Picture of the Week – July 30, 2012

PETALING JAYA: As you all know Exercise Pitch Black 2012 is being conducted in Australia since last week. Below is one of the pictures released by the Australian Defence Department. Its not everyday you see this kind of formation in this day and age.

Tally-ho!

–Malaysian Defence

Pitch Black 2012 PETALING JAYA: Exercise Pitch Black 2012 starts tomorrow in Australia. ...
Picture of the Week: F5 J85 engine PETALING JAYA: During a visit to the Airod engine shop ...
DSA 2012: Fourth Day KUALA LUMPUR: DSA 2012 ended today. Small contracts and little ...
Pictures of the week F35 and EC135 F35 with external weapons. PETALING JAYA: Yes, I ...
Pictures of the Week: Oct 24, 2012 PETALING JAYA: KD Lekiu successfully conducted a contractual firing of ...

18 Responses to "Picture of the Week – July 30, 2012"

Azlan says:

August 1, 2012 at 1:09 am

Came across this article that was kindly posted by someone in another forum. A lot of what is mentioned in the article with regards to how Singapore would react in the event of a China/U.S. war also applies to us. Though we have had a longstanding defence relationship with Uncle Sam and we train with the U.S. military more regularly than we do with anyone else, we have gone out of our way not to piss the Chinese off, understandably as we have increasing economic links with China. We’ve been very quite over recent events in the Sptratleys – we have never said anything critical of China and we keep repeating the same thing, that ‘Malaysia believes diplomacy and engagement is the key to solving the dispute’. We even canceled a visit in the 1990′s by the Dalai Lama due to pressure from the Chinese embassy. In the event of a China/U/S war or skirmish in the South China Sea, what would our reaction be if the US embassy forwarded a request to Wisma Putera for persmission to enable USN ships to dock at Teluk Sepanggar? If we said yes ande refused to buckle under Chinese diplomatic pressure,
would Chinese ballistic missiles start flying our way? In event of a war over Taiwan, would we be so quick to grant permission for U.S. military aircraft to overfly our airspace, as we were after 9/11, and for USN ships to re-supply at our ports?

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/singapore-and-the-us-not-quite-allies/

Another article -

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnewstt_news=4298
michael says:

August 1, 2012 at 5:27 pm

just want to know Tempur magazine is it closed?

Reply

I dont think so
nimitz says:

August 3, 2012 at 8:51 pm

Mike..r u subscribing to TEMPUR too?

IMO if TUDM want to do a similar photo shoot, they just send up mig+SU+Hawk+Hornet then they cover East Europe, West Europe & US.

Azlan, PLAN n ChiComm is “testing the waters” at spratly to divert attention from internal woes. War for them, us and USA will be a lose-lose situation for the time being. Unless we have war-mongering politicians at all sides then we cross our fingers and hope for the best.
noey says:

August 4, 2012 at 10:33 am

http://twitter.com/_TNIAU/status/231180890280165376/photo/1/large

just share some picture
Tomahawk says:

August 4, 2012 at 4:54 pm

The US is not obliged to assist you if you are a major NON-NATO ally. In fact, you might not even qualify for top grade US military wares. This recognition is more of a ideological diplomatic tool. In recent years, even Pakistan and Afghanistan are major non-nato ally. Apart from the formal NATO alliance, other treaties that stipulates US involvement are mutual defence treaties like the Anzus treaty between Australia and the US. SG was indeed offered the recognition of major non-nato ally status but politely rejected to avoid the ideological baggage. This is particularly useful in regards to relations with China, etc. The SFA agreement with the US is more practical giving SG access to advance US weaponry – AESAs, Apache Longbow, Phalcon radar systems (US-origin), etc and US bases. In fact, you can say that SG probably has more top tier military dealings with the US than Thailand and the Philippines. US naval and air force forces are also based and rotated out of SG. Details of the SG-US SFA agreement/treaty are not all known. However, a sudden conflict/attack on SG will pull the US in whether you like it or not with the current SG-US dealings in SG and with the SAF. Further consideration will see most East Asian countries coming into the picture – 1/4 of the worlds traded goods and >70% of East Asian oil (and China) passes through SG or the straits of Singapore. Not to mention Sg is the world’s 3rd largest oil refinery centre in the world and major financial node.
loreng says:

August 4, 2012 at 11:11 pm

IMO Malaysia should remain neutral if there is conflict between China and the USA in this region.We need the support of China and the USA for economic reason.Follow the example of Switzerland and Sweden and see how well they prosper economically during the Cold War era and the years after it.We are on the right track of being friendly to both superpowers.In fact to balance the military cooperation with the US military, we should also have similar exercise/arrangement with the PLA.
Azlan says:

August 5, 2012 at 4:49 am

Nimitz,

The ‘CHICOMs’ are not ”testing the waters” to divert attention. Most people in China, though very aware of Tibet and Xinjiang [the Uighurs prefer to call it by its old name, Turkestan], are not very aware of what’s happening in the Spratleys [no doubt that will change in the future]. The Chinese government is simply being assertive in response to what they perceive to be ‘hostile’ or ‘unacceptable’ behaviour on the part of other claiments. My personal belief as to why we haven’t received the same treatment from the PRC, that Vietnam and the Philippines has, is because our possessions in the Spratleys are the furthest away from the Chinese mainland and because our government has gone out of its way not to annoy China.

Whilst no one is in a rush to go to war, the danger is that a chance encounter at sea and a follow on ‘incident’, could rapidly lead to something serious, not only in the Spratleys but also in Ambalat. Remember a few years ago, when the Jerong classs FAC entered the Ambalat area and was confronted by a TNI-AL Patchim clas corvette? According to the Indonesian press, the crew of the Parchim was on the verge of opening fire when the Jerong class FAC changed course and headed back to our waters. How would our government have reacted if 2-3 people on the FAC had been killed by MG fire, would we respond with more patrols or settle the matter the ‘ASEAN’ way or in the ‘spirit of ASEAN [whatever that means].

With regards to the U.S., like Singapore, we would be in a very uncomfortable position in event of a skirmish or war between the PRC and the U.S.- we are in a position where we can’t afford to piss either of these 2 countries off as we are very economicly linked and dependent to both these countries.
Ashraf says:

August 5, 2012 at 1:21 pm

Malaysia isn’t worried of the big conflict involving the superpowers. IMO we are more concerned of the neighbouring treats such as Ganyang Malaysia, water dispute and the Sabah issue. After all we are just a small nation situated right in the middle of the global interests. We are always neutral when it comes to China and the USA. China has never interested to colonise us as the history have shown but the western countries, that’s different proposition. The modern day warfare needs justification for war and being a country which interests everyone it’ll be quite some happenings to justify for a war with us. It is the main reason other than money of why we’re not seeking huge budget spending to have a force to be reckon with. Malaysia Armed forces will always be small and fairly supported and it has been that way since.
FareedLHS says:

August 5, 2012 at 10:31 pm

loreng,

While it would be nice to remain ‘neutral’, it must be acknowledged that China is clearly hostile and aggressive. History is full of examples of ‘neutral’ states being overrun by belligerent neighbors. The situation was different in Sweden and Switzerland for several reasons. The key reason was that both states practiced ‘armed neutrality’. So, while Malaysia should strive to walk a careful line between China and the US, the importance of maintaining a strong and credible defence must not be overlooked. Lastly, when state interests collide, as they inevitably will over the South China Sea, it will be impossible to remain ‘neutral’, unless one defines ‘neutral’ as ceding the entire sea to China. Do not let ‘neutral’ be a code word for weakness.

Look what India just got for over $22m. It would be nice if we had the same.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120803/DEFREG03/308030002/India-Unveils-Coastal-Surveillance-System
zainal abidin says:

August 6, 2012 at 12:48 am

Easy to differentiate ours from theirs due to the camouflage.
FareedLHS says:

August 6, 2012 at 3:59 am

I am very interested in the current state of the air defences. Taking a look at SIPRI’s database, it does not look like we have much in the way of ground-based air defence (supplier, unit, year(s) of delivery, number):

Switzerland
GDF-005 35mm AA gun
1988
16

UK
Jernas SAM system
2005-2007
3

China
FN-6 portable SAM
2009
64

Pakistan
QW-1 Vanguard (Anza 2) portable SAM
2002-2003
160

Russia
Igla-1/SA-16 Gimlet portable SAM
2002
382 incl 40 launchers

UK
Javelin portable SAM
1991
60 incl 12-48 launchers

UK
Starburst portable SAM
1995-1997
504

UK
Rapier 2 SAM
2005-2007
150 for Jernas SAM systems (15 launchers?)

France
Ground Master 400 air search radar
2011
1

Italy
RAT-31S/L air search radar
1998
2

Italy
RAT-31DL air search radar
2003
1

Sweden
Giraffe 40 air search radar
1989
2 for use with GDF-005 35mm and L/70 40mm AA guns

UK
S-600 air search radar
1971-1972
2

UK
Martello S-743D air search radar
1992-1995
2

USA
HR-3000 HADR air search radar
1986
1, part of ‘MADGE’ air surveillance network

Germany
TRML-3D air/sea search radar
2008
2, option on 8 more

Sweden
BOFI-AWGS fire control radar
1986-1987
10 for modernization of L/70 40mm AA guns

Switzerland
Skyguard fire control radar
1989
4 for use with GDF-005 35mm and L/70 40mm AA guns

UK
Blindfire fire control radar
2006-2007
3 for Jernas SAM systems

Any further information on this?

Reply
As Azlan has mentioned I don’t think we ever bought the Javelin Manpads.
The TRML-3D is not actually bought for GBAD , it was for the Kedah class ships
michael says:

August 6, 2012 at 9:25 am

hi nimitz
No, no longer subscribe. I’m one of Tempur Magazine fan but each time i walk into MPH or MyNews give me disappointed result. So, I wander are they going to close or how.
loreng says:

August 6, 2012 at 11:34 pm

I think the main reason why Sweden and Switzerland did well in the Cold War era is that they did not take sides in the power politics of the Eastern and Western bloc.Both blocs recognized and respect their stand and hence left alone in global politics by the two competing superpowers.It is hard to believe their military preparedness alone had anything to do with deterring the two superpowers militarily.

About China “clearly hostile and aggressive”, (towards Malaysia?)difficult to comprehend since we could not recall of any military incidences involving China against Malaysia with the ending of the Communist Insurgency.
FareedLHS says:

August 8, 2012 at 4:33 am

I wonder if this flaw is also found in TUDM Su-30s:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Maharashtra/IAF-Sukhoi-30-jets-have-a-design-flaw-Air-chief/Article1-908502.aspx
Azlan says:

August 8, 2012 at 6:43 pm

Fareed,

Various sources have mentioned that we operated Javelin, we never did, but 48 were originally included in the 1988 MOU signed with Britain, as was Rapier. At one time, ADJ also claimed, wrongly, that the Perdana class had Blowpipes. Shorts Brothers [now Thales] sold the Blowpipe to the RTA in the 1980′s and the first product they sold to us was Starburst. The Hughes [now Raytheon] radar at Butterworth has been retired and replaced with one of the RAT-31s from Alenia Marconi. The BOFIs are still in use, operated by the same regiment that has the Igla but the L/70s have been retired. The first AA guns we had were former-RAF L/60s that were retired in the early 1980′s. At one time, we also had a handful of ex-RN 20mm Oerlikons mounted on Scout Daimlers. Have been trying to determine, without any luck, when the 2 Giraffes were ordered, I suspect in the late 1970′s.
loreng says:

August 8, 2012 at 8:11 pm

Azlan,
Apparently the Javelin name is also owned by Raytheon in the form of ATGM (anti-tank guided missile).The most modern ATGM with fire-and-forget capability; heard the Malaysian Army has been offered the Raytheon Javelin ATGM which has a better track record than the Spike (Israeli-made ATGM in service with SAF).
FareedLHS says:

August 9, 2012 at 9:24 am

loreng,

their military preparedness had a role, in that it enabled them to play the neutral game with the Soviets (who were the only aggressors that anyone was really worried about invading them). had they been unarmed and weak, they would not have been able to so easily play the neutral game, as the Soviets would have been able to exert more pressure on them. by having even a small deterrent it changed the Soviet calculations. they always had to wonder, would it be worth it? how much do we want to pressure them? do we want to drive them into the arms of NATO?

as for China, its intentions are clear through its statements (particularly regarding territorial sovereignty) and its actions (Scarborough Shoal, and the many other incidents of South China Sea bullying). one does not need to wait for bullets to fly in Malaysia’s direction before recognizing Chinese hostility. In fact, it would be much to late at that point to do anything about it.
Azlan says:

August 10, 2012 at 8:21 pm

loreng,

Yes, but in this case we are referring to the Shorts Brothers Javelin MANPADS. I hope we get the Javelin ATGW as its more practical than our wire guided METIS but the British army paid 20,000 pounds for each Javelin! In all fairness, we can’t say it has a better track record than Spike as Spike hasn’t been used in anger before.

Picture of the Week – July 30, 2012

Related Posts:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

May 2013
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Apr
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31