehicles will be fitted with RPG cage armour in time of conflict. We have only 48 vehicles that the MATADORs can’t take out (and this only from the front), and SAF and TNI both possess myriad ways to take those 48 out.
joe “Our doctrine would likely employ them for target of opportunity at weakpoints or mobility kills.”
Great. Lets hope we never go on the offensive or have any chance encounters with enemy units. Instead, lets hope they cooperatively roll into our cities so we can hit them from the roofs like the Somalis or from the basements like the Chechens. Lets also hope they somehow forget to bring their RPG cages.
“Unless we train like Somalian militia, standing out in open while firing RPGs.”
Of course, you know this to be a true fact.
joe “you are using the terms “highest probability hit & kill rate” in the wrong way.”
Those terms refer to the technical accuracy and penetrative power of a weapon at a given range. What you meant to express was to use numbers to overcome the technical probabilities in which the RPG-7 is lacking.
Chua – “Again, we cannot expect to take flank and rear shots to compensate for penetration”
No we can’t but in restricted terrain it’s flank abs rear shots which are likelier to happen and it’s such shots which have a better chance of penetration.
Chua – “On the flipside, it also means our top IFV, the AV8 is in need of more protection systems, and that a more well-protected ”
Fully agreed. I’m not suggesting that it can be as uparmoured as a MBT (have to add this caveat because others might I misinterpret) but at the very least it should have “chicken wire” to mitigate the effects of shape charge warheads and auto cannons.
Ultimately; it all depends on the level of infantry cooperation.
… – “If we can reply symmetrically, we should have gotten equal numbers of MBT and IFVs, not every squad with RPG-7s.”
The RPG was intended to be used for a variety of purposes fir the anti-armour role; as well as others; whether in an offensive or defensive environment; whilst adopting asymmetric or non asymmetric tactics.
… – “The exact reason for the agreement is because of the current poorly defined boundaries”
Obviously but the agreement which you put so much value on isn’t worth the paper it’s written on because it hasn’t prevented what it was intended to prevent.
The overlapping boundary may not be a cause for war or comparable to what we face in the Spratlys but it’s still a major cause of friction and is security issue.
@Azlan
Since the Indons are not respecting the agreement, what do you think would be the most effective way of dealing with them? From how I see it, maintaining a constant presence near the borders seems to be the best way against these people.
We could repurpose retired oil platforms as floating bases and staffed with combined RMN/MMEA + Marine police personnel.
AM – “but we bought the RPGs because of national interests and political motivations.”
Two stories behind this.
– We bought the RPGs and Bakthars because they owed us money from some trade imbalance. They made the offer and we accepted.
– They owed us money from the time we had been buying stuff from them to be sent to Bosnia – it’s an open secret that various countries ignored the arms embargo and with Uncle Sam turning a blind eye; supplied the Bosnians.
Chua – “For me, I favour the Carl Gustav M4 issued at one weapon per section”
It’s heavier and bulkier but is way more accurate due its sights.
@ azlan
” least it should have “chicken wire” to mitigate the effects of shape charge warheads and auto cannons ”
chicken wire cannot block auto cannon fire. It can only affect shaped charges, and even that a 50% success ratio at best.
And as others might misinterpret, i am not against using slat or wire armour, just it has high chances of snagging in our environment. I would prefer something like the RUAG SidePRO or similar.
@ tomahawk
” But Msia keep pushing us in tat direction ”
something I wouldn’t want to. for me its better for us to cooperate to deter chinese colonialistic agendas rather than quarrel with each other.
@ chua
we can never afford to supply every squad with a CG M4 like we can equip 2x RPG-7 for every squad.
Ingwes are reserved for our cavalry regiments with the LCT30 gempitas. the missile numbers with the initial order is not much (less than 500) but more orders later could be had in RMK12.
There are not a big difference between the boxer and gempita protection. Getting yet another IFV variant will not help with our rojakness.
APS will being a lot of capability to counter ATGMs and RPG-7s, but it is not a replacement for passive or ERA armor. Israeli military commenters has cautioned that APS will not be able to counter 30mm and above rapid cannon fire towards thinly armoured IFVs.
Yes update our anti tank capability we must. More potent RPG-7 rounds can always be bought, and something like the Raybolt (relatively cheap and with top attack capability, plus a unique twin launcher system) should be considered for metis-m and baktar shikan replacement.
AM,
On the “part time militia had defeated the most elites of US Armed Forces” nonsense; can you think of any instances when something like this has really happened?
In Iraq RPGs destroyed numerous soft skin and lightly armoured vehicles; including a AAV-7 but actually “defeat”? Also, the so called “part time militias” consisted (during the actual invasion) of the “fedayeen” (which received actual training) and at a later stage Sunni and Shia insurgents (most of whom were ex military). Also, in terms of actual casualties it was IEDs which were the main reason; not RPGs.
To be expected; apart from Iraq; the RPG has a history of destroying numerous lightly protected armoured vehicles; as well as MBTs (mostly Soviet ironically) in places such as Vietnam, Tajikistan, Somalia (the conflict many associate the weapon with), Angola, Chechnya, Abkhazia, Nargano Karabakh, Yemen (the current conflict as well as the 1960’s one), Syria, various Arab/Israeli wars; and various other places.
To be expected; by itself; it’s use has never lead to any decisive defeats but in combination with other weapons and with the right tactics it has caused casualties/losses – hardly surprising but this applies to shoulder weapons in general.
… – “we can never afford to supply every squad with a CG M4 like we can equip 2x RPG-7 for every squad.”
Even if we could the Gustav is not a section weapon.
… – “More potent RPG-7 rounds can always be bought”
Like the elusive Ruag round which we apparently bought and tandem warheads available from various suppliers.
… – “And as others might misinterpret, i am not against using slat or wire armour, just it has high chances of snagging in our environment”
Nobody “misinterpreted” anything in that you were opposed to the idea ….
You spoke of “snagging”. That applies to various other things already on the vehicle, including aerials and is a penalty worth incurring if it saves the vehicle and crew from protection. It can also and does happen in urban areas; not necessarily “our environment”.
ASM – “Since the Indons are not respecting the agreement, what do you think would be the most effective way of dealing with them”
Political dealing and what we’ve long been doing : patrols and fast intervention. At various times our ships intervened and even resulted in them releasing our ships. Some years ago a Mahamiru prevented a trawler from being towed by them. A few days later they asked for the CO to be handed over and charged because he had obstructed their men in carrying out their duties. The Chief of RMN publicly denied the request.
Indonesian ships entering our waters to “tax” our trawlers is something which has been happening even before Merdeka.
…. “something I wouldn’t want to. for me its better for us to cooperate”
To cooperate in order to deal with various mutual threats; whether its terrorism, cyber threats, cross border crime; trouble in the SCS or with Indonesia.
The thing is his “ But Msia keep pushing us in tat directionl” is self serving and inaccurate given that nobody is “pushing the island” in any direction.
Tomahawk ”But Msia keep pushing us in tat direction ”
Nobody here wants war. Being out of power means being out of income, nobody wants that.
Azlan “Even if we could the Gustav is not a section weapon.”
Not usually, but it might make a good one. Historically, the CG has been held at higher levels because it was heavy and its capabilities were excessive for section usage. Sections were issued with lighter weapons to take on vehicles, and in the first place the CG was not primarily an anti-vehicle weapon but rather intended to deal with structures and fortified positions. There are also smoke and illum rounds, among others that a section neither needs to carry nor can carry with them.
That said, section shoulder fired weapons have had to come up in weight to deal with better protected threats, while the latest CG versions have become smaller and lighter- to the point that it now weighs the same as an RPG-7 while being much higher performing and more versatile. In keeping with the need for better urban fighting capabilities, sections are fielding weapons for several purposes- breaching, taking on vehicles and strongpointed buildings and so on. The CG, with the current selection of rounds and the smart sights that its increase effective range, might be a good answer.
Interestingly the SAF used to have the CG as a company level asset with a couple of types of rounds. Armbrust was issued two per section to take on vehicles and light armour. When MATADOR (which is dual mode HESH and HEAT) replaced Armbrust in the 2000s, it provided anti-structure and anti-fortification capabilities for CG to be retired. Spike SR was then introduced as a company asset. The SAF says the Spike SR replaces the CG, but this is obviously a simplistic and inaccurate description on account of the very different roles and capabilities of the two weapons.
Azlan “On the “part time militia had defeated the most elites of US Armed Forces” nonsense; can you think of any instances when something like this has really happened?
No, of course not. Which is why I asked joe to show how many times the RPG has it been decisive or successful, out of the thousands of times it has been used. It would be a wonder if it did not score a few times. But of all things he cited a case in which the RPG was used against unarmoured vehicles.
Azlan “”Also, in terms of actual casualties it was IEDs which were the main reason; not RPGs. “”
Yes, of all the weapons available to the insurgents (small arms, RPGs, mortars, VBIEDs, body worn explosives etc), buried IEDs proved the most difficult to tackle and forced the greatest changes to US tactics and equipment. Route clearance teams were introduced, axes of movement were changed. MRAPs and jammer equipped vehicles were fielded. Stryker gained a v-hull. UAVs provided surveillance to detect IEDs being planted. Strikes and raids targeted groups that made or planted IEDs and to interdict the IEDs in transit. Iran supplied an off-route type with an EFP that was not exactly “improvised”.
Azlan “To be expected; apart from Iraq; the RPG has a history of destroying numerous lightly protected armoured vehicles; as well as MBTs (mostly Soviet ironically) in places such as Vietnam, Tajikistan, Somalia (the conflict many associate the weapon with), Angola, Chechnya, Abkhazia, Nargano Karabakh, Yemen (the current conflict as well as the 1960’s one), Syria, various Arab/Israeli wars; and various other places.”
You have another point there. The fact that most conflicts overwhelmingly involve Soviet/Russian and Chinese arms being used against Soviet/Russian and Chinese arms does call into question someone’s assertion that the US goes to war as part of the sales efforts for their weapons.
more on the boxers.
Unlike our gempita which can be carried whole in the A400M, the boxer needs 3x A400M to carry 2 boxers.
http://i1.wp.com/militaryleak.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/german-air-force-tests-loading-of-boxer-armoured-fighting-vehicle-in-a400m.jpg
In August 2020 the Bundeswehr announced that it had initiated tests of transporting a Boxer via an A400M for the first time. At around 35 tonnes, Boxer is too heavy for the loading ramp of an A400M (capacity approx. 32-tonnes) and so the drive module was separated from the mission module. The boarding of the vehicle took around 10 minutes and it was secured into place with 15 chains, according to the Bundeswehr announcement. “Some chains cannot be attached as planned because a component of the Boxer or simply a bolt is in the way,” the service said, adding that engineers from the manufacturer and OCCAR were present at the tests to take note of such issues so that they could be addressed. Once certified the Bundeswehr will be able to transport two Boxers using three A400Ms, two for the drive modules and a third for the mission modules
Anyway a nice video on the gempitas by FNSS (with soldiers slinging RPG-7s)
http://twitter.com/i/status/1159004106738012165
I refound the pic of AV8 crew wearing russian style head protection. Are these a regular fit for gempita crews? Is it more comfortable than the western ones?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yt6kHLgY3IU/XAjG42vd0II/AAAAAAABqG4/I3UvIPrImLQY3WYMpejD6s88Rl6Re0zoQCLcBGAs/s1600/43380736_302081393978157_5067726943312551039_n.jpg
@ azlan
” You spoke of “snagging”. That applies to various other things already on the vehicle, including aerials and is a penalty worth incurring if it saves the vehicle and crew from protection ”
there are reasons why we tie down our FFR aerials to the bonnet. aerials are just 1 point of snagging. nets running along the whole length of the side of the vehicle will be a nightmare. not to mention the nets itself will be damaged. how do i know this? drive a 4×4 into the jungle regularly, and you will know how lots of things can snag on your vehicle in the jungle.
Found a description of the RUAG RPG-7 rounds after so many years of searching
RUAG’s Defence Warhead Division demonstrated numerous new products based on recently developed technology.
The new technology, which involves hollow-charge warheads based on a variable thickness molybdenum liner, has allowed RUAG to produce warheads that maintain optimal performance even if their desired stand-off distance (the distance between the target armour and the warhead detonation point) is not precisely respected, with the perforation remaining similar to results obtained where the stand-off distances are from three to five times the length of the charge diameter. Using this technology, RUAG charges can fully exploit almost all of the liner mass and put it where it is most needed at a speed of 11.5-12 km/s.
Test was conducted using an RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenade launcher equipped with a RUAG tandem warhead designed to ensure good penetration even against armoured vehicles equipped with explosive reactive armour. This warhead achieves a penetration in excess of 900 mm against rolled homogenous armour and has an increased range up to 250-300 m. Tested against a former Swiss Army Pz68 main battle tank, it penetrated the gun breech block and remained inside the tank; subsequent tests produced both an entry and exit hole.
This RPG-7 warhead designed by RUAG and mass produced by xxxxxxxxxx.
Also found out about the strange nenas shaped RPG-7 round we see equipping PDRM VAT69 and 10 PARA. I always tought that those are just mockups as the shape is not similar to any usual RPG rounds.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/VATRU.jpg
It is a unique wall-busting round made by #######. Designed for urban operations and can defeat up to 400mm wall thickness. It penetrates walls through percussion action and defeats enemies behind the wall through the blast wave.
Off topic
Dear Marhalim,
Any results of these tenders from last year? Especially on the 81mm mortars on jeeps.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/lmg-sniper-rifles-mortars-and-law/
Off topic
Dear Marhalim,
Any results of these tenders from last year? Especially on the 81mm mortars on jeeps.
https://www.malaysiandefence.com/lmg-sniper-rifles-mortars-and-law/
Reply
Nope
“for me its better for us to cooperate to deter chinese colonialistic agendas rather than quarrel with each other.”
China authorities now is actively asserting show of flag at borders in SCS, ESC, Taiwan Straits and Himalaya, is it their strategy to piss off so many neighbours at the same for internal consumption/nationalistic thumping,providing some deflection from coronavirus,trade war,economic pressures?
IMHO how our MY govt deals now with PRC regarding SCS,our export oriented economy, “tiny defenceless Malaysia” and PRC being our major trade partner really weight on govt direction and actions. Just recently we came out of India’s palm oil embargo. China have employed economic levers as a way to retaliate if somehow they think we are too much an itch under their skin.
… – “? drive a 4×4 into the jungle regularly, and you will know how lots of things can snag on your vehicle in the jungle.”
As a matter of fact I have.
You will note that I didn’t say snagging was not an issue; only that it happens with various other things (including various things on the sides of the hull) and that it’s a penalty worth incurring.
Also in places such as secondary jungle or palm estates; snagging on the sides would only occur if the vehicle was on a narrow road:dirt track. If it was on cultivated or open ground; like in Ex Perksasa where terrain on the cultivated estate enabled vehicles to deploy 2-3 abreast and spread out; snagging wouldn’t be an issue.
– “I always tought that those are just mockups as the shape is not similar to any usual RPG rounds”
Some years ago on Merdeka Day. Can’t remember what year but Marhalim was there also; there appeared for the first time a RPG round slightly larger than the standard one and painted black. I had assumed it was a mock up of some round; either the Ruag one or a tandem head. I asked and was told it was just a mock up
made of plastic.
Reply
AFAIK only the Vat 69 has been photographic with the bell like PG7 rounds. Have not seen them on soldiers
AM,
MBT LAW really bridges the gap between the shoulder fired weapons and ATGW: it can be fired from confined spaces and is mote “portable” compared to the ATGWs.
The issue with shoulder fired weapons is their range; in restricted terrain where there’s means of concealment they would be ideal. The penalty is users have to get really close to the target which chances are will be protected by infantry. The plus point is there a target can be hit from various angles: including from above. The danger of being hit from the rear or rear flank (mote likely in restricted rather than non restricted terrain) is what drives many to fit chicken wire/salt on vulnerable parts of the vehicle.
It’s also interesting that we see a need to retain the Gustavs. One reason is it’s ability to fire smoke/illum. A handful of Vietnamese and Cambodian
T-54/55s were hit by Gustavs provided by Singapore to a resistance group. Unlike Singapore our form of assistance was in the form of training.
On Armbrust; I’ve heard we did have it (Marhslim also mentioned it) but no pics have ever appeared. Same goes with the
M-20s we had in the 1960 and 70’s.
AM – “Not usually, but it might make a good one”
It’s weight and the fact that it needs a crew of two would preclude it from being a section asset.
We’ve had other bulky shoulder fired weapons before in the form of Apilas, LAW 80 and Folgore (RCL) and still do; like Vampir but unless the troops were fully motorised/mechanised and were not required to leg it for long; weapons of this size and bulk are not suited for section issue. There are exceptions of course like Brit troops in Helmand who operated mostly on foot and carried Javelin.
an interesting artice from Chinese POV
http://cimsec.org/chinas-aircraft-carriers-and-southeast-asia-testing-coercive-naval-diplomacy/45587
interesting to see what they think (strength and weaknesses) about malaysia.
@ azlan
” It’s also interesting that we see a need to retain the Gustavs. One reason is it’s ability to fire smoke/illum. ”
smoke and illumination rounds for RPG-7 has also been developed.
Smoke round
http://www.arsenal-bg.com/c/rounds-for-light-anti-tank-recoilless-systems-atgl-l-family-and-russian-rpg-7v-67/rsmk-7ma-81
Illumination round
http://www.arsenal-bg.com/c/rounds-for-light-anti-tank-recoilless-systems-atgl-l-family-and-russian-rpg-7v-67/rill-7ma-77
From open sources, malaysia has around 250 CG Mk1 launchers. What is the average life remaining for these launchers? What I know the current cost of a single example of latest CG M4 version is equivalent to something like 20-40 RPG-7 launchers. The latest CG M4 has most of the advantages of RPG-7 (lightweight, etc.), with better accuracy and range.
Interestingly the RUAG rpg round has like 2-3x the normal penetration capability when compared to regular rpg HEAT rounds (most have either 300mm RHA or 500mm RHA penetration capability)
” This warhead achieves a penetration in excess of 900 mm against rolled homogenous armour and has an increased range up to 250-300 m ”
I wonder how many RUAG rounds do we have in our inventory? Our total rpg warhead buys (that is publicly disclosed from pakistan and romania) numbers about 40k rounds.
@AM
“Unless you expect our enemies to always attack us”
I was pointing out what the Somalians achieved with the humble RPG-7. In no way did I made mention about us or that we could achieve such similar results. But the fact is, that incident did happen because the humble RPG played a key role.
“Our RPGs can’t take out the bulk of their vehicles while their MATADORs can”
I don’t doubt that. SG had always prioritise keeping that capability gap between us and that will never change. Even if we went for Matador, they would seek even better performing ATGMs and counters to Matador.
“Of course, you know this to be a true fact.”
Do share if you know something else. Thanks.
“What you meant to express was to use numbers to overcome”
Granted, what would be your “technically correct” term of use then?
@…
>”we can never afford to”
We can if we reprioritise spending.
>”There are not a big difference between the boxer and gempita protection”
One word: AMAP
>”APS will not be able to counter 30mm and above rapid cannon”
Irrelevant. Their job is not to counter cannon fire.
Boxer also has superior armour protection BTW.
>”Raybolt”
I’m not a big fan of these Korean-made weapons. They are almost certainly copies of last-gen US weapons. I believe it’s worth it to pay for latest gen Western weapons.
>”snagging”
Is not going to be a major issue with applique armour boxes.
After all, you don’t see it being an issue with our Pendekar ERA blocks do you?
>”the boxer needs 3x A400M to carry 2 boxers.”
Irrelevant.
@AM
>”The fact that most conflicts overwhelmingly involve Soviet/Russian and Chinese arms being used against Soviet/Russian and Chinese arms does call into question someone’s assertion that the US goes to war as part of the sales efforts for their weapons.”
Just partisan rhetoric repeated by those who don’t know better.
A battlefield survey of weapons and ammo in recent conflicts shows 50% of them are of Chinese manufacture.
Of course these sales never show up in SIPRI whereas Western arms transfers are well disclosed.
@Azlan
>” weapons of this size and bulk are not suited for section issue”
Leg infantry is a thing of the past though, few infantry these days are truly “foot”. At the very minimum every line battalion ought to have section vehicles… at least that is my 2 sen.
Unfortunately as you noted, weapons have had to increase in weight to remain effective. Fact of life.
The M4 model of the CG however is purportedly half the weight of the 12kg MBT LAW, something to do with novel materials and stuff. It is one of the factors which led to the US Army reducing its use of the oneshot AT4.
Consider – if a section is issued say four MBT LAWs, that is 48kg; for that weight they could carry 1 CG and seven rounds. Nearly twice the ammunition endurance.
Downside of not being able to salvo fire of course.
Chua – “Leg infantry is a thing of the past though, few infantry these days are truly “foot”
Hardly. They still have to dismount to engage the enemy and at times will have to leg it; i.e. most urban engagements involve troops on foot or doings things not possible if not dismounted.
Being transported by a vehicle to somewhere doesn’t change the fact that they’ll still have to be on foot to do what needs doing.
Chua – “Unfortunately as you noted, weapons have had to increase in weight to remain effective”
I meant it in relation to vehicles. With increased protection comes weight and the increased weight is a penalty worth incurring if one is serious about protecting vehicles.
Chua – “if a section is issued say four MBT LAWs, that is 48kg; for that weight they could carry 1 CG and seven rounds”
Yes but unlike disposable shoulder fired weapons the MBT LAW clearly won’t be issued at section level. Carl Gustav also requires a crew of two; an issue if one’s section only has 8; to fit into a IFV.
…. – “. Are these a regular fit for gempita crews”
No idea.
There is a summer and winter version; both with ear flaps where the headphones are. I have the summer version; let’s just say it can also get hot if worn for a prolonged period; especially if the straps are fastened.
… – “smoke and illumination rounds for RPG-7 has also been developed.”
Yes but as noted previously; in our army the primary means of laying both are still the mortar and Gustav; as well as the Milkor.
@ chua
>”we can never afford to”
We can if we re-prioritize spending.
Me : So which capability you want to skip to get then?
>”There are not a big difference between the boxer and gempita protection”
One word: AMAP
Me : AMAP is not a magical armor that cannot be replicated on the Gempita.
>”APS will not be able to counter 30mm and above rapid cannon”
Irrelevant. Their job is not to counter cannon fire.
Me : Then an IFV with APS can still be killed by 30mm autocannon fire.
Boxer also has superior armour protection BTW.
Me: Why it is so heavy, two times the weight of ACV300 Adnan. If we make our Gempita as heavy it will have the same protection too. Also why boxers cannot swim. Can it be all round protected from 30mm fire? Consider the FNSS Harimau medium tank, much more heavier than the Boxer, but at best have only 30mm cannon protection on the front arc.
>”Raybolt”
I’m not a big fan of these Korean-made weapons. They are almost certainly copies of last-gen US weapons. I believe it’s worth it to pay for latest gen Western weapons.
Me : Tell me what kind of similar last-gen US weapons have top attack function? This weapon is a peer to Javelins and Spikes. The Raybolt IMO is much more superior than the Javelin (lighter, cheaper, more RHA penetration), with advanced latest generation targeting optics that does not need cryogenic coolers like the javelin.
>”snagging”
Is not going to be a major issue with applique armour boxes.
After all, you don’t see it being an issue with our Pendekar ERA blocks do you?
Me : I am discussing with Azlan explicitly about chicken wire armor, and have even suggested not using chicken wire and have something closed like RUAG SidePRO. You should be directing your comments to Azlan, not me.
>”the boxer needs 3x A400M to carry 2 boxers.”
Irrelevant.
Me : That is the only transporter aircraft that we have that can carry the gempita and boxer. So why is that irrelevant?
Chua – “Irrelevant”
I’ve never been too excited when things are described as “air transportable” for reasons discussed previously on a number of occasions, in different threads here but if it takes 3 planes to deliver 2 vehicles; it can be an issue if one has only so many planes and if other things also have to be air transported.
For the Bundeswher this might not be an issue as it might only be required to air transport their Boxers for out of area ops (whether under the UN or something else) but for others this might be an issue. Everyone would like something which can be flown but not everyone might place it as a priority or something seen as having a night chance of occurring.
Irrespective of what plane is used it will still take a number of sorties to fly even a squadron’s worth of vehicles; plus men, spares, ammo, etc. Thus if it takes 2 planes to move 2 vehicles; it would be more of an advantage than 3 planes for 2 vehicles.
Chua – “.They are almost certainly copies of last-gen US weapons. I believe it’s worth it to pay for latest gen Western weapons.”
Even if they are really “copies” whether from the West or Wallace & Gromit; is immaterial as long as they can do as advertised. Given that it has been accepted by the ROK army and how far the country has progressed technologically; no reason why Raybolt won’t perform as advertised; especially if a potential buyer trials in in a local conditions.
One doesn’t necessarily have “to pay for latest gen Western weapons” to get the same capability. Note despite that its reputation; more than one user has encountered technical
issues with Spike.
joe “Unless we train like Somalian militia, standing out in open while firing RPGs.”
How sure are you when you make amateurish, simplistic statements like this?
This militia was led by a former general who had attended a Soviet higher military academy and itself contained former members of a disintegrating national army. They had seized Mogadishu from the army, overthrown the government and fought with other warlords for years prior to the events of 3 October. They weren’t exactly strangers to combat and probably are not easy prey for your trained soldiers, whatever proper tactics they may have.
After the raid and ensuing battle, both sides confirmed that the militia was able to inflict a high cost because it was perceptive enough to detect patterns in the tactics the US had used on repeated occasions before the raid. Analysis by the US also found that the militia as an organisation, had much improved its capacity to communicate and utilize fire and movement between the time it seized Mogadishu in 1991 and when it fought the US on the day of the raid.
One factor you probably don’t know that you know (thanks to a certain movie) was that the militia was able to pick up advance warning of the raid and disseminate intelligence to its leaders in time. In reality, this did not happen by chance but was undertaken by an organised network of spotters who exploited the limitations of American ROE. Burning tyres was only one of several techniques they utilized to communicate.
So before you make silly statements that someone who “trains like Somalian militia” will be “standing out in open while firing RPGs” (your words) do yourself a favour and consider educating yourself with the analytical material that is readily available to you.
Chua – “After all, you don’t see it being an issue with our Pendekar ERA blocks do you?”
Because they don’t protrude from the sides as much as “chicken wire”. Photos of Sing Leos show “chicken wire” mounted around the engine compartment. They don’t protrude at all because they are level with the appliqué armour running along the length of the hull.
In the case of a IFV; it will snag if the vehicle is deployed along narrow tracks lined with vegetation. Same with various other things mounted on the side of the hull; whether bergens, spare wheels or jerry cans. We’ve had aerials which snapped because they got caught in overhead branches when vehicles were moving at high speed. On numerous occasions we’ve had vegetation stuck on roof mounted MGs.
Depends on the terrain. Much less chances of snagging occurring when deployed in more open seas such as cultivated palm oil estates and such. Snagging – whether with stuff on the side or in top of vehicle can also happen in urban areas.
Ultimately I couldn’t care less what is used; whether “chicken wire, lightweight appliqué/ceramics or whatever. As long as it provides some level of protection against shoulder fired weapons.
@AM
“How sure are you when you make amateurish, simplistic statements like this?”
I’m not the one making that amateurish simplistic statement since most of the foot soldiers are unlikely to be veteran ex-military, even in lawless societies there are hierarchy and those with military skills & connections aren’t normally deployed at front when there are plenty willing to take up arms to survive. The massed of combatants are just untrained militia, granted battlehardened with experience, but not something the greatest of USA couldn’t deal with. Tell me, if they were the highly skilled and trained military as you so put it, how did they suffer disproportionate toll of 500 deaths and 800 wounded? Is their military training different than other armed forces that caused such high fatality? That is just a amateurish simplistic assumption.
Their CnC system is thanks to their generals foresight, not their footsoldiers.
PS This is the assessment by US ambassador to Somalia, Robert B. Oakley: “And the Americans and those who came to their rescue, were being shot at from all sides … a deliberate war battle, if you will, on the part of the Somalis. And women and children were being used as shields and some cases women and children were actually firing weapons, and were coming from all sides. Sort of a rabbit warren of huts, houses, alleys, and twisting and turning streets, so those who were trying to defend themselves were shooting back in all directions.”
Does that sound to you like a well trained military battle strategy? To use women & children as shields?
AM – “ Analysis by the US also found that the militia as an organisation, had much improved its capacity to communicate and utilize fire and movement”
On a lower level; taking into consideration that a lot of the fighters were high on khat; it’s surprising they were able to perform.
The movie was a disappointment but as part of his research Bowden (his books on Escobar and Hue are excellent) did try to make as much mention in MALBATT as possible. On a website, linked to a newspaper he wrote for, “The Philadelphia Inquirer” if I’m not mistaken; he and several readers paid tribute and acknowledged the role MALBATT played.
A book which has more mention of MALBATT is “Madness In Mogadishu”. The author was there with the 10th Mountain Division and was involved directly with MALBATT
Singapore Leos dont have chicken wire. They have slat armour.
http://www.armytimes.com/resizer/DhFUXg8msiXtaIVDFC-V1dXukr8=/1200×0/filters:quality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/XOXLY2BHQFHQBJX6RN726URA4U.JPG
This is chicken wire
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Polish_Rosomak_in_Afghanistan.jpg
slat armour is more rigid than chicken wire. but in any way it will still create lots of snagging area if it is put on the whole length of the vehicle.
@…
>”which capability you want to skip to get then?”
ABM for one, or whatever. The point is that both Azlan and I have different priorities from you; Azlan (I believe, correct me if I’m wrong) favours improving networking and communications first of all, I in bringing up our infantry battalions to at least a kind of NATO mid-level standard.
I have explained my reasoning before, and I’ll do it again briefly; the infantry battalion is the basic combat manoeuvre unit of the army, most of the other combat arms by definition support the operations of the infantry. Furthermore in our strategic situation, infantry is both a key asset and advantage of our military, hence I feel we should reach a global standard of basic competence in this area before moving on to others.
You may notice this follows on from my general philosophy of concentrating efforts on mastering one area before moving on to the next.
My BASIC priorities are:
0) Eliminate inefficient and ineffective procurement and political practices
1) Improve our infantry battalions’ equipment and training, land border surveillance, and interoperability communications
2) Improve our mechanised battalions’ equipment, training and networking
3) Improve our maritime surveillance and EEZ policing by radar, air and boat
Yes, it is NOT in accordance with contesting the Spratlys by air and sea. That is not because as some people think we are going to roll out the red carpet for the PLA – it is other people who have done that and invited them to come build skyscrapers and railways etc. It is because I think there is little we can do to derisk EFFECTIVELY even if we go all out and triple, quadruple, quintuple our spending. Hence we will focus on more immediate threats that we DO have the ability to mitigate EFFECTIVELY, after which we can consider:
4) Investing in maritime anti-access/area denial
>”AMAP is not a magical armor that cannot be replicated on the Gempita”
The point is that it’s not there right now isn’t it?
>”Then an IFV with APS can still be killed by 30mm autocannon fire.”
But an IFV with APS would be much harder to kill with ATGMs, which is the point here.
Please confine your rebuttals to comparing apples with apples. I am pointing at Boxer having a working option for AMAP-ADS now, versus Gempita not having any now. Not talking about future hypothetical undeveloped Gempita add-ons, not talking about air mobility, not talking about 30mm autocannon resistance.
>” If we make our Gempita as heavy it will have the same protection too”
Does Gempita have existing armour and APS options? If yes, then I would go for it.
>”The Raybolt IMO is much more superior than the Javelin (lighter, cheaper, more RHA penetration)”
Depends what model of Javelin, I believe the F-model may be ahead. Another advantage of Javelin and Eurospike is that they have a wide user base and hence ongoing improvements at lower cost.
>”why is that irrelevant?”
Transportation by A400M is only relevant if we are going to tactically transport IFVs into ongoing operations. Tactical air transportation would not be an issue for us as we are not going to do that. Either we move them strategically using cargo shipping, or we operate them in place with prepositioned units.
In our situation, we would not be able to invest in as many air/sea transports and be confident of winning the air/sea battle to adequately defend the transportation corridor to bring in a relevant number of IFVs under fire. Therefore, prepositioning is by far the more ideal option for us, rendering issues of air transportability irrelevant.
@Azlan
Cheese and crackers! 😀
@…, joe
P.S. it would be nice to be able to EFFECTIVELY contest the control of the SCS. I believe to do this we would need a minimum of
– 100 top-notch multirole combat aircraft
– 20 AIP combat subs
– multiple over-the-horizon targeting radar networks
– Integrated air defence networks of at least 100 batteries of mixed anti-ballistic, medium-range anti-air, short-range anti-air, and point-defence missiles
Which I’d cost at USD 40 billion, at least, and double that for through-life operating costs.
Lacking this, I think I’d like something like forty Karakurt-type missile boats as a FIRST STEP towards an AA/AD response. Let us say, at $400m a ship, that is USD 16 billion, which is a realistic figure for a ship equipped with a battery of NSM and some point defence.
P.P.S.
@…
You mentioned the Type 31e previously. It won’t come in at $350m. 350m is a target given by MOD UK and the result is said to be a ship that is FFBNW a lot of gear AND extensively reuses key Type 23 equipment including radars, missiles and fittings. Even a MEKO 200 comes in at half a billion.
Bottom line: EFFECTIVE deterrence is expensive, melepaskan batuk di tangga is cheap. But acknowledging the former provokes cries of defeatism while the latter is very good for stroking patriotism and comforting dreams at night.
More on RPG armours.
This is the latest tech, no need chicken wire, no need slats, no need long spikes covered in boxes (RUAG SidePRO)
http://qinetiq-na.com/wp-content/uploads/ARDDM_Datasheet_LR_Oct2019.pdf
@ joe
” Does that sound to you like a well trained military battle strategy? To use women & children as shields? ”
Yeah tell that to the IDF…
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-palestinian-israel-children-idUSBRE95J0FR20130620
@…
IDF had done many, many things that would be considered a violation of the Geneva Convention or even up to war crime level, if it were carried out by other national armed forces. They even have nukes which is not needed to be declared. You know as well why they can get away with many atrocities.
P.s.
Amongst the more technical aspects of Aideed’s achievements is the development and use of
1) mass airbursting RPG fire as an anti-helicopter weapon
2) fast erectable barricades
3) “super-technicals” of heavy weapons mounted on Toyota trucks up to heavy multi-barrel cannon
4) use of civilian communication networks as a covert surveillance system, employing prearranged signals rather than decipherable voice or text communication
These technical achievements have since been surpassed. However, in his time and within the scope of Mogadishu, they are key core competencies that enabled him to out-compete the other militias and deal a blow to the UN forces.
Do we have similar core competencies? If no, then can we be expected to perform as well as Aideed did?
@AM
Aideed’s strategy involved at least 7 key moves:
1) pattern analysis of US forces’ movements and accurate prediction of routes taken
2) round the clock early warning coverage of the US forces movements and maintaining a significant quick reaction capability
3) devising an effective strategy suited to his capabilities to mitigate the effects of a US raid. This involved:
4) effectively bringing an overwhelming force to bear on a small number of high value US assets
5) achieving a military goal that had significant lasting political effects
6) training and exercising his troops constantly to conduct the operations envisioned
And of course
7) maintaining effective command and control while avoiding US surveillance and retaliation
Aideed was a highly accomplished general, in his own small way. When the US left, he outfought the other militias and warlords and emerged as the top dog of Mogadishu in the immediate aftermath, until his eventual downfall sometime later. In the battle for Mogadishu, it was his troops that were the most effective while the other warlords were the ones who relied on civilian mobs.
As a leader he was able to devise an effective political and military strategy, motivate and train AND maintain his troops to a competent level of operational excellence, and manage the battle effectively while avoiding counter-attacks.
Even so, it could not be said that his plan was entirely successful. He expended a lot of resources to kill less than 20 US personnel, and must have taken significant losses himself. In the end he too failed to make Somalia a more successful nation than it is today. It is mostly the US’s culture of self-blame and loss aversion that magnifies such a small effect into something more. But that’s another story…
Now, to point the Aideed story at us. Are we able to do the same as he did, militarily, politically, operationally? Have we done the same in the past? If yes, congratulations. If no, then it is an objective assessment – not defeatism – to state that we might not achieve similar effects as Aideed did, despite apparently being better-resourced and better-equipped.
More on the ARDDM
http://www.dsiac.org/resources/articles/what-does-next-generation-passive-rpg-protection-look-like/
@ Chua
My BASIC priorities are:
0) Eliminate inefficient and ineffective procurement and political practices
Me: there will always be political angle on any military procurement, what is important that it should not hugely affect the military capability. For example we have gone with AV8, it will be ineffective if we go for Boxer next instead of getting batch 2 or 3 of the AV8.
1) Improve our infantry battalions’ equipment and training, land border surveillance, and interoperability communications.
Me: We must improve the quality of our soldiers first and foremost. To invest more on training, improving soft skills such as having good communication english.
2) Improve our mechanised battalions’ equipment, training and networking
Me: The army is doing this to the existing mechanised force as we speak. Just hoping that it could be rolled out to create a fully mechanised division.
3) Improve our maritime surveillance and EEZ policing by radar, air and boat
Me: This is also in the works. But a longer much stable plan need to be formulated. To maximize bang for the buck for our meagre budget, most of the spending for more OPVs for example should be given to MMEA.
That is what you want, but how do you get them?
0) Very hard to plan for. It is more of a reactional response to a bad planning if it is being put out to the public.
1) This can be planned for. We have a solid plan for NCO (and that includes communication). A few more items can be added like miniature manpack SATCOM system like the Slingshot Satcom antenna
http://www.joint-forces.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/SlingShot-Equipped.jpg
Battalion equipment and training can also be improved. Rather than going for large expensive MRAPs for HMPV, cheaper smaller APCs like the Kia KLTV could be rolled out to more battalions for motorized protected mobility.
http://thewiki.ewr1.vultrobjects.com/data/4b2d31353320eab8b0eab091ec8898ec8389ecb0a8eb9f895f554eeab5b02e706e67.png
Rolling out better helmets is currently being done. More effort on improving the comfort of the uniform, body armour and backpacks should be continued.
2) Rolling out the AV8 into more mechanised infantry battalions to be done. Final result of 1x Armoured Brigade (1x MBT regiment + 3x Tracked mechanised battalion) and 2x Mechanised Wheeled Brigades (1x Cavalry regiment + 3x Wheeled mechanised battalion each) to create a fully mechanised division.
3) Peacetime maritime security would be headed by the MMEA. Adequate operational and developmental budget to be given to MMEA for this. To continue getting OPVs and other patrol ships for MMEA, with much lower costs than similar ships for TLDM use. Increased maritime patrol capability by assets of TLDM, TUDM and MMEA.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
” P.S. it would be nice to be able to EFFECTIVELY contest the control of the SCS. I believe to do this we would need a minimum of
– 100 top-notch multirole combat aircraft
– 20 AIP combat subs
– multiple over-the-horizon targeting radar networks
– Integrated air defence networks of at least 100 batteries of mixed anti-ballistic, medium-range anti-air, short-range anti-air, and point-defence missiles ”
Even VIetnam does not have that much of capability, so do you think vietnam cannot contest the control of SCS?
– 100 top-notch multirole combat aircraft
Me : We need to have point defence capability above our territory (mostly against cruise missiles), and maritime strike capability with our fighters. Why we cannot afford to fight them with our surface ships, as we cannot put up effective control of the airspace above our surface fleet with our fighters against an fighter force like china.
– 20 AIP combat subs
Me : AIP is past. Future is Li-Ion. 6 Scorpenes and 6 DG350 all with Li-Ion will be a handful for even PLA Navy to successfully counter. More so when equipped with world leading Blackshark torpedoes and NSM-SL missiles. Discouraging chinese fleet from able to sail close to our shores to make missile attacks against our territory is a good target of Anti Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) capability of our sub fleet.
– multiple over-the-horizon targeting radar networks
Radars could be tracked by ESM and destroyed by land attack missiles and anti-radiation missiles. I would prefer us to launch our own earth imaging cubesats that could track all the ships in SCS in real time.
– Integrated air defence networks of at least 100 batteries of mixed anti-ballistic, medium-range anti-air, short-range anti-air, and point-defence missiles ”
100 batteries?? Any SCS conflict our airbase and naval base facilities would be the main targets of our enemy. That would be our priority to protect first. By 2030 I to enable us to protect at least our airbases (Gong Kedak and Labuan) and naval base (Sepanggar and Bintulu), we could afford to get around 6 batteries of CAMM, 6 batteries of Starstreak and 10 batteries of hybrid GDF and Chiron batteries. That said, to get this, you must forget about western 155mm howitzers, new MBTs, 6×6 IFVs, new helicopter for nuri replacements, trying to replace all RPG-7 with Carl Gustaf M4.
If there is a full blown conflict in SCS, it will not just be China against malaysia. Vietnam will be involved too. Vietnam subs and shore based anti ship missiles will also be taking shots against the Chinese fleet.
If it is just a minor one involving coast guard against coast guard, then even our TLDM should not be involved, and why I would insist all of OPVs of ours painted white and operated by MMEA.
@ chua
” EFFECTIVE deterrence is expensive, melepaskan batuk di tangga is cheap ”
The key point is to have the maximum effective deterrence WITHIN our available resources.
Just giving up against China’s colonizing dreams is not an option (to me anyway).
@ chua
” You mentioned the Type 31e previously. It won’t come in at $350m. 350m is a target given by MOD UK and the result is said to be a ship that is FFBNW a lot of gear AND extensively reuses key Type 23 equipment including radars, missiles and fittings. ”
http://www.ft.dk/samling/20141/almdel/fou/bilag/20/1417702.pdf
Look at page 7 of the pdf. The total cost of Iver Huitfledt is USD325 milion. Of course part of it is due to used weapons with only the 35mm CIWS is new. But all the AAW system is new, and consist of 31% of the ship cost. You could buy all the used weapons (guns, anti-ship missiles, air defence missiles) with the cost of the AAW system (USD100 million).
joe “I’m not the one making that amateurish simplistic statement since most of the foot soldiers are unlikely to be veteran ex-military”
Nobody said “most of the foot soldiers” were ex-military. I said that between some leaders having military training and the militia as a whole having years of experience in conflict, it was not a force typically prone to “standing out in open while firing RPGs” (your generalisation). Three years of urban combat would tend to weed out people who do that.
Feel free to disagree with professional analysis that covered their tactics and noted that by 1993 the militia had improved greatly in fighting quality, which shows that as an organisation it was able to learn from experience and make the required changes.
joe “Their CnC system is thanks to their generals foresight, not their footsoldiers.”
Has it occurred to you that fire and movement requires teamwork and tactical skill among small units? Do you realise that to observe enemy movements and detect, never mind exploit, patterns of behaviour over time requires tactical skill among obsevers and small unit leaders?
There is no way around that, regardless of what senior leaders can come up with. Again, you are choosing to ignore what has been observed, analysed and written by professionals in favour of your pre-conceived ideas based on some movie.
joe “even in lawless societies there are hierarchy and those with military skills & connections aren’t normally deployed at front when there are plenty willing to take up arms to survive.”
One could argue that plenty joined but only the good ones were left alive by the third year of war. As you noted, the militia suffered many dead, but it doesn’t mean they didn’t have many other good fighters.
joe “Tell me, if they were the highly skilled and trained military as you so put it, how did they suffer disproportionate toll of 500 deaths and 800 wounded? Is their military training different than other armed forces that caused such high fatality? That is just a amateurish simplistic assumption.”
1. Did you (or anybody) count the dead? Nobody ever did, the figure is purely an estimate.
2.It would hardly be surprising that the militia suffered heavy losses considering that the US the advantage in everything from gunships and vehicles to individual training and equipment. Consider also that the battle lasted for 15 hours.
3. As Azlan noted, some militia fighters were high, but again it doesn’t mean they had no no effective fighters left.
joe “Does that sound to you like a well trained military battle strategy? To use women & children as shields?”
Does it mean the militia did not have any valid tactics?
I should make clear that I am not suggesting that we do the same, in case you accuse me of wanting us to “follow in their bloodied footsteps” (your words).
Chua – “Eliminate inefficient and ineffective procurement and political practices”
Very needed/essential but hard to do given how deeply ingrained certain ways of doing things are and the huge political angle which drives a lot of what we do.
Similar to a various other things facing the country; deep fundamental changes are required in our defence policy and mindset. We need an honest appraisal of where we’ve gone wrong (from how we handle procurement to the role played by the local industry) and a desire to do things differently in order to enable the MAF to have the capability it needs; to handle the types of threats most likely to be encountered.
AM – “some leaders having military training and the militia as a whole having years of experience in conflict”
It’s also possible that some of the older clan/militia leaders had served in the military during the Ogaden war in the late 1970’s.
@…
Keyword is EFFECTIVE. As I have said before,
>”WITHIN our available resources”
is an impossibility.
Therefore, in my opinion
>”effective deterrence”
is not possible and anything less than what I outlined is a half-effort that is better left reprioritised elsewhere.
You are familiar with the phrase “step cost”? Effectiveness in many things does not scale linearly. This is one of them.
@Marhalim
I posted 2 comments on Aideed, did they not get through the system? Sorry just asking.
@ chua
” You are familiar with the phrase “step cost” ”
Do you take into account step costs when it involves say the safety and dignity of your wife and children?
@ chua
” is not possible and anything less than what I outlined is a half-effort that is better left reprioritised elsewhere ”
vietnam effort is also way less than than your standards. so you think vietnams current defence capability is a half-effort too?
@…
It’s well known that the Ivers were built at a loss.
I can only tell you what the Type 31 facts are, you can go and argue it out with Babcock if you like.
@ chua
Show me the facts that iver is build at a loss. Part of its low cost was of course because all the main gun, anti-ship missiles and anti-air missiles were taken from previous ships. That USD325 million was inclusive of the air warfare destroyer equipments, which in itself costs USD100 million.
my planned fitout for the malaysian type 31e
NS200 radar
1x 76mm super rapid (canibalized from Laksamana/kedah/korean OPV)
2x 40mm DARDO (canibalized from Laksamana/korean OPV)
8x NSM (space for 16x)
32x CAMM
torpedo launchers
4x RHIB boats or 2x RHIB plus 2x USV (USV can tow sonars and launch torpedoes)
1x UAV
1x ASW helicopter
This is the planned price for Indonesian ivers.
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZ6rwt8U4AUCUc3.jpg
@Chua
Post-CW British naval projects have a history of overpromises and underdeliveries even til today. The QE carriers for example, were 59% overbudget than initially planned. I am doubtful the Type31s would break that record but who knows. If it does, huzzah for them.
@…
Yeah, invading lands, destroying houses, indiscriminate killing of civilians must be something all other professional national armies do as normal.
@…
If it means reprioritising away from a useless effort in order to save them from a lesser evil, then yes obviously.
Let me ask you, how prepared is your house for tsunami, earthquake, hurricane, nuclear strike? Why don’t you do it? Go on. These are clear and present dangers to the safety of your family isn’t it? Go on. What are you waiting for?
Re: Vietnam, as a matter of fact, yes.
@AM
It is well studied by professionals that USC/SNA are made up of ex-military leaders and mostly clan militia. Most of their footsoldiers don’t get the same level of training as their ex-military leaders. Does that make them better than our professionally trained Armed Forces?
That’s rich.
“US the advantage in everything from gunships and vehicles”
For that operation the US only brought Little Birds fire support and no heavy fighting vehicles. If their militia had sufficient professional military training, they wouldn’t have suffered such disproportionate casualties, since the US were not firing indiscriminately into civvie buildings & general populace.
“Does it mean the militia did not have any valid tactics?”
Using women & children as shields is never a valid tactic no matter whom are the combatants.
Hopefully this reply passes Marhalim’s vetting.
@ chua
” Let me ask you, how prepared is your house for tsunami, earthquake, hurricane, nuclear strike? Why don’t you do it? Go on. These are clear and present dangers to the safety of your family isn’t it? ”
For my House?
Very2 prepared, except for nuclear strike. That is my governments task to protect me.
And what has that to do with our original notion of “step cost” ??
” Re: Vietnam, as a matter of fact, yes ”
If Vietnam defensive posture is also a half-effort for you, then no need to discuss about defence with you anymore as nothing substantial matters to you anyway.
@ joe
” all other professional national armies… ”
Why ALL pulak? You talked about a MILITIA not professional using human shields, and i responded that there is A (singular) army doing that too as an example. And you now talk about ALL armies??
Not going to reply to you more on this topic as it has nothing positive related to the defence of malaysia.
@joe
Indeed. The British are struggling between the desire to genuinely do more and the public purse’s unwillingness to do so, all over their Armed Forces, not just the Navy. Eventually one or the other is going to give.
The carrier over-budget was due in part to the Labour Govt arguing over conversion to CATOBAR and stopping work momentarily in order to commission a multi-hundred-pound report on its feasibility, before grudgingly accepting that the current configuration was indeed better.
However it’s also true that ever since the Leander-class frigates British warship-building has been pretty sad, with the exception of the well-regarded Type 23.
That being said, inflation has a significant impact and often such estimates do not take that into consideration.
joe “It is well studied by professionals that USC/SNA are made up of ex-military leaders and mostly clan militia. Most of their footsoldiers don’t get the same level of training as their ex-military leaders. Does that make them better than our professionally trained Armed Forces?”
Between some leaders having military training and the militia as a whole having years of experience in conflict, it was not a force typically prone to “standing out in open while firing RPGs” (your generalisation).
People might not be formally trained but years of combat experience can be a valid teacher. Combat tends to weed out the bad “students.” How much formal training do groups like the Somalis or the Houthis get?
You asked rhetorically if they are “better than our professionally trained Armed Forces.” Are you willing to come out and answer your question with a confident no? Are our “professionally trained armed forces” ready to take on the Somalis, the Houthis or the Arab or the Filipino ISIS?
joe “For that operation the US only brought Little Birds fire support and no heavy fighting vehicles. If their militia had sufficient professional military training, they wouldn’t have suffered such disproportionate casualties”
Assuming our infantry went up against 160th SOAR and a force of Rangers and Delta Force in light vehicles… since we are “professionally trained” and don’t “train like Somalian militia”, we should not have “disproportionate casualties”, right?
joe “Using women & children as shields is never a valid tactic no matter whom are the combatants.”
Great. You can press this point all you want, but you’re not disputing that the militia did not possess other valid tactics. Tactics that have been well documented.
Neither are you disputing any accounts that the militia had the capacity to observe, adapt, communicate and coordinate, which cannot be done by top leaders alone but requires skill at the small unit level.
@Chua
That’s the problem with having a flipflop Governments decide to flipflopping on the policies too. But in the overall, the Brits tend to viewed their defence projects as sort of a National Service thing, trying to do as much by themselves even redeveloping certain avionics for their F-35s (which they plan to assemble in UK thereby increasing cost per unit rather than leveraging the current production line in US).
@AM
To answer your question: NO.
A well trained professional soldier is like a properly groomed race car driver, while a seasoned militia is like your redneck driver racing in the boondocks for years. Put them together in a race circuit and you will find out quickly who is the most effective driver among them. The key to any activity whether be on a battlefield or race circuit is being effective at achieving results and proper training is the most efficient way of attaining success. It is well documented from first hand interviews with ex-seasoned irregular fighters that their main objective wasn’t to carry out their missions but simply to survive their next battle. They often don’t know why they are still alive but just counted on their survival instincts and lots of luck. Does that make them a better soldier?
“Tactics that have been well documented”
Tactics developed by their leaders, not their footsoldiers.
joe “To answer your question: NO. A well trained professional soldier is like a properly groomed race car driver…”
Since you’ve delivered such a confident answer, and since you previously asserted that “For that operation the US only brought Little Birds fire support and no heavy fighting vehicles. If their militia had sufficient professional military training, they wouldn’t have suffered such disproportionate casualties” would you mind answering the question:
Assuming our infantry went up against 160th SOAR and a force of Rangers and Delta Force in light vehicles… since we are “professionally trained” and don’t “train like Somalian militia”, we should not have “disproportionate casualties”, right?
joe “Tactics developed by their leaders, not their footsoldiers.”
joe “The key to any activity whether be on a battlefield or race circuit is being effective at achieving results and proper training is the most efficient way of attaining success”
For the third time: the “footsoldiers” had to be skilled enough at the small unit level to observe enemy tactics, adapt and exercise communication and coordination in executing their own tactics.
You’re contradicting yourself here. You’re saying that the training professional soldiers receive is vital and is what sets them apart from “untrained militia.” That “proper training is the most efficient way of attaining success.” But in a professional army, everyone receives training. You can’t depend on senior leaders to “develop tactics” and carry the battle for the ordinary soldiers if they are not trained in the tactics and still expect to be successful. Can you shed some light on your thought process?
@joe
Not true about the F-35. Actually they have a sufficiently advanced defence aerospace industry that they have a 30% share of the production of EVERY F-35 built worldwide.
@Chua
UK is Tier 1 partner but even they only have 10-15% of components in the F-35 jet itself.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/how-much-of-the-f-35-is-british-built/
UK are redeveloping certain features to integrate with their MBDA Meteor.
@AM
To answer you and this is so obvious I don’t know why you bother asking; we unlikely will suffer the same rate of casualties as the Somalian militias during that incident. At worst, we would withdraw if the situation is untenable with unacceptable casualties.
Of course footsoldiers eventually learn tactics on an ad hoc as they gain experience, but not every footsoldier has the same understanding on “observe enemy tactics, adapt and exercise communication and coordination” or even coordination amongst themselves. A trained soldier will purposely be taught to have a better understanding on the subject matter, akin to learning Higher Maths on your own or going to school. However, tactical coordination is always following their superiors as real life individual soldiers don’t go gungho on their own as you see in movies. The army works as a team, and everyone has their role & responsibilities and they know it & knows how and what to perform to achieve their objectives.
This will be my last reply to you on this subject matter as I see no benefit to continue in circles.
joe “However, tactical coordination is always following their superiors as real life individual soldiers don’t go gungho on their own as you see in movies.”
Thanks for finally saying it, but what you say is impossible.
You’re conveniently leaving out that the level at which decisions must be made is relatively low and close to the fighting. When it comes to fire and movement tactics, such as two platoon size groups of fighters supporting each other, how do you expect the decisions to be made at a senior level? Obviously it is necessary for junior leaders to know the tactics and make the decisions.
joe “we unlikely will suffer the same rate of casualties as the Somalian militias during that incident. At worst, we would withdraw if the situation is untenable with unacceptable casualties.”
But those casualties would still be “disproportionate” to the US casualties, wouldn’t they? Only natural if we had to face some of the best SOF and elite infantry in the world, with some of the best combat aviators backing them up. Yet you claimed that “disproportionate casualties” can only be suffered by an “untrained militia” and that the figures (which no one actually counted) prove that the militia in Mogadishu was an inept, untrained one.
joe “I see no benefit to continue in circles.”
Unfortunately it is your statement that raises the contradiction. You have repeatedly said that professional armies have a clear advantage over an “untrained militia” in having widespread training for the average soldier. Yet when it comes to the militia, you’ve repeatedly said that for a fighting organisation to execute effective tactics, it is enough for the senior leaders to know the tactics.
@joe
Ah yes, I forgot the correct percentage.
Nonetheless note that it is not for their domestic use. And the nature of F-35 is that all customers get almost exactly the same model and so all will be able to use the Meteor, and MBDA is certainly going to sell the world’s top BVRAAM to the other European partners too.
So the British aren’t actually paying more for their F-35s.
something related to upgrading our military capability.
Indonesia is currently doing factory acceptance test for 2 units of VERA-NG
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XL3HxrQx4Wg/X23btccQZCI/AAAAAAABPbM/BIfeu2UTB8kO3XdpxN9dS8zRDzB3Zwv3ACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/040620praha%2B%25284%2529.jpg
Malaysia was one of the first countries in south east asia to get the Vera ESM system.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T2wQ8uzBAgQ/UcJOFT_KlnI/AAAAAAAAED0/AWvJ4rZqiH8/s1600/vera+1.jpg
Other countries such as vietnam has both the vera-e and also assembled in country the vera-ng system
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hs6XEyue_wg/XgYQ1X0zGuI/AAAAAAABJ0g/DNiBbeDZ6_UVAy1QKJHMrE3mYHddA5TnQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/80222946_1181770955546659_3451474060238651392_o_27138507.jpg
Vietnam is now currently replacing their legacy radars with Israeli primary air surveillance radar and air defence target acquisition radars. Long range alerting is by VHF meter wave radars (VHF wave is not optimised by stealth shaping) and ESM systems such as Vera-NG.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-r2wnkX8hfnk/W-wWKS1ax-I/AAAAAAAA-Io/SLra_hWrpWoKa6LLrJG-Qqyjd0NerFI7QCLcBGAs/s1600/elmc-1542099716310174632438-crop-1542099725452483205115.jpg
Vietnam Elta EL/M-2084 radar (same radar with iron dome system)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nyQky5yPBRc/WQPxhq72uRI/AAAAAAAAzA0/aSByy3MSXMgDzKbYxVuFoUygOMCVHYYYQCLcB/s1600/PKKQ-3.JPG
Vietnam Vostok-e VHF Radar
http://vcdn-english.vnecdn.net/2019/12/21/5-1576928586-3763-1576928719.jpg
Vietnam P-18M VHF radar with Vostok-e VHF radar in the foreground
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YLilJnKdLy0/Uxc08_QgJSI/AAAAAAAAdDM/Zq-hv4vXI28/s1600/P18_1.jpg
Vietnam P-18M deployed in the Spratlys.
We should also recapitalise our Vera-e with Vera-NG systems, and have additional units to cover east malaysia too.
Vera-NG has been adopted by NATO as one of their air defence alerting systems, and also successfully trialed Sweden.
http://www.era.aero/en/about-era/news/era-signs-a-nato-contract-for-the-supply-of-two-vera-ng-systems
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/191766/sweden-testing-passive-sensors-for-air-defense.html
@Chua
“So the British aren’t actually paying more for their F-35s.”
By doing CKD rather than buying off the US production line, they essentially have to invest into new toolings, jigs, fixtures, factory facility upgrading, training & additional manpower with possible need for different skillsets than currently available with BAe. All these are extra cost incurred, but then of course cue the “developing local defence industry, economic generator, providing jobs for Brits, keep UK being UK, yadda, yadda, yadda” spiel, which is fine by me since their citizen can accept that reasoning apparently.
Ƭheѕe are truly great ideas in conceｒning blogging.
You have touched some nice points here. Αny way keep up wrinting.