Singapore At War
-
I'm for Typhoon too! I feel that it should take mainly the air-superiority and deep-strike roles, while the F-16s should then shoulder the CAS, SEAD and Strike roles
-
High Five!
Hehe. We don't need another multi-role fighter. We need a true air-superiority fighter. -
Initially, I was also a Typhoon fan (given that they can carry 4 AMRAAM semi-recessed) and Rafale can carry only 2. However, after reading about Rafale performance (29 degree per second roll rate - more than the 20+ degree achieved by the Vipers), its superior radar and IRST, the capability of Rafale to carry NATO missiles if needed and the capabilities of the Mica missiles, I think Rafale has a fighting chance to win.Originally posted by Shotgun:High Five!
Hehe. We don't need another multi-role fighter. We need a true air-superiority fighter.
Dassault pointed out that Rafale is second to the Raptors in terms of Stealtiness. Typhoon has a bit of catching up. Rafale also supports full integration of HMS. Typhoon avaionics suite has a bit of work left to be at least on par with Rafale...
Last but not least, given recent Mindef "closeness" with the French since the LaFayette saga, I think the French will definitely entice Mindef to go with them.
Just my 2 cents anyway... will have to wait and see...
-
'Dassault pointed out that Rafale is second to the Raptors in terms of Stealtiness. Typhoon has a bit of catching up.' ???!!Originally posted by Joe Black:Initially, I was also a Typhoon fan (given that they can carry 4 AMRAAM semi-recessed) and Rafale can carry only 2. However, after reading about Rafale performance (29 degree per second roll rate - more than the 20+ degree achieved by the Vipers), its superior radar and IRST, the capability of Rafale to carry NATO missiles if needed and the capabilities of the Mica missiles, I think Rafale has a fighting chance to win.
Dassault pointed out that Rafale is second to the Raptors in terms of Stealtiness. Typhoon has a bit of catching up. Rafale also supports full integration of HMS. Typhoon avaionics suite has a bit of work left to be at least on par with Rafale...
Last but not least, given recent Mindef "closeness" with the French since the LaFayette saga, I think the French will definitely entice Mindef to go with them.
Just my 2 cents anyway... will have to wait and see...
Dassault was defacating when they said that. It doesn't even qualify as semi-stealthy in a clean config. Carry any bombload and it wont have stealth worth shit. I've heard about them claiming something about 'active-cancellation', but dont believe that BS. No such thing, not yet anyway. If the Americans with their HUGE resources feel that it is super-hard to do it, forget about the Frenchies succeeding.
'its superior radar' gained notorierity as being a pretty sad case of a passive-array radar. I cant remember clearly off-hand what's the exact problem, but its something
about the radar range being limited by one of its radar components... cant recall whats it.... had a debate with RSAFPAGE(i think) over the relative merits of each of these planes some time back, and I did bring this up......
As for its front sector optronics system.... I dont see any reason why the IRST PIRATE system on the Typhoon is any less capable...
Agility wise, perhaps the Rafale wins, never checked much on that.. -
I doubt the Typhoon would lose out in agility too. Its unstable flight design allows it much more maneuverability than you can imagine.
Also, you said it yourself. The Rafale can only carry 2 AMRAAMS. In a real shootout, most pilots would shoot 2 AMRAAMs to ensure a kill. The Typhoon can actually carry 6 AMRAAMS. Only the BRIT typhoons can carry 4 because they insisted 2 launchers must be able to carry Skyflash. The remaining 2 forward launchers can be reconfigured to carry 2 more AMRAAMs instead.
Assuming the pilot decides to shoot 2 AMRAAMs at each target, a typhoon pilot would have effectively shot down 3 aircraft, and the Rafale 1. (MICA aside that is)
Supposedly, if we were to get the Rafale, we would have to buy MICAs just for the privilege use by the Rafales.
Yes, the Rafale looks pretty. In fact, one of the sexiest planes evermade. But to be realistic, the Typhoon has much more potential. -
Perhaps the F-15 E/S variant doesn't look that bad with its ability to carry up to 8 AMRAAMs or 6 AMRAAMs and 2 sidewinders. The Eagles will also shortly be upgraded with a solid state electronic steered phase array radar - a slightly cut down version of the Raptor, an evolution from their APG-65/73 radar.Originally posted by Shotgun:Also, you said it yourself. The Rafale can only carry 2 AMRAAMS. In a real shootout, most pilots would shoot 2 AMRAAMs to ensure a kill. The Typhoon can actually carry 6 AMRAAMS. Only the BRIT typhoons can carry 4 because they insisted 2 launchers must be able to carry Skyflash. The remaining 2 forward launchers can be reconfigured to carry 2 more AMRAAMs instead.
Assuming the pilot decides to shoot 2 AMRAAMs at each target, a typhoon pilot would have effectively shot down 3 aircraft, and the Rafale 1. (MICA aside that is)
Supposedly, if we were to get the Rafale, we would have to buy MICAs just for the privilege use by the Rafales. -
Looks like the majority is for Typhoon. But gladly we'r aren't going to the polls for the fighter choice.
Talk about stealthiness, if Rafale aren't that good, then the typhoon would look like the lighthouse in the radar screens. Just look at their shapes and its plain for all to see.
Talk about range, the Rafale is going to beat the Typhoon hands down (not to mention the conformal tanks that are going to be fitted).
Keep in mind that a specific requirement in the RSAF RFI is radius of action to fly to "southern part of thailand" Can anyone visualise how the typhoon is going to fit conformal tanks to its airframe?
And sorry, the RSAF is not looking at a primary air superiority fighter, but a strike a/c instead. And for that matter, the RSAF is not going to settle for a single role plane, but a multi role one. A 2 seater is preferred, and the typhoon is lagging in development in the area of a 2 seater attack variant.
Who cares how many Amraam u can carry, when almost all in the region have Amraams, it would only be wise to have an alternative fire and forget AAM(like Metoer, Mica, Derby) when u think of ways to beat others' Amraam by electronic means......Rafale is going to adopt Metoer as well...so it can carry 2 types...ie Mica and Metoer
And if we get the typhoon, we might have problems getting the relevant air to ground munitions- Apache etc (the US is going give rubbish talk to the British not to intro new
weapons to the region) something the French would be willing to give full clearance.
But of course, the higher cost of Rafale and the much more different avionics architecture
/ops sys would strain our logistics. That might be the achilles heel.
So let's just say the fight is rather fair...unless the French can lower the costs and integrate the Rafale to use some of the munitions that we currently have.
And believe u me, the rafale not only looks beautiful, its has the capabilties to boot, and it won't be a nice walk in the park for the typhoon. -
The F-15Es were supposedly running the APG-70 radar, or was it -73. Anyway, the Eagle is an old bird, yes but stuffed with new technology constantly. However, they more or less proved that the Eagle will not be able to hold its own against a Modern Sukhoi 27 variant.
Unless the F-15E/S will be able to harness future missiles like FMRAAM, i doubt it would be any worth just getting them. The Typhoon deal would come with Meteors, which has far better range than AMRAAMs.
[This message has been edited by Shotgun (edited 31 October 2001).] -
Horizons right, the RSAF RFI specifically mentions a *unrefueled* radius of action to southern Thailand, as well as looking for a multirole fighter than can perform swing role, not a out and out interceptor. The Typhoon is particularly lagging in this aspect, and whatever BAe claims about its A/G capability can't hide the fact that its A/G capability was "bolted on" to the design, when it became apparent that most customers outside the EU were looking for an aircraft with both A/A and A/G capability.
AMRAAM? By the time deliveries of the Typhoon/Rafale start, I believe how many AMRAAMs can be fired is already no longer a moot point. Even the Americans themselves are acknowledging that the Russians, Europeans, Israelis are ahead of them in AAM development. Rafale can carry 6 MICA IIRC, and judging from range and performance specs, I'd rather have MICAs than even AIM-120C-5s. The question is more like how many Meteors vs how many MICAs to be carried.
2 AMRAAMs for 1 kill? I have to check my sources again, but I believe that almost all the AMRAAM kills made so far were 1 shot 1 kills. True, the targets so far were mostly tailchases or targets which were not manoeuvring, but I believe only 1 of the kills(in Kosovo) required a 2nd AMRAAM...
The list so far (off the top of my head- pls feel free to correct any mistakes/omissions)
1992: F-16D vs Iraqi MiG-25. Operation Southern Watch: 1 AMRAAM 1 kill
1995(?): 2 F-16C vs 6 Serb SOKO Galebs. Op Deliberate Force. 4 Galebs shot down, 2 with AMRAAMs: 2 AMRAAMs 2 kills
1999: F-15C vs MiG-29: Allied Force. 1 AMRAAM 1 kill
1999: 2 F-15C vs 2 MiG-29. Allied Force. 3 AMRAAM 2 kills
1999: 1 Dutch F-16AM vs MiG-21(?). Allied Force. 1 AMRAAM 1 kill
1999: 1 F-16CJ vs MiG-29. Allied Force. 1 AMRAAM 1 kill.
I vote for the Rafale/MICA/SCALP/APACHE/CFT combi. Better, stealthier and sexier. Might cost more per aircraft, but considering the logistics for training our crew in France are already in place, it might turn out cheaper in the long run.
Plus of course, RFI is met better by the Rafale. -
There were a few posts ago, someone mentioned that our F-16s have AVEN nozzles. I want to point out that AVEN are TVN for GE F110, not for the P&W F100s that we use...in fact the P&W TVNs are known as P/Y BBN, and both of them operate on slightly different principles.
Perhaps someone would like to clarify the above? Pls also enlighten me on the external/internal differences between the F100 TVN and non TVN.
In my humble opinion , i don't think our F-16s have TVN, if they do have, i'll be very happy about it, and it must have been a very well kept secret, considering all the publicity our F-16s training detachment get in the states. -
addendum to my previous post for
Rafale vs Typhoon,
some plus and minuses;
Among the current types, the F-15e offers the best night/adverse weather capabability, matched only by the Rafale. The plus point for Typhoon is its limited supercuise cabability, the Rafale is tops with range and
weapon load, although that might be eroded when the F-16blk 60 enters service.
Since it is unlikely we'll get another US product in the form of F-15e and f-16 blk60
(with the exception if blk 52+), the Rafale again come up tops in this analysis. -
The Rafale is NOT stealthy. Maybe it has a lower RCS than the Typhoon, but its like 'Typhoon's big, and Rafale only slightly smaller'. Difference? Maybe Rafale gets detected at 147 miles, while Typhoon gets detected at 150 miles. Big difference eh??Originally posted by horizon:Looks like the majority is for Typhoon. But gladly we'r aren't going to the polls for the fighter choice.
Talk about stealthiness, if Rafale aren't that good, then the typhoon would look like the lighthouse in the radar screens. Just look at their shapes and its plain for all to see.
Talk about range, the Rafale is going to beat the Typhoon hands down (not to mention the conformal tanks that are going to be fitted).
Keep in mind that a specific requirement in the RSAF RFI is radius of action to fly to "southern part of thailand" Can anyone visualise how the typhoon is going to fit conformal tanks to its airframe?
And sorry, the RSAF is not looking at a primary air superiority fighter, but a strike a/c instead. And for that matter, the RSAF is not going to settle for a single role plane, but a multi role one. A 2 seater is preferred, and the typhoon is lagging in development in the area of a 2 seater attack variant.
Who cares how many Amraam u can carry, when almost all in the region have Amraams, it would only be wise to have an alternative fire and forget AAM(like Metoer, Mica, Derby) when u think of ways to beat others' Amraam by electronic means......Rafale is going to adopt Metoer as well...so it can carry 2 types...ie Mica and Metoer
And if we get the typhoon, we might have problems getting the relevant air to ground munitions- Apache etc (the US is going give rubbish talk to the British not to intro new
weapons to the region) something the French would be willing to give full clearance.
But of course, the higher cost of Rafale and the much more different avionics architecture
/ops sys would strain our logistics. That might be the achilles heel.
So let's just say the fight is rather fair...unless the French can lower the costs and integrate the Rafale to use some of the munitions that we currently have.
And believe u me, the rafale not only looks beautiful, its has the capabilties to boot, and it won't be a nice walk in the park for the typhoon.
also, where can I get information about Singapore's RFI?? -
hmmm...147 vs 150 miles? any hard data on that? The differences would not be so small, but with todays advances in missile technology even a 3-mile diff would make a lot of diff in BVR combat. It could mean the difference between who fires first. I don't know about size, but I think Rafale vs Typhoon MTOW was different by only a couple thousand lbs, so size difference would not be that much different there I would presume. Its in shape that Typhoon loses big time in RCS.
Singapores fighter RFI has been discussed at length in a number of journals, one that springs to mind is Flight Int'l, but as the mag is published weekly I really have no idea which issue I saw it in....sorry 'bout that...
A likely theory: The RSAF/Tony Tan was waxing lyrical about the Rafale when the RFI was first issued, then they started talking up the Typhoon. Before we selected the Apache it was the same thing, a lot of talk about the Apache, then they started talking about the Tiger, but got the AH-64 eventually. It was revealed in Flight Int'l that for a while the Apache deal hung in the blance over US refusal to clear Longbow radar to Singapore, thats when we started talking about the Tiger, and suggested it was a ploy to get Boeing to put pressure on the US government to clear the Longbow export. We might be seeing the same thing with the fighters here....
Its just a theory though...nothing concrete... -
The AMRAAM is a very potent missile indeed. However, against a capable adversary, (NOT Raghead airforces and underfunded serbian airforces), most western fighter pilots acknowledge that they would fire 2 AMRAAMs at a singular target to ensure a kill. In BVR fights, its really not that difficult to avoid the first missile. Pilots properly trained in counter-missile maneuvers can effectively negate the first missile together with the use of counter measures. However, the 2nd missile is hard to avoid as much airspeed would have been bled away dodging the first 1.
I agree with the fact that the Israeli and Russians are ahead in missile technology for the moment. Much I believe has to do with the complancency of western airpowers. The MICA indeed is a more potent missile than the AMRAAM. But my point is, the RSAF already operates a large inventory of US airframes and technology. It is only natural that we acquire AMRAAMs and other aircraft that uses the AMRAAMs. The rafale utilizes the MICA largely, not the AMRAAM. So why should we get the Rafale? Just because the MICA is a better missile?
Why we should not get the MICA.
MICA has a range of 50Km, which is the same as the AMRAAM. Although it is better, it is still rather short on range.
Most RSAF aircraft cannot arm up with the MICA.
So, why not get another aircraft that can be armed with AMRAAMs, AND utilise future BVRAAMs such as the Meteor? Such an aircraft would be the Typhoon, not the Rafale. -
I do see your point... in terms of logistics, it makes sense to share the same weapons. However, here are a few points to consider too:Originally posted by Shotgun:The AMRAAM is a very potent missile indeed. However, against a capable adversary, (NOT Raghead airforces and underfunded serbian airforces), most western fighter pilots acknowledge that they would fire 2 AMRAAMs at a singular target to ensure a kill. In BVR fights, its really not that difficult to avoid the first missile. Pilots properly trained in counter-missile maneuvers can effectively negate the first missile together with the use of counter measures. However, the 2nd missile is hard to avoid as much airspeed would have been bled away dodging the first 1.
I agree with the fact that the Israeli and Russians are ahead in missile technology for the moment. Much I believe has to do with the complancency of western airpowers. The MICA indeed is a more potent missile than the AMRAAM. But my point is, the RSAF already operates a large inventory of US airframes and technology. It is only natural that we acquire AMRAAMs and other aircraft that uses the AMRAAMs. The rafale utilizes the MICA largely, not the AMRAAM. So why should we get the Rafale? Just because the MICA is a better missile?
Why we should not get the MICA.
MICA has a range of 50Km, which is the same as the AMRAAM. Although it is better, it is still rather short on range.
Most RSAF aircraft cannot arm up with the MICA.
So, why not get another aircraft that can be armed with AMRAAMs, AND utilise future BVRAAMs such as the Meteor? Such an aircraft would be the Typhoon, not the Rafale.
1. Rafales can indeed armed with Amraams. Rafales can carry all NATO weapons including GBU-12 and other Paveway LGB which RSAF use today.
2. Rafales can carry up to 6 Amraams and 2 WVR missiles. 2 semi recessed, 4 under the wings on 4 individual pylons. 2 missiles on each wing. 2 on the wing tips.
3. Rafales can carry up to 8 MICAs. Mica comes in 2 variants... Active radar and IIR range. Which means that potentially one can fire the IIR version at a BVR radar without betraying its position in a stealth condition. The IRST would be used to cue the seeker of the IIR Mica to the target.
Again, as I have previously commented, if RSAF is to get a strike aircraft, Rafale will come up on top of Typhoon. If RSAF wants a air-superiority fighter, they should go with Typhoon.
Finally, Rafale REB2 radar is a far more superior radar for strike mission. Here are some of the data I dug out:
RBE2 electronic scanning radar
Developed by Thomson-CSF/DETEXIS, the RBE2 combines a brandnew concept with the expertise built up by this company on previous radars. The beam agility provided by the electronic scanning, and a high-speed processor open new possibilities for the RBE2 with modes and performance numbers far superior to those available on radars fitted only with mechanical scanning antennas. Functions include :
------------
Air-to-air : long-range detection and tracking of multiple air targets, in look-down or look-up mode, and in all-weather and EM environments. RBE2 radar
performs long-range detection
and tracking of up to 40 air
targets in look-down or look-up
aspects.
Generation of 3D maps for terrain-following.
Generation of 2D ground maps for navigation providing high-definition images, enabling the detection, identification and targeting of ground targets.
Long range detection and targeting of sea targets.
Synthetic Aperture.
------------
Well, in any case, after reading the posts that mention about RSAF RFI, I tend to think that the Rafale is a much suited aircraft.
Not to say that Typhoon will lose... it will be a real dogfight to the finish... who knows... maybe the superbugs will win... hee hee... -
France or rather Dassault has fully integrated Rafale with most current western weapons. And it has promised integration with any customer specified weapon. Integrating MICA with current RSAF platforms won't be difficult, after all if we do get Meteors etc they will have to be integrated woth the Vipers too, after all things like Python 4 and Derby were integrated with the Vipers already.Originally posted by Shotgun:Why we should not get the MICA.
MICA has a range of 50Km, which is the same as the AMRAAM. Although it is better, it is still rather short on range.
Most RSAF aircraft cannot arm up with the MICA.
So, why not get another aircraft that can be armed with AMRAAMs, AND utilise future BVRAAMs such as the Meteor? Such an aircraft would be the Typhoon, not the Rafale.
And the Meteor is to be integrated with the Rafale too. In A/A, as far as weapons and radar goes, it is a dead heat between Rafale and Typhoon, as both are slated to receive the same weapons and radars, its A/G which I believe the French will win.
Superbugs?? NOOOOO!!! Seen it, seen Rafale, seen Typhoon demos and specs. Superbug nowhere as impressive as the other 2.
Anyway, we can argue about each merits till the cows come home, and still get no answer. I will rather wait and see the actual winner...agreed? -
Actually the difference btween then Python 4 and the MICA is, the python4 was MADE to be hung on the F-16. So there was technically no integration on the part of RSAF Vipers. All they needed was some software tweaks. Ditto for the Derby.
MICA was only made to slung under the wings of Dassault airframes. In anycase, its not impossible to integrate MICA into our F-5s and F-16s.
In anycase, both the Rafale and the Typhoon are fantastic 5th generation fighters. Its almost impossible to point out a single detail that would rule either one out completely. In fact, I would welcome both into RSAF inventories, but I guess there can only be one. Since both will eventually recieve the Meteor, I guess I will settle for any of the 2.
No superbugs please! -
Actually, the superbug only loses out to the rest of the aircraft in terms of airframe performance.... However, when the all-up superbug, meaning when it gets its AESA radar and its IDECM suite, it will definitely not lose to the Rafale or the Typhoon in the avionics department...still I'd rather we not get the superbugOriginally posted by Shotgun:Actually the difference btween then Python 4 and the MICA is, the python4 was MADE to be hung on the F-16. So there was technically no integration on the part of RSAF Vipers. All they needed was some software tweaks. Ditto for the Derby.
MICA was only made to slung under the wings of Dassault airframes. In anycase, its not impossible to integrate MICA into our F-5s and F-16s.
In anycase, both the Rafale and the Typhoon are fantastic 5th generation fighters. Its almost impossible to point out a single detail that would rule either one out completely. In fact, I would welcome both into RSAF inventories, but I guess there can only be one. Since both will eventually recieve the Meteor, I guess I will settle for any of the 2.
No superbugs please! -
150 and 147 miles are just an example, though I believe that they would be detected further out than that....I heard tht to decrease detection range by half, an aircrafts RCS has to be decreased by 4 times... the Rafale ain't have that much lower RCS than the Typhoon, and both still have big RCS signatures.... so I believe stealth is a non-comparison point between the 2 planesOriginally posted by Viper52:hmmm...147 vs 150 miles? any hard data on that? The differences would not be so small, but with todays advances in missile technology even a 3-mile diff would make a lot of diff in BVR combat. It could mean the difference between who fires first. I don't know about size, but I think Rafale vs Typhoon MTOW was different by only a couple thousand lbs, so size difference would not be that much different there I would presume. Its in shape that Typhoon loses big time in RCS.
Singapores fighter RFI has been discussed at length in a number of journals, one that springs to mind is Flight Int'l, but as the mag is published weekly I really have no idea which issue I saw it in....sorry 'bout that...
A likely theory: The RSAF/Tony Tan was waxing lyrical about the Rafale when the RFI was first issued, then they started talking up the Typhoon. Before we selected the Apache it was the same thing, a lot of talk about the Apache, then they started talking about the Tiger, but got the AH-64 eventually. It was revealed in Flight Int'l that for a while the Apache deal hung in the blance over US refusal to clear Longbow radar to Singapore, thats when we started talking about the Tiger, and suggested it was a ploy to get Boeing to put pressure on the US government to clear the Longbow export. We might be seeing the same thing with the fighters here....
Its just a theory though...nothing concrete... -
AMEN!!!Originally posted by Shotgun:In anycase, both the Rafale and the Typhoon are fantastic 5th generation fighters. Its almost impossible to point out a single detail that would rule either one out completely. In fact, I would welcome both into RSAF inventories, but I guess there can only be one. Since both will eventually recieve the Meteor, I guess I will settle for any of the 2.
Agree that both are extremely capable fighters and both will represent a real quantum leap in capability, but what swung my opinion in favour is what I believe to be a *very slight* edge in capabilities(just my opinion) and its sleeker lines...
No superbugs please!
-
Now the question is, How will either the Rafale-Mica, Typhoon-AMRAAM-Derby, fare against a possible Su-30MKM-Adder? Who has the upper hand and why?
-
In terms of a real war... much better. The European/Israeli equipment will perform much more consistent and reliable under real condition. Given the fair engagement condition and rules of engagement, Flanker/Adder/Amraamski will produce some amazing feat but will not have the kill ratio. Russians equipment are not known for their reliability. Rafale-Mica, Typhoon-AMRAAM-Derby will probably achieve close to a 1 shot 1 kill, whereas the Flanker/Adder will probably achieve more like a 3 shot 1 kill.Originally posted by Shotgun:Now the question is, How will either the Rafale-Mica, Typhoon-AMRAAM-Derby, fare against a possible Su-30MKM-Adder? Who has the upper hand and why?
Thus, RSAF will still have to maintain quantity again as well as quality edge against potential opponents. -
Nothing to do with the Adder, but I read a report from AFM on the Eritrea-Eithiopia conflict where MiG-29s mixed it up with Su-27s, and a commonly recurring theme was the abysmal performance of the MiG against the Sukhoi and even worse, the rock bottom performance of the R-27/AA-10 Alamo. The summary was that the R-27s score fof 0 kills for around 10 fired is worse than the AIM-7E2s in Vietnam. And no the planes were not flown by native pilots, they were flown by Russian and Ukrainian mercenaries.
Back to the Adder, has anyone seen a report confirming RMAF has the Adder? AFAIK the original upgrade for the RMAF was Adder capability, but nothings firmed up on the Adder. I just have a nagging feeling its like their Skyhawks in the 80s, wired for Mavericks, but they never got them...if thats the case with the Adders then all they;ve got for MiG BVR are the rubbish short burn R-27s -
Well, it makes no sense if they wired their fulcrums up for adders and they don't get them right? I suspect they may recieve their Adders after all.
I won't look down on the Adders, as the missile is really much more respectable than the AMRAAM, in terms of range, manueverability. The guidance is the decisive parts, as they will be recieving downgraded versions of the Adder. -
They might, eventually, but then again, a repeat performance of the Skyhawk-Maverick thing might happen again....they wired their Skyhawk for Maverick but never got them...Originally posted by Shotgun:Well, it makes no sense if they wired their fulcrums up for adders and they don't get them right? I suspect they may recieve their Adders after all.
I won't look down on the Adders, as the missile is really much more respectable than the AMRAAM, in terms of range, manueverability. The guidance is the decisive parts, as they will be recieving downgraded versions of the Adder.
I do believe that the Adder is a good missile, and have never looked down on it. Its the Alamos they currently have that AFM said were rubbish...