Defending the Lion City... Take 2 - 2008 update

**Transient** · 27 Dec 08,, 17:32

The rest of the facilities are in Tengah Air Base itself. The road you see the planes exiting from the left is actually connected to the airbase. A look at Google Earth would illustrate it better.

**Transient** · 27 Dec 08,, 17:53

At the moment Malaysia IS only making noise & Singapore IS overreacting. The threat is POTENTIALLY real. Transient threw a tantrum because I dared to suggest that Singaporeans might have threat perceptions that do mot match the actual threat. I think the reaction spoke for itself.

So anything we do is overreacting until they cut off the water supply or fire a shot at us? I tell you why people like you are so offensive - you accuse the Singapore govt of being paranoid but you have absolutely no stake in our safety. What happens when the water gets cut off or Malaysia declares war on Singapore? Who are the ones who suffers the consequences should some enlightened Bigfella's suggestions be heeded? I tell you what the current threat is - there isn't any threat. They only make noise - that's because right now they can only make noise without suffering severe consequences. When Singapore is weak that no longer holds true.

I read the article you posted on water supply. It suggests that not only could Singapore last for 4 months without access to water from Malaysia, but that by 2011 Singapore could be completely self-sufficient.

So you acknowledge that Singapore was and still is vulnerable to coercion. So do tell us, oh enlightened Bigfella, what could Singapore do if it hadn't built up the capability to secure our water supply by force if necessary? Who would have come to our aid? You?

And even when Singapore attains water self sufficiency, its territorial integrity still has to be protected. Bigfella's way of relying on Malaysia's continued goodwill is cheap, but that means giving up on things like having an independent foreign policy and what not. In essence, we become little more than a vassal state. Looking at Singapore's negative strategic depth, it doesn't take much common sense to see why an offensive force geared towards taking enemy ground is needed to protect its territorial integrity.

**melvinchen** · 27 Dec 08,, 17:56

hi herodotus, thanks for your compliments. Nope, I don't work for the MOD, but still in active reserve service, another 7 more years to go. I think

sunnyamy is a subject matter expert on this, she studied something related..she's the expert, i'm just a wannabe...haha

Office of Engineers, like what Transient described, the emergency runways are actually just adjacent to the existing airport. Therefore, all support facilities are available, including rearm and refuel for take off.

Singapore has quite a vast network of military and civilian logistics infrastructure to support peacetime and wartime emergencies like the ones they practised.

Herodotus · 27 Dec 08,, 18:48

Originally Posted by melvinchen

hi herodotus, thanks for your compliments. Nope, I don't work for the MOD, but still in active reserve service, another 7 more years to go. I think

sunnyamy is a subject matter expert on this, she studied something related..she's the expert, i'm just a wannabe...haha

Office of Engineers, like what Transient described, the emergency runways are actually just adjacent to the existing airport. Therefore, all support facilities are available, including rearm and refuel for take off.

Singapore has quite a vast network of military and civilian logistics infrastructure to support peacetime and wartime emergencies like the ones they practised.

Melvin: Just curious how long compulsory service is in Singapore, or is your service there voluntary?

Also how many airfields does Singapore have available for military usage?

**Officer of Engineers** · 27 Dec 08,, 18:57

Originally Posted by melvinchen

Office of Engineers, like what Transient described, the emergency runways are actually just adjacent to the existing airport. Therefore, all support facilities are available, including rearm and refuel for take off.

So it's just more eggs in the same basket instead of a different basket. I can see MH and BF's point here. I understand the desire to do more with less but in the end, less is less.

**melvinchen** · 27 Dec 08,, 19:11

Hi Herodotus,

I was one of the last few who did 2.5 years, including:

- 3 months in Basic Military Training
- 3 months in Basic Section Leaders' Course
- 2 or 3 months in Advanced Section Leaders' Course
- Another 4-5 months in other professional courses.
- The rest of the time in an active unit.

For servicemen selected to be officers, they would go thru 9 months of Officer Cadet School - in place of Section Leaders' Courses. They would graduate to be staff officers or platoon commanders.

Towards the end of my service, they changed it to 2 years - 24 months.

It is not voluntary. It is mandated by law for all male citizens, and permanent residents (who intend to continue their PR status) at the age of 18. If they are in the midst of studies, they can defer it till they finish junior college (Pre-University - 'A' levels) or their Diploma course, but they cannot defer for university. They will have to go to university after serving NS (national service).

After which, we have to serve 10 years for enlistees and specialists ranks, while officers serve up to 20 years. Every year we return to the camps anywhere between 7 to 21 days, sometimes deployed overseas for brigade/division exercises. By law, we can be mobilised up to 40 days in peacetime or unlimited in an actual war.

Due to limited land in Singapore, it is not feasible to manoevre an entire brigade or division for an exercise. Therefore, exercises are done in several countries, such as Australia's Shoalwater Bay, or in New Zealand, Thailand, India and the USA. These are usually unilateral training on our own, in a way, just renting space while doing our own stuff. Once awhile there would be exchanges and bilateral 'friendly' exercises.

About 80% of males serve in the army, with a small % serving in the airforce as technicians and radar/missile operators, or in the navy as staff or specialists/operators on board ships. An even lesser % serve as police officers or civil defence officers (firemen/ambulance/emergency service).

As for airfields...this is public info, so i can say it on a forum.

There's -
- Tengah Airbase (primarily E-2C, F-16C/D and reserve storage for A4-SU, future home of the G550 AWACs arriving in '09)
- Paya Lebar Airbase (Upgraded F-5S/T and C-130)
- Changi Airbase West (Fokker-50 Harpoon-armed Maritime Patrol and KC-135R)
- CHangi Airbase East (F-16D+, possibly future F-15SG;unconfirmed).

2 other civilian airports
- Changi International
- Seletar Airport

**melvinchen** · 27 Dec 08,, 19:18

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

So it's just more eggs in the same basket instead of a different basket. I can see MH and BF's point here. I understand the desire to do more with less but in the end, less is less.

In a way, these exercises are done for public awareness, that the RSAF (Republic of Singapore Air Force) is prepared and ready for any contingency and emergencies, and a practise for our own pilots to be familiar with the procedures.That's really about it, I really do not think they're expecting our own runways to get disabled.

Looking at regional capabilities vs. AWACS and multiple layers of SAM and very ready F-16C/D for scrambling, the likelihood of airbases getting disabled is so remote.

**Officer of Engineers** · 27 Dec 08,, 21:04

Originally Posted by melvinchen

That's really about it, I really do not think they're expecting our own runways to get disabled.

I don't think they're expecting the airbase to get disabled.

Originally Posted by melvinchen

Looking at regional capabilities vs. AWACS and multiple layers of SAM and very ready F-16C/D for scrambling, the likelihood of airbases getting disabled is so remote.

Which goes back to the point that both MT and BF had brought up, that such dog and pony shows is representative of a lack of critical thinking and of capabilities.

To have this capability of landing on a highway is nice and dandy but if you're not expecting to lose any supporting assets, then what's the point?

**Transient** · 28 Dec 08,, 02:39

Which goes back to the point that both MT and BF had brought up, that such dog and pony shows is representative of a lack of critical thinking and of capabilities.

Runways and the separate support facilities are separate points of vulnerability in the goal of disrupting RSAF's sortie generation rates. To claim that runways being made more resilient through redundancy is pointless is the same as anti-ballistic missile defense critics saying that BMD is useless because it cannot stop terrorists from smuggling in nuclear warheads. We do know that the other points of vulnerabilities have been hardened, at least in the case of Tengah. How vulnerable are they compared to the runways is another matter and yet to be subject to analysis on the part of this forum. So jumping to cynical conclusions establish a pre-determined bias and little else. Evidently, at least, RSAF considers the establishment of an emergency runway capability to be worth the effort. I don't think the people in charge are less intellectually capable than anyone here, or are impertinent enough to waste money and effort all for the sake of a dog and pony show. Not when money is a very limited resource, and spending money goes through rigorous audit.

**melvinchen** · 28 Dec 08,, 02:54

Transient said it best. Its not a dog and pony show, it cost alot of time, money and effort.

Not expecting to lose any runway, does not mean that we do not prepare for it. Singapore believes in preparing for worst case scenarios and practise for it. I believe many armed forces do that as well, but it doesn't mean that you expect failure.

In many armed forces, the planning procedure/workflow is always planning for:

- most likely scenario
- worst/most dangerous
- other contingencies

It would have been contradictory, if we say that we're practising this in anticipation and expecting that the runways will be destroyed.

If we had expected that, then it would precisely be pointless to practise on an emergency runway, because the higher priority would be to harden the defences to prevent any runway from being disabled, before we think about contingencies.

It is precisely because we do not expect the runways to be disabled and have done sufficient defences to reduce the possibility, then we can speak about preparing for contingencies like these, in case even if that fails, we would be prepared.

My point of creating public awareness is not a for-show. They have nobody to please and for anyone to cheer, but this it is a psychological defence to our citizens that the armed forces is not slacking and we're ready for anything, even in the worst case.

**Officer of Engineers** · 28 Dec 08,, 03:10

Originally Posted by Transient

Not when money is a very limited resource, and spending money goes through rigorous audit.

I've been through enough of them to know the bean counters don't know any better. You got a national flying team. You've got dog and pony shows.

Originally Posted by melvinchen

Transient said it best. Its not a dog and pony show, it cost alot of time, money and effort.

If you're going to do it, then do it right. If your runways are hit once, expect them to be hit again. This time, instead of concrete, expect your engineers to be the targets. This has been standard doctrine for over 50 years.

Moving your base of operations is the only way these things make sense. Landing and take off proves what? That your pilots can go in a straight line? Hardly a proof of anything. You can do that simply by flying straight to Hong Kong.

Land at your alternate base, refuel, re-arm, and re-commit. That is combat operations.

This is a dog and pony show.

**melvinchen** · 28 Dec 08,, 04:46

I think, with a Canadian flag next to your name and a supposed Military Professional, your conduct and words carries a degree of mockery and insult. Although, this is cyberspace, but nontheless a public forum. I hope this is not the way officers of your country conduct military exchanges.

I think this forum should be a place where people can put ideas, thoughts and constructive opinions together and not going around criticising and calling other nations and their militaries all kinds of names.

We've said our point of view, you can maintain yours.

**Officer of Engineers** · 28 Dec 08,, 06:15

Mockery and insult?

There was none of it. If you cannot handle professional criticism, then I suggest that you are in the wrong forum. The term military professional here in this forum means exactly that, a professional soldier.

In my case, I have served in combat operations as others on this forum. By your posts, I know you have not.

If you cannot accept professional criticism, then I strongly advised you to leave this forum.

However, if you are willing to see our point-of-view and willing to accept that your challenges are worthless (as to you all Singapore military service since you have no combat experience), then you may learn a few things.

FYI, I served at the Fulda Gap against the deadliest tank army on earth and in history. My brigade was expected to die against no less than two 2 tank armies. What bullsh!t do you want to say you know better than me?

**Transient** · 28 Dec 08,, 07:52

I've been through enough of them to know the bean counters don't know any better. You got a national flying team. You've got dog and pony shows.

So your one argument in this sentence is that 'bean counters don't know any better'? I'm sorry, but that is hardly convincing. Are we using the same bean counters?

If your runways are hit once, expect them to be hit again. This time, instead of concrete, expect your engineers to be the targets. This has been standard doctrine for over 50 years.

Then you should look at the measures instituted to prevent the likelihood of that happening, which involves looking at a lot of factors. In any case, the additional runway then provides insurance should the engineers get taken out, or alternatively, it forces the enemy to double the effort if it intends to disrupt flight operations by denying runway usage.

Moving your base of operations is the only way these things make sense. Landing and take off proves what? That your pilots can go in a straight line? Hardly a proof of anything. You can do that simply by flying straight to Hong Kong.

Landing and taking off proves that operations can continue even if the main runway gets taken out temporarily. I don't think it is that hard to understand. Of course, it'd be better that wholly alternative bases can be resorted to, but denying the utility of an additional runway just because a wholly separate support structure for the fighters weren't implemented doesn't make sense.

FYI, I served at the Fulda Gap against the deadliest tank army on earth and in history. My brigade was expected to die against no less than two 2 tank armies. What bullsh!t do you want to say you know better than me?

Was your brigade a dog and pony show then? I deeply respect your contributions towards peace, really I do. But what exact relevance does your experience have towards evaluating flight operations and the relative merits of having one additional runway in Tengah in Singapore's conditions? I'd take your word with a good deal of respect if you were talking about things which were relevant to what you did, but in this case I truly cannot. In my humble opinion, waving your past around cannot substitute for a good argument.

Although, this is cyberspace, but nontheless a public forum.

melvin, this isn't a public forum, this is a private one. We are here only at OoE's tolerance. That, of course, doesn't mean that RSAF is a dog-and-pony show. But if he insists it to be, that is his right to do so here, since it is his forum.

**Officer of Engineers** · 28 Dec 08,, 08:11

Originally Posted by Transient

So your one argument in this sentence is that 'bean counters don't know any better'? I'm sorry, but that is hardly convincing. Are we using the same bean counters?

That video showed me nothing more than a dog and pony show no matter how much you wanted to dress it up. I am not impressed by it nor should I be. By your own countrymen's admission, it was not to convince military professionals but civilians.

Originally Posted by Transient

Then you should look at the measures instituted to prevent the likelihood of that happening, which involves looking at a lot of factors. In any case, the additional runway then provides insurance should the engineers get taken out, or alternatively, it forces the enemy to double the effort if it intends to disrupt flight operations by denying runway usage.

And here you missed the point. Runways are PART of an air operations centre. They are NOT THE operations centre. Let me ask you this. Of what point is this exercise if the Malays target the fuel tank farms? This entire exercise demonstrates that you have an alternative runway, NOT an alternative operations centre. Fine, you have secrets. I have no qualms with that but the point of this entire exercise is to demonstrate to your civlians ... and by extension your potential enemies ... that you can operate if your base is disabled.

This entire exercise does not convince me that this was the intent.

Originally Posted by Transient

Landing and taking off proves that operations can continue even if the main runway gets taken out temporarily. I don't think it is that hard to understand. Of course, it'd be better that wholly alternative bases can be resorted to, but denying the utility of an additional runway just because a wholly separate support structure for the fighters weren't implemented doesn't make sense.

You're assuming that the base rare the targets. Without naming them, just off the top of my head, I can think of 4 other targeting priorities that would ground all your aircrafts without hitting the runways. So, what then?

Originally Posted by Transient

Was your brigade a dog and pony show then? I deeply respect your contributions towards peace, really I do. But what exact relevance does your experience have towards evaluating flight operations and the relative merits of having one additional runway in Tengah in Singapore's conditions?

Much more than that. Look up CFB Lahrs and exactly what was stationed there. Hell, I will even give you a better hint. There was only ONE armament on the CF-104 ant that weapon required a dual release authority.

Originally Posted by Transient

I'd take your word with a good deal of respect if you were talking about things which were relevant to what you did, but in this case I truly cannot. In my humble opinion, waving your past around cannot substitute for a good argument.

On the contrary, it is more than revelent. I was prepared to fight WWIII. It is against that you are measuring. While the Malays nor you can be expected to do everything we were prepared to do, you will have to at least explain why our lessons do not apply to you. Thus far, none of you have taken the effort.

I have a simple question. Why are you assuming that the Malays would not begin a ground campaing to overrun your air bases?

Originally Posted by Transient

melvin, this isn't a public forum, this is a private one. We are here only at OoE's tolerance. That, of course, doesn't mean that RSAF is a dog-and-pony show. But if he insists it to be, that is his right to do so here, since it is his forum.

I call it a dog and pony show because the video doesn't show what I want to see. It is not aimed to impress the people who knows what they're looking at. It may very well be that Singapore got a lot more than what this video showed but this video is 100% a dog and pony show.