RSAF NEW TOYS
-
Updates on the 2 outstanding aircraft contracts for the RSAF.Originally posted by Joe Black:1. I hope they pick F-16s now and F-35 in
2008. Rafale will be my second choice.
2. I hope they pick Seaspirit. Super Lynx is my second choice
1. The fighter contract is still at the RFI(Request for Information) stage. A RFI(believed to cover abt 2 dozen aircraft) was recently issued to the companies for 6 aircraft: Su-35, F-15E derivative, F-16, Rafale, Typhoon and Super Hornet. SOP would see that 3 of the aircraft will be eliminated after evaluating the Information supplied. A RFP(Request for Proposals) will then be issed to the remaining 3 manufacturers, requesting a contract to be drafted and handed to the RSAF stating costs, weapons packages and training packages, maint support etc. The winner will then be picked.
2. The helo is now at the RFP stage. 4 of the contenders (Super Lynx - too short legged, Super Seasprite - also too short legged, and IMO too old base tech, and EH101 - too big) have been eliminated. RFPs have been issued for 3 aircraft: Seahawk, AS532 Cougar and NH90. It is believed that the RFP includes a clause for supply of land-based utility helos for future UH-1 replacement, and the naval requirement is actually 9-12 aircraft.
Source: AFM Feb 2002
I might be wrong here, but I believe AA2002 is too soon to announce the winner of either contract.
PS. What the f*** is it with the Eurofighter people? 2 AAs running they'll be sending that damn plywood scale model instead of one of the 7 flying prototypes. Are they even interested in the contract, or is the shit ptogram so far behind schedule and in such deep shit that they can't spare 3 weeks to demonstrate the real aircraft to a potential customer. and its not just us, it was the same deal with the Koreans, every aircraft fighting for the RoKAF contract sent flying examples to the Korean airshow, except, yup you guessed it, the Typhoon. If the damn consortium is not interested, maybe we should take our business elsewhere. -
Thanks for the update.... will just sit and watch what's going to happen..... These 2 contracts are indeed very interesting. As for the Helo contract, I read from Flight International that the NH90 is probably the preferred choice.Originally posted by Viper52:2. The helo is now at the RFP stage. 4 of the contenders (Super Lynx - too short legged, Super Seasprite - also too short legged, and IMO too old base tech, and EH101 - too big) have been eliminated. RFPs have been issued for 3 aircraft: Seahawk, AS532 Cougar and NH90. It is believed that the RFP includes a clause for supply of land-based utility helos for future UH-1 replacement, and the naval requirement is actually 9-12 aircraft.
Source: AFM Feb 2002
I might be wrong here, but I believe AA2002 is too soon to announce the winner of either contract.
As for which next gen fighters, seriously, I think the modified Vipers and Super bugs will have the biggest choice. F-15E is not going to make it since they failed to get RKoAF to sign on the dotted line.... Personally, I like the Rafales, but then again weapon and system integration will eventually prove too expensive unless Dassault is willing to foot the bill.
Yeah man, forget about Typhoon. The consortium could not get their act together. Look at what's happening to A400M transport aircraft? The Germans are sure good at killing joint projects....
PS. What the f*** is it with the Eurofighter people? 2 AAs running they'll be sending that damn plywood scale model instead of one of the 7 flying prototypes. Are they even interested in the contract, or is the shit ptogram so far behind schedule and in such deep shit that they can't spare 3 weeks to demonstrate the real aircraft to a potential customer. and its not just us, it was the same deal with the Koreans, every aircraft fighting for the RoKAF contract sent flying examples to the Korean airshow, except, yup you guessed it, the Typhoon. If the damn consortium is not interested, maybe we should take our business elsewhere. -
Maybe the discovered something about the engines that made it unsafe to fly?
-
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joe Black:
I do believe that the 4 aircraft with any chance of winning the contract is the Rafale, Typhoon, F-15E and Super Hornet. I think the F-16 is out of the question because
1) We're needing a hi-lo mix of aircraft
2) Lets say a major defect is found in the F-16, it would mean the ENTIRE future fleet of RSAF combat planes are grounded. Scary thought.
Its just a personal opinion, but looking at the field, I would say 3 of the 4 I've liste would be the ones which Singapore will send RFPs to. -
I agree with your first point, that we need a hi-lo mix, with the "hi" portion taking care of deep strike and air-superiority. In this sense, I think the Typhoon Tranche 3 or at least, Trance 2 will do the job.Originally posted by Viper52:[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joe Black:
I do believe that the 4 aircraft with any chance of winning the contract is the Rafale, Typhoon, F-15E and Super Hornet. I think the F-16 is out of the question because
1) We're needing a hi-lo mix of aircraft
2) Lets say a major defect is found in the F-16, it would mean the ENTIRE future fleet of RSAF combat planes are grounded. Scary thought.
Its just a personal opinion, but looking at the field, I would say 3 of the 4 I've liste would be the ones which Singapore will send RFPs to.
However, your second point is IMHO, less of a concern. Come on, the F-16 has been in service for how long, almost 30 years? All conceivable flight problems have been ironed out, during flight testing and operational flight, including war time maneuvers. The Block 60, while it cannot handle the SU-30 threat, will be able to do deep-strike pretty well. -
according to Jane's, the helo contract would prob be signed this AA, with the fighter one in the next...but i read it some time back so i don't know if there might be any changes...
the F-16 would prob not be the choice, cause if you look at how they replaced the MGBs with frigates, they seems to like replacing there stuff with platforms that are far superior to what they currently have in the inventory...
the plane would prob be optimised for the air role, cause the F-16s would take over the strike role from the A4s plus the RSAF would prob be getting the F-35 in the future...so that prob rules out the F-18s...my choice would be the Typhoons...it is more capable than the Raphale, and also more stealthy and newer than the F-15 and the Su35...but the Su35's maneuverability would be hard to beat, what with its thrust vectoring and canards... -
The odds against that are quite long, that much I agree. However, its not that far fetched. In 1999/2000 a worldwide grounding order for ALL Chinooks(from basic A model to the US SpecOps MH-47E - which were new builds) took place, and lasted at least a few weeks. In terms of service the Chinook has lasted even longer than the F-16, and it arguably utilises even lower tech than the F-16. The Chinook ground was ok, heavylift capability will be affected that few weeks, little harm don. But can the same be said for an air force whose entire combat inventory is of one type, proven technology or not?Originally posted by YourFather:However, your second point is IMHO, less of a concern. Come on, the F-16 has been in service for how long, almost 30 years? All conceivable flight problems have been ironed out, during flight testing and operational flight, including war time maneuvers. The Block 60, while it cannot handle the SU-30 threat, will be able to do deep-strike pretty well. -
On the Typhoon vs. Rafale debate...Typhoon more capable? Although baseline systems do differ, in the near future most of the major systems on board this 2 types would be similar. Radar, weapons will all be standardised. There are those who doubt Rafales capability, but to be honest, in terms of A/G especially but also in overall terms, I have even graver doubts on the Typhoon. Its obvious even to the biggest Typhoon fan that the program is WAAAAAYYYY behind schedule. That coupled with the fact that production for the launch nations will take precedence over any exports, means that the cows might come home before we get any Typhoons. That seems to be the consortiums marketing attitude also, judging from the way they've been giving potential customers the short shrift when it comes to trying to market their product. Perhaps they feel that they've sold enough aircraft, and the South Koreans and we should feel pretty pissed off with their attitude.Originally posted by GMD:my choice would be the Typhoons...it is more capable than the Raphale, and also more stealthy and newer than the F-15 and the Su35...but the Su35's maneuverability would be hard to beat, what with its thrust vectoring and canards...
Oh, BTW, I've debated the merits of Rafale and Typhoon with others on this board before, and have agreed to disagree on this issue previously and really have no intention to start again. Suffice to say, my choice was(and still is by quite a big margin)Rafale. However in light of recent events my 2nd choice has now shifted away from the Typhoon to the F-15E derivative, if and only if the US clears the SLAM-ER for export to Singapore. And who would bet against that?
[This message has been edited by Viper52 (edited 31 January 2002).] -
Hmmm, the F-15K with the AESA APG-63(V)3 radar, and the whole load of other improvements? Interesting, but we would have the same reasons as Korea to NOT want it.
1. Supplier base - It will be phased out from US service when we will still be using it, parts will be harder to come by
2. same prob with US stuff - lack of tech transfer. However, with the US and Boeing not wanting to close production lines for the F-15(reason why they lobbied so hard for the F-15 in Korea), they might be laxer on this than in the past.
3. It still wont handle the threat of the SU-30. It will in the end be a much less agile aircraft than the SU-30, and with the distances we are talking about(Singapore-Malaysia), a merge is a larger possibility. (unless the F-15 comes with the JHMS and AIM-9X)
So all in all, even if they allow the F-15 to come with the AESA radar with NCTR capabilities, HMS and AIM-9X, SniperXR pod (cant expect us to continue using LANTIRN, right?), tech transfer, and other improvements, unless our only requirement is deep-strike, we still will have to consider it carefully. -
Hmmm, yes you are right. But with the F-16 in service with so many countries and having gone through so many punishing maneuvres and scenarios, probs should be ironed out. However, there is always such a possibility that the whole fleet will have to be grounded, that I concede.Originally posted by Viper52:The odds against that are quite long, that much I agree. However, its not that far fetched. In 1999/2000 a worldwide grounding order for ALL Chinooks(from basic A model to the US SpecOps MH-47E - which were new builds) took place, and lasted at least a few weeks. In terms of service the Chinook has lasted even longer than the F-16, and it arguably utilises even lower tech than the F-16. The Chinook ground was ok, heavylift capability will be affected that few weeks, little harm don. But can the same be said for an air force whose entire combat inventory is of one type, proven technology or not? -
F-15E phased out? According to the latest AFM the current force structure would see the USAF's Strike Eagle soldier on till 2030.Originally posted by YourFather:Hmmm, the F-15K with the AESA APG-63(V)3 radar, and the whole load of other improvements? Interesting, but we would have the same reasons as Korea to NOT want it.
1. Supplier base - It will be phased out from US service when we will still be using it, parts will be harder to come by
2. same prob with US stuff - lack of tech transfer. However, with the US and Boeing not wanting to close production lines for the F-15(reason why they lobbied so hard for the F-15 in Korea), they might be laxer on this than in the past.
3. It still wont handle the threat of the SU-30. It will in the end be a much less agile aircraft than the SU-30, and with the distances we are talking about(Singapore-Malaysia), a merge is a larger possibility. (unless the F-15 comes with the JHMS and AIM-9X)
So all in all, even if they allow the F-15 to come with the AESA radar with NCTR capabilities, HMS and AIM-9X, SniperXR pod (cant expect us to continue using LANTIRN, right?), tech transfer, and other improvements, unless our only requirement is deep-strike, we still will have to consider it carefully.
You are right about the tech transfer though, its always a worry when getting weapons from the Yanks. Current world events should see us having little problems, since Singapore is again viewed as an ally and with a conservative president in office. That could however change IF another Clinton-esque president comes into office(ie one whos too busy getting blow jobs to bother to see who are the US's friends and who are its enemies - can you tell I really HATE the former president )
As for being the Sukhoi's equivalent, thats really a moot point. Granted, the Sukhoi is aerodynamically superior and has longer legs, but little is known about its systems(avionics, radar) beyond manufacturer claims(which must be taken with a grain of salt). And I believe it still suffers from Russian problems of low reliability, inefficient engines and the like. I believe that an upgraded F-15E will more than give the Su-30/35 a run for its money. -
Yes, I do belive that the upgraded F-15K is still superior(maybe much superior), avionics wise, to the SU-35. Russian manufacturer claims really do ought to be taken with more than a pinch of salt ;-)
But the only way the F-15K can survive a knife-fight with the SU-30, which was what I was referring to, is with the AIM-9X and HMS combi. -
Yeah...it really amazes me that the Americans let themselves fall so far behind in AAM technology, be it in WVR or BVR. A sign of complacency perhaps?Originally posted by YourFather:Yes, I do belive that the upgraded F-15K is still superior(maybe much superior), avionics wise, to the SU-35. Russian manufacturer claims really do ought to be taken with more than a pinch of salt ;-)
But the only way the F-15K can survive a knife-fight with the SU-30, which was what I was referring to, is with the AIM-9X and HMS combi. -
Interesting views on the F-15E. However, most aviation scientists and pilots have agreed that the F-15 may not survive in a knife fight vs a flanker. The F-15E is really not much more maneuverable than the C/D, so I guess, it too will not be able to handle the Flanker's maneuverability.
Yes in a Standoff BVR engagement, western avionics may be the cutting edge of the Strike Eagles. But remember, M'sian flankers may not be using pure Russian Avionics. And when the distance closes, HMS and advanced dogfight missile counts. And the aircraft's maneuverability will determin who gets the first shot and who can dodge bullets better.
The Typhoon, though unproven, boasts super maneuverability due to its "unstable" flight design. And with the ECR-90 + the BAe Meteor, it will supposedly have the edge in both BVR and WVR fights. The biggest problem is that it has not proven its abilities in combat, whereas the strike eagle has already earned its spurs since 1991.
True, the Europeans made some pretty screwed up planes, eg. Tornado ADV/GR. But they have daringly stepped into new flight designs which may yield some fruitful results.
Personally, I'd rather take the Rafael over the F-15E. Although Typhoons would be the best. -
Originally posted by Viper52:Yeah...it really amazes me that the Americans let themselves fall so far behind in AAM technology, be it in WVR or BVR. A sign of complacency perhaps?
-
The Americans were indeed complacent about Sidewinders for a while. Another part was that they could not decide who was responsible for the Advanced Short Range AAM (ASRAAM). Raytheon/Hughes had issues with BAe, so was the US govt and the British. In the end, the US decided to pursue development of AMRAAM to replace the Sparrow which was deemed as more important, and left the development of ASRAAM to the British. They eventually pulled out the joint program altogether after having some sort of issues. They were basically left with Mike-winders for a while until all of a sudden, the Russians were doing fantastic maneuvers at air shows and their latest WVR were reported to have 45/60 degree off bore sight. That got the Americans worried and thus started the JHMS and X-winders development. The rest is history...Originally posted by Viper52:Yeah...it really amazes me that the Americans let themselves fall so far behind in AAM technology, be it in WVR or BVR. A sign of complacency perhaps? -
I just got this statement released by MBDA:
A total of 200 Aster 15 Naval missiles have already been ordered to equip 11 naval defense systems, intended for the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, the three F 1300S frigates Al Riyadh, Makkah and Al Dammal ordered by the Saudi Arabian Royal Navy, the second Italian aircraft carrier Andrea Doria and six foreign frigates
Any chance those 6 frigates are our frigates? -
Well, your guess is as good as mine, but I do believe it is RSN's. Man, I wish it was ESSM though. Wonder if RSN is also going to add a CIWS weapon like Phanlax or Goalkeepers. If they have also bought Exocets for the La Fayettes instead of Harpoon...Originally posted by YourFather:I just got this statement released by MBDA:
A total of 200 Aster 15 Naval missiles have already been ordered to equip 11 naval defense systems, intended for the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, the three F 1300S frigates Al Riyadh, Makkah and Al Dammal ordered by the Saudi Arabian Royal Navy, the second Italian aircraft carrier Andrea Doria and six foreign frigates
Any chance those 6 frigates are our frigates? -
Your wish may just come thru, U know.... There was 2 articles from foreign newspapers, that Singapore ordered Exocets for the frigates. However, nobody can verify whether the info is accurate or not, though. This piece of info surprised quite a few people from another biard, me included. Why get Exocets when you can get Harpoons, and already got Harpoons? Performance wise, I place my bet on the Harpoon. Only reasons I can think of for having the Exocet is:Originally posted by Joe Black:Well, your guess is as good as mine, but I do believe it is RSN's. Man, I wish it was ESSM though. Wonder if RSN is also going to add a CIWS weapon like Phanlax or Goalkeepers. If they have also bought Exocets for the La Fayettes instead of Harpoon...
1. Integration costs for installing and making the Harpoon combat system compatible to a French design, which would most probably have to be paid for ourselves, or the integration done ourselves.
2. The French are willing to sell them cheap when they come in a package with the La Fayettes.
3. A diversity of ASMs, perhaps?
1 more thing: do you think they will be fitted with a last ditch defense system, like the Goalkeeper or Phalanx? If so, I hope they go for SeaRAM- a good, multipurpose missile.
[This message has been edited by YourFather (edited 01 February 2002).] -
sea-RAM considered as a CIWS???
-
well, yes. RAM is the CIWS replacement for the Phalanx, just except its not fielded widely in the USN (time and money concerns), that's all.
-
Actually USN started deploying some RAM on their warships to complement the Phalanx. Nothing beats putting 6000 rounds of leads towards incoming missiles.Originally posted by YourFather:well, yes. RAM is the CIWS replacement for the Phalanx, just except its not fielded widely in the USN (time and money concerns), that's all.
The German Navy has also started putting RAM onboard their convettes and Frigates.
I think Phalanx makes more sense to be put on hte La Fayettes given RSN has already chosen to put Aster 15 SAM. Anyway, the Block 1A and 1B Phalanx looks like a very capable weapon for both airborne and sea surface targets. -
The phalanx, okay though small, will still reflect radar waves. Our frigates are like supposed stealthy right? Maybe it the phalanx will just pop up from the hull when needed. *shrugs his shoulders*
-
Nope nope. the SeaRAM is different from the RAM. The RAM is currently used as the 'outer ring' of terminal defence, with Phalanx constituting the 'inner ring'. However, the Phalanx's limitation is slowly becoming apparent in the USN's transformation to a littoral navy, and SeaRAM would replace the Phalanx and RAM combination by combining the sensors of the Phalanx with the RAM missiles.
1 more thing. RAMs with the HAS upgrade (just a software upgrade) will also have the capability to engage low flying aircraft as well as surface craft. Nice feature, eh? -
But would the seaRAM come together with a gattling gun? I mean, the "wall of lead" can still a serve a purpose.