3/13/2013
A need for an Asean consensus on military spending
Eng Hen is boasting about Singapore eyeing the most advanced multi role F 35 fighters the Americans are developing, and new submarines too. All these are good as long as our pocket is deep and the people need not be shortchanged for other public services from the Govt. In a way these are very expensive toys that are very nice to have. I would even suggest we should have satellite defense system, killer satellites with leading edge technology and even ICBMs with multiple nuclear warheads. And of course the supersize aircraft carrier that can sail the seven seas. By the way, when an ICBM takes off it won’t land anywhere within a few thousand km radius unless it flies vertically, burns itself out and falls back under gravity.
While I am getting carried away with wild wet dreams, someone please jolt me back to reality. What are these expensive weapons for? Who are they intended to pitch against? Do we need a battalion of tanks to fight a mob? Do we need a fleet of warships to fight against sampans? The question is, who are our possible enemies and what are their capabilities? How far more do we want to have to be one step ahead of our ‘enemies’ to feel secure?
Then the obvious thing, if we up the bets, our ‘enemies’ also can up the bets. So I up you, up me, all for the sake of upping the stakes but with no ends to it. And who is gonna benefit from these extravagant expenses? The arms merchants of course.
The world has changed, and the possibility of wars between states in Asean region has diminished, at least under the present conditions. Oops, what’s happening in Sabah? While it is necessary to prepare for war in peace, it is even more necessary to build confidence between states, to build good relations and make peace more enduring with less deadly weapons pointing at one another.
There is now an Asean organization and relations between the Asean states are relatively very good. Would it then be possible and better for the Asean states to start discussing about arms reduction in the region, not only to keep big power influence minimal, but stop an arms race among the Asean countries? Time and effort spend towards this goal would be more productive, and save a lot of money and resources by keeping the military profile and budget of Asean countries as low as agreeable given the respective needs and considerations of countries, big and small.
If Singapore is not going to buy those monster killer weapons, there is less likely for the neighbours to want to buy even better or comparable machine. Save the money for better use. Think of consolidating the present status quo. There is no need to keep ramping up GDP growth, population growth, better military hardware growth etc etc. If the Asean countries can reach a consensus to accept a certain level of military hardware and build up, would it not be better for all instead of blindly buying and buying and expanding and expanding, to be what, a big time gangster? Who are we trying to frighten when a better way is to agree to lower the temperature? I am not saying no defence but at a level to keep everyone happy and comfortable without any need for excesses.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
If I rate my articles according to the kopi I received, the quality must be getting bad.
For those who want to buy me kopi and dunno how, just click on the advertisements in the blog are better to flip a few pages.
Thanks for the kopi.
A F-35 cost US$230 million. The total cost in its life time may be US$ 500 million in its life time. If we build one F-35 squadron of 12 fighters, it will cost our tax payer US$ 6 billion.
The price tag is too excessive. We already got 4 Phalcon from Israel. That would enable us to take down both Indonesia and Malaysia airforce even if they come together.
Why would we need a F-35?
To attack a superpower like China?
How to afford to lose one from a terrorist attack or accident?
I think our government is already captive to US defence contractors. RB you are from airforce aviation. You know better than I how air force are running.
When I look at F-35, it has part of its role design for naval aviation. As we know, naval aviation fighters are not as good as airforce aviation.
F-35 could only serve as a auxillary role in combat, probably flying side by side with F-22. Maybe it has bigger ground bombing capabilities. I am not too sure about that. Anyway F-22 is going to be the primary 5th generation US airforce fighter.
US Navy seems like its going to by F-35.
Why are our air force buying a naval aviation aircraft and/or airforce auxilliary fighter?
It do not make sense. Maybe PAP has more insider info.
Maybe we are planning to buy an aircraft carrier eventually. Naval aircraft are designed for STOL on carrier deck or VTOL. But such capabilities would compromise on some capabiliites of fixed wing aircraft.
There are many considerations, number versus capabilities, and who and what the enemy has. Everyone wants to drive a Ferrari or Lambo. So what?
Feeding the American arms industry?
Hypothetically, if there is going to be a war with Malaysia, our airforce will be wiped out before hostility starts. On the other hand, we will need all the bombers to wipe out their airforce exactly like what they will plan to do. The you will need a lot of bombers to do the job. It is unlikely to have air combat or dogfights when a superior aircraft/pilot will shoot it out like WW2.
F35 or F22 are for show and will fit into a country defending a far away enemy with many layers of defences, and to attack and penetrate enemy defence system, stealth to avoid radars. But you don't need that by going low level in a neighbouring scenario.
Right now, if Malaysia strike first, they will wipe out our airforce, vice-versa.
I agree that Stealth fighter is good for penetrating layers of defence.
Malaysia do not have hinterland, so what is the use of Stealth figher?
Phalcon to me seems quite useless if we need fight Malaysia. Phalcon can lock on hundreds of enemy fighters as far as probably 800km away. But if Malaysia air force fly from Johor, then our Phalcon is quite useless, as they can bomb Singapore in 1 minutes.
Its not that we do not need to defence ourselves. Sometimes, I found that monies could be put to better use.
This F-35 purchase I see no logic at all.
A subaru STi could outsprint and maybe out run many top models of Ferrari and Lambo at a fraction of the price. What is the moral of this comparison?
Easy and convenient to spend OPM.
Yes, why go for such an expensive and unproven fighter? Better to acquire a bunch of cruise missiles at U$1.4-1.5m a pop. For the price of 1 F-35, we can have more than 150 cruise missiles. Maybe we should just get 1,000 cruise missiles for US$1.5b. Who knows, with bulk purchase, we can even get it cheaper.
Alamak. This is a very bad situation, from a fiscal point of view. This fucker Hen has got a penis-size problem.
Like you, I suspect the big defence contractors have sent their sales people a-calling on our paper generals and rear admirals... probably belanja them makan, or puki, or booze or whatever "incentive"..who knows?
Or maybe the gazillionaires who've emigrated to Singapore feel more "safe" if the government reassures them "national security". Maybe by spending insane amounts on advanced weaponry will help other gazillionaires into choosing to emigrate to Singapore.
I don't now. I have no proof. I'm just pissing in the wind. :-P
What The said reminds of the situation in Taiwan during the rash policies of Lee Teng Hui. It got to the stage when China simply said fuck with all your defense system or best fighter aircraft. China will simply rain a 1000 missiles into Taiwan and see how Taiwan is going to defend that.
Cheap and good and low maintenance cost.
I fully agree with Matilah. Heard that they do pay kick back commission to some country leaders into some offshore carribean accounts.
Anyway, why waste so much monies? just let everyone has dual nationality. when war emerges, we run away. when war submerges, we come back. cheaper, better, faster.
No wonder dow jones peak this week. Sex, weapons and drugs sell. So sad.
rb
this is what happen if a government endorse the *washington consensus*
http://space4peace.blogspot.com/2012/12/war-incorporated.html
I think it's about time for old but still snarky Dr Mahathir to come out and fuck the Singapore leaders one more time, and ridicule them for getting such hardware, perhaps to "indicate something" to Malaysia.
That'll be comedy gold lah.
If only everyone has dual or several nationalities and run away whenever there is war calling, no one so silly to fight for those evil, greedy rulers, and then there will be world peace for all.
is sg paying top monies for a dud ?
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-35-would-be-defeated-aerial-combat-2013-3
Gd morning denk.
I would suggest we use the money to buy scrap aircraft carriers from Russia or USA or even QE2, park them around our islands as floating islands, refurbish them into homes or hotels. Cheap and good and no need to reclaim islands.
hello rb
sg can turn this scrap into an active carrier whenever necessary
china bought the varyag in 1998 as a *floating casino*, now its converted into an operational carrier , the liaoning. ;-)
sg might even ask china to do the refitting, er, unlikely...老 大 would be pissed off big time :-(
Hi denk, I think anchoring all these scraps together is far more stable and cheaper than filling up islands. All the scrap metal welded together can form a very strong foundation to build an island and no need to wait for 30 years to stabilise.
One thing good about buying F 35 is that we will win when playing war games. On paper, the F 35 will beat everyone else. I mean on paper only.
hello rb
any idea how many planes sg is planning to buy ?
Post a Comment