Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Report: Singapore In Final Stages On F-35  
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5728 times:

http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2.../Story/A1Story20130312-407879.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...o-complete-f-35-assessment-383321/

Quote:
Singapore is close to completing its evaluation of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which it sees as a possible fit for its future requirements.

"Though the F-35 aircraft is still in development, we are nonetheless interested in the platform for our future needs," defence minister Ng Eng Hen said in a speech to parliament on 11 March. "The F-35 will be the vanguard of next generation fighter aircraft when operational."

Ng added that the nation's force of Northrop F-5S fighters is at the end of its service life, and that its Lockheed F-16C/Ds are at their "mid-way mark". According to Flightglobal's World Air Force's directory, Singapore operates 26 F-5s and 60 F-16s.

"For the longer term, the Republic of Singapore Air Force has identified the F-35 as a suitable aircraft to further modernise our fighter fleet," Ng added. "We are now in the final stages of evaluating the F-35." Nonetheless, he stopped short of committing to the type.

As a briefing on Singapore's interest in F-35:
Singapore is a Security Co-operation Participant back in 2003. They have an interest for up to 100 F-35's, and have some interest in the F-35B. If they commit, they will be the 3rd foreign export customer after Israel and Japan.

Also of note, South Korea has F-35 under consideration under the third stage of its F-X program. Analysis have said that it is very likely that South Korea will also commit to F-35 especially after the Japanese decision, and that decision is also this year.

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5610 times:

Naaaah. We all know that no one in their right mind would order the F-35. Its costs $200m each, is slow, over weight, only fires its gun forward, no phaser cannon, and doesnt have Fresca in the pop dispenser. Why would any country consider such a pig of a jet.

 


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5443 times:

You may want to read this part of the same article

"[The defence ministry] will have to be satisfied that this state-of-the-art multi-role fighter meets our long-term needs, is on track to be operationally capable and, most importantly, is a cost-effective platform," he said. "I've given many necessary caveats before we make a final decision, but we are evaluating the platform."

Ng gave no sense about whether Singapore will hold a tender for new fighters, the number of new aircraft that will be obtained, or the timeframe for a new aircraft acquisition.

One alternative to the F-35 could be additional Boeing F-15SG aircraft, of which Singapore operates 24. Another alternative could be an F-15 variant based on the F-15 Silent Eagle that Boeing has proposed in South Korea's F-X III competition.


This is more of a vanity Air Force anyway, IMHO. Singapore has no military enemies nor faces a military threat. If Indonesia or Malaysia really wanted to annex Singapore (never going to happen), Singaporean air bases would quickly be destroyed or overrun. It wouldn't matter how many planes they had. These planes are simply toys for the boys, IMHO.


User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5419 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 2):
This is more of a vanity Air Force anyway, IMHO. Singapore has no military enemies nor faces a military threat. If Indonesia or Malaysia really wanted to annex Singapore (never going to happen), Singaporean air bases would quickly be destroyed or overrun. It wouldn't matter how many planes they had. These planes are simply toys for the boys, IMHO.

Excuses, excuses. Countries are seeing why the F-35 will be a great fighter for a basic bargain of a price. Governments, not people, choose what to buy for the military. Don't forget it.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5608 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5416 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 2):
This is more of a vanity Air Force anyway, IMHO. Singapore has no military enemies nor faces a military threat. If Indonesia or Malaysia really wanted to annex Singapore (never going to happen), Singaporean air bases would quickly be destroyed or overrun. It wouldn't matter how many planes they had. These planes are simply toys for the boys, IMHO.

It is always wise to be prepared. You cannot prepare for everything and often cannot defend against the "worst case" scenario. But you can be ready and make sure that anyone that desires to take advantage of you has to think, and really plan and expend resources to do so (among other things this generally creates a better opportunity for you to learn about others plans and be even better prepared). This is the case for most any country, most any business, etc.

That you flippantly throw away a countries efforts and plans to defend itself as it best see fit is silly to say the least.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5416 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 2):
Singapore has no military enemies nor faces a military threat. If Indonesia or Malaysia really wanted to annex Singapore (never going to happen), Singaporean air bases would quickly be destroyed or overrun. It wouldn't matter how many planes they had. These planes are simply toys for the boys, IMHO.

You should read up on Singapore's defence policy; there is a reason why Singapore is considered to be the most militarily capable nation in the South-East Asia-Pacific region.

Singapore is known to be using a forward-defence military doctrine. In a nutshell, if there is a military threat against Singapore, they will act to strike first and attack the enemy on the enemy's territory, rather than wait for the enemy to attack. Singapore actively uses its military as a diplomatic tool to enhance its security. They view the entire South-East Asia Pacific region as sort of their responsibility in regards to security.

In your hypothetical scenario regarding Indonesia or Malaysia, they won't wait for either of them to attack; they will attack first, and destroy the enemy on their territory, rather than wait.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5388 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 2):
This is more of a vanity Air Force anyway, IMHO.

I think that's an ill-infomed opinion, at best. Singapore has a huge interest in maintaining open shipping lanes, particularly the Straits of Malacca. I think they would act sooner rather than later if there was a credible threat to close down shipping, which is a backbone for their economy.

Quoting powerslide (Reply 3):
Governments, not people, choose what to buy for the military. Don't forget it.

Sounds like you're finally agreeing with a point I've been making in this area for quite some time.   



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5381 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):
I think that's an ill-infomed opinion, at best. Singapore has a huge interest in maintaining open shipping lanes, particularly the Straits of Malacca. I think they would act sooner rather than later if there was a credible threat to close down shipping, which is a backbone for their economy.

Concur. I would argue that Singapore, based upon their defence posture, is pretty much an Israel in South-East Asia. Not surprising, considering the close ties Singapore and Israel have.


User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5379 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):
Sounds like you're finally agreeing with a point I've been making in this area for quite some time.

I've never said anything to the contrary.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 5355 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):
Singapore has a huge interest in maintaining open shipping lanes, particularly the Straits of Malacca.

Of course they do and so does everyone else including Indonesia. Who wants to close the straight? Who would benefit from closing it? Nothing has stopped pirates from operating there though. I never heard any fighter planes making any difference against pirates there, neither Indonesian nor Singaporean.

Again, who is a threat, even remotely, to Singapore? Don't like the question?

As to comparing Israel with Singapore - that's a belly laugh. Singapore is a speck of dust. Israel is small already at only 20,770 square kilometers in size. Singapore? only 700 square kilometers in size. And Singapore has no hostile neighbors towards it, or enemies what so ever and has never been attacked nor been at war, unlike Israel. These types of comparisons and statements are from the far side of the moon.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5338 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 9):
Again, who is a threat, even remotely, to Singapore? Don't like the question?

Strategically, China. Especially now that the PLA-N is moving rapidly towards being a blue water nay. Liaoning is now conducting sea trials with the J-15 fighter jet, and it seems, from statements by some PLA-N flag officers, that 2-3 more carriers are on the horizon.

China's foreign policy seems to be to try to entice/pressure small regional states into a sort of Mk 2 Co East Asia Prosperity Sphere. Singapore may find itself in the future with fewer friendly states nearby than now.

Quoting powerslide (Reply 8):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):
Sounds like you're finally agreeing with a point I've been making in this area for quite some time.

I've never said anything to the contrary.

Of course you haven't.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5330 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 9):
Of course they do and so does everyone else including Indonesia. Who wants to close the straight? Who would benefit from closing it? Nothing has stopped pirates from operating there though. I never heard any fighter planes making any difference against pirates there, neither Indonesian nor Singaporean.

Singapore would be a natural choke point in any major conflict on this planet. Whomever controls the waters off Singapore can put a strangle hold on shipping for a huge portion of the world. They occupy a very strategically important location in the world; remember, that's why Singapore was made into a major Royal Navy naval base prior to World War II, and remained a large naval station for decades afterwords.

Due to it's economic prominence in the region, Singapore is a big, important target. They are easily among the most wealthy nations in the world. Therefore the emphasis on a very robust and forward postured defense is entirely justified.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 9):
Again, who is a threat, even remotely, to Singapore? Don't like the question?

Pay attention to the region.

Singapore is bordered by two Islamic nations, one of which has a history of fundamentalist radical terrorist groups and being very politically unstable.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 9):
And Singapore has no hostile neighbors towards it,

Singaporeans disagree; there is a long history of a very tense and complex relationship between Malaysia and Singapore. Singapore has several long-standing disputes with Malaysia over a number of issues, some of which are territorial, others regarding basic issues such as access to fresh water. I believe threats have been made between the two nations regarding fresh water access; Malaysia has threatened to stop providing water in the past and Singapore has threatened in response to invade Malaysia if that happened.

Singapore's leaders perceive a Hobbesian world where might makes right. As a result, Singaporeans have a sort of a siege mentality due to Singapore's geographical weaknesses, mistrust of Malaysia and Indonesia due to historical baggage, and from how it stands out as a "little red dot in a sea of green", as then-President Habibie of Indonesia put it.

Remember, Singapore is primarily ethnically Chinese, while everyone else around them is ethnically Malay, and there has been very violent ethnic clashes between the two ethnic groups, most notably in 1964 and 1969 where there were a number of very violent race riots between Malays and Chinese in Singapore.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 9):
has never been attacked nor been at war

I believe the Japanese invaded Singapore during World War II despite the heavy British presence. As a result, a mindset has set into Singapore since the war where they believe that the only way that they can defend themselves against an external aggressor is to not to rely on others to provide defence, but be militarily capable of defending the nation as well by possessing one of the most technologically advanced, well armed and trained military that is qualitatively superior to its neighbours.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 9):
These types of comparisons and statements are from the far side of the moon.

Not exactly, especially considering the very strong Israeli-Singaporean military relationship. Israeli military advisors were instrumental in developing Singapore's military back in the 1960's.


User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 611 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5205 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 2):
This is more of a vanity Air Force anyway, IMHO. Singapore has no military enemies nor faces a military threat. If Indonesia or Malaysia really wanted to annex Singapore (never going to happen), Singaporean air bases would quickly be destroyed or overrun. It wouldn't matter how many planes they had. These planes are simply toys for the boys, IMHO.
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 9):
Again, who is a threat, even remotely, to Singapore?

You obviously have totally no idea of what you are sprouting.
If you, like yours truly, have lived through the Konfrontasi by Indonesia in the sixties you wouldn't have said what you did. Though no all-out-war occurred, there were many instances of hostilities including the bombing of a building in the city by two members of the Indonesian Marine Corps. If Indonesian President Sukarno had not been deposed in 1965, Singapore might very well have been invaded.
True that at present and in the near future, there is no likelihood of a clash in our region but as history has shown, we can't rest on our laurels.
Look at the current Sabah incursion by Sulu militants which have taken Malaysia totally by surprise. Just before that "invasion" happened, nobody could have remotely seen it coming.
Singapore speaks softly but carries a big stick (by necessity).
For your info, a former Malaysian Prime Minister once threatened to cut off our water supply to which our leader called his bluff by putting our vastly superior Air Force on full alert to attack them should our lifeline be severed (I was recalled from the reserves to go on standby). If our military were not strong then, we could possibly have died of thirst.
Have you any inkling how many air bases and runways plus roads that can serve as emergency take-off & landing strips? Also where and how many hardened underground hangers? And for that matter, the various "overseas bases" of the combat and support forces?
Take it from a former Republic of Singapore Air Force professional that the Strike Eagles, Fighting Falcons, Tiger IIs, Hercules, Stratotankers, G550s, Apaches, Seahawks, Super Pumas, Searchers, Herons, I-Hawks, Rapiers, the erstwhile Hunters, Skyhawks, Hawkeyes Bloodhounds, Strikemasters, Shooting Stars, Twin Hueys, and many other flying machines are NOT TOYS for the boys!
Do yourself a favor; stop saying things that you don't know.
And an unsolicited word of advice for you if you ever become a national leader; in time of peace prepare for war and in time of war prepare for peace.



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 611 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5203 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 4):
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):


  
In marked contrast, you guys do know what you re talking about.



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 611 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5200 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 9):
I never heard any fighter planes making any difference against pirates there, neither Indonesian nor Singaporean.

Just because you never heard of something doesn't mean it had not happened and is not happening. I cannot speak for the present jocks as I have left the air force almost three decades ago, but back in the days at our monthly beer-drinking parties, the fighter pilots would always be full of anecdotes of them buzzing the suspected pirate sampans (little boats) by zooming low and fast over them. Sure scared the sh*t out of those ba****ds.

[Edited 2013-03-16 03:57:40]


Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5122 times:

Quoting neutrino (Reply 12):
Though no all-out-war occurred,

Which is what I said

Quoting neutrino (Reply 12):
If Indonesian President Sukarno had not been deposed in 1965, Singapore might very well have been invaded.

How does that apply to today or for the future? It's speculation on your part. What did happen was nothing, which is what I said.

Quoting neutrino (Reply 12):
True that at present and in the near future, there is no likelihood of a clash in our region

Which is what I said

Quoting neutrino (Reply 12):
For your info, a former Malaysian Prime Minister once threatened to cut off our water supply to which our leader called his bluff by putting our vastly superior Air Force on full alert to attack them should our lifeline be severed (I was recalled from the reserves to go on standby). If our military were not strong then, we could possibly have died of thirst.

Singapore does not and did not rely exclusively on Malaysian water imports for its entire water supply. Half at most. Singapore may have had to ration water, but people would not have died of thirst if Malaysia had cut supplies.

It's irresponsible for Singapore to act like that and make those threats of invasion. If you have military power, you must show you can be trusted with that power. Threatening war is no way to negotiate between nations. That is bat shit crazy. If Singapore wants to continue growing and continue growing its demand and use of water, it must do something else, besides using military threats to assure its ever growing thirst for water.

However, I don't think many people take that threat by Singapore totally seriously. Singapore is not about to wreck its own economy and its trade and international standing by invading Malaysia. A lot of bark but no bite.

Quoting neutrino (Reply 14):
the fighter pilots would always be full of anecdotes of them buzzing the suspected pirate sampans (little boats) by zooming low and fast over them. Sure scared the sh*t out of those ba****ds.

Those low level scare passes didn't do the trick, as the pirates are still there today, which is what I said.

As to terrorist, how are fighter jets going to stop terrorist in Singapore? Is Singapore going to bomb itself with F-15s if it discovers any? F-15s or F-35s are useless against terrorists, especially in the city/state of Singapore. It would be like the city of New York buying F-15s for police and anti-terror work.

I think Singapore is full of bark and no bite. I t has no need for fighter jets of the caliber of F-15s of F-35s. Singapore would destroy itself if it went all aggressive against Malaysia - I am sure they know this. So I say, let Singapore buy 200 F-35s if they want. Good for us and me here in the USA. Singapore can't use them anyway except for scaring pirates.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5102 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 15):
How does that apply to today or for the future? It's speculation on your part. What did happen was nothing, which is what I said.

There is very little love lost between Singapore, which is predominantly ethnically Chinese, and Indonesia at the time, which is ethnically Malay. The racial tensions back in the 1960's and the race riots are proof of that.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 15):

Singapore does not and did not rely exclusively on Malaysian water imports for its entire water supply. Half at most. Singapore may have had to ration water, but people would not have died of thirst if Malaysia had cut supplies.

Today, Singapore has better access to domestic fresh water supply, but before the 1980's, Singapore was predominantly reliant on fresh water imports from Malaysia. However, Singapore today still imports roughly 40% of it's fresh water supply from Malaysia, and that with extensive planning and technology invested in water reclamation. Before the 1980's, practically all of Singapore's fresh water came from Malaysia.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 15):
It's irresponsible for Singapore to act like that and make those threats of invasion. If you have military power, you must show you can be trusted with that power. Threatening war is no way to negotiate between nations. That is bat shit crazy. If Singapore wants to continue growing and continue growing its demand and use of water, it must do something else, besides using military threats to assure its ever growing thirst for water.

When you are at the total mercy of another nation who doesn't have very good relations with you regarding a vital asset (such as fresh water), the threat of force is required sometimes to keep the peace. Remember what I said, Singapore has a Hobbesian and a Realist view of the world; might = right. They are political realists and they believe in maintaining a balance of power between them and another power.

Singapore aims to be totally water self-sufficient by 2061, which is when the current water agreement with Malaysia expires. Singapore, if you don't know already, is a world leader in the development of water reclamation technology. Since 2006, Singapore has spent between $493m and $655m annually on research and technology to develop alternative sources of freshwater.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 15):
However, I don't think many people take that threat by Singapore totally seriously. Singapore is not about to wreck its own economy and its trade and international standing by invading Malaysia. A lot of bark but no bite.

Singapore is taken very seriously in the region as a dominant regional power. Singapore is the world's fourth leading financial centre, and its port is one of the five busiest ports in the world. It's strategic location has been, and will always be an important centre for trade.

As befitting of a regional power, Singapore takes its national defence and the security and stability of the region very seriously.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5030 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 16):
Singapore is the world's fourth leading financial centre, and its port is one of the five busiest ports in the world. It's strategic location has been, and will always be an important centre for trade.

Do you really think Singapore is going to wreck itself over the price of water over hwo owns or pays for the water infrastructure inside Malaysia? The threats Malaysia leveled at Singapore were over money and infrastructure, not about Malaysia denying water to Singapore just for the heck of it or because of race issues.

I really take issue when people like you, constantly insinuate a threat from Muslims or certain races and that they are a military threat. That's phobic.

Race riots in Singapore - those were in the 1960s, in case you wondered and even if they were today, there is nothing F-15s or F-35s could do anything about it. Besides, that point speaks to Singaporean look politically unstable, since the riots were inside Singapore.

These are all issues against which F-15s or F-35s are totally ineffective. But hey, I'd gladly accept Singapore's money, so shovel it on over Singapore. Quite frankly, I hope they do buy F-35s in large quantities, as it is an expensive plane which, except for stealth, is less capable than the F-16 they would replace and cost twice as much to operate- if not more. The F-35s would essentially be a financial vacuum cleaner, vacuuming large sums of money out of Singapore's defense budget for decades for reduced capabilities, making the region safer.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5029 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 17):
I hope they do buy F-35s in large quantities, as it is an expensive plane which, except for stealth, is less capable than the F-16 they would replace and cost twice as much to operate- if not more.

Take advice from the fellow from Singapore.

Quoting neutrino (Reply 12):
You obviously have totally no idea of what you are sprouting.


User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 611 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4996 times:



Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 16):
Quoting Powerslide (Reply 18):

Many thanks for trying in vain to drill facts into someone who steadfastly stuck to his misinformed and misguided view of a world far removed from his own. There is no more point in further refuting his myopic, skewed, distorted and ill-informed ramblings.
Do a good deed; don't torment his soul. Let him be in his own well. His opinion, though totally without merit and out of reality, is harmless to everybody else.

[Edited 2013-03-16 23:07:12]


Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4953 times:

Quoting neutrino (Reply 19):
Many thanks for trying in vain to drill facts into someone who steadfastly stuck to his misinformed and misguided view of a world far removed from his own.

Last I checked the UN was here in my country, not in Singapore.

Apparently, your solitary focus on all things Singapore, leave you unable to comprehend the actions of other nations, which would have negative consequences for Singapore - nations that are culturally and physically far removed from Singapore and couldn't care less about the nuances of Singaporean culture, if Singapore were to cross a certain line, such as invading Malaysia over Malaysia's water.

I hope you are also aware, that most of the training and much of the flying, doesn't even take place in Singapore, but in places like Thailand and the US.

I did enjoy your story though, elucidating how in Singapore culture, fighter jets like F-15s are used against pirates by buzzing them and the result is deemed satisfactory and effective by a Singaporean like yourself, even though the pirates remain. I am beginning to understand your culture.

Just FYI, using F-15s in that manner and with that end result, would be considered a total failure in my country. To me that's goofing off. Perhaps our goals and metrics of success are just different from that of Singaporean culture. Let's leave it at that. I think I understand you better now.

I now understand why the Singapore Air Force was not included in the Coalition forces in Iraq or Afghanistan. Singapore has every right to buy a boat load of F-35s. I hope they do.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4868 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 20):
Last I checked the UN was here in my country, not in Singapore.

American's aren't known for having a very good understanding of the world. You included.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 20):

Apparently, your solitary focus on all things Singapore, leave you unable to comprehend the actions of other nations, which would have negative consequences for Singapore - nations that are culturally and physically far removed from Singapore and couldn't care less about the nuances of Singaporean culture, if Singapore were to cross a certain line, such as invading Malaysia over Malaysia's water.

The world perfectly understands how Singapore works and thinks in the context of international relations; there is a book that is very influential in Singapore called "S Rajaratnam on Singapore: From Ideas to Reality". It's written by the first foreign minister of Singapore. You should read it.

Former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew was emphatic about the threat posed by Singapore’s immediate neighbours; they will ‘knock us about’ and ‘harass us’ if Singapore does not have a defence capability. This is why Singapore needs a defence premium – not only to ensure that it would have the military wherewithal to repel an aggressor, but also to enable it to remain free from coercion. Singaporeans see a world and history where smaller, weaker nations get bullied, bargained over and even dismembered through the millennia around by bigger, stronger countries. As a small country, its defence ‘premium’ ensures that it retains maximum freedom of action amid an uncertain environment. Even though relations with its two neighbours have improved over the years, Singaporeans do not take continued friendly relations with their neighbours for granted.

Some watchers of the region have what is termed the three ‘D’s of Singapore’s defence policy. The republic depends on diplomacy and deterrence to keep threats at bay; but if these two legs fail, the full force of the Singapore's military would be unveiled to defeat aggressors.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 20):
I hope you are also aware, that most of the training and much of the flying, doesn't even take place in Singapore, but in places like Thailand and the US.

Actually, primarily in Taiwan, Australia, and France. Singapore knows how to walk a fine line between the complex relationship between Taiwan and China.

And I should also note that the USAF regularly deploys to Singapore for exercises, along with the frequent USN visits in Singapore as well.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 20):
I now understand why the Singapore Air Force was not included in the Coalition forces in Iraq or Afghanistan. Singapore has every right to buy a boat load of F-35s. I hope they do.

Actually, the SAF was involved Operation Iraqi Freedom; a number of KC-135 tankers and C-130 Herc's deployed to Iraq.

And the RSAF is a very professional and well-trained air force; the RSAF's presence in the US, the USAF's 425th Fighter Squadron, much like the Taiwanese presence in the US, the 21st Fighter Squadron, regularly exercises with USAF units. They are a regular participant in Red Flag, and from what I hear, are very professional and do extremely well against USAF units, much like the Taiwanese.

Singapore takes its defence extremely seriously. Their defence is not a laughing matter for them, and they aim to buy the best equipment that they can afford for their needs. This is a nation, FYI, that spends over 24% of the entire government's budget on defence. Singapore accounts for 4% of the world's total spending on arms imports. Its defence spending per head beats every country bar America, Israel and Kuwait. It's a very well trained and professional military force, especially considering that it is also a conscript army.

FYI, 70% of Singaporeans polled in an Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) survey said that having a male child who had completed National Service is an important characteristic of being ‘Singaporean’.


User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 611 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4784 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 21):


Hey, why didn't you heed my suggestion to be a do-gooder by ceasing to torment that good fella with facts.   
The truth hurts those who refuse to accept it. Just let the ignorant remain in their cocoon of self-belief, however misguided.

I was well involved in the deployments to Thailand, Australia and The Philippines and to a much lesser extent Brunei too when I was still active in the air force, spending up to a year in one of those countries. We take our training & operational stuff very seriously then and I know the current servicemen also do likewise since I do meet up occasionally with my old buddies who are still in uniform, and their younger colleagues.
In the pre-Pinatubo Philippines, I was based in Clark and worked really closely with the Americans who were our gracious hosts. We cooperated so much together in both work (regular air excercise in which we often come out on top of them   ) and play (we threw monthly booze parties with those guys we interacted with frequently).
Despite months and even years in the air base, most of them have very little clue of Asia and even less of Singapore but they are nice and fun guys nevertheless. So I bear no bad (only sad) feelings to our friend here who stubbornly borne such false and negative views of my country and its military. Wish he will grow out of it but no losses to anyone if he don't.



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 4755 times:

Quoting neutrino (Reply 22):
ceasing to torment that good fella with facts.

Facts don't torment me neutrino. Sorry to disappoint. I do find your waving white glove mocking generalities amusing and refreshing actually, in a Las Vegas Liberace sort of way.

Powerslide:

The 1 Singaporean jet tanker was sent to Iraq only after the invasion in Iraq was over and was there for only for 3 few months. The 1 Singaporean C-130 tanker was sent for 2 months, also after the invasion in Iraq was over. No Singaporean fighters ever took part in coalition operations over Iraq or Afghanistan and to this day do not participate. I wonder why? Why have none of the 100 or so Singaporean modern fighters participated in the coalition force? Are they not welcome there?

Perhaps neutrino can enlighten us on the reason. With some facts.

I stand by my opinion that Singapore does not need modern fighter jets for anything. If Singapore can't even get rid of the pirates with all it's military toys, what use are they? It's a joke. Maybe they need to learn some things from the US Coast Guard.

The fact that Singapore is finishing their evaluation of the F-35 is no news either way. They even state nothing is imminent in any case. I suggest the F-35 supporters temper their enthusiasm on Singapore ordering the F-35 any time soon.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 4743 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 23):
I stand by my opinion that Singapore does not need modern fighter jets for anything.

Good for you. This is why peace-loving activists get ignored.


User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2039 posts, RR: 6
Reply 25, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 4775 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 23):
I stand by my opinion that Singapore does not need modern fighter jets for anything.

That's all grand and wonderful, but you might want to consider the fact that the only thing that these fellow posters, who haven't agreed on a single thing up until this point, have in common is that they are all telling you that you don't have the slightest clue about this topic.




No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlineANZUS340 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 61 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 4771 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 24):
Good for you. This is why peace-loving activists get ignored.

Well the position of neo-cons is hardly superior. I am no expert on military matters, despite more than 21 years in the army and navy. Niether, am I an expert on the F35. However, I am amused by the diehard positions that certain individuals are clearly demonstrating for this particular aircraft . Perhaps if I had access to the same information that these people obviously enjoy I would be excited too.

I will say zipping over the decks of pirate vessels, with expensive fighter aircraft, hardly seems like a prudent use of resources or money. Of course I am not privy to all the facts. I will take a wild leap and say even if buzzing pirate vessels with combat jets is a wise move, does that important mission require stealthy aircraft to be successful?

Another couple of questions I have regarding the F35. How do cost overruns in other military programs, such as those repeatedly given as examples on these boards, justify the spiraling costs and delays associated with the F35?

Singapore definitely occupies a strategic location, although considering the opposition it is likely to face, is the F35 a better choice than an improved version of the F15 or Rafale?


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 4785 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 24):
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 23):
I stand by my opinion that Singapore does not need modern fighter jets for anything.

Good for you. This is why peace-loving activists get ignored.

So by inference are you self-identifying as a war-mongering activist ? Ad hominem attacks are supposed to merit sanctions from the mods, you know.

Furthermore, my experience with those who have actually served is that, in fact, they are peace-loving as well.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 4750 times:

Quoting ANZUS340 (Reply 26):
is the F35 a better choice than an improved version of the F15 or Rafale?

What improved versions? The ones that don't exist and the ones governments aren't buying?


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
New GAO Report On F-35: Outlook Improving posted Wed Mar 13 2013 12:20:06 by ThePointblank
Final Report On PLF Tu-154 Crash In Smolensk posted Fri Jul 29 2011 01:39:46 by Danny
Air Force Association Magazine On F-35 posted Tue Oct 2 2012 20:48:37 by ThePointblank
GAO On F-35, June 2012 posted Fri Jun 29 2012 13:37:21 by tommytoyz
Aircraft Used In The Assault On Osama Bin Laden posted Mon May 2 2011 10:12:44 by tugger
A400M Talks In Final Round posted Fri Feb 19 2010 07:07:12 by Revelation
Spies Get Terabytes Of Info. On F-35 posted Mon Apr 20 2009 22:30:26 by Greaser
Israel Wants Own Technology On F-35's posted Fri Oct 3 2008 17:29:59 by Blackbird
Bush, Blair Agree On F-35 Technology Transfer posted Sat May 27 2006 21:35:17 by Lumberton
F-35 On Exhibition In Front Of Oslo Town Hall posted Fri Aug 31 2012 15:43:25 by Mortyman