Actually, the smoke that comes from the Mig-29's has nothing to do with the fuel mixture.

Nor was it produce from oil/diesel drums commonly carried by stunt/aerobatics aircraft.

It is actually a characteristic of the RD-33 engines that power the Migs. Although they were facing a lot of complains regarding this (due to pilots saying they are able to spot Mig-29's specifically because it leaves a trail of smoke), the engine designers don't look at it as a flaw. According to them, as long as the engine keeps the Migs flying, they don't care how much smoke it produces.

It seems they changed their minds with the latest Mig-35, though. No more smoke trails.

Hmm, interesting.

What is the reason to have the overwatch team armed with MP5's? Can the 9mm penetrate through the glass on the plane?

Wouldn't it be better if the overwatch uses carbines instead? The 556's penetration power should be superior.

I mean, I'm no expert but I was just wondering about that.

Yeah, but how many snipers can you deploy? How many windows can a sniper cover effectively?

Hence, the use of the overwatch team. To provide cover for the entry team.

Take a look at this video. They are mostly armed with MP5's. Try to count how many shots were fired. Take note that only one round actually hit the suspect.




Now, that is only a car windshield. Glasses on an airplane are much, much thicker.

Do cops have jurisdiction over armed forces personnel? I thought they will be handed over to the MP's?

I never understood the need for stealth fighters. It would only make sense if you have a "strike first" military doctrine. If you don't, the stealth fighter squadrons will surely be a priority target when a hostile nation declares war. Which means most likely you would lose your fighters in the first day of conflict.

Instead of spending huge amount of money on stealth fighters, why not use it to improve the air defense capability instead? It's cheaper and it makes more sense if you are going for a defense only doctrine.

Yeah, maybe under the perfect conditions. Nothing in war is ever perfect. Most of the time you will be flying over a SAM site, knowingly or not. Kinda hard to shoot down a bogey, BVR or not, when your RWR is indicating SAM launch.

The Serbs manage to shoot down an F-117 during the Kosovo war. They were not even using a specific anti-stealth technology to do it. It was basically a combination of good intel, knowledge of equipment at hand and a barrage of SAMs with proximity fuse.

That was some time ago. I'm pretty sure there are more advanced systems to date.

Would you rather have a squadron of stealth fighters when at the same price, gets you maybe 2 full squadrons of generation 4+ aircraft with change for a decent air defense system?

Didn't they change their policy recently regarding military tech sales?

That's interesting.

Kor risik/Special branch has someone on the inside?

That may be true but no technological wonder in the world beats old fashioned intelligence gathered from assets/operators on the ground.

This post has been edited by DeFaeco: Mar 20 2012, 05:37 PM

So that's where they were going. Saw a convoy of land rovers with them in full gear stuck in NKVE traffic a couple of days back.

Well, the land rovers were packed with equipment and in immaculate condition (not a speck of dust on them). Either they were doing a demo somewhere or they just going for a joy ride after cleaning up their stuff. They were wearing camo pro-tec helmets too.

Can you take videos as well? Awesome pictures, btw.

Yeah, but what good is 18 high quality, 4.5/5th generation fighters when you have to go against 30, 40 or 50 3rd/4th generation aircraft?

We still need a significant amount of planes to properly implement that doctrine. This is to ensure all of our fly-boys/girls get ample amount of time flying.

Airframes only provide 10% of the combat effectiveness. The other 90% comes from the pilots. Right now we don't have enough airframes to go around for the amount of pilots we have.

Not enough flight time = inexperience pilots. This was demonstrated perfectly by that video of the veteran pilot in a t-38 trainer against the F-22 pilot who was still getting used to the aircraft.

Optics were made to make aiming easier. If you are an expert shot using iron sights, you are going to be much better when using optics. The same cannot be said when you are entirely depended on optics.

Well, that's the problem isn't it? We really need to pick a side and stay on it. Enough of this "Let's buy both to please both sides" mentality.

Even better, we choose to be on our side instead and be completely self sustained. Instead of buying foreign made armaments, we really should learn to make our own. Or do what China is doing and just reverse engineer everything, make a few changes and call it your own.

But alas, that option is far from realization.

Nice looking rifle.

Where's the fire/safe selector though?

Ah, I see.

Is it semi auto only or does it have a progressive trigger like the Styer Aug?

RMAF probably could get all the weapon systems from Uncle Sam provided the payment is made in cold hard cash. That's not the problem though.

The problem is that you don't get to keep the weapons that you pay them for. Not until "big brother" Uncle Sam deem it necessary to allow us access to said weapons which, most likely, produces an outcome that will ultimately protect American interests as well.

That's why the source code is so important. In the event that the party that supplies the weapons refuses to do business for whatever the reason, the source code for the aircraft can be altered so other weapon systems from another party can be adapted to the aircraft.

How is it illogical? Can you see into the future? Can you tell me with complete certainty that our friends today will still remain friends in the next 1, 5, 10 or 20 years forward?

In the years before the 1979 revolution, Iran was a United States ally. So was Iraq in the 1980s. Iraqi relations when sour with the US when they found out the Americans had been supplying Iran with weapons as well (sounds familiar?).

That was with the Americans. What about us? Let's have a look shall we?

In 1963, Singapore was part of the formation of Malaysia. They gained independence in 1965 and became an economic powerhouse today that dwarfs even Malaysia. Who's to say what will happen in the future? Maybe they will remain the same or maybe our relations will become stronger or god forbid, some nationalist lunatic comes into power and decides Malaysia is a threat. This is not something completely illogical considering the events that have occurred in the world's history.

Next we have Indonesia. Need I remind you that 49 years ago we were at war with each other? Can you tell me the same thing won't happen 49 years from now? Heck, even today they went berserk when we tried claim a dance number that previously almost no one even cared or even knew existed. Even still, will we go to war with each other now? Not very likely. But I wont be surprised if we did.

I'm not saying that it is a complete certainty that we'll make enemies and wage war but the possibility of it occurring will always be there. In fact, there may be a need for us to launch a pre-emptive strike that may bring international sanctions which in turn, makes weapons embargo a real possibility. Is this unlikely to happen? For now we say "Yes, it will never happen", but in the future, who knows?