Locally designed fighter
-
This idea may seem very far-fetched, but I believe that Singapore should design and manufacture its own replacement for the A-4. This has been done by other countries in the past, such as Japan (FS-X), Taiwan (AIDC Ching-kuo), China (J-10), and Israel (IAI Lavi).
No doubt buying western fighters such as more F-16s is a cheaper and more practical solution, but Singapore Aerospace has been gaining experience through upgrading aircraft and I think that a locally designed aircraft should be possible 20-30 years down the road. -
ST alreadi now produce new design uavs for the rsaf....is whether rsaf wan to choose it or not....
-
The cost is not peanuts you know? It may use up the sum of money alloted to the SAF
-
Yah, I know. This is just wishful thinking
-
will delay quite some time 1...kinda white elephant project....
-
The best ST Aero can do and should do is to license build an advanced jet trainer like the Hawk or Korean T-50Originally posted by duotiga83:will delay quite some time 1...kinda white elephant project....
. ST Aero could also perhaps assemble some F-16s or do more depot level service and upgrades. -
But if Singapore design and manufacture her own fighter. The fighter won't be as advanced as American fighter.
Actually what is the benefits of building your own fighter?
If Singapre really is able to build her own fighter won't Malaysia and Indonesia be worried? -
higher cost due to a lower comparative advantage, inferior design and unimpressive performance cos of lack of experience in this area, RSAF not buying it cos its a piece of crap.Originally posted by want to know:But if Singapore design and manufacture her own fighter. The fighter won't be as advanced as American fighter.
Actually what is the benefits of building your own fighter?
If Singapre really is able to build her own fighter won't Malaysia and Indonesia be worried?
ST Aero learning an expensive lesson and trashing the whole project.
they'll only be worried if its vastly superior to what they have. Matland builds their own cars... are we afraid? are the japanese afraid? are the germans afraid?
its cheaper and better to buy overseas. its wiser to devote resources to maintaining them properly. that is an achievement in itself already. -
It might not be the best but most importantly we tried.The wright brothers didnt succeed an instant .During the process for a beginner there will be definitely countless setbacks althought it can be financially and physically exhausting.Who knows the outcome STaero milestone could be a major stepping stoneOriginally posted by CX:higher cost due to a lower comparative advantage, inferior design and unimpressive performance cos of lack of experience in this area, RSAF not buying it cos its a piece of crap.
ST Aero learning an expensive lesson and trashing the whole project.
they'll only be worried if its vastly superior to what they have. Matland builds their own cars... are we afraid? are the japanese afraid? are the germans afraid?
its cheaper and better to buy overseas. its wiser to devote resources to maintaining them properly. that is an achievement in itself already.
to be a advanced aviation design and development centre in future if they succeed.we SIngaporeans just are too afraid to face failure
in our life.That a bad sign!
-
thats bollocks! u wanna try, u try it with your own money! ST Kinetic tries, ST tries it with your money, my money, taxpayers' money and gov't money.Originally posted by Mech^O^GATor:It might not be the best but most importantly we tried.The wright brothers didnt succeed an instant .During the process for a beginner there will be definitely countless setbacks althought it can be financially and physically exhausting.Who knows the outcome STaero milestone could be a major stepping stone
to be a advanced aviation design and development centre in future if they succeed.we SIngaporeans just are too afraid to face failure
in our life.That a bad sign! -
fear not.... i think ST is already on its way ...Originally posted by Mech^O^GATor:It might not be the best but most importantly we tried.The wright brothers didnt succeed an instant .During the process for a beginner there will be definitely countless setbacks althought it can be financially and physically exhausting.Who knows the outcome STaero milestone could be a major stepping stone
to be a advanced aviation design and development centre in future if they succeed.we SIngaporeans just are too afraid to face failure
in our life.That a bad sign!
perhaps one day we will see a totally designed and built in singapore fighter....
already... ST is involved in the design and manufacturing of helicopters... and if the FIREFLY project comes in successfully... it shouldnt be too far a distance from building a local light fighter...
it may not be as advance as the west... afterall.. we are a beginner... but it will be a start... eventually we should aim to be as good as the west...
BUT it must be understood... that such an investment are heavy and fraught with very costly risk and potential political fallouts...
ultimately... the question boils down to whether singaporeans are willing to accept the statement of failure in our stride without clamouring for blood....
I still remember the micropolis saga... 500 million down the drain... and what do we hear.... blood.... even though it might be a silent chant for blood....
While it is important to ensure that precious funds are not wasted... its also important to understand that successful outcomes dont happen everytime.. and putting a FT on the board is no guarantee of success either.
very often... successful leaders and CEO and watever top dog and chicken are the result of wise, capable, skilled, experienced and good attitude workers down below... who really solve the problem of the company.
so my advice to the govt.... throw the FT cliche out the window...
if the citicorp is successful... its not becos its CEO is capable... but because the corporate culture, the people below who has become extremely specialised in their jobs and with the right attitude.... make it succeed...
employ a hundred citicorp junior manager... and you will have a citicorp... employ the citicorp CEO... all you get is a black hole... sucking money...
Intel chief dont design chips... bill gates no longer write OS... that should tell you something.....
-
hehe..tot we are already in the JSF project...
we are already participating in one of the world's most coveted aircraft project... why bother to build our own now? -
Well.....israel & singapore are currently paying to be under observer status we are not involving in any JSF projects.Originally posted by kY|e-_-o:hehe..tot we are already in the JSF project...
we are already participating in one of the world's most coveted aircraft project... why bother to build our own now? -
What s'pore will chose to do is to come up with a uav with combat capability like the predator. it replaces the most valuable and vulnerable part of a aircraft - the pilot. With a shortage of people qualified for flight training, a uav could help. Its faster to build a uav to replace one in war then to train a pilot.
It seems that there are two type of research going on for uav. a long range naval version and a vtol one.
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:2m3Dw4aXlgwC:www.mindef.gov.sg/nps/technical/paper1.html+lalee+singapore&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/rsaf/ats2002/uav/UAV-ABS.HTM -
Singapore has already begun this project and all of us here are aware its existance.Of course using UAV to replace manpower will be definitely on the mind of all developed nation defense planner and the US is taking the lead to future development of UCAV unmanned combat aerial vehicle.Using predator as its starting point when US defense force and Central Intelligence Agency use it against terroist and iraqis target its proof rather effective.singapore could be doing likewise with its new generation of UAVs.Originally posted by cavsg:What s'pore will chose to do is to come up with a uav with combat capability like the predator. it replaces the most valuable and vulnerable part of a aircraft - the pilot. With a shortage of people qualified for flight training, a uav could help. Its faster to build a uav to replace one in war then to train a pilot.
It seems that there are two type of research going on for uav. a long range naval version and a vtol one.
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:2m3Dw4aXlgwC:www.mindef.gov.sg/nps/technical/paper1.html+lalee+singapore&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/rsaf/ats2002/uav/UAV-ABS.HTM
-
I won't be surprise if the SPIKE is being adapted for UAV role since both our UAV & missile are made by the same country. SPIKE is cleared for helicopter launch like HellFire
-
-
From what i read from flight international magazinesOriginally posted by cavsg:I won't be surprise if the SPIKE is being adapted for UAV role since both our UAV & missile are made by the same country. SPIKE is cleared for helicopter launch like HellFire
.Singapore has approached europe EADS defense company of a possible Collaboration to develop the long endurance UAV which has the virtually the same capability as the Global Hawk which Northrop Grumman Company wanted to introduce it to Singapore but was disapproved by the US government.Singapore LALEE program main intention is too replace E2C HAWKEYE in the near future.
No Bluffing our bull shitting -
last time the rsaf and dso had a public lecture in one of the tertiary institutions. i happen to around and the head of dso was talking about e-2c being expensive, need man power lah. I though it was boring and left the LT. Later when i read the LALEE article did I realise that he was talking about it.
incidentaly, did anyone know that rsaf had 5 e-2c instead of 4 -
Funny that the DSO was complaining that the Hawkeyes are too expensive. Of course all AEW platforms are expensive. They do give you value for money though.... LALEE would never be able to carry a powerful radar to detect enemy fighters some 250km away. E-2C happens to be one of the smallest platform to carry a meaningful radar that is powerful enuff to give you a 360 degree coverage. However, given the radar is mechanically steered, it is not as effective as electronically steered phased array like Phalcon and Erieyes or the MESA radar for the RAAF Wedgetails. The RAAF Wedgetails will represent the most advanced AEW platforms when they are being deployed. Both they also cost a bomb.Originally posted by cavsg:last time the rsaf and dso had a public lecture in one of the tertiary institutions. i happen to around and the head of dso was talking about e-2c being expensive, need man power lah. I though it was boring and left the LT. Later when i read the LALEE article did I realise that he was talking about it.
incidentaly, did anyone know that rsaf had 5 e-2c instead of 4
The application of LALEE type plaforms are only good for long endurance survelliance from ground to maritime applications. Given their relatively small size, they cannot carry a meaningful radar to act as the "main" AEW platforms. They do, however, could be still used for limited AEW application, but I don't not think that replacing the Hawkeyes with an 'AEW' LALEE or Global Hawks is a smart thing.
Back to the topic about locally designed fighter.... it is not viable for ST Aero to design and build a fighter locally because ST Aero simply lack the quality aeronautical engineers and engineers who have previous experience with designing and building modern jets. Even the Koreans who license built the Vipers could not come up with an advanced jet trainer (T-50) without lots of assistance from Lockheed Martin. Taiwan Ching Kuo project also got lots of help from Lockheed Martin, so is the Japanese F2 project. Look, all these countries have many years of experience building the latest generation of combat aircraft (license built) but they still cannot come up with a decent trainer or combat aircraft design without the help from the Americans. Furthermore, you will notice that all these projects are more or less based on the F-16 design.
Indian LCA project is in serious trouble and they are too asking the Americans to help rectify the design flaws.
China J-10 design is essentially based on Lavi with some modification (air intake redesigned to be more like the Eurofighter). Previous J-7 are purely a modified Mig21 design. Nothing new.
The Israeli are the only exception having designed and built their own aircraft, but also not without the American's help. Even the Lavi was based on a modified F-16 design, the PW engine is wholly american, etc.
I think that if ST Aero can assemble some latest combat aircrafts like the F-16 or even license build advanced jet trainers like the T-50 or BAe Hawk, then I think ST Aero would have already achieve something Singapore can be proud of. ST Aero should focus more on UAVs and UCAVs and not spend more resource and time trying to achieve something that is definitely beyond Singapore's capability. We have to realised that it is just not viable from economic point of view or from technical point of view. We do not have the scale to justify such an ambition. Singapore would have to be at least 10 times bigger in terms of land mass and population to even contemplate designing and building its own fighter.
ST Engg has already over-achieved by designing and building the FH-88/2000 and the Bionix. -
LALEE was meant to be a solution to provide coverage for the navy. It stands for Low Altitude Long Enduring Eudurance. Long Enduring means long life span. I think the navy was complaining that in event of war the e-2c is too tax to provide air defense coverage for the island and for the navy when they are in south china sea. a fleet of LALEE can be rotated to provide coverage for the fleet while at sea. There is no crew fatigue to take care off. the lalee can carry 2000kg payload, since there is no operators equipment to carry. The payload can be used just to carry the radar. most probably the radar coverage is like the seaking aew typeOriginally posted by Joe Black:Funny that the DSO was complaining that the Hawkeyes are too expensive. Of course all AEW platforms are expensive. They do give you value for money though.... LALEE would never be able to carry a powerful radar to detect enemy fighters some 250km away. -
These can be only assumption,the actual design and specifications havent been release by the Mindef.We only know the existance this Lalee program,this program somehow gain interest from some big boys.Originally posted by cavsg:LALEE was meant to be a solution to provide coverage for the navy. It stands for Low Altitude Long Enduring Eudurance. Long Enduring means long life span. I think the navy was complaining that in event of war the e-2c is too tax to provide air defense coverage for the island and for the navy when they are in south china sea. a fleet of LALEE can be rotated to provide coverage for the fleet while at sea. There is no crew fatigue to take care off. the lalee can carry 2000kg payload, since there is no operators equipment to carry. The payload can be used just to carry the radar. most probably the radar coverage is like the seaking aew type -
The indian dont get assistance from the US.For Defense technology the russian are normally the one the approach.Originally posted by Joe Black:Funny that the DSO was complaining that the Hawkeyes are too expensive. Of course all AEW platforms are expensive. They do give you value for money though.... LALEE would never be able to carry a powerful radar to detect enemy fighters some 250km away. E-2C happens to be one of the smallest platform to carry a meaningful radar that is powerful enuff to give you a 360 degree coverage. However, given the radar is mechanically steered, it is not as effective as electronically steered phased array like Phalcon and Erieyes or the MESA radar for the RAAF Wedgetails. The RAAF Wedgetails will represent the most advanced AEW platforms when they are being deployed. Both they also cost a bomb.
The application of LALEE type plaforms are only good for long endurance survelliance from ground to maritime applications. Given their relatively small size, they cannot carry a meaningful radar to act as the "main" AEW platforms. They do, however, could be still used for limited AEW application, but I don't not think that replacing the Hawkeyes with an 'AEW' LALEE or Global Hawks is a smart thing.
Back to the topic about locally designed fighter.... it is not viable for ST Aero to design and build a fighter locally because ST Aero simply lack the quality aeronautical engineers and engineers who have previous experience with designing and building modern jets. Even the Koreans who license built the Vipers could not come up with an advanced jet trainer (T-50) without lots of assistance from Lockheed Martin. Taiwan Ching Kuo project also got lots of help from Lockheed Martin, so is the Japanese F2 project. Look, all these countries have many years of experience building the latest generation of combat aircraft (license built) but they still cannot come up with a decent trainer or combat aircraft design without the help from the Americans. Furthermore, you will notice that all these projects are more or less based on the F-16 design.
Indian LCA project is in serious trouble and they are too asking the Americans to help rectify the design flaws.
China J-10 design is essentially based on Lavi with some modification (air intake redesigned to be more like the Eurofighter). Previous J-7 are purely a modified Mig21 design. Nothing new.
The Israeli are the only exception having designed and built their own aircraft, but also not without the American's help. Even the Lavi was based on a modified F-16 design, the PW engine is wholly american, etc.
I think that if ST Aero can assemble some latest combat aircrafts like the F-16 or even license build advanced jet trainers like the T-50 or BAe Hawk, then I think ST Aero would have already achieve something Singapore can be proud of. ST Aero should focus more on UAVs and UCAVs and not spend more resource and time trying to achieve something that is definitely beyond Singapore's capability. We have to realised that it is just not viable from economic point of view or from technical point of view. We do not have the scale to justify such an ambition. Singapore would have to be at least 10 times bigger in terms of land mass and population to even contemplate designing and building its own fighter.
ST Engg has already over-achieved by designing and building the FH-88/2000 and the Bionix.
Singapore technologies aerospace dont focus some much on the UAV rather its Singapore technologies dynamic. Nothing is impossible when there's a will there always a way. -
No, not true...Originally posted by Mech^O^GATor:Nothing is impossible when there's a will there always a way.
Knowledge and experience are accumulated over long and painful years. The Americans, Russians, British and French did not just learnt to design advanced jet in a short period of time. They have been doing that since the first jet was built after the WWII.
Yes, ST Aero has learnt fast, fast track their knowledge and experience but they are not even near where the Japanese, Koreans, Taiwanese, Israeli, Indians and the Chinese are today. These countries set out to build some of the most advanced aerospace industry. ST Aero is at least 1/2 a decade behind these countries in terms of the technical capabilities (a credit to ST Aero itself already given it got nothing much to start with and have achieved so much in so little time). To counter your statement, Rome was not built in a day and ST Aero or Singaporean aspiration of building a locally designed fighter is a case of the heart is willingly but the body is NOT.
Is ST Aero insists on building a locally designed fighter, it would at best be a design copy of a third generation fighter (albeit it could have the best avionics), but lack critical advanced aerodynamics design and capable FBW controls. That is for sure. -
No need to build figther planes per se - UCAVs is a cheaper alternative and probably easier to realise.
Of course the problem then becomes one of bringing the cockpit to the pilot on the ground.....
Depending on the technology on board, compared to a manned aircraft probably not a replacement but supplement. So in an attacking formation for air to ground ops only one aircraft needs to be manned.
With networking, the pilot on the ground will have equal SA than his compatriot flying next to 'him'.
For air combat ops, more and more BVR etc. So maybe the manned aircraft will be flying CAPs until the enemy close up.
Just some ideas.