By: ogini
- 12th February 2001 at 03:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Malaysia vs Singapore
So David became Goliath and along came another David. IMHO I don't see HAMAS as a mirror image of the Irgun. Maybe you have too much faith in muslim capabilities. I do not need a remedial course either.
I designed this post to talk about capability, not intention. It is OBVIOUS that sucha a war could not ocurr between trading partners, and by the way, the India vs Australia comparison is quite stupid. As these countries don't even share a border and RAN is quite uncapeable (by its size) of operating in the Indian Ocean in numbers large enough to threaten the IN.
I'm intreegued about the malaysia vs Sinpaore question purely because I read that the RSAF was denied acces to Malaysian airspace. If you could clear this up that would be fine my friend. And thank you for keeping it short, that is the general idea.
Regards.
I'm also intrigued
New
Posts: 343
By: stormrider
- 12th February 2001 at 09:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Malaysia vs Singapore
LAST EDITED ON 12-Feb-01 AT 09:54 AM (GMT)[p]Hmm ogini I guess you have a 'view' of all muslims ehh ,
considering....any way saw a Thaipusam procession , plenty of coconut on the streets....
Well some one retreated from lebenon after failing to achive their objectives, suffered considerable casulties,and wasted years of expenditure plus they have all sorts of high tech equipment on their side,air power...etc against a small guerrila force equipped mainly with infantry equipment and some rockets
Ok as for Sing and Mal tensions:) well it is a combination issues
1 Water from Mal,time to increase the price to be more reasonable which is set 20-30 years ago and Sing dun like it
2 Well now and then both sides made comments that irritated each other :)
3 Malays in malaysia is worried about malays in Sing
4 The train station issue,well the Sing wants the Mal customs back in mal not in Sing.
5 and some other issues too can't remember which one that really irritated Mal though I must Sing AF boys making sonic booms and flying low over Johor Bahru( a city just across the causeway) is very Irritating
Well I also outlined military advantages,plus likely scenarios not just politics.....
Regards
stormrider
New
Posts: 24
By: Stradademi
- 12th February 2001 at 13:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Malaysia vs Singapore
Fact 1: Tho' Mal always claim to be a "Muslim" country...the fact actually lies on the Politicians interpretation. Not right to term Mal as a Muslim country. Its a multi racial country.
Fact 2: I have been observing the Malaysian air force for more than 15 years and still studying the strength and capability. I have even witnessed a fighter jet crashed years back.
Given a better plane, I would not underestimate Malaysian pilot as they were more capable. History, F-5s knocked down most Mirages III0 from the Aussie. During, the training with US in Butterworth, imagine F-5s are capable of knocking down F-16s ( sounds impossible, huh ?)
Now with F-18s and Mig 29s, and with BVRAAM, Migs are more deadly than the Aussie F-18A. This is just a short summary from my observation and feedback from fellow pilots.
New
Posts: 1,400
By: minmiester
- 12th February 2001 at 14:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh dear...
Oh dear...
RMAF F-5s - which were and are still - WVR only knocked down "most" Aussie Mirage IIIOs (equipped with the 550D and Magic missiles?) at a time where RMAF was desperately lacking in training (due to desperate lack of funds, and training equipment). Oh, and where did RMAF pilots get most of this training in the RAAF Mirage IIIO period??? Hmm...lemesee, oh, I remember, THE RAAF. x(
And Mig-29Ns, with their tiny little range (take off, circle the airbase, land) and their R-27s are "more deadly" than RAAF F/A-18A+s with AIM-120s??? Who are you trying to kid??? Oh, by the way, I think Malaysia has some of those F/A-18s too...hmmm, they musn't be that bad an aircraft... ;-)
Now I'm not saying that these aircraft (F-5s, Mig-29s) are incapable of taking out the Aussies (Mirage IIIO and F/A-18s) or the US (F-16s), but to suggest that this happens in "most" cases is, well, a load of bull. RMAF pilots ARE well trained, VERY well trained, but they are, in my opinion, not up to the standards or RAAF or USAF pilots, simply because of LACK OF FUNDING (plus inferior equipment, both training and combat wise).
Some objectivity here would help...
MinMiester
New
By: Anonymous
- 12th February 2001 at 15:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Oh dear...
The Aussies don't operate the Mirage III anymore cdo they??
Anyway, where do you get the idea that the F-5E is more capable then a mirage III, the mirage is built as an inteceptor / air difence fighter and the F-5 is built as an attack aircraft or airdefence fighter for lesser equiped airforces.
JW
New
Posts: 150
By: DTJ
- 12th February 2001 at 20:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Malaysia vs Singapore
Guys, I think some of you are missing the main points here. Firstly, there is a natural emnity between Malaysia and Singapore, or at least between ethnic Malays and those of Chinese extraction who form the bulk of Singapore's popualtion, and control most of the wealth. This division lies at the very heart of Singapore leaving (being forced to leave) the Federation. However, a pragmatic relationship has been built up based on business: rich Singapore needs low-paid Malay workers - just witness the morning/evening rush hour over the causeway between the two.
Secondly, the mistrust is very tangible within the military, especially on the Sing side. But then they have every reason - a tiny state that is extremely rich and extremely vulnerable. The main point here is that while things are 'OK' in Malaysia (or Indonesia, which is almost as close to the south) there will not be any conflict. But should Malaysia fall to bits politically and economically (there have been economic riots in KL as well as Jakarta in the last few years), then the jewel that is Singapore looks very, very attractive. The Asian economic crisis certainly caused a great deal of anxiety in Singapore – the rhetoric in KL certainly became more strident towards Singapore during this period.
Some other points: Sing does not have AIM-120 on its F-5s, but does have Python 4 (allegedly!). Malaysia's F-5s are pretty much retired to advanced training now. No doubt the TUDM F-18s are the most capable aircraft in the region, but there are only 8 of them and they are mainly ground attack-orientated. According to RAF and RAAF mates, the MiG-29s are no great shakes. The Sing F-16s are capable, and the guys are well trained and motivated. They also have E-2 control - the TUDM wants AEW more than aything else in the world, and that probably says something.
New
Posts: 1,400
By: minmiester
- 13th February 2001 at 00:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Oh dear...
Read my post again. There is no way known I would take a RMAF F-5E pilot against a RAAF Mirage IIIO pilot. And no, RAAF retired it's Mirage IIIO fleet in 1989. 50 were subsequently sold to Pakistan.
MinMiester
New
Posts: 343
By: stormrider
- 13th February 2001 at 01:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Malaysia vs Singapore
LAST EDITED ON 13-Feb-01 AT 01:13 AM (GMT)[p]
Basicly dtj its not a economic riot,its a political one!(not a big one too)
2you see the first guy wants to retire and pass to 2nd guy then there is allegation of misconduct by 2nd guy in a book ,which 2nd guy take legal action to banned them so the police have to check if the contents are true or not ,if not true then the publishers will have to go to jail ,as it turned out well the 2nd guy did some bad things,then no more succession so his supporters can of do some messing but a lot of people still support the 1st guys and stay of streets leaving the supporters of the 2nd guy and the police on the streets.Anyway the election after this well the 1st guy party still wins so just like that.
Anyway as for sing econs ,you see everyone wants only white collar jobs,no one do blue collar jobs so the pay for blue collars is quite high.cos no one is doing it, HAVE to import(preferbly from MAL)
anyway MAL itself also lack this workers and they import from Indo!
Anyway MAL econs, well only 2 SEA countries dun need the fund to help out Sing and MAL,though Sing is in a slightly better position(Brunei more less scot free if I remember correctly) .the counties that need help
Indo,philli,Thai,South Korea...etc
Like I said MiG 29(in the hands of RMAF) is damn good against
F16A(no Bvr ,no HMS ,no Advance AAMs archers) and RSAF quickly redress their quality with batches of F16C/D roughly 40+ with Amraams (100 to be exact)
as for AEW any one with an AF would have want it (like I said roughly 1 sqdn for every role to maintain core capability)well for AEW more like a flight.
As for leaving well,the LKY say he can also be PM which the MAL
say nope ,only deputy PM and the rest is history... (he left in his own accord )
As for RMAF pilot quality ask the RAAF and RAF lads about it
even the RN lads knows, some guy making a simulated attacks on them during FDPA exercises (anyway there is a jungle warfare school in malaysia which troops from Indo,Thai,US,Aussie:),British Army also attends)
equipment wise comparable! though not as numerous as SAF
New
Posts: 1,400
By: minmiester
- 13th February 2001 at 01:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Malaysia vs Singapore
Thank you.
In recent exercises between RAAF F/A-18s and RMAF Mig-29s, Hornet drivers only really got worried once they were in WVR combat, as BVR the Hornet is by far the superior aircraft (superior radar, superior missiles, superior training, superior pilots, superior aircraft). However, even WVR, the Hornet came out on top as the Hornet drivers knew to keep airspeed high, which is where the Hornet can exploit it's ability to bleed energy effortlessly while the Mig quickly loses much energy, turns on burners, runs out of fuel (!) and is forced to return to base. Also, WVR, RAAF pilots found it extremely easy to spot the Mig, as it's engines are very smoky at military power. Also, the RMAF pilots have the R-73, but I'm not sure if it's coupled to the HMS cueing system yet. Even if it is, the Mig's HMS is quite crude, but it is effective.
"Sing does not have AIM-120 on its F-5s"
No it doesn't, and isn't planning to. The AIM-120s (which have already been paid for) are destined for the F-16C/D fleet. However, as I said before, the AMRAAMs will not be delivered until RMAF gets R-77s or other AR Missile (RMAF F/A-18Ds do not have the AMRAAM). In any case, RMAF F/A-18Ds are strike orientated, and the trues are trained as such.
What you said about AEW is especially important. Malaysia is desperately seeking an AEW platform (once it gets the funds together) as in exercises with RAF and RSAF units (with AEW support) this capability was seriously lacking (same goes for RAAF, which has *finally* got the Wedgetails it's been needing for the past 20 or so years).
MinMiester
MinMiester
New
Posts: 343
By: stormrider
- 13th February 2001 at 01:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Malaysia vs Singapore
LAST EDITED ON 13-Feb-01 AT 01:57 AM (GMT)[p]I guess they forget to tell you how their butt got kicked ehh:)
yeah so objective Min.....how is the weather in Sydney........ ,If their so superior why they worry:)
Anyway just to let you know
they are now AAR capable
They are goin to have a new radar and adder capable
as for HMS.....they have been in service for years.....while western systems is still a dream until lately.(there is a thing called development)
New
Posts: 1,400
By: minmiester
- 13th February 2001 at 02:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Malaysia vs Singapore
Storm:
1) Mig-29Ns are equipped with R-27Ts, an inferior missile to the Hornet's AIM-7M and AIM-120
2) Mig-29Ns are equipped with the N019 radar, inferior in all aspects - but especially in processing ability - to the Hornet's APG-68 (soon to be APG-73)
3) Mig-29Ns are equipped with R-33 engines, VERY smoky at military power, easy to spot for Hornet drivers once they are within visual range.
4) Mig-29Ns, although equipped with AAR probes (supported by KC-130Hs) are VERY short ranged aircraft, even with drop tanks, which limit performance and have to be dropped for the Mig to retain it's manouvrebility advantage at close combat ranges.
5) Hornets CAN bleed energy far more effortlessly than Mig-29s, the higher the airspeed in close combat, the better the Hornet. RAAF Hornet drivers know this, and exploit it.
6) RMAF pilots train on PC-7s and MB339s. RAAF pilots train on PC-9s and MB326 (now Hawk Mk127). RMAF pilots do not train on Hawk 108 as these are used mainly in the light attack role, with Hawk 200s being used in the light point defence role. (see the best trained airforces in the world post for more detailed RAAF training manual)
7) Don't lecture me about objectivity Mr. "Malaysian forces are and always were far superior to Singaporean forces and no-one can defeat our army in the jungle and we have the best trained pilots and they are better than any other pilots in the region and our Mig-29s are deadly cos they have the R-73 blah blah blah". Facts. Mig-29s will not get to use their R-73s against RAAF pilots because they were mostly knocked out by AIM-7Ms BVR. Even WVR, RAAF pilots simply had to outlast the Migs, Fulcrums had to land FAR sooner than RAAF pilots. They did this by maintaining high airspeed, where the Hornet is on top and the Mig CANNOT exploit it's better manouvrebility. The battle Mig-29s vs. F/A-18s cannot be decided, but RAAF Hornets simpler employed superior tactics against RMAF Fulcrums. I'm sure the RMAF will learn from these lessons, they are a great force and train hard. I would like to see RMAF Fulcrums getting the majority of kills once RAAF Hornets complete their current upgrade (APG-73, HMS coupled to ASRAAM).
8) I'm in Melbourne, not Sydney.
MinMiester
New
Posts: 343
By: stormrider
- 13th February 2001 at 02:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Malaysia vs Singapore
LAST EDITED ON 13-Feb-01 AT 02:48 AM (GMT)[p]
Hey man relax:)who say who is superior than who?you did:)
who say Mal forces beat the ##### out of Sing Forces you just did:) I just outlined some advantages ,and probable scenarios I didn't make any conclusions,thats depends on field commanders when a real thing happens.
The are gettiing adders ,they are also getting a new radar,range yeah sooo short,Hornet A yeah sooo long range,yeah F/A 18 so much much more slippery that it will be sooooo decisive :)
Hey just saying you from Aus,How am I to know where you live:)
New
Posts: 1,400
By: minmiester
- 13th February 2001 at 03:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Stormrider
Regardin "1 party" (I assume you mean One Nation), this party is led by an inept leader and is nothing more than a protest party (they have no policies, and i'm serious, NO policies). They feed on voter discontent (especially rural voters) with the incumbent leaders. Before the 1996 federal election they were polling at 8-10%, but only attracted 2% of the actual vote. Australia is due for another federal election this year, and at the moment, One Nation is polling at around 7-9%. I would be surprised to see them attract much attention once the Australian people focus on policies etc. (except in Queensland, there are many strange people there :)).
Anyways, this is way off topic, so let's get back to Sing vs. M'sia (hey, most of this discussion has actually become M'sia vs. Aus for some reason!!! :))
MinMiester
New
Posts: 219
By: ogini
- 13th February 2001 at 06:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Malaysia vs Singapore
Boy, you are really something! Your comments actually have managed to irritate at least two of the normal posters in this forum. And for what it counts I don't have a specila "view" an all muslims, that is just calling me a racist, a matter which I resent deeply as I am not and never will be. However, people that tend to overestimate their country men have a special name: ethnocentric. I'm sorry but IMHO I think that a breif war between Sing and Malaysia would spell havoc for the TUDM.
New
Posts: 343
By: stormrider
- 13th February 2001 at 07:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Malaysia vs Singapore
LAST EDITED ON 13-Feb-01 AT 07:47 AM (GMT)[p]hmm..........well you did say muslims only,you didn't say RMAF specificly.As for ethnocentric well there is quite a lot of diff ethnics in Mal..... and you did irritate me too:) and as for being a regular, you can see me now and then I've been here for some time (when I am freelah).
As for Mal vs Sing
You have to take it as a whole campaign and it depends on a lot of Variables(some I have said before)
1)Best case for Mal, Well if tensions rises with escalation Mal will have advantages of getting into position.
2)Fortifying Johor Bahru,FIBUA is goin to be neck to neck.
3)Blowing all causeways.(Sing Navy dun have the capacity for a sustained support ops)
4)Getting artillery into position and pound sing airfeids,dispersals, rendering RSAF ineffective
5) cutting water supplies ,much reduce watersupplies will surely hamper their capability.
1)Best case for Sing launch a preemptive strike,but it ends all diplomatic efforts early(Mal forces not in position or depolyed)
2) Their armour(way faster than Infantry) would have push thru quickly,cause Surprise ,Surprise and capture Johor securing the water supplies that originate from Mal.
3)Their 2nd Objective would probably be the army camps south of Mal enveloping them and destroying them saparately and quickly
4)Of course airsuperiority ,with Mal artillery not in position in Johor, They have a free for all
5)You see in neumerical terms Sing AF is much larger
The have 60+ A4S 40+F16C/D 11 F16A/B and some F5S 4E2s
RMAF
17Mig29
8HornetDs
18 HawksSingle seaters
10 two seaters
(Ok guys I am just writing from memory ok)Min will probably jump on here
6)With this RMAF totally defensive ,it will loose the initiative and probably spent in the short term after causing losses and giving a good account of themselves.
7)As for Sing advance will they may go quite far indeed,though logistically how far they can sustain an offensive is another question ,and they are relaint on seaborne supplies,though captured supplis is another factor.
8)Of course this is short term 'scenario',not including Mal forces (all services) regrouping in the east or north of the peninsular and made a stand near many of the rivers or cities up north,volunteers/funds streaming in,guerrila ops in the south and the like:)
Anyway just providing a diff view,so this thing dun turn 1 sided too much:)
No offense:)
New
By: Anonymous
- 13th February 2001 at 09:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A war going on
While this academic discussion about shining silver-bullet planes is going on, an old war in that area broke out again. See the topic "South East Asia" on the forum of Tom's website (http://www.webruler.com/aircombat), under "Current conflicts".
New
Posts: 24
By: Stradademi
- 13th February 2001 at 14:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Oh dear...
Excuse me...I did mentioned 15 years ago when technology was way back then. F-5 was much better than Mirage IIIO. Yes, the Aussie Mirage is no longer in service. My point was, even with a less "superior" aircraft, Malaysian F-5s can beat other fighters.
New
Posts: 1,400
By: minmiester
- 13th February 2001 at 14:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Oh dear...
"F-5 was much better than Mirage IIIO"
That's a very disputable point. I'll discuss it later, it's getting late down here...
MinMiester
New
Posts: 24
By: Stradademi
- 13th February 2001 at 14:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Oh dear...
Should I say this...I was serving in RMAF for 15 years before I decided to opt for commercial. In terms of close dog fight, our "Scorpion - 12 SQN" knocked down (most of the time)the 75 SQN Magpies (air interceptor).
Should I elaborate more? Unless...you have a better prove.
New
Posts: 24
By: Stradademi
- 13th February 2001 at 14:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Malaysia vs Singapore
In terms of air superiority, I would agree Singapore is better. I heard they have aircraft in Taiwan as well. So even if most of their bases are compltely destroyed, they do have back up from other countries, tho' France is too far but somewhere around -Pekan Baru (Indonesia), Australia, Taiwan ?,.....will definately serve as back up plans.
Most bases in Malaysia have single runway...not sure about the newly constructed Gong Badak in Kelantan. So they are quite useless once a bomb is dropped onto them. No VSTOL aircraft to support.
Posts: 219
By: ogini - 12th February 2001 at 03:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Malaysia vs Singapore
So David became Goliath and along came another David. IMHO I don't see HAMAS as a mirror image of the Irgun. Maybe you have too much faith in muslim capabilities. I do not need a remedial course either.
I designed this post to talk about capability, not intention. It is OBVIOUS that sucha a war could not ocurr between trading partners, and by the way, the India vs Australia comparison is quite stupid. As these countries don't even share a border and RAN is quite uncapeable (by its size) of operating in the Indian Ocean in numbers large enough to threaten the IN.
I'm intreegued about the malaysia vs Sinpaore question purely because I read that the RSAF was denied acces to Malaysian airspace. If you could clear this up that would be fine my friend. And thank you for keeping it short, that is the general idea.
Regards.
I'm also intrigued
Posts: 343
By: stormrider - 12th February 2001 at 09:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Malaysia vs Singapore
LAST EDITED ON 12-Feb-01 AT 09:54 AM (GMT)[p]Hmm ogini I guess you have a 'view' of all muslims ehh ,
considering....any way saw a Thaipusam procession , plenty of coconut on the streets....
Well some one retreated from lebenon after failing to achive their objectives, suffered considerable casulties,and wasted years of expenditure plus they have all sorts of high tech equipment on their side,air power...etc against a small guerrila force equipped mainly with infantry equipment and some rockets
Ok as for Sing and Mal tensions:) well it is a combination issues
1 Water from Mal,time to increase the price to be more reasonable which is set 20-30 years ago and Sing dun like it
2 Well now and then both sides made comments that irritated each other :)
3 Malays in malaysia is worried about malays in Sing
4 The train station issue,well the Sing wants the Mal customs back in mal not in Sing.
5 and some other issues too can't remember which one that really irritated Mal though I must Sing AF boys making sonic booms and flying low over Johor Bahru( a city just across the causeway) is very Irritating
Well I also outlined military advantages,plus likely scenarios not just politics.....
Regards
stormrider
Posts: 24
By: Stradademi - 12th February 2001 at 13:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Malaysia vs Singapore
Fact 1: Tho' Mal always claim to be a "Muslim" country...the fact actually lies on the Politicians interpretation. Not right to term Mal as a Muslim country. Its a multi racial country.
Fact 2: I have been observing the Malaysian air force for more than 15 years and still studying the strength and capability. I have even witnessed a fighter jet crashed years back.
Given a better plane, I would not underestimate Malaysian pilot as they were more capable. History, F-5s knocked down most Mirages III0 from the Aussie. During, the training with US in Butterworth, imagine F-5s are capable of knocking down F-16s ( sounds impossible, huh ?)
Now with F-18s and Mig 29s, and with BVRAAM, Migs are more deadly than the Aussie F-18A. This is just a short summary from my observation and feedback from fellow pilots.
Posts: 1,400
By: minmiester - 12th February 2001 at 14:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh dear...
Oh dear...
RMAF F-5s - which were and are still - WVR only knocked down "most" Aussie Mirage IIIOs (equipped with the 550D and Magic missiles?) at a time where RMAF was desperately lacking in training (due to desperate lack of funds, and training equipment). Oh, and where did RMAF pilots get most of this training in the RAAF Mirage IIIO period??? Hmm...lemesee, oh, I remember, THE RAAF. x(
And Mig-29Ns, with their tiny little range (take off, circle the airbase, land) and their R-27s are "more deadly" than RAAF F/A-18A+s with AIM-120s??? Who are you trying to kid??? Oh, by the way, I think Malaysia has some of those F/A-18s too...hmmm, they musn't be that bad an aircraft... ;-)
Now I'm not saying that these aircraft (F-5s, Mig-29s) are incapable of taking out the Aussies (Mirage IIIO and F/A-18s) or the US (F-16s), but to suggest that this happens in "most" cases is, well, a load of bull. RMAF pilots ARE well trained, VERY well trained, but they are, in my opinion, not up to the standards or RAAF or USAF pilots, simply because of LACK OF FUNDING (plus inferior equipment, both training and combat wise).
Some objectivity here would help...
MinMiester
By: Anonymous - 12th February 2001 at 15:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Oh dear...
The Aussies don't operate the Mirage III anymore cdo they??
Anyway, where do you get the idea that the F-5E is more capable then a mirage III, the mirage is built as an inteceptor / air difence fighter and the F-5 is built as an attack aircraft or airdefence fighter for lesser equiped airforces.
JW
Posts: 150
By: DTJ - 12th February 2001 at 20:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Malaysia vs Singapore
Guys, I think some of you are missing the main points here. Firstly, there is a natural emnity between Malaysia and Singapore, or at least between ethnic Malays and those of Chinese extraction who form the bulk of Singapore's popualtion, and control most of the wealth. This division lies at the very heart of Singapore leaving (being forced to leave) the Federation. However, a pragmatic relationship has been built up based on business: rich Singapore needs low-paid Malay workers - just witness the morning/evening rush hour over the causeway between the two.
Secondly, the mistrust is very tangible within the military, especially on the Sing side. But then they have every reason - a tiny state that is extremely rich and extremely vulnerable. The main point here is that while things are 'OK' in Malaysia (or Indonesia, which is almost as close to the south) there will not be any conflict. But should Malaysia fall to bits politically and economically (there have been economic riots in KL as well as Jakarta in the last few years), then the jewel that is Singapore looks very, very attractive. The Asian economic crisis certainly caused a great deal of anxiety in Singapore – the rhetoric in KL certainly became more strident towards Singapore during this period.
Some other points: Sing does not have AIM-120 on its F-5s, but does have Python 4 (allegedly!). Malaysia's F-5s are pretty much retired to advanced training now. No doubt the TUDM F-18s are the most capable aircraft in the region, but there are only 8 of them and they are mainly ground attack-orientated. According to RAF and RAAF mates, the MiG-29s are no great shakes. The Sing F-16s are capable, and the guys are well trained and motivated. They also have E-2 control - the TUDM wants AEW more than aything else in the world, and that probably says something.
Posts: 1,400
By: minmiester - 13th February 2001 at 00:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Oh dear...
Read my post again. There is no way known I would take a RMAF F-5E pilot against a RAAF Mirage IIIO pilot. And no, RAAF retired it's Mirage IIIO fleet in 1989. 50 were subsequently sold to Pakistan.
MinMiester
Posts: 343
By: stormrider - 13th February 2001 at 01:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Malaysia vs Singapore
LAST EDITED ON 13-Feb-01 AT 01:13 AM (GMT)[p]
Basicly dtj its not a economic riot,its a political one!(not a big one too)
2you see the first guy wants to retire and pass to 2nd guy then there is allegation of misconduct by 2nd guy in a book ,which 2nd guy take legal action to banned them so the police have to check if the contents are true or not ,if not true then the publishers will have to go to jail ,as it turned out well the 2nd guy did some bad things,then no more succession so his supporters can of do some messing but a lot of people still support the 1st guys and stay of streets leaving the supporters of the 2nd guy and the police on the streets.Anyway the election after this well the 1st guy party still wins so just like that.
Anyway as for sing econs ,you see everyone wants only white collar jobs,no one do blue collar jobs so the pay for blue collars is quite high.cos no one is doing it, HAVE to import(preferbly from MAL)
anyway MAL itself also lack this workers and they import from Indo!
Anyway MAL econs, well only 2 SEA countries dun need the fund to help out Sing and MAL,though Sing is in a slightly better position(Brunei more less scot free if I remember correctly) .the counties that need help
Indo,philli,Thai,South Korea...etc
Like I said MiG 29(in the hands of RMAF) is damn good against
F16A(no Bvr ,no HMS ,no Advance AAMs archers) and RSAF quickly redress their quality with batches of F16C/D roughly 40+ with Amraams (100 to be exact)
as for AEW any one with an AF would have want it (like I said roughly 1 sqdn for every role to maintain core capability)well for AEW more like a flight.
As for leaving well,the LKY say he can also be PM which the MAL
say nope ,only deputy PM and the rest is history... (he left in his own accord )
As for RMAF pilot quality ask the RAAF and RAF lads about it
even the RN lads knows, some guy making a simulated attacks on them during FDPA exercises (anyway there is a jungle warfare school in malaysia which troops from Indo,Thai,US,Aussie:),British Army also attends)
equipment wise comparable! though not as numerous as SAF
Posts: 1,400
By: minmiester - 13th February 2001 at 01:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Malaysia vs Singapore
Thank you.
In recent exercises between RAAF F/A-18s and RMAF Mig-29s, Hornet drivers only really got worried once they were in WVR combat, as BVR the Hornet is by far the superior aircraft (superior radar, superior missiles, superior training, superior pilots, superior aircraft). However, even WVR, the Hornet came out on top as the Hornet drivers knew to keep airspeed high, which is where the Hornet can exploit it's ability to bleed energy effortlessly while the Mig quickly loses much energy, turns on burners, runs out of fuel (!) and is forced to return to base. Also, WVR, RAAF pilots found it extremely easy to spot the Mig, as it's engines are very smoky at military power. Also, the RMAF pilots have the R-73, but I'm not sure if it's coupled to the HMS cueing system yet. Even if it is, the Mig's HMS is quite crude, but it is effective.
"Sing does not have AIM-120 on its F-5s"
No it doesn't, and isn't planning to. The AIM-120s (which have already been paid for) are destined for the F-16C/D fleet. However, as I said before, the AMRAAMs will not be delivered until RMAF gets R-77s or other AR Missile (RMAF F/A-18Ds do not have the AMRAAM). In any case, RMAF F/A-18Ds are strike orientated, and the trues are trained as such.
What you said about AEW is especially important. Malaysia is desperately seeking an AEW platform (once it gets the funds together) as in exercises with RAF and RSAF units (with AEW support) this capability was seriously lacking (same goes for RAAF, which has *finally* got the Wedgetails it's been needing for the past 20 or so years).
MinMiester
MinMiester
Posts: 343
By: stormrider - 13th February 2001 at 01:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Malaysia vs Singapore
LAST EDITED ON 13-Feb-01 AT 01:57 AM (GMT)[p]I guess they forget to tell you how their butt got kicked ehh:)
yeah so objective Min.....how is the weather in Sydney........ ,If their so superior why they worry:)
Anyway just to let you know
they are now AAR capable
They are goin to have a new radar and adder capable
as for HMS.....they have been in service for years.....while western systems is still a dream until lately.(there is a thing called development)
Posts: 1,400
By: minmiester - 13th February 2001 at 02:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Malaysia vs Singapore
Storm:
1) Mig-29Ns are equipped with R-27Ts, an inferior missile to the Hornet's AIM-7M and AIM-120
2) Mig-29Ns are equipped with the N019 radar, inferior in all aspects - but especially in processing ability - to the Hornet's APG-68 (soon to be APG-73)
3) Mig-29Ns are equipped with R-33 engines, VERY smoky at military power, easy to spot for Hornet drivers once they are within visual range.
4) Mig-29Ns, although equipped with AAR probes (supported by KC-130Hs) are VERY short ranged aircraft, even with drop tanks, which limit performance and have to be dropped for the Mig to retain it's manouvrebility advantage at close combat ranges.
5) Hornets CAN bleed energy far more effortlessly than Mig-29s, the higher the airspeed in close combat, the better the Hornet. RAAF Hornet drivers know this, and exploit it.
6) RMAF pilots train on PC-7s and MB339s. RAAF pilots train on PC-9s and MB326 (now Hawk Mk127). RMAF pilots do not train on Hawk 108 as these are used mainly in the light attack role, with Hawk 200s being used in the light point defence role. (see the best trained airforces in the world post for more detailed RAAF training manual)
7) Don't lecture me about objectivity Mr. "Malaysian forces are and always were far superior to Singaporean forces and no-one can defeat our army in the jungle and we have the best trained pilots and they are better than any other pilots in the region and our Mig-29s are deadly cos they have the R-73 blah blah blah". Facts. Mig-29s will not get to use their R-73s against RAAF pilots because they were mostly knocked out by AIM-7Ms BVR. Even WVR, RAAF pilots simply had to outlast the Migs, Fulcrums had to land FAR sooner than RAAF pilots. They did this by maintaining high airspeed, where the Hornet is on top and the Mig CANNOT exploit it's better manouvrebility. The battle Mig-29s vs. F/A-18s cannot be decided, but RAAF Hornets simpler employed superior tactics against RMAF Fulcrums. I'm sure the RMAF will learn from these lessons, they are a great force and train hard. I would like to see RMAF Fulcrums getting the majority of kills once RAAF Hornets complete their current upgrade (APG-73, HMS coupled to ASRAAM).
8) I'm in Melbourne, not Sydney.
MinMiester
Posts: 343
By: stormrider - 13th February 2001 at 02:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Malaysia vs Singapore
LAST EDITED ON 13-Feb-01 AT 02:48 AM (GMT)[p]
Hey man relax:)who say who is superior than who?you did:)
who say Mal forces beat the ##### out of Sing Forces you just did:) I just outlined some advantages ,and probable scenarios I didn't make any conclusions,thats depends on field commanders when a real thing happens.
The are gettiing adders ,they are also getting a new radar,range yeah sooo short,Hornet A yeah sooo long range,yeah F/A 18 so much much more slippery that it will be sooooo decisive :)
Hey just saying you from Aus,How am I to know where you live:)
Posts: 1,400
By: minmiester - 13th February 2001 at 03:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Stormrider
Regardin "1 party" (I assume you mean One Nation), this party is led by an inept leader and is nothing more than a protest party (they have no policies, and i'm serious, NO policies). They feed on voter discontent (especially rural voters) with the incumbent leaders. Before the 1996 federal election they were polling at 8-10%, but only attracted 2% of the actual vote. Australia is due for another federal election this year, and at the moment, One Nation is polling at around 7-9%. I would be surprised to see them attract much attention once the Australian people focus on policies etc. (except in Queensland, there are many strange people there :)).
Anyways, this is way off topic, so let's get back to Sing vs. M'sia (hey, most of this discussion has actually become M'sia vs. Aus for some reason!!! :))
MinMiester
Posts: 219
By: ogini - 13th February 2001 at 06:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Malaysia vs Singapore
Boy, you are really something! Your comments actually have managed to irritate at least two of the normal posters in this forum. And for what it counts I don't have a specila "view" an all muslims, that is just calling me a racist, a matter which I resent deeply as I am not and never will be. However, people that tend to overestimate their country men have a special name: ethnocentric. I'm sorry but IMHO I think that a breif war between Sing and Malaysia would spell havoc for the TUDM.
Posts: 343
By: stormrider - 13th February 2001 at 07:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Malaysia vs Singapore
LAST EDITED ON 13-Feb-01 AT 07:47 AM (GMT)[p]hmm..........well you did say muslims only,you didn't say RMAF specificly.As for ethnocentric well there is quite a lot of diff ethnics in Mal..... and you did irritate me too:) and as for being a regular, you can see me now and then I've been here for some time (when I am freelah).
As for Mal vs Sing
You have to take it as a whole campaign and it depends on a lot of Variables(some I have said before)
1)Best case for Mal, Well if tensions rises with escalation Mal will have advantages of getting into position.
2)Fortifying Johor Bahru,FIBUA is goin to be neck to neck.
3)Blowing all causeways.(Sing Navy dun have the capacity for a sustained support ops)
4)Getting artillery into position and pound sing airfeids,dispersals, rendering RSAF ineffective
5) cutting water supplies ,much reduce watersupplies will surely hamper their capability.
1)Best case for Sing launch a preemptive strike,but it ends all diplomatic efforts early(Mal forces not in position or depolyed)
2) Their armour(way faster than Infantry) would have push thru quickly,cause Surprise ,Surprise and capture Johor securing the water supplies that originate from Mal.
3)Their 2nd Objective would probably be the army camps south of Mal enveloping them and destroying them saparately and quickly
4)Of course airsuperiority ,with Mal artillery not in position in Johor, They have a free for all
5)You see in neumerical terms Sing AF is much larger
The have 60+ A4S 40+F16C/D 11 F16A/B and some F5S 4E2s
RMAF
17Mig29
8HornetDs
18 HawksSingle seaters
10 two seaters
(Ok guys I am just writing from memory ok)Min will probably jump on here
6)With this RMAF totally defensive ,it will loose the initiative and probably spent in the short term after causing losses and giving a good account of themselves.
7)As for Sing advance will they may go quite far indeed,though logistically how far they can sustain an offensive is another question ,and they are relaint on seaborne supplies,though captured supplis is another factor.
8)Of course this is short term 'scenario',not including Mal forces (all services) regrouping in the east or north of the peninsular and made a stand near many of the rivers or cities up north,volunteers/funds streaming in,guerrila ops in the south and the like:)
Anyway just providing a diff view,so this thing dun turn 1 sided too much:)
No offense:)
By: Anonymous - 13th February 2001 at 09:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A war going on
While this academic discussion about shining silver-bullet planes is going on, an old war in that area broke out again. See the topic "South East Asia" on the forum of Tom's website (http://www.webruler.com/aircombat), under "Current conflicts".
Posts: 24
By: Stradademi - 13th February 2001 at 14:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Oh dear...
Excuse me...I did mentioned 15 years ago when technology was way back then. F-5 was much better than Mirage IIIO. Yes, the Aussie Mirage is no longer in service. My point was, even with a less "superior" aircraft, Malaysian F-5s can beat other fighters.
Posts: 1,400
By: minmiester - 13th February 2001 at 14:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Oh dear...
"F-5 was much better than Mirage IIIO"
That's a very disputable point. I'll discuss it later, it's getting late down here...
MinMiester
Posts: 24
By: Stradademi - 13th February 2001 at 14:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Oh dear...
Should I say this...I was serving in RMAF for 15 years before I decided to opt for commercial. In terms of close dog fight, our "Scorpion - 12 SQN" knocked down (most of the time)the 75 SQN Magpies (air interceptor).
Should I elaborate more? Unless...you have a better prove.
Posts: 24
By: Stradademi - 13th February 2001 at 14:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Malaysia vs Singapore
In terms of air superiority, I would agree Singapore is better. I heard they have aircraft in Taiwan as well. So even if most of their bases are compltely destroyed, they do have back up from other countries, tho' France is too far but somewhere around -Pekan Baru (Indonesia), Australia, Taiwan ?,.....will definately serve as back up plans.
Most bases in Malaysia have single runway...not sure about the newly constructed Gong Badak in Kelantan. So they are quite useless once a bomb is dropped onto them. No VSTOL aircraft to support.