New RSN Stealth ship? Not La Fayette
-
I found this interesting page in STEngg website. It seems like ST is busy designing a new class of Stealth OPV. My belief is that RSN will be their launch customer.
http://www.stengg.com/downloads/ma_81mstealth.htm
It makes sense to build them to replace the current Sea Wolf class MGBs. It will complement the current MCVs and the future La Fayatte frigates perfectly.
ST also has a smaller stealth FPC on design board. Perhaps they are going to be used for brown water patrol or by the Police Coast Guards?
http://www.stengg.com/downloads/ma_27mstealth.htm -
I think Janes Fighting Ships had a line drawing on the stealth interceptor a few years back(in its '98 issue I think). Not much heard of it till now.
In fact one of the reasons why we joined the JSF program on the "fee for info" basis was not so much for future purchase of the JSF, but was to learn more about stealth technology. Buying the info sure makes climbing the learning curve much easier than learning it yourself.... -
No. The info is just the unclassified, "buyer would like to know about the product's capability" type of info, NOT stealth info! Jeez, we donated only 3.6 million bucks, you think they'ii give us stealth knowledge?! You give them 3.6 billion dollars, they also may not give you stealth info!
Now for the above mentioned stealth vessels. I dont think those will be bought to replace the Sea Wolf class, as IIRC, the La Fayette were bought to replace the Sea Wolf class instead. -
However, ST does not build something that Singapore will not be buying - the only exception being the F-16 avionics upgrade. That was due to the soured relationship with IAI. RSN must have prompted the need for local shipbuilding companies ie. ST Marine to build stealth warships. Furthermore, I can see RSN getting another 6 of the 81m Stealth OPVs. Perhaps 6 to 12 stealth interceptors of coaster patrol or strike roles.Originally posted by YourFather:Now for the above mentioned stealth vessels. I dont think those will be bought to replace the Sea Wolf class, as IIRC, the La Fayette were bought to replace the Sea Wolf class instead. -
Perhaps the OPV will be bought to replace the Victory class corvettes? Oh yes, on another board, one guy claimed that Singapore was considering a ~13,000 tonne helicopter amphibious assault ship. He did not show his source, and my search on google did not reveal any info on this, so I guess we take it with a pinch of salt for the moment. However, what say u guys if we really get one?
-
IF RSN get one of the Italian San something class helicopter transport ship, it would definitely make a very loud political noise especially considering the "sensitivity" of our neighbours. People may even suggest that Singapore is ready to invade their country...Originally posted by YourFather:Perhaps the OPV will be bought to replace the Victory class corvettes? Oh yes, on another board, one guy claimed that Singapore was considering a ~13,000 tonne helicopter amphibious assault ship. He did not show his source, and my search on google did not reveal any info on this, so I guess we take it with a pinch of salt for the moment. However, what say u guys if we really get one?
ha ha ha
Anyway, it does makes sense if RSN is to develop the Navy to a Green/Blue water navy and use the ship as a command and control platform, sort of a mini aircraft carrier. However, it is resource intensive (personal to man the ships are in the few hundreds). I can't see RSN will opt for such as option.
It is a nice to have but can't afford thingy. Somewhat like the Thai aircraft carrier.
Any other people have different opinion? -
Isn't it a little too early to retire the Corvettes. They are afterall still first class except for their stability issue at high sea state. Wish RSN can do something about the huge mask tower....Originally posted by YourFather:Perhaps the OPV will be bought to replace the Victory class corvettes?
Oh, if they could also add another CIWS weapon to complement the Barak SAMs, it would be wonderful. Perhaps throw in the CEC and integrate with other RSN ships, MPAs and RSAF Hawkeyes.. -
It would certainly make sense to complment the Endurace class LSDs(or LSTs as the RSN insists on calling it - LST? yeah right) with a ship of the LPH(a modern class similar in role to the old Iwo Jima class) type to carry transport helos to support amphib operations. The helos can use the ship as a base(with hangar facilities etc) and travel with it and then fly off to the LSDs when the time comes.Originally posted by Joe Black:IF RSN get one of the Italian San something class helicopter transport ship, it would definitely make a very loud political noise especially considering the "sensitivity" of our neighbours. People may even suggest that Singapore is ready to invade their country... ha ha ha
Anyway, it does makes sense if RSN is to develop the Navy to a Green/Blue water navy and use the ship as a command and control platform, sort of a mini aircraft carrier. However, it is resource intensive (personal to man the ships are in the few hundreds). I can't see RSN will opt for such as option.
It is a nice to have but can't afford thingy. Somewhat like the Thai aircraft carrier.
Any other people have different opinion?
But then, you're right, its too high profile, The Mats will be screaming blue murder if we do build a ship like this. -
Has anybody gone to the AA2002 yet? 1 Singaporean on another board was offering 3 trade passes, but since I already bought 2 tickets for Sat, I passed the offer. Unfortunately, I heard A-level results are coming up this Sat, now I dunno whether I'lll still be in the mood to watch the airshow after getting my results...sigh....
Anyway, DSTA is going to shortlist 3 of the fighter contenders out of the current 6. Which 3 of these these 6 do you think will make it through the 1st round? I say the Typhoon, Rafale surprise of surprises, the ShittyHornet! (I surprised myself when I came to this conclusion, but I'll explain why)
This is because i made a small and very rough comparison chart considering each of the planes in the areas of training area provided, tech transfer, upgradability, after-sales support, cost and performance. Each area was graded on a scale of 0 to 3. The Typhoon got 13 points, the Rafale got 15, the F-15K got 9, the ShittyHornet got 11, F-16 Blk60 got 9 also, and finally the SU-35 got 7. -
Well, all the best to your A level results....Originally posted by YourFather:Has anybody gone to the AA2002 yet? 1 Singaporean on another board was offering 3 trade passes, but since I already bought 2 tickets for Sat, I passed the offer. Unfortunately, I heard A-level results are coming up this Sat, now I dunno whether I'lll still be in the mood to watch the airshow after getting my results...sigh....
Anyway, DSTA is going to shortlist 3 of the fighter contenders out of the current 6. Which 3 of these these 6 do you think will make it through the 1st round? I say the Typhoon, Rafale surprise of surprises, the ShittyHornet! (I surprised myself when I came to this conclusion, but I'll explain why)
This is because i made a small and very rough comparison chart considering each of the planes in the areas of training area provided, tech transfer, upgradability, after-sales support, cost and performance. Each area was graded on a scale of 0 to 3. The Typhoon got 13 points, the Rafale got 15, the F-15K got 9, the ShittyHornet got 11, F-16 Blk60 got 9 also, and finally the SU-35 got 7.
Well well, looks like we have always been right about Rafale being a slightly better plane for RSAF than Typhoon. But I won't hold my breath yet cause I suspect the 3 way races is going to come down between Rafale and the Super bug. -
I was at AA2002 today. Finally had a chance to catch the planes close up. Overall I would say that its quite a good show considering that economic and security situation worldwide is quite bad, but visitor turnout was hit quite hard.Originally posted by Joe Black:Well, all the best to your A level results....
Well well, looks like we have always been right about Rafale being a slightly better plane for RSAF than Typhoon. But I won't hold my breath yet cause I suspect the 3 way races is going to come down between Rafale and the Super bug.
Watched the Super Hornet do its thing at the display with a couple of friends. We had quite similar appraisals. It is pretty nifty in the horizontal plane, extremely quick on the turn and small turn radius. However I wasn;t impressed the first time I saw it last year, though I couldn't quite put my finger on why. After today, I realised why: its performance in the vertical plane, it seems almost sluggish in the climb, unlike others like the Viper or Rafale which seem to stand on its tail and blaze upwards.
I still think RFPs will be issued to the Rafale Typhoon and F-15E(another impressive performance), although I have a sneaky feeling the super Bug might sneak into the reckoning for the RFP.
Back to the show, the Bone's nose art was cool, and the Blue Marlin on the USN P-3? Beautiful! -
Not so. It seems that DSTA has not even set down the concrete requirements for theOriginally posted by Joe Black:Well, all the best to your A level results....
Well well, looks like we have always been right about Rafale being a slightly better plane for RSAF than Typhoon. But I won't hold my breath yet cause I suspect the 3 way races is going to come down between Rafale and the Super bug.
the plane they want, and the Typhoon loses out to the Rafale only in tech-transfer(frenchies sell anything to anybody, which is why they have earned the scorn of US and the rest of Europe, also they are more desperate to sell the Rafale) and over-seas training (we already have a training facility in France) provided. For the performance rating, I gave them both a 3, but that's because the difference between their capabilities is small. However, I maintain my stand that the Typhoon is an aircraft with performance higher than the Rafale. -
Yea, the bugs (and Super bugs) do suffer in the slightly out-of-energy issue in climbs (and as you pointed, vertical climbs), and acceleration. They should have put much higher rated engines into the Super bugs to overcome this issue. I watched the movie "Behind enemy's line" last nite which depicted a Super bug out-turned and out manoeuvred the Russian made SAMs. Yes, I know, its a movie, but I was still impressed by the agility of the Super bugs. The USN sure gave their new toys a good display on the big screen...Originally posted by Viper52:Watched the Super Hornet do its thing at the display with a couple of friends. We had quite similar appraisals. It is pretty nifty in the horizontal plane, extremely quick on the turn and small turn radius. However I wasn;t impressed the first time I saw it last year, though I couldn't quite put my finger on why. After today, I realised why: its performance in the vertical plane, it seems almost sluggish in the climb, unlike others like the Viper or Rafale which seem to stand on its tail and blaze upwards.
A Viper fighter (1st batch that got sent to the US) friend of my had a discussion about how he would deal with a bug, he quitely replied with the out-turn and out-run the bug. Don't slow down cause the bugs have greater pointability and better AoA than the Vipers. I expect the Super bugs to be even better. So when it comes down to knife fights against bug/Super bugs, the rule is to use speed against them....
I do see that F-15E could make quite a good choice, but I doubt RSAF will get all the nice stuffs in the USAF version. They probably get a slightly watered down version like the Saudis F-15S. Furthermore, F-15E does not work well in a stealth environment. The radar reflection is roughly about 10x that of F22, a few times that of the Super bugs and Rafale. Even the Skyhawks have smaller radar relection than the Strike Eagles. But so far hardly any planes will beat them in their avionics suite. That is why the Israeli and the Saudis are still operating them as their most important and dedicated attack aircraft.
I still think RFPs will be issued to the Rafale Typhoon and F-15E(another impressive performance), although I have a sneaky feeling the super Bug might sneak into the reckoning for the RFP.
But my guts says that F-15E with a price tag of US60+ million an aircraft (baisc Strike Eagle fit - the Israeli version was reported to be about 80 million per unit - ouch!) is far too expensive. Unit price of Rafale can come down as low as US49 million, but I think RSAF would want more than the basic aircraft. The unit price of RSAF version would most like also hover around the 60 million mark. Given that a Block 50 Viper is around 20+ million, Super bugs around 40 million, I can't see how RSAF can justify to purchase F15Es. Let's wait and see how much RokAF purchase their planes for and how much they are being offered. -
I agree with most of your points, but I would like to disagree on a few things - the F-22 (radar signature is marble-sized) is more than a hundred times more stealthy than the F-15 (has to be, otherwise the F-22's stealth won't be worth much - the F-15's radar sig is huge), and the F-18E (clean) has a signature of roughly 3 sq ft, which is much much smaller than that of the F-15. Its radar signature is the smallest among the semi-stealthy aircraft.
The price of the Shitty bug is also much more than $40 mil. Current price is about the same as the F-15 - $60 mil. With improved production techniques learnt from the JSF program, Boeing hopes to cut it down to $49 mil, but even then it won't go to as low as $40 mil.
As for the F-15 being offered to us, though its specs weren't confirmed yet, it would have to come with the latest. Reason? The rest of the competition. If they cant give us the best equipment on the F-15, then how are they going to compete with the Typhoon and the Rafale, which are priced just as competitively, if not more competitively, than the F-15? Boeing wouldn't have bothered to offer the F-15 if they had to market it with one hand tied behind their back. God knows, they already have a hard time trying to sell it because of the perceived age of the F-15's design. It would most probably come with what's offered the Koreans. It would probably come with an even better radar than the APG-63V(1) offered to the Koreans - the APG-63(V)2 AESA version, which has a max of 110 nm against a RCS 1 sq m target. This equates to almost twice the range of the other current non-AESA equipped radars. This is because their range were measured by the USAF against a 2 sq m target then, however, against a 1 sq m target( as is the current standard used by the USAF now), their range is severely decreased. -
Just came back from a 2nd visit to AA2002 today. A much more fruitful day today in terms of knowledge gained, as with the help of a friend, managed to speak to a French Navy general in charge of the French procurement and the Vice President of Dassault's Marketing division. Told me lots of interesting stuff.
Firstly to refute a point, in terms of geopolitics, numbers and economics, the Korean contract is a lot more important than the RSAF one. If the Yanks feel that even Korea doesn't warrant the APG-63V(2) AESA, what chance they'll offer it to us? The S Koreans have commies breathing down their necks(along with 37,000 Yank necks), and the size of order is bigger than Singapore's anytime, why will the Yanks give us something to "sweeten the deal" when they wouldn't give it to the Koreans?
According to Korean newspapers, leaked information suggests that Boeing's bid lacks the AESA, whereas Dassault's bid comes with AESA, and yet still costs US$300 million LESS than what was offered by Boeing. Its is also widely known in industry sources(not just from Dassault) that Rafale leads the Korean evaluation on technical merit, followed by the -15K, and then the Typhoon.
Another factor against the Typhoon: The missiles. Even BAe acknowledges that Meteor is long way from entering service. No problems, theres AMRAAMs in the meantime you'd think, NOT! Its not widely known, but the US will NOT clear AMRAAM sales to "non-allied"(ie non-NATO) countries who intend to use AMRAAMs on "third nation supplied(ie non-Yank)" platforms. The Typhoons might come integrated with AMRAAM, but thats worth dip-shit if Uncle Sam refuses to sell you any...seems like more marketing smoke from Eurofighter. In the meantime nations buying the Typhoon will have to make do with Sparrows or Skyflash or whatever they can lay their hands on...
Combat experience. For about 2 months now Rafales have been flying combat missions over you-know-where on the Charles de Gaulle. Her air wing of SuEs and Rafales have been averaging 20 sorties a day in that time. Like a quote I heard today, "Theres no better way to shakedown a ship than actual combat". While the consortium falls further and further behind its schedule, the Rafale is quietly gathering a reputation and combat experience.
While the rest of the competitors try harder and harder to win the contract, Eurofighter is busy shooting its foot over and over again in Asia
No offence to the Typhoon supporters, but the more I speak to people in the industry, the more I believe my personal choice of the Rafale is correct.
BTW, a report in todays Biz Times states that ST Engg and Dassault has signed a contract to carry out "third-level"(depot level) maintenance for Rafales in Singapore. Read into that what you will...
[This message has been edited by Viper52 (edited 28 February 2002).] -
Fighter Export Market
Too many swings, not enough roundabouts?
July 2001
One of the few areas of major interest at an otherwise quiet Le Bourget Air Show was how the players in the combat aircraft market were shaping up to each other. As with most market segments, there are regular up and downturns as factors change to in influence matters, be they economic or political. And the immediate lead-up to the show saw a few matters come to a head - or not - which could well provide some signs for the future.
NORDIC LIGHTS
If there is a trend that is becoming prominent, it is the Saab/BAES JAS-39 Gripen's race back up the charts. Gripen was the first fourth-generation aircraft to hit the market and looked as if it could clean up in a wide number of areas very quickly. The principles of advanced technology backed up by low unit price and low cost of ownership always looked a good bet, overcoming the very Swedish specifications of the aircraft.
But the years since Gripen's launch on the export market - ever since the mid-1990s - saw a near-deafening silence in terms of interest in the programme. Despite a number of evident advantages, Gripen was losing out to US contenders especially F-16. For those - and there were many - who thought that Gripen would do well, this situation was surprising to say the least.
But suddenly the tea leaves look more than good for the Anglo-Swedish aircraft. The selection in South Africa in 1999, followed by a contract, was the breakthrough. But the fact that it was the only aircraft backed by a fully compliant bid into the Czech Republic also means that it is in prime spot there. The Czech contract is not a given. Even Saab sources see it as a 60-40 contract - a 60 per cent chance that a deal will be signed and 40 per cent that Prague won't buy anything at this time.
The question is whether a signed deal in the Czech Republic will lead to a bandwagon in Europe. Many observers feel that Austria, which is in quite serious need of new aircraft, could be the next country to opt for Gripen. Certainly, existing links between Sweden and Austria over the JAS-35 Draken bode well for Gripen's chances.
But a bellwether could well be Poland. It was widely speculated in the week before the Le Bourget show that a deal for 36-48 refurbished F-16s would be signed - after all, President George Bush was stopping off in Warsaw almost specially for such a purpose. But his trip came and went with no contract. Questions to Lockheed Martin at the show saw responses that indicated that the firm had little interest in Eastern Europe, especially in the aftermath of the confirmation of the 50 aircraft Israeli order.
To be fair to LM, it is possible to believe that the hoops through which many Eastern European countries are making bidders leap could make such deals not worth the effort. This seems to have been the case with the Czech deal, certainly. However, requirements for local pricing and local language bid documents did not put LM off undertaking such work for the Polish deal. If left-of-centre parties win the September 2000 Polish elections,then the chances of a Gripen deal will arguably rise.
The Gripen team is also becoming more ambitious about the possible export markets beyond the traditional areas of Swedish influence. The new area to break could be Latin America, where moves are afoot by the team to jemmy its way into the South American continent. The Brazilian RFP, for issue this August, is a first possibility. Although "Team France" has bought a stake in Embraer, this is not regarded as a block to purchase of another aircraft. Key in Sweden is likely to be links established over the Amazon Surveillance Programme, which saw the Swedish Ericsson Erieye sold to Brasilia. One might also see moves to integrate Rafael's Python, and IAI's Litening onto the aircraft as a good move for Latin America. Dare one think that it will not be too long before the Israeli Darby BVRAAM is seen hanging off a Swedish Pylon?
This opens a second possibility in Latin America: Chile. "But They've already ordered the F-16", we hear you cry. Well so far, not so good. Too many reports are circulating that the deal is far from done. Changes in government in Washington DC and changes of staff in Santiago have led some to see the fighter programme in Chile as open again. Wait and see on this one but another potential one for Gripen to win.
"I'LL DO ANYTHING, FOR YOU, DEAR, ANYTHING ..."
Defence Analysis has stated for the past two years that Dassault 's Rafale has to win two of the major export deals - out of Singapore, South Korea and Brazil - in the next five years to keep the programme, even the French programme, affordable. This view still stands as far as Defence Analysis is concerned. Yet the options for Rafale still don't look as good as they could, and if anything, look slightly darker. Indeed, one might even hear squeaks of desperation coming from Saint Cloud.
One sign of Dassault's desperation is the plethora of options that the company and the French Government are offering in export support. "What do you want? You can have it!" Which possibly raises a question in many customers' minds: if this aircraft is as good as it is claimed, why offer all the options?
The fact that it is known that the existing French model is underpowered, especially in hot and high conditions, is not a good start when looking to sell to one of the three countries mentioned above.
There is another problem facing Rafale. Although one can look at the planned development path and see it as a good move in respect of incremental acquisition, it also permits potential buyers to put things off. Why buy a Rafale F2/Block 05 standard aircraft for delivery at the end of 2004 when you can get a better version in 2006? And perhaps worryingly for the much-delayed Rafale programme, the model on offer for 2006 delivery is one that offers a number of systems - helmet mounted display, full weapons capability - which are on offer from rivals such as the Gripen and Typhoon from the start.
On top of this, the Rafale F3/Block 10 standard will see an active array radar replacing the existing passive E-scan RBE2. Now, there tends to be a rule of thumb: if there are that many changes in a programme, then wait until the home customer has taken delivery of the system and has discovered all the bugs. This could mean that potential clients wait until well after 2005 before looking at Rafale.
TYPHOON BLOWING IN?
So, if the "top-of-the-range" Rafale has problems with its market position, then what of Eurofighter Typhoon? The situation is slightly mixed. Of course, the Greek deal still looks to be on, although for confirmation after the Olympic games, although some form of finance package like that offered to Prague for the Gripen might allow Athens to confirm before 2004.
A standard advantage of Eurofighter is that since it is designed to NATO standards it should be compatible with existing NATO-spec (especially US) weapons. Unlike Rafale, where special clearances would be needed to allow integration of more than a few weapons, Typhoon can take the lot and will enter service with the four nations with about as wide a range of weapons as has ever seen on a new aircraft. This flexibility, which extends to avionics and similar systems (Germany with Rafael's Litening LGB pod), can only help.
While not as pressed as Rafale, Typhoon does need to get its export market foundations sunk deeper than they are today. Promising signs in Norway (now delayed), a deal (deferred) in Greece are a good start – but some big prizes need to be claimed, - such as the obvious Singaporean and South Korean opportunities. Defence Analysis would point out too that there is a not-widely-recognised far-term Mid Eastern "ringer."
If Typhoon can win one of the two Far Eastern prospects - and in Singapore it is about last in the running behind F/A-18 and Rafale - then it will gain some serious credibility, as well as production offtake to cut overheads. Chances in South Korea are deemed to have improved with a perceived decline in the chances for the favourite, Boeing's F-15K. Changes in politics in both Seoul and Washington are deemed to have damaged the F-15K's profile. South Korea must be crucial for Typhoon.
The ringer for Typhoon is Saudi Arabia. As Defence Analysis's 2000 Fighter Market Survey commented, although there has been much, ill-informed talk about Saudi Arabia, things might just be falling into place for the aircraft and changes in Riyadh's procurement strategy are key. Rather than running an F-5 replacement programme, then a Tornado F3 replacement programme, then an early model F-15 replacement programme, and so on, there are indications that Riyadh is looking to bundle things in a different way.
The new perceived path would see one aircraft being selected to replace both F-5 and Tornado F-3. Obviously, looking at what these models do, stress would be on a modern air defence aircraft with some multi-role capability. The issue of the early model F-15s could then be addressed later, possibly by the same selected aircraft. In effect, a rolling, batch-by-batch procurement would be undertaken. The question for Typhoon is whether it can be seen as an F-5 replacement, being so much bigger. But if the argument is that if instead of 70-80 F-5E/Fs and 24 Tornado F3s only 48-60 Typhoons would be needed, then it stands a chance.
Outsider prospects are back in Europe. Although Norway looked as if it favoured Typhoon, only when the ink is on the contract can one relax - if even then. But the return of the Netherlands to assess Typhoon opens up, again, the prospect of cleaving the European F-16 User Group in twain. And catch one of the four nations and the chances of getting at least one of the others rises exponentially.
As an aside, Rafale's incremental approach could be said to reinforce the differences between it and Typhoon, but in the latter's favour. After all, once all the additions are added to Rafale, it then just becomes a lighter, more expensive Typhoon - but still with fewer useful additions such as direct voice input.
US ASPIRATIONS
The joker in the pack is the Joint Strike Fighter. An early decision to either keep to the original procurement strategy, or to even accelerate it, would mean that many bets are off. The best gift that President Bush can give to Europe is to slow the JSF procurement cycle. Then, even though there might be few threats facing a number of nations, European states specifically, their ageing aircraft might well need replacing anyway. All of the European F-16 User Group are natural JSF customers and ought to fall like ripe fruit - if the product is there on time.
The nub of the matter is that by the second half of the decade, any version of F-16 is going to look past its best. Such were the comments from a number of observers at the Paris Air Show when the Gripen was flying - it seems to eclipse today's and tomorrow's F-16s. Does anyone believe that, say, the Netherlands will buy a Block 90 F-16 in 2008-10? Or Turkey? If there is hope for the F-16, then it is to get as many aircraft –new or secondhand, into new markets over the next 2-3 years.
After that, Defence Analysis rates its chances in many markets as falling away. In its place, the US will in effect only have one offering: the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.
Although there is little doubt that it is an exceptional aircraft, its current price is higher than all of the European offerings - and this cannot help its market chances. Until the F/A-18E/F can be shown to come at or below the Rafale/Typhoon price, including support, then it is going to be hampered. But it is regarded by many as best placed in Singapore, and a win there would get its foot in the export doorway.
But does anyone believe that Finland or Switzerland will buy the E/F in the future? If Boeing can pull off future sales – and they are really future – then it will be in a position to defray some of the US Government's costs on the programme. But perhaps the biggest problems facing F/A-18 are: firstly, it didn't sell in its initial versions to as many countries as F-16 (Australia, Canada, Finland, Kuwait, Malaysia, Spain, Switzerland), so could be said to be less well bedded in; and, secondly, as a twin engine aircraft, it now is slap-bang in the middle of the Rafale/Typhoon marketing range.
The above is an article for your viewing pleasure :-)
Now, for your points...
1. True that we are not a more important ally than S.Korea, but our fighter competition is regarded as the 2nd most lucrative, and thus important, after S.Korea's. With S.Korea's competition in limbo right now, our competition is more important than ever. True that the F-15K was offered with the APG-63(V)1, which is not the AESA version, but then the US has the power to exert diplomatic pressure on the Koreans to choose F-15, through the use of US troops in Korea as leverage. They won't do that in Singapore. They might push, but not that hard. Thus it comes down to a fairer competition. Boeing is currently REALLY desperate to keep the F-15 production line open (if they cant win the Korean or Singaporean competition, the F-15 line closes, thats why politicians are lobbying so hard for the F-15 in Korea), so if they dont offer the APG-63V(2).... that's their choice, but then they're less competitive, that's all. ThereÂ’s one other reason why I dont think the F-15 will be selected. With SIngapore having a habit of small, repeat orders, it will have trouble if it gets the Eagle. Once Boeing finishes production for our Eagles, they will close the production line, assuming they dont win the Korean competition. That means, we buy all the F-15s we want at one time, or dont buy at all. Now speculation is that Singapore is getting between 20~40 aircraft, but most agree its about 24. Will that be enuff to replace the Skyhawks and Tigers? Doubt so.
2. Are you sure Dassault's bid comes with an AESA radar? If so, that would mean they are offering the F3 version, can you confirm that for me? I'm sure the F2 version comes with a Passive electronically scanned array radar. Also, is the AESA radar the AMSAR, or the AESA derivative (or follow on) of the RBE 2? The radar of the Typhoon is the only area which loses out to the Rafale, but this will be corrected with the Tranche 3 version, (featuring the AMSAR radar) I guess.
3. The missile thingie works against the Rafale just as it would against the Typhoon. In fact, the Rafale would have a lower chance of AMRAAM integration than the Rafale. The french have never been particularly well-liked by US and the rest of Europe. (serious! the reason why America is not so enthusiastic of cooperating with UK on defense projects is because secret technologies will 1 way or another, find their way to France) As for getting AMRAAMs from the Yanks, thats not a prob. We already own AMRAAMs, and so additional sales wont be a problem. And Micas, I dont like. :-) The Meteor would come online in about 2008~2010, which would perhaps be (at most) slightly later than when we get the Typhoons, that's all.
3. The Charles de Gaulle is a joke. Its experienced so many problems, it was regarded as a pier-queen. The last joke of the Charles de Gaulle was that its propeller broke (!?), and had to go for extended repairs, lol. But that's irrelevant to the Rafale, of course.... -
Ummm, I did some checking up, found that the APG-63(V)2 was indeed offered to the Koreans, as seen from this:
AMONG THE HIGH-PROFILE modernization items are the ongoing
competition for an advanced fighter and plans to buy an airborne early
warning system. Seoul had hoped to select a fighter this year, although the
announcement is now not expected until late summer. Competitors include
the Boeing F-15K, DassaultRafale, Eurofighter and Russian Su-30.
The Pentagon recently sent Congress the required notification on the
possible F-15K deal that is estimated at $1.5 billion. It details the weapons
and subsystems being offered the South Koreans. A notable development
is that Boeing is offering the APG-63 radar with an active electronically
scanned array. The company initially said it would be only an upgrade
option, but the Pentagon's notice is the first sign that the more advanced
system--which allows pilots to track many more targets and use the radar
for jamming--is actually being offered. It would also mean the South
Koreans would get a more advanced radar than the U.S. Air Force
operates on its F-15Es.
Additional info on the F-15K:
The most important market, however, is in South Korea. While that nation
almost always buys American, the size of its FX fighter buy has drawn all
the usual players into the contest. South Korea will buy at least 40, and up
to 80 fighters, which could be worth $8 billion. The front-runner is the
F-15K, which, in some ways, offers advanced technology over the current
F-15E Strike Eagle. The F-15K includes Lockheed Martin's TigerEyes
FLIR/IRST targeting system (instead of LANTIRN), new color displays,
an improved BAE Systems ALR-56C (V)1 radar warning receiver, and
Northrop Grumman's ALQ-135M jammer. Its closest competitor is
Dassault's Rafale, but the Typhoon is still in the running, as is Sukhoi's
Su-35. -
Some old information about the Superhornet, which maybe inaccurate. It was taken from USN's GAO report of the Superhornet.
According to Navy and contractor documents, key factors in
determining combat performance of an aircraft are thrust, turn rate,
and acceleration. The Navy stated that to maintain the combat
performance of the larger and heavier F/A-18E/F relative to the
F/A-18C/D, it would develop and incorporate new higher thrust
engines. However, program data shows that the range improvements
sought by the larger and heavier F/A-18E/F will be achieved at the
expense of the aircraft's combat performance and that the F/A-18E/F's
aerial combat performance in key areas will be inferior to current
F/A-18C/Ds.
The F/A-18E/F's larger fuel capacity, due to its larger size, allows
the aircraft to achieve greater range than the F/A-18C/Ds. The
F/A-18E's empty weight without fuel and ordinance is about 6,100
pounds heavier than that of the C's. The E is 4.3 feet longer than
the C, and its wing area is 25 percent greater. The F/A-18E can
carry about 6,600 more pounds of fuel than the F/A-18C. The
F414-GE-400 engine being developed for the E/F by General Electric is
designed to provide added thrust to compensate for the added weight
of the aircraft and fuel. (See fig. 2.3.)
Figure 2.3: F/A-18 Aircraft
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: McDonnell Douglas.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
According to program documents, the F414-GE-400 engine generates
about 22,000 pounds of uninstalled thrust,\3 a 37.5-percent increase
over the F404-GE-400 engine used in the F/A-18A/B and some early
F/A-18C/D aircraft. However, technical manuals show that the
F/A-18E/F's F414-GE-400 engine develops only 20,727 pounds of
uninstalled thrust. Furthermore, the latest F/A-18C/Ds are equipped
with an enhanced version of the F404 engine, known as the F404-GE-402
Enhanced Performance Engine. This new engine that was developed to
meet foreign buyers' requirements for better combat performance has
been adopted for Navy use. The enhanced engine increased the
uninstalled thrust from 16,000 to 17,754 pounds. Consequently, as
shown in table 2.1, the F/A-18E/F has about a 17-percent improvement
in uninstalled thrust over the C/Ds fitted with the F404-GE-402
Enhanced Performance Engine, rather than 37.5-percent reported in
program documents.
Table 2.1
Comparison of F/A-18C/D and F/A-18E/F
Uninstalled Thrust
(Thrust in pounds)
Uninstalle
d
Engine thrust\a
---------------------------------------------------------- ----------
F/A-18C/D 17,754
(F404-GE-402, enhanced performance engine)
F/A-18E/F
(F414-GE-400 engine) 20,727
Difference 17 percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Sea Level, Standard Day.
Source: NAVAIR.
This limited improvement in uninstalled thrust, coupled with a much
heavier operationally loaded F/A-18E/F, means that the E/F will have
less air-to-air combat capability in its sustained turn rate,
maneuvering, and acceleration than F/A-18C/Ds with the enhanced
performance engines.
Sustained turn rate,\4 maneuvering,\5 and acceleration contribute to
an aircraft's combat performance and survivability by increasing its
ability to maneuver in either offensive or defensive modes. Navy
data\6 comparing the F/A-18C to the F/A-18E shows the following:
-- At sea level, the F/A-18C's sustained turn rate is 19.2 degrees
per second, while the F/A-18E's sustained rate is 18 degrees per
second. The instantaneous bleed rate of the F/A-18C is 54 knots
per second, whereas the F/A-18E will lose 65 knots per second in
a turn.
-- At 15,000 feet, the F/A-18C's sustained turn rate is 12.3
degrees per second, while the F/A-18E's sustained rate is 11.6
degrees per second. The instantaneous bleed rate of the F/A-18C
is 62 knots per second, whereas the F/A-18E will lose 76 knots
per second in a turn.
Aircraft acceleration affects an aircraft's combat performance in a
number of ways, ranging from how quickly the aircraft can reach its
area of operation to its ability to close the gap in air-to-air
engagements or to evade surface to air missiles. Navy data shows the
following:
-- At 5,000 feet at maximum thrust, the F/A-18C accelerates from
0.8 Mach to 1.08 Mach\7 in 21 seconds, whereas the F/A-18E will
take 52.8 seconds.
-- At 20,000 feet at maximum thrust, the F/A-18C accelerates from
0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach in 34.6 seconds, whereas the F/A-18E takes
50.3 seconds.
-- At 35,000 feet at maximum thrust, the F/A-18C accelerates from
0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach in 55.80 seconds, whereas the F/A-18E takes
64.85 seconds. The F/A-18C accelerates from 0.8 Mach to 1.6
Mach in 2 minutes
12 seconds, whereas the F/A-18E takes 3 minutes and 4 seconds.
Okay, from the info, the Superhornet may not actually be as manueverable as the hornet. Maybe things have changed, maybe they have not. Anybody has any new info about it? As far as my limited knowledge takes me, the Superhornet superiority comes from its technology.
[This message has been edited by Shotgun (edited 02 March 2002).] -
That article is precisely the kind of article that I had criticized in earlier posts. The writer is obviously a Francophobic Anglophile with an attitude of "everything French is bad". A whole lot of anti-French drivel about the Rafale, while commenting about the envisaged pros of the Typhoon(yet to be proven). And I serious doubt his knowledge. I mean, Super Hornet in the lead for RSAF contract? Puh-leeze. Does he even know what hes talking about? That statement alone has destroyed whatever credibility he has in my eyes. Even the ex-F-14 driver I've talked to 2 days ago whos now training new pilots on the Super Hornet says he will take the Tomcat anytime, anyplace. And a journalist friend of mine who talked to another USN test pilot says the pilot calls the Super Bug "underpowered". Even the most optimistic Boeing executive realises that the super Bug is an outside bet on the RSAF contract, hence they're banking on the F-15E derivative for ours, as well as the Korean contract.
And whats so desperate about Dassault offering everything but the kitchen sink to potential customers? You're selling a product, of course you'll want to offer all the options available to a customer so that he gets the best out of the product. Can you imagine if everyone does business like the Yanks and Brits, telling you that the new gazillion-dollar weapon is compatible with everything but due to their stupid export policies, they can only give you the plane, effectively expecting you to defend you country by tying one hand behind your back? Its like buying a toilet bowl and then having the saleman tell you that they're not allowed to sell you the seat cover due to "company policy".
Its good that hes talking about time-frames. Why buy a Typhoon for delivery in 2015(The 4 parent countries get theirs first remember, and no PRODUCTION Typhoon has flown yet) when you're phasing you older fighters out in say, 2010?
To answer your questions:
1. I stand corrected. The 63V(2) is offered to Korea, but due to economic factors they only can get the V(1). However that does not detract from the fact that the Boeing bid with a mech-scan is still US$300 million(8%) MORE than Dassualt bid with the elect-scan. So yes, the Eagle is not the top choice.
2. Not confirmed AESA. Whats confirmed is that it is an electronically scanned array. Whether its F2 or F3 are moot. Like I said before with the "AMSAR for Typhoon" argument. Rafale is supposed to get the AESA at the same time as the Typhoon anyway. That is not Dassault's only edge, they can count on:
- A basic test programme that is already complete
- Far more advanced in integration of new systems, eg CFTs(and thats just the beginning)
- An emptier order book, which I've mentioned is not due in any way to Rafale's inadequacies but due to Frances budgets. This would ensure that we get our fighters when WE want it and not only AFTER the parent countries get theirs.
- Logistically easier to set up traning facilities as the foundation is already rock-solid.
- More advanced weapons available now until even better ones come.(will discuss this further next)
- Combat experience.
3. Missile thingy against Rafale? I don't think so. Rafale has MICA if the Yanks don't integrate for AMRAAM until Meteor comes(and when it does Rafale and Typhoon gets it AT THE SAME TIME). And we have AMRAAMs for the Vipers already. What does Typhoon have if the Yanks say no to selling more AMRAAMs to equip the Typhoons? Sparrows and Skyflash and a small number of AMRAAMs to be divided among the Typhoon and Viper fleets. And although BAe promises integration, if Uncle Sam says no, do you seriously think the Brit government will say yes? What would you prefer, MICAs or Sparrow/Skyflash? I know my choice...
The very fact is this, Korean airforce personnel, the guys who fly, maintain and choose the planes, have voted for the Rafale over the F-15K over the Typhoon. Thats the best argument there is, is it not?
[This message has been edited by Viper52 (edited 02 March 2002).] -
Viper, your entire argument is based on the fact that 1. Rafales will be recieving whatever Typhoons recieve at the same time. 2. SHould uncle sam refuse to sell us AMRAAMs we will have MICAs right?
Point 1 basically balances it out between the Rafale and Typhoon. Point 2 is logical, since US has always been very restrictive on their weapons sales. Now, the question regarding point 2 is, WHY ARE WE DESPERATE FOR AMRAAMs? Are our export versions of AMRAAMs that formidable? Personally, in an earlier arguement, it was already proven that there are already several Medium range missiles in the market that has surpassed the AMRAAMs' benchmark. No doubt MICA too may have also crossed that boundary, but we need not restrict ourselves to the french or US for missiles. Remember we still have our Darby options. Relations between Singapore and Israel has always been close, and I don't think Rafael will have any problems supplying Derby's to us. Of course, with this, I am assuming that the Derby is more capable than the AMRAAM.
Question: Can we rig Derbys and Python 4s on French Rafales? Just interested to find out since you already said that Rafales require some modification to carry AMRAAMs.
Anyway, I'm not against the Rafale either. I just hope that we'll get the Typhoon instead. -
I just came back from AA2002. Hee, I'm on cloud 9 right now... well... what can I say... the F-15 flight demo made me think of 1 word - POWER, but its a heavy aircraft, unlike the F-16, which just seemed to be carrying out an aerial ballet, dancing around the sky without any loss of energy. The ShittyHornet seemed lethargic, as if it was not willing to GO! Rafale was also impressive, but not as nimble as the F-16. The B-1 was really impressive, with the first a high speed pass, that was FWAH!! Awrite, enuff of my rambling....
A few things I noticed at the airshow:
1. Where was the GODDAMNED SU-30!?!? Dont tell me the Russians so no money until after trade days, want to save fuel and go home?
2. ST is developing MAVs like PhantomEye...hmmm, interesting...never knew that
3. ST also seems to be producing the LongShot kit, but I thought that this was designed by an American company?
4. The F-16 on show was a Block 60, it seems.
For Shotgun's post, the F-18E/F Hornet's main advantage is its improved technology, range and space for upgrades. However, It's improved technology will come only after around the 200th production unit, as before that, they will come with APG-73s, which are the radars in use by the current Hornet C version. Flight performance, as shown, suffers slightly when compared to the F-18C's performance, which is itself modest.
Now for Viper. On the SuperHornet, I fully understand your indignation :-) I was just as surprised as you when I read that part. However, strange as it seems, that article or defense-analyst wasn't the only one who put the ShittyHornet in such a strong position, though the rest of the articles were a little dated.
Back to our little debate. You surprised me when you said that an emptier order book is better. While its true that we get the Rafale when we want it, I'd rather go for something which many people have, cause its safer(logistically speaking). Also, with Eurofighter having many customers, many user-specific software integration modifications will be made. All this modifications will be managed by a central office (which was just set up) which will make available these modifications to other users when required, at no cost, I presume. This makes the part of AMRAAM integration with the Typhoon a non-problem - the US will definitely allow integration of the AMRAAM with Typhoon (dont tell me US dont give UK face?) The Rafale has a lower chance of AMRAAM integration than the Typhoon, though if you ask me, US rejecting Rafale's AMRAAM integration would be very unlikely.
The basic test programme of the Rafale, being completed, would be an advantage for customer confidence when purchasing now, that I concede. But if we get the Typhoon, the test programme would be similarly completed too, and both would be just as ready for service, so again, I see no advantage possessed by Rafale in this area.
Far more advanced integration of systems, on this point, I agree fully that the Rafale has the edge in this area. The problem with the Typhoon is that the specifications for the Tranche 3 Typhoon is not concrete, and we would perhaps get Tranche 2 first, with an option for upgrade to Tranche 3 upon agreement on Tranche 3 specifications. (This is the way I see it, if we get Typhoon)
The part of more advanced weapons..... dont the Rafale and Typhoon use (almost) the same weapons, with the exception of the Mica? I would have to hear your part on that.
Combat experience... I presume you are referring to the Afghan conflict? If so, then that wont really be much of an advantage, cause the Afghans do not have any sophisticated SAMs to speak of, and no fighters to counter the Rafale. So, the Rafale doesn't have to "turn and burn", and doesn't have a chance to test its EW and avionics equipment. What it CAN do, is carry out operational sortie testing, which is , however, able to be done during peacetime.
As for the choice of Koreans, their requirements may not match with ours. We have a warmer climate too, something which the Rafale's M88 engines are less able to handle. Furthermore, from this paragraph, "One program official described the NFR RFI as "a very detailed document, much more detailed than any equivalent request I have ever seen." Singapore is also understood to be looking at a future force mix in which the F-16 fleet will be tasked with the strike/attack role and the chosen NFR aircraft would take on a dedicated air-to-air role.", I'd say that the Typhoon, which has the edge in A2A, is a better choice for Singapore, if you take into account performance only.
Tech transfer and training facilities provided, these 2 areas, Dassault Rafale wins, I concede. -
looks like the F-15K real good wonder if RSAF shortlisted this model
-
YourFather, you did point out interesting facts, but I think we also have to first look at RSAF requirements.
If RSAF wants a long range air supermacy fighter NOW, Rafale is a better choice given that it is almost ready to take on CFT. Typhoon is a little short legged given that the fighter is designed to operate in a air defence fighter role rather than escort fighter or CAP role. Typhoon will eventually get CFT too (aiming to fulfil RAAF requirement in range). If RSAF can wait for Tranche 3, then Typhoon will probably be the choice - once again provided the Consortium produces what it promises ie. AMSAR radar and trust vectoring. Then again, Dassault might get F3 ready before Tranche 3.
If RSAF wants the next fighter also to be able to do deep peneration strikes, then Rafale is the aircraft to go for. It is ready, F2 version is already optimised for deep strike roles, and of course RSAF will get the best training facilities (in France). I not so sure about if the UK or Germany would strike a similar training agreement with Singapore. Germans are already restricting Luftwaffe from doing too many low level flying exercises. RAF also seem to be facing a similar problem.
Anyway, just my 2 cents worth. -
Any constructive contribution to this little debate is great. First of all, I would have to say that the CFT, or the lack of it on the Typhoon, is not of very much significance to the air-superiority mission. This is because in an air-superiority mission, the flight profile flown would be hi-hi-hi, thus range would be more than adequate as a result of it flying a more efficient flight profile. Of course, added range as a result of increased fuel from CFTs is always better, but they're not needed. (the F-15C has the ability to carry CFTs, but are almost never seen carrying them) What is more important is the avionics, and their suitability for the anti-air mission. In this area, the Typhoon, whch was primarily designed for air superiority, beats the Rafale. One more thing - though the Tranche 3 specs aren't confirmed yet, AMSAR is an almost definite part of the Tranche 3 requirement. Whether they install thrust-vectoring or not, though, is anyone's guess....
-
For your reference
======================
South Korean F-X acquisition programme flies into political storm
The efforts of the South Korean Defence Ministry to overhaul the country's fighter capabilities have hit more heavy weather as members from all political sides questioned the fairness of the process in Parliament. Throughout the troubled acquisition programme the suspicion has remained that political pressure has been exerted to ensure that Boeing's F-15K be selected over rival bids from Dassault, Eurofighter, and Sukhoi. These fears have resurfaced amid revelations over leaks to the press and a controversial alteration in the system being used to evaluate the merits of the respective bids.
The 4.2 trillion won (3.2 billion-dollar) project to buy 40 fighters, was delayed in February as none of the four bidders could match the strict financial restrictions the government had imposed on the project. The defence ministry decided to proceed with the programme and a winner was due to be announced in March or April after a further period of evaluation.
Doubts grew last month when Defense Minister Kim Dong-Shin stressed that South Korea should consider security ties with the United States in the project, although he insisted that no pressure had been brought to bear by the US itself. If Boeing does not secure the contract it would likely spell the end of production for the ageing F-15.
"The fairness of the evaluation methods is doubtful," Kang Chang-Sung of the opposition Grand National Party said. "We suspect the defence ministry has political considerations to select the F-15K."
This suspicion has intensified since reports in the Korean press have revealed that the Air Force's evaluation of the merits of the four competing planes indicated that Dassault's Rafale was the superior aircraft, rated as "excellent" in all of the required areas. The defence ministry has promised to investigate the leaks but even members of the ruling Millenium Democratic Party are now questioning the process.
Further questions have been raised by the ministry's decision to alter the scoring system. The ministry revised its evaluation in February to ensure that all four bidders received automatic 60 points, out of a possible 100, for technology transfer. The ministry insisted that this was fair as all the competitors had fulfilled the original requirements laid out by the acquisition process. However, critics claim that the change has been made to assist Boeing's claim as the US company should have gained fewer points than Dassault in terms of technology transfer and subcontracts.
One way or another the decision must be made in the next month or so, but if Boeing wins the contract it is doubtful that the controversy will recede.
http://defence-data.com/current/page13776.htm