RSAF NEW TOYS
-
It will only come with an 11-round RAM launcher, replacing the Gattling gun. The gun's range is deemed too short for future threats.
-
11 round only? What if more than 11 makes it thru the outer SAM layer?
-
Prepare the lifeboats lor...LOLOriginally posted by Shotgun:11 round only? What if more than 11 makes it thru the outer SAM layer?
Seriously, maybe I'm old fashioned, but I still do believe gun have a role to play in todays warfare, albeit a less role. Be it aircraft guns or lead-spitting CIWS on board ships or tactical AA guns(SP of course), I feel that a gun/missile mix would be the most ideal situation.
I feel that the removal of guns from ships CIWS or the RAF's decision to remove the guns from the Typhoon is a mistake. The last time designers tried to remove guns from aircraft in the 60s, USAF/VPAF pilots were left with nothing more lethal than their helmets to throw at each other once they were out of missiles(which happended quite often). Missile technology might have improved by leaps and bounds since then, but I just feel that a gun should be there as an added assurance. Besides, it'd be perfect when a ground based target of opportunity shows up...
And gun CIWS on ships? HMS Sheffield would have been saved had the RoyalNavy added a CIWS of any sort on her in 1982. -
Lets see, was it one well placed Exocet that sunk the Sheffield??
Agreed. The last time USAF removed guns from their Phantoms, it left their pilots defenseless when they ran out of missiles. The MiG-17s and 19s still retained their 20mms practically whooped their ass when their missiles were expended.
Guns should be the retained on all combat aircraft and ships. Personally, CIWS should be retained on ships as the real last ditch weapon. -
Actually, Phalanx block 1B is more capable than just last ditch defence. Furthermore, it can be operating autonomously from the main weapon control system on board. Sheffield wouldn't have been sunk if their computers that controlled the radars and weapons did not shut down unexpectedly just prior to engage the deadly Exocet. Had Sheffield have CIWS onboard that could operate autonomously, then the Exocet wouldn't have hit it. Right after the Falkland war, Royal Navy armed all their ships with Phalanx and the newly built one with Goalkeepers.Originally posted by Shotgun:Lets see, was it one well placed Exocet that sunk the Sheffield??
Agreed. The last time USAF removed guns from their Phantoms, it left their pilots defenseless when they ran out of missiles. The MiG-17s and 19s still retained their 20mms practically whooped their ass when their missiles were expended.
Guns should be the retained on all combat aircraft and ships. Personally, CIWS should be retained on ships as the real last ditch weapon.
As for the stealth expect of it, look at Taiwan's La Fayattes. They are also armed with Phalanx. Look at USN DDG-51, they also each have a pair onboard. There is no compromising when it comes to the ship defence, stealth or no stealth. There are also no completely invisible ships including La Fayattes and Visbys. The stealth features they have only help to reduce their detection range and hopefully this give the stealth ships the advance of firing their SSM first.
Lastly, the radar reflection of the Phalanx CIWS is not that bad. It will compromise RSN La Fayattes stealth features. -
11 rounds may seem a little short, but having 11 ASMs actually passing thru (all aimed at one ship some more!) would be quite a miracle, considering the multi-layered defense system provided by AEGIS with SM-2s and ESSMs, with targeting augmented by the wonderful CEC system. The only problem is that the RAM missiles have to be hand reloaded. The missiles are more effective than the Phalanx, as studies have shown. It's designed to be able to counter the latest series of Russian SAMs, such as the Brahmos, Yahkont, Sunburn etc, which the Phalanx Block 1B is much less able to handle.
As for the Typhoon, did you see today's newspaper? They reported that the Typhoon had stealth, which was rather misleading. True, while in a clean config, from the frontal aspect, it has a much lower radar signature, due to its S-shaped inlets, but put any meaningful warload on the plane(you ain't going to battle in a clean config, right?) and whatever 'stealth' you claim is BS.
Also, the Typhoon without guns is only for the Brits, as they wanna 'save money', which is a pretty retarded way to do it, cause a study showed that they didn't really save much money at all, and the loss in combat effectiveness wasn't worth it. -
The Sheffield was hit by an Exocet, one of 2 launched by a pair of Argentine Navy Super Etendards. The missile actually did not explode, but its rocket motor started fires that raged out of control. She was taken in tow with hopes of eventual recovery, but South Atlantic weather caused her to sink. The 2nd Exocet was never found.Originally posted by Shotgun:Lets see, was it one well placed Exocet that sunk the Sheffield??
Agreed. The last time USAF removed guns from their Phantoms, it left their pilots defenseless when they ran out of missiles. The MiG-17s and 19s still retained their 20mms practically whooped their ass when their missiles were expended.
The VPAF MiGs never actually whooped the Phantoms. In fact they didn't even whoop the F-105 Thunderchief(Thuds actually killed more MiGs than the other way around). But if you read books like And Kill MiGs(Squadron Signal Publications), you'll be intrigued by how many occasions USAF/USN pilots were left quivering in anger when a MiG showed up in guns range in front of them but got away because they had no 20mm... -
Yes. 11 ASMs getting through the outer defence layers may be quite implausible, but would it be worth staking a cruiser, destroyer of even frigate on that off chance? Just spend a couple more million bucks to zap that last missile, rather than lose a whole ship would seem like a good investment wouldn't it?Originally posted by YourFather:11 rounds may seem a little short, but having 11 ASMs actually passing thru (all aimed at one ship some more!) would be quite a miracle, considering the multi-layered defense system provided by AEGIS with SM-2s and ESSMs, with targeting augmented by the wonderful CEC system. The only problem is that the RAM missiles have to be hand reloaded. The missiles are more effective than the Phalanx, as studies have shown. It's designed to be able to counter the latest series of Russian SAMs, such as the Brahmos, Yahkont, Sunburn etc, which the Phalanx Block 1B is much less able to handle.
As for the Typhoon, did you see today's newspaper? They reported that the Typhoon had stealth, which was rather misleading. True, while in a clean config, from the frontal aspect, it has a much lower radar signature, due to its S-shaped inlets, but put any meaningful warload on the plane(you ain't going to battle in a clean config, right?) and whatever 'stealth' you claim is BS.
Also, the Typhoon without guns is only for the Brits, as they wanna 'save money', which is a pretty retarded way to do it, cause a study showed that they didn't really save much money at all, and the loss in combat effectiveness wasn't worth it.
The removal of guns on RAF Typhoons to save $$$ is indeed retarded. A guy on AFM commented that if the RAF bought 231 cannon-armed Typhoons instead of the 232 w/o cannons they intend to, they could save more money. I hate to say this, but British defence policy makers have constantly proven throughout history that they are not too smart, there are more than sufficient examples of that.
I've read the Typhoon article today, to me that article looks like one of the many articles on the Eurocopter Tiger I've read in 1998, glorifying its strengths blah blah blah. In the end, we bought the Apache. I had a feeling then that the articles were meant to wrangle more concessions out of the Americans(like Longbow radar), and I feel again that this is the first of many Typhoon article we'll see. (to wrangle more concessions out of Dassault or Boeing??). read the last sentence of the article, get the hint anyone? *wink* -
11 ASMs getting past the CEC augmented air defense system? Too highly improbable. And U just dont ripple fire these ASMs like nobody's business, those ASMs cost $$, U know....
-
Viper, you are right. The F-4 Still holds the record for shooting down the most migs.
Anyway, the article on the typhoon seems to concentrate a lot on glorifying the plane. Doesn't really say anything about the plane's ability in specific situations. Well, I guess it is the straits times and not the "Straits Aviation Daily" -
Somehow, reading the article, it just gives me the impression that the decision makers aren't totally satisfied with the Typhoon and are leaning some other way. The last 2 paragraphs seem to stress on the training agreements thing and although it mentions the US having an advantage as we have training detachments there, it fails to mention the French detachment.Originally posted by Shotgun:Anyway, the article on the typhoon seems to concentrate a lot on glorifying the plane. Doesn't really say anything about the plane's ability in specific situations.
I don't know, maybe I'm reading too much in between the lines, but I see a repeat of the RSAF attack helo scenario mentioned in my post above... -
Here are some info I dug out from US DOD site:
--------------
Block 1A incorporated a new High Order Language Computer (HOLC) to provide more processing power over the obsolete general purpose digital computer, improved fire control algorithms to counter maneuvering targets, search multiple weapons coordination to better manage engagements, and an end-to-end testing function to better determine system functionality.
Block 1B Phalanx Surface Mode (PSUM) incorporates a side mounted Forward Looking Infrared Radar (FLIR) which enables CIWS to engage low slow or hovering aircraft and surface craft. Additionally, the FLIR assists the radar in engaging some ASCMÂ’s bringing a greater chance of ship survivability. Block 1B uses a thermal imager Automatic Acquisition
Video Tracker (AAVT) and stablilization system that provide surface mode and electro-optic (EO) angle track. These Block 1B enhancements will allow day/night detection capability and enable the CIWS to engage small surface targets, slow-moving air targets, and helicopters.
LSD 41-class ships, a typical SSDS engagement suite includes RAM, the PHALANX Close-In Weapon System Block 1A, and the decoy launch system. SSDS further integrates the AN/SPS-49(V)1 radar with the medium PRF upgrade, the AN/SPS-67 surface search radar, the AN/SLQ-32(V) sensor, and the CIWS search radar.
--------------
It seems that USN continue to retain Phalanx even when they have RAM installed on their ships. I would think that RSN La Fayatte would be better off having the Phalanx rather than RAM since they will come with Aster 15 or some other SAM. RAM is good, but by purchasing another SAM, RSN will have 4 different SAMs to maintain... going to be a logistic nightmare....
BTW, the 3 other SAM systems are:
1. IAI Barak
2. Mistral
3. the new SAM to be installed for La Fayattes. -
Interesting news about RoKAF future fighter selection:
http://defence-data.com/current/page13482.htm
[snip]
Sukhoi reportedly offered the lowest price while the Rafale is considered a joint favourite with the ageing F-15K. It has long appeared that the Korean Government favours the F-15K despite the fact that the opinion of the pilots has veered toward the more modern European planes.
[/snip]
I think those with like-mindedness about RSAF should get Rafale are vindicated. The Koreans who are doing evaluation also reckons that Rafales present a better platform than the Typhoons. Unless the EADS going give some real good incentive (price + technology transfer) that way surpass those that the French are willing to give, I just can't see how the Typhoons will win. The Korean pilots have obviously tested the Rafales (and possibly also the Typhoons if one was made available) and like the Rafales. Are we not vindicated by their preference?
hee hee -
Apparently as far back as 1998(or 99) RSAF pliots have been invited to France to test fly the Rafale. And maybe you might have noticed at the past few AAs when the Rafale came, they did take off at some pretty odd hours AFTER the flying display has ended. No prizes for guessing who might be on board.Originally posted by Joe Black:Interesting news about RoKAF future fighter selection:
http://defence-data.com/current/page13482.htm
[snip]
Sukhoi reportedly offered the lowest price while the Rafale is considered a joint favourite with the ageing F-15K. It has long appeared that the Korean Government favours the F-15K despite the fact that the opinion of the pilots has veered toward the more modern European planes.
[/snip]
I think those with like-mindedness about RSAF should get Rafale are vindicated. The Koreans who are doing evaluation also reckons that Rafales present a better platform than the Typhoons. Unless the EADS going give some real good incentive (price + technology transfer) that way surpass those that the French are willing to give, I just can't see how the Typhoons will win. The Korean pilots have obviously tested the Rafales (and possibly also the Typhoons if one was made available) and like the Rafales. Are we not vindicated by their preference? hee hee The RSAF was not invited to test fly the Typhoon till late 2000, and as for AA, the real thing hasn't even been here yet. Points to a totally bo-chup attitude as far as marketing the plane to Singapore.
I think the main problem the Rafale has of selling to the english speaking world is that most of us read English magazines, a lot of which are written by Brits. Though not all are like that, when one reads comparisons about the Rafale/Typhoon in magazines like Air International or Air Forces Monthly, one does detect some kind of bias.
Like I said before, the weapons integration reason is a sorry excuse, the French have already stated that the Rafale is already currently integrated with US A/A A/G weapons.
But I do feel sorry for the RoKAF, politics are again taking precedence over national defence interests... -
It seems you got a little confused. SeaRAM is NOT the same as RAM. SeaRAM is an upgraded version which would incorporate all the sensors of Phalanx Block 1B, just except the RAM missile is fired instead. SeaRAM is the one intended to replaceOriginally posted by Joe Black:Here are some info I dug out from US DOD site:
--------------
Block 1A incorporated a new High Order Language Computer (HOLC) to provide more processing power over the obsolete general purpose digital computer, improved fire control algorithms to counter maneuvering targets, search multiple weapons coordination to better manage engagements, and an end-to-end testing function to better determine system functionality.
Block 1B Phalanx Surface Mode (PSUM) incorporates a side mounted Forward Looking Infrared Radar (FLIR) which enables CIWS to engage low slow or hovering aircraft and surface craft. Additionally, the FLIR assists the radar in engaging some ASCMÂ’s bringing a greater chance of ship survivability. Block 1B uses a thermal imager Automatic Acquisition
Video Tracker (AAVT) and stablilization system that provide surface mode and electro-optic (EO) angle track. These Block 1B enhancements will allow day/night detection capability and enable the CIWS to engage small surface targets, slow-moving air targets, and helicopters.
LSD 41-class ships, a typical SSDS engagement suite includes RAM, the PHALANX Close-In Weapon System Block 1A, and the decoy launch system. SSDS further integrates the AN/SPS-49(V)1 radar with the medium PRF upgrade, the AN/SPS-67 surface search radar, the AN/SLQ-32(V) sensor, and the CIWS search radar.
--------------
It seems that USN continue to retain Phalanx even when they have RAM installed on their ships. I would think that RSN La Fayatte would be better off having the Phalanx rather than RAM since they will come with Aster 15 or some other SAM. RAM is good, but by purchasing another SAM, RSN will have 4 different SAMs to maintain... going to be a logistic nightmare....
BTW, the 3 other SAM systems are:
1. IAI Barak
2. Mistral
3. the new SAM to be installed for La Fayattes.
the Phalanx. RAM is currently, as you have shown, a complement, handling the outer ring of the terminal engagement, with Phalanx handling the inner ring. -
Its not just politics in this farce. The money which Korea initially set aside for this acquisition has been severely devalued due to the fall in Korea's currency against the US dollar. And the F-15K isn't that bad if you consider the whole package US is offering.Originally posted by Viper52:Apparently as far back as 1998(or 99) RSAF pliots have been invited to France to test fly the Rafale. And maybe you might have noticed at the past few AAs when the Rafale came, they did take off at some pretty odd hours AFTER the flying display has ended. No prizes for guessing who might be on board. The RSAF was not invited to test fly the Typhoon till late 2000, and as for AA, the real thing hasn't even been here yet. Points to a totally bo-chup attitude as far as marketing the plane to Singapore.
I think the main problem the Rafale has of selling to the english speaking world is that most of us read English magazines, a lot of which are written by Brits. Though not all are like that, when one reads comparisons about the Rafale/Typhoon in magazines like Air International or Air Forces Monthly, one does detect some kind of bias.
Like I said before, the weapons integration reason is a sorry excuse, the French have already stated that the Rafale is already currently integrated with US A/A A/G weapons.
But I do feel sorry for the RoKAF, politics are again taking precedence over national defence interests... -
Training wise, is it possible that we might work something out with the Brits or Germans should we opt for the Typhoon?
The typhoon and the Rafale really look VERY similar, what about their capabilities? Are they equal or different? The Rafale is the older plane among the 2, would it have room for more developements? Would Singapore be allowed to participate in the developement of systems for the Rafale or any other competing aircraft? -
They are not really THAT similar, personally, I feel that the Rafale is much more beautiful than the Typhoon. Can anybody state the rough per unit prices of each of the contenders?
-
Training wise, yes we could work something out with the Brits or Krauts, but logistics wise, it could be a additional strain seeing that we have so many permanent aircraft detachments overseas(US France Australia Brunei Thailand RoC). Since we already have detachments in France and US, it would make more sense to expand the current programs in these countries for the new fighters rather than start up and support a whole new one.
As far as technology transfer, I'm sure we can wrangle something out of Dassault. The reson why there are no buyers for the Rafale is not an indictment of its capabilities. Its because France, the developing country is not buying much, which in turn puts other customers off. But the reason why the French aren't buying is because they sank too much money into buying Mirage 2000-9s(not bad, but far from the best) and building that floating white elephant aka Charles de Gaulle and starved them of any funds for the Rafale(other than a small number of Bs and some Ms to equip the said white elephants air wing). Dassault are desparate to sell, especially to a high profile customer like Singapore, and might be more willing to give concessions.
It might be older, but by what, 5 years at most? And thats because the Typhoon was delayed again and again by development problems. And older might not be a bad thing, just compare the CFT programs for the 2. Rafale has already flight tested its CFTs and displayed it at Paris 2001(even giving a flying demo with CFTs), while they're still trying to determine the shape of the Typhoons CFT.
As for prices, I've read from a comparison sometime back that the unit price for Typhoon and Rafale are about US$60 million, though the Typhoon's might have been reduced due to econmies of scale as there are already several hundreds on order with the development countries... -
In terms of tech transfer, I have a feeling that the French will offer more. They are quite liberal with arms and tech transfers.
-
Yeah....no crap about "No introduction of new weapon systems to the region" or "moral arms sales policy" like the Yanks or Brits.Originally posted by YourFather:In terms of tech transfer, I have a feeling that the French will offer more. They are quite liberal with arms and tech transfers.
What a load of bollocks, if you wanted to be moral, you wouldn't sell arms to anyone. Period. -
Lee Hsien Loong met up with Blair in London, and most likely, the Typhoon transfer could have been somewhere on the agenda.
Think about it this way. We've been a good boy in the region. We helped others when needed, and we nabbed 15 really mean people. Probably saved the lives of many US servicemen in Singapore. We went on to pursue the mastermind of the local terrorist organisation. If I were Lee, I would tell Blair that we would need a little pat on the back, and perhaps easing of some restrictions. It isn't too much to ask is it? Training with the brits shouldn't be much of a problem. God knows how often the brits train with the yanks, if we get the typhoon, we might get ourselves even more involved with their training, improving our own capabilities.
We all know that the brits and yanks are mutually supportive. When one does something, the other comes out to support it straight away. If we can convince the brits to help us, say maybe selling us the Meteors, it might put pressure on the US to release our AMRAAMs to us. A decision which we cannot convince the US to make, maybe the brits can. -
But Americans are known for interfering arms sales to other countries, eg. Israeli Phalcon AEW to China, BAe Hawks to Indonesia, etc. I can think of 101 reasons why US would stop Brits selling RSAF Meteros. BTW, it is still a paper missiles. I would rather go for the French Mica at this time.Originally posted by Shotgun:Lee Hsien Loong met up with Blair in London, and most likely, the Typhoon transfer could have been somewhere on the agenda.
Think about it this way. We've been a good boy in the region. We helped others when needed, and we nabbed 15 really mean people. Probably saved the lives of many US servicemen in Singapore. We went on to pursue the mastermind of the local terrorist organisation. If I were Lee, I would tell Blair that we would need a little pat on the back, and perhaps easing of some restrictions. It isn't too much to ask is it? Training with the brits shouldn't be much of a problem. God knows how often the brits train with the yanks, if we get the typhoon, we might get ourselves even more involved with their training, improving our own capabilities.
We all know that the brits and yanks are mutually supportive. When one does something, the other comes out to support it straight away. If we can convince the brits to help us, say maybe selling us the Meteors, it might put pressure on the US to release our AMRAAMs to us. A decision which we cannot convince the US to make, maybe the brits can. -
The problem with the Brits and the yanks is that you really don't know who you're dealing with. Bush and Blair might be friendly to us now, but who can tell when the next election comes around? A new government comes in, decides it doesn't like the idea of transferring technology to us, and its GAME OVER. After all, Singapore was almost person non grata during the later Clinton years, due to the fact that we had a couple of run-ins such as the Fay caning thing. Don't think that a signed contract is any use, after all that tree hugging b**** Helen Clarke went back on NZ's committment to lease/buy the embargoed Paki F-16s, even though the previous government had already signed the contract.
The French, on the other hand, do not tie their arms sales to politics. Same goes for the Russians, but I prefer French made to Russian made. -
Oh look at Helen Clark, soon, there will be no more New Zealand.... it will be New Maori or Maoriland or something like that... She wants the Maori to have their own parliment... perhaps New Zealand will be split into two, the Maoris can have the northern island, and the "New Zealanders" can have the southern....Originally posted by Viper52:The problem with the Brits and the yanks is that you really don't know who you're dealing with. Bush and Blair might be friendly to us now, but who can tell when the next election comes around? A new government comes in, decides it doesn't like the idea of transferring technology to us, and its GAME OVER. After all, Singapore was almost person non grata during the later Clinton years, due to the fact that we had a couple of run-ins such as the Fay caning thing. Don't think that a signed contract is any use, after all that tree hugging b**** Helen Clarke went back on NZ's committment to lease/buy the embargoed Paki F-16s, even though the previous government had already signed the contract.
The French, on the other hand, do not tie their arms sales to politics. Same goes for the Russians, but I prefer French made to Russian made.