Enough to convince the ignorant masses.

So what do we get? S-300? Patriot? Aster 30?

This post has been edited by MrUbikeledek: Jan 26 2015, 10:18 AM

S-300 can launch both long range and medium range missile from a same complex.

because Sepanggar have to face the might of China.

Taiwan also have a parallel claim to South China Sea. I think tacitly, in the matter of territorial dispute, Taiwan also support PRC since they both in theory is the same country.

Multi-layered Air Defence

Long/Medium Range - S-400/Patriot/BUK-M2/SAMP-T
Short Range - Jernas/ADATS/Pantsir(missile)
Very Short range - Stinger/Starstreak/Igla
Point defence - Skyshield/Pantsir (guns)

The problem with Fighter aircraft is that, they require runway which is a big and vulnerable target, and they required like 45 minutes on average after warning to finally take off. Even a fully armed and fueled QR still require 15 minutes. SAM only take at most 5 minutes to power up their targeting radar. Fighter is good against large group of attacking aircraft as their combine radar signature is large, and the coordination of a large group of aircraft require a lot of radio communication that we can easily intercept. So we have plenty of advance warning. But for lone low level infiltrator that may pop-up suddenly close to the target, Missile is still the best option.

Unless you have a plane fueled and armed at the end of the runway, then 45 minutes is the reasonable timeframe. If you have plane fueled and armed at the end of the runway, then they may be launch as early as 5 minutes. But 15 minutes is a more reasonable time. It may take several minutes to strapped a pilot into the seat, and Fighter start up procedure will take several minutes. Unless of course you have a pilot strapped in the cockpit 24 hours a day.

I rather we do away with amphibious capability altogether in exchange for extra protection.

In order to be amphibious, vehicle weight must not exceed certain limit. This mean's limited armor and limited firepower. Lack of amphibious capability can easily be rectified with the use of mobile bridges and crossing barges. But there's no way to rectify the lack of protection. Most amphibious armored vehicle have a thin armor which can be easily pierce by a shell fragments and 50 cal bullets. They are also vulnerable to RPG.

What about against RPG?

MICA-VL is not really medium range.

That's the point. If you look at recent conflict, a lot of modern armies such as US and Israel, sacrificed the amphibious capability of their amphibious armored vehicle in order to provide extra protection. And look at Bionix AFV developed by Singapore. It doesn't even have amphibious capability due to it's steel construction, which is stronger than aluminium.

Why would AEW want to follow a fighter?

Clam Lake ELF transmitter site.



This post has been edited by MrUbikeledek: Jan 29 2015, 08:36 AM

They are island nation, so landing craft like this is vital for them to move troops and equipment around. It also help them strengthened their position in Spratly. 2/3 of the war is about logistics. Only 1/3 is about tactics. There's no sense having the best guns, the best tanks and the best everything when you don't have enough productions and transports in place to supply them.

This post has been edited by MrUbikeledek: Jan 30 2015, 09:35 PM

Winter is the best time for Donetsk militia to gain some ground. Most likely, the Ukrainian troops hunkered down in their winter defensive position.

Can jerry rig or not? Maybe fit a part from other type of vehicle.

Australia want to buy the Soryu. The Abe government seems to agree, but the Japanese Navy is reluctant to let the Australian to have the sub. Apparently, some of the technologies in the sub is decades ahead of anything that Australia can some up with, and the Japanese Military don't want to share the secret.