Why compare with Thais who have doubtful training and readiness levels throughout?

True or not, I don't know but that still means operational FA-50 pilots must have jet trainers of some kind. They cannot go from Pilatus straight to operations. And you cannot use FA-50s for both training and operations; if you do, you will be using up their flight hours as if you bought another T-50 anyway.

Kalau kita beli LCA secukupnya then takde keperluan untuk Super Tucano kerana LCA mampu hantar bomb jugak

Best lagi katana tak perlu satu lagi supply chain asing untuk satu lagi model aircraft

Actually, what about mines? Seems like a cheap way to deny parts of the ocean. Could even contribute to something of a "scorched earth" policy if necessary.

The Finnish for example are big on mines.

it is if it forces enemies such as China to the negotiation table

but I was thinking more of contesting the SCS

nuh uh, because ships are most economically built like production lines instead of batches. that is, building one by one at a steady pace. building e.g. OPVs this RMK, then pausing 5 years, then starting up OPVs again next 5 years, is theoretically more expensive than e.g. building 10 ships over a defined 10-year period, because of the economic impact of laying off workers and then re-hiring again, and the cost-efficiency impact of switching production lines on and off.

MRSS being a one-off is okay. but ideally, for OPVs and corvettes (which is all we can realistically get), we should be constantly delivering.

one model we could adopt - if we had any sense - is similar to how Japan keeps pumping out destroyers steadily, but with each generation incorporating incremental improvements and upgrades over the previous.

conceivably, we could do the same, say by building a constant 2 OPVs a year, gradually working our way up in quality. remainder of the shipbuilding budget going to bigger ticket items.

which is why I wrote a disclaimer in my post

Modern mines are more discriminatory, and anyway would only be laid in times of war

Defensive mining involves mining "our" waterways as well. Or in the use case I suggested, to deny waterways which are "theirs" (contested portions of the SCS)

It would not be a good use of submarines as we have few submarines and they are much more valuable as ship-killers

There are no existing large UUV minelayers

There are many types of mines that can be laid, air-laid mines are just one of them

The most economical minelaying method is very simply by rolling them off a cargo ship, such as Iran and Saddam's Iraq are fond of doing. And this deployment method is well within our potential capability

Dedicated "fast minelayers" have been used since WW1 to lay minefields at some distance very quickly under cover of night.

This post has been edited by KLthinker91: Sep 12 2021, 02:07 PM

Lol daily wail

Crap rumours

P.s. any kind of peacetime air control LCA needs to at least be transonic if not more

This post has been edited by KLthinker91: Sep 13 2021, 01:26 PM

Not surprising given that they have huge civilian and military benefits from the nuclear power sharing agreement

But I don't think they can back out of their French SSKs now? Maybe the next sub building programme only they can switch to nucs

Your fantasy ship and the price very mismatched

High speed is useful for sprint and shoot

Hellfire VL for what lol. Might as well pack more antiship missiles

C-705 for what lol. Use shitty China antiship missiles to chase China CSGs. Lmao.

Speed requirement derives from specific tactical requirement, not just plucked out of mid-air

E.g. The reason why most American and British destroyers are ~30 knotters is to enable high-speed carrier group manoeuvres

In this particular case, the 50 knot sprint is important because missile boats can sprint out of coastal cover, fire off missiles, and then sprint back into cover hopefully before the enemy can acquire and shoot back.

Question: who's going to acquire the target for your 100km++ range missiles?

Use Hellfire to shoot missile boat armed with missile 10x the range of the Hellfire, pandainyer

Your CONOPS got big ass problem

of which we have so many amirite

Not sure if they have the capability.

Certainly not with Hellfire

Small missile boats are easily countered by helicopters such as our own Lynx + Sea Skua combo

The Royal Navy's Wildcat + Sea Venom is a similar platform designed for this mission



We don't have money to fight a peer war in the first place, not unless we triple our defence budget and use it very wisely for the next 3 decades at least. We should concentrate on perfecting the anti-piracy and border control mission. Full stop.

Floating pagar?

Can't comment on the political side. But what I have heard is that we have a lot of poaching in our EEZ, from neighbours as well as China, smuggling and human trafficking, and in Sabah side there had previously been real concerns with security even before LD - there is a not-insignificant cost to private sector of securing the various enterprises there such as fish farms etc

Precisely.

Ah I see. Not sure how those barriers can be effective.

I really don't know, but we could try. More coastal radars to detect smugglers, more manpower and fast interceptors to investigate contacts, more coastal army patrols...? As we saw from Ops Benteng, it's not that we are totally ignorant and incapable; it's just that priorities are elsewhere.

True, it is always down to resources. But I was proposing theoretically what if we were to reprioritise the entire military budget though, I'm sure we could do a lot. (Not 100% serious, but as a thought exercise.)

For example, our coastline is supposedly 4,675 km; we can theoretically redirect manpower to patrolling/monitoring it at a rate of 10 men per km well within our resources if we wanted. That would significantly hamper trafficking and smuggling, surely. Not by creating a foolproof solution, but by raising the probability and rate of interception high enough that it becomes cost ineffective to the smugglers.

And RM 2 billion capex every year for new patrol vehicles and sensors and barriers, that's a lot of moolah.

This post has been edited by KLthinker91: Sep 17 2021, 12:17 AM

way too small and too expensive for reality

seriously, how do you not realise that you are stuffing a destroyer's worth of requirements into a corvette-sized hull

then there's no point buying modules, might as well just hardwire it lol

ASW helicopters > towed ASW for many reasons by the way. One of which being the range of operations, and another being that typically one needs 2 ASW units to "herd" a sub.

All well in theory and not unprecedented, but of course there are pros and cons which is why more capable navies consider Helis and MPAs vital to the ASW mission

Besides, as I've said before you should consider your force structure not in an empty void but against an expected threat

Innovation is typically a strategy for the market leaders who have the necessary resources to spend on R&D

Imitation is typically a strategy for the rest of the market who do not have the resources but hope to achieve cost efficiency

Which do you think we are in the realm of defence technology?

So your force structure is intended to strike back at China? Well what is your expected opposition, in terms of numbers and capabilities? This is step 1 of defence planning...

You do realise it's not all put together by USB connectors?

If it's so easy, system and weapons integration wouldn't be a challenge for even superpowers to pull off.

is this realistic considering the opposition force assessment?

this is like saying, USB drive don't even need to be plugged in, it can operate standalone; driver conflict problems happen because you plug in the USB, solution is just leave the USB unplugged

bruh

LMAO

trust me buddy, nobody's looking to you for super secret war winning battle strategy

the solution to integration is simple, just don't plug it in

someone should tell that to the British: https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/italy-.../145515.article



BODO BAHLUL BETUL, JUST MAKE THE MISSILE "MODULAR", PUT THE MISSILE ON THE GROUND, DON'T ATTACH IT TO THE F-35, DON'T NEED TO INTEGRATE LAH!



This post has been edited by KLthinker91: Sep 17 2021, 09:59 PM

who do you expect to fight that US will not support but EU will support? China?