Singapore At War
-
Aiyak, I suggest we just buy the J7MG (China cheap copies of the Mig-21), at USD8 million/piece package, we can get at least a few hundred pieces of such hardware and hire cheap "foreign talent" to operate them, swamping the skies of the unlucky ones and struck them like bee hives
-
A lot of people are mistaken than F-18E/F are just another upgrade of the old bugs. The Super bugs are in fact nothing like the old bugs except for the front fuselage. The wings are new, the leading edge extension are new, the intake are new, the avionics (with the AESA radar) will be new. The size of the Superbug is almost identifcal with the F15. The F404 engines will be an uprated version. The RCS will be much smaller than the bugs. US Navy even consider to expand the Super bugs to take over many roles current filled by different types such as the Tomcats, S-2s, EA-6Bs, etc.Originally posted by Orcishwarrior:I believe F-18 might not make it to the top 3 finalist.Surely the mindef simply dun wish to acquire the some machine which is the same as the Malaysian government,since the malaysian got the planes earlier they know the systems specification and technical aspect clearer than us.It can be a disadvantage to us besides F-18E/F is not a new planes by boeing.
Can the US provide a better package compare to the europe counterpart.
Even the russian give us a better package to the US
Given a good package inclusive of AIM-9X, Amaraac AIM120C, IR guided munitions, SLAM, air-launched Harpoons, AGM-142, etc, I can't see why Super bugs won't be a good fit till RSAF get F-35s.
Superbugs will beat the old bugs and given right condition (BVR) will be able to down SU30s too. -
This US weaponary u mention is too good to be true......US will never allow most of these weapon to be exported to SEA region.If if they allow it,it wil be kept in storage in the US.If that is the case y are we buying them costing us multi-million US dollar for something we cannot take along with us......
Y should we get F-18 with a unattractive package -
Dun be silly as to think of the chinese plane.They are planes that MIndef dun even bother off...
-
"A lot of people are mistaken than F-18E/F are just another upgrade of the old bugs. The Super bugs are in fact nothing like the old bugs except for the front fuselage. The wings are new, the leading edge extension are new, the intake are new, the avionics (with the AESA radar) will be new. The size of the Superbug is almost identifcal with the F15. The F404 engines will be an uprated version. The RCS will be much smaller than the bugs. US Navy even consider to expand the Super bugs to take over many roles current filled by different types such as the Tomcats, S-2s, EA-6Bs, etc. "
One of the very few things going for the F-18E/F is its avionics. The APG-79 is a probably the best radar among all the contenders, and the IDECM suite will most likely be as good as the DASS and Spectra suite. However, the fighter's aerodynamic performance sucks. It's the worst among all the contenders, and I'm sure you won't argue with me on that. eg. The wing-drop problem has, till today, only been ameliorated, but not totally solved. Its acceleration is worse than the F-18C, and that plane's acceleration is already crappy enuff. The F414 pumps out more thrust than the F404, but the increase in thrust wont be able to compensate for the increase in the plane's weight. And stealth for the SuperHornet is a non-issue. Carry any meaningful war-load, and say bye bye to any low-orbservable attempts in that plane's design.
One thing I like about the Superbug, however, is the F-18F twin-seater's decoupled cockpit concept. Enabled by the AESA radar, this feature allows maximum utilisation of the radar's ability to interleave A2A and A2G radar modes. Thus the pilot can use the radar's A2A modes for situational awareness, while the WSO can simultaneously use the radar's A2G modes for the fighter's attack mission, allowing both to concentrate on their tasks. With a two seater cockpit, which has always proven to be essential for the attack role, this feature would make the F-18F Superhornet a very potent attack fighter, making it surpass the Rafale, Typhoon, and perhaps even the F-16 Block 60 in the A2G role.
"Given a good package inclusive of AIM-9X, Amaraac AIM120C, IR guided munitions, SLAM, air-launched Harpoons, AGM-142, etc, I can't see why Super bugs won't be a good fit till RSAF get F-35s. "
If you are talking of a good package, look at the Typhoon. No plane has as many weapons integrated on it than that plane. Virtually the whole A2A and A2G arsenal would be integrated on it!
"Superbugs will beat the old bugs and given right condition (BVR) will be able to down SU30s too."
Yes, it'll beat the old bugs (otherwise why get a new bug?) but by a very small margin, as reported by GAO on May 2000. That it'll be able to down SU-30s is not in doubt, due to its more advanced avionics. -
Yes that is agreeable,in an air combat Su-30 is surely a russian 3rd generation fighter jet that u dun really want to reckon with.
With more advanced russian avionics
most significant of all the R-77 amraamski R-73 consider one of the most deadly dogfight missiles in russian missiles inventories -
??? The R-77, at least the first gen ones, are not really that much to be afraid of. The Slammers are better missiles than them. What's to be taken more seriously are the R-73s....
-
Actually, the R-77s have a range advantage over the AIM120s. A good 40km advantage. Only thing is, R-77s sold are export versions, which may be less capable. Another thing, AIM-9X has yet to be put into active service, and so far not much is known about it and its real capabilities. (Not publicly) SU-30s are good, esp if you enjoy HUGE fuel slurping mofos, that require lots of service and maintenance on the ground as parts may not be available when needed. Personally, I will rule out the F-18E/F cos I doubt we will recieve the full weapons package from the US. Block 60 Vipers are probably out too, as the USAF is not gonna buy any of them at all. Thus the block 60 Vipers will be another one of those Export Upgrade Versions.
The Typhoon and the Rafale are what I feel the most likely. They are relatively new and advanced multi-role/dual-role/ F/As or whatever u want to call them. They have a huge array of A2A and A2G arsenal at their disposal. Their manufacturers won't have any qualms selling its weaponry to us. And at the same time, they are much easier to integrate than the Russian competitors.
The Superbugs can still be an option, IF the US is willing to sell us a relatively good package.
Thats my 2 cts. -
Just a side note on the Typhoon:
"Wind tunnel tests indicate that adding two 1500-litre conformal fuel tanks to the top of the Eurofighter Typhoon would extend the range by 25 percent without seriously hampering aerodynamic performance. This is seen as critical to reaching some markets (e.g., Australia) and to fully utilizing the Tranche-3 deep strike capability as it would free up two of the weapons stations (which are now used for external fuel tanks)"
If tunnel tests are true, Tranche-3 should solve the range problem faced by the Typhoon in the current config.
Back to the R-77. Range is not everything, and furthermore, the range provided is the 'claimed' range of the missile. We do not know the parameters under which that range specification was derived, and it doesn't really matter. What's more important is the missile's effective range, of which the Amraam, with its more advanced software, has. The basic R-77 solid-burn profile limited the missile's engagement performance by bleeding off too much energy too fast. (software enhancements can do much to conserve energy. The Python 4 reportedly has excellent software which allows it to retain much of its energy by calculating the most energy efficient woute to the target) It also didn't have a lofted flight engagement trajectory like the Amraam. Its also good to know that the C5 version of the Amraam has a larger motor, and with the clipped wings of the C versions, drag will probably decrease, leading to even larger 'no-escape' zones for the missile. -
True, but will EADS ever develop Typhoon to Tranche-3 given the present and future fighter aircraft? I can't see there will be a lot more to add to the current 650 on the order books to make the development viable for EADS. The British and Germans will eventually upgrade their respective Typhoons to suit their own needs just like what they did to the Tornadoes.Originally posted by YourFather:Just a side note on the Typhoon:
"Wind tunnel tests indicate that adding two 1500-litre conformal fuel tanks to the top of the Eurofighter Typhoon would extend the range by 25 percent without seriously hampering aerodynamic performance. This is seen as critical to reaching some markets (e.g., Australia) and to fully utilizing the Tranche-3 deep strike capability as it would free up two of the weapons stations (which are now used for external fuel tanks)"
If tunnel tests are true, Tranche-3 should solve the range problem faced by the Typhoon in the current config.
History showed us that a multi-nation program like this of Typhoon will never work well. Just look at the Jaguars, Tornadoes, Harries, etc.
Furthermore, it makes sense to get the Typhoons if RSAF want to get a new breed of air-superiority 4th gen fighter, but if RSAF want a deep penetration strikes aircraft, the Rafale, Super Bugs will have to rank ahead of Typhoon.
I like Typhoon, but I think it is too optimised for air to air combat at its current configuration. Rafale is the only true 4th gen multi-role aircraft. I think it will do much better with its electronically scanned phased array radar. It will prove to be a much better deep strike penetration aircraft for the RSAF (again provided the French are willing to integrate all the current NATO (US-made) LGBs and guided munition in the RSAF inventory. -
"True, but will EADS ever develop Typhoon to Tranche-3 given the present and future fighter aircraft? I can't see there will be a lot more to add to the current 650 on the order books to make the development viable for EADS. The British and Germans will eventually upgrade their respective Typhoons to suit their own needs just like what they did to the Tornadoes."
No. They will develop the Tranche 3 in concert, but like what you said, it will probably be upgrades of the Tranche 2 aircraft that they have in the inventory at that time, and not new build aircraft. (or at least a much decreased number)
"History showed us that a multi-nation program like this of Typhoon will never work well. Just look at the Jaguars, Tornadoes, Harries, etc. "
Never work well? In what sense? Its true that the Germans did delay the program significantly, but the Rafale has also been significantly delayed too. The current Typhoon doesn''t seem to 'not work well' to me.
"Furthermore, it makes sense to get the Typhoons if RSAF want to get a new breed of air-superiority 4th gen fighter, but if RSAF want a deep penetration strikes aircraft, the Rafale, Super Bugs will have to rank ahead of Typhoon. "
True, as I said above, the SHornet F version is most probably a better strike fighter than the Typhoon, due to its 2 seater & decoupled cockpit. But I think there's a 2 seater Typhoon design, is there? (I cannot confirm, and have not checked, so dont bite me on this point, ok?
? -
i forgot something. Remember last time we discussed what model of the SH-60 was offered to Singapore? We assumed that it would be 1 of the new models for the USN, the SH-60R or S version. But it seems that the version offered us is based on the one offered to Greece, and looks very different to the ones for the USN. I dont know if you have seen it before, but go to this page:
http://www.awgnet.com/shownews/00sing2/airfrm02.htm -
Once again, the problem with the Typhoon is not even whether Tranche 3 will solve the problems of the Typhoon(too geared towards A2A, insufficient range/combat radius). It is as Joe Black has pointed out, whether it will reach that stage or not. Looking at previous multinational designs, its unlikely, everyone will get the Typhoons ordered, the countries involved will hail it as a fantastic example of multinational cooperation, then promptly each go their own way as to customising the aircraft for their own need, each heaving a sigh of relief at the sight of each others backs.
Also, development time comes into play, as I've often said before, I am impressed(very much so) by the Typhoons specs, but I've also said we must put things into perspective and realise that much of the claimed specs are just that, claims, very little exists beyond the papers and the harddrives of the consortiums offices. The basic fact is that the program is lagging, and severely so, compared to equivalent fighters of the same generation. 4 Typhoons, 3 from UK and 1 German, flew together for the 1st time recently at Farnborough. Some see it as an achievement. I say, "about damn time"
Back to integration. US has already told RoK no AMRAAM integration if it chooses non-US equipment. No doubt, they will use the same arm-twisting tactics on other nations, us included when it comes to picking our fighters. As I've asked before, what then for the non-US contenders? Skyflash/Sparrow for Typhoon until Meteor is available at the end of the decade(and that if and only if the damn Krauts stop trying to screw around with the program). Hardly cutting edge is it?
I've said this before and I'll say it again. While the Typhoon is a very impressive aircraft with a very impressive set of specs, there are too many what-ifs concerned with the state and schedule to the program for us to gamble our new fighter program on.
AAM ranges
The common mistake is to look at range of AAMs. What range. AMRAAM can fly what, 60 km? Sure, but does Raytheon tell you at that admittedly impressive number, what is the hit probability for AMRAAM against a hard manoevring target. Almost zero. Yes thats right. Almost zero. Whats the point of flying that far if you're not going to do what you're designed for? Ditto for the R-73/R-77. Impressive stats, but again, what hit probability at the extreme ranges?
Compare this, for stats of hit probability of AMRAAM vs MICA:
the AMraam AIM120 C is rated at Max range "till the propulser is off", Mica is rated at 100% 9G agile detroyed target range. AIM120 C can't destroy a agile target after 30kms,"look that the dutch who destroyed a Mig to kosovo launched 3 AIM120 for only one touchdown" near Meteor will keep final extreme agility to more than 100kms that will be the first ever deadly BVR missile "on the paper", Rafale will get Mica for Short/medium and Meteor for BVR.
I know which combi I'd rather have....
If we buy non US and they don't integrate AMRAAM, then fine by all means. Screw them, we can always integrate Derby/Python onto any Rafale until we get Meteors. We can do without US made second rate souped up 1970s airframes and capable but overrated missiles one generation behind cutting edge anyway...
I think its about time buyers of Western weapons had a paradigm shift and realise that other Western options are just as capable if not even more than American equivalents, and sans the crippling export restrictions the Americans ALWAYS place on their exports to boot. Time for someone to wake the Yanks up and make them smell the f***ing roses... -
Cool, I believe some USN SH-60s have the nose mounting containing the FLIR/LLTV as well. Whats this version called?Originally posted by YourFather:i forgot something. Remember last time we discussed what model of the SH-60 was offered to Singapore? We assumed that it would be 1 of the new models for the USN, the SH-60R or S version. But it seems that the version offered us is based on the one offered to Greece, and looks very different to the ones for the USN. I dont know if you have seen it before, but go to this page:
http://www.awgnet.com/shownews/00sing2/airfrm02.htm -
The FLIR on the nose look a little too flipsy for my liking. Wonder what kinda stress fracture if they mount the FLIR as per the model (Viper, maybe you can enlightening some of us here - do you do structure integrity/stress fracture in your course?).Originally posted by Viper52:Cool, I believe some USN SH-60s have the nose mounting containing the FLIR/LLTV as well. Whats this version called?
BTW, does anyone know what happen to the "small number" of naval chopper RSN is supposed to be ordering now? I haven't heard anything. The last article I read about it said that a decision is due in either June/July. I haven't seen anything remotely mentioned about a selection yet. I hope either the NH90 or the Seahawks will be chosen. -
"Skyflash/Sparrow for Typhoon until Meteor is available at the end of the decade" I thought we've gone thru this B4?! They cannot deny us integration of the AMRAAM on the Typhoon, as its already integrated on the plane! we're not the only ones using that plane. Germany,UK, they use it too, and the AMRAAM is their principal AAM for the Typhoon until the Meteor comes online.
"Screw them, we can always integrate Derby/Python onto any Rafale until we get Meteors"
Uhh, nope. Much easier said than done. If we wanna Derby on the Rafale, we gotta pay for the integration costs ourselves, and it ain't cheap. This is the same reason why our LaFayettes will be equipped with Aster and not ESSM or Standards. Integration costs will be borne by ourselves, and the costs are just not worth it.
"everyone will get the Typhoons ordered, the countries involved will hail it as a fantastic example of multinational cooperation, then promptly each go their own way as to customising the aircraft for their own need, each heaving a sigh of relief at the sight of each others backs. "
You're waaay too cycnical. The Typhoon's Tranche 3 configuration is already under study, and it's considered a prime candidate for the UK's FOAS system.
"The basic fact is that the program is lagging, and severely so, compared to equivalent fighters of the same generation. 4 Typhoons, 3 from UK and 1 German, flew together for the 1st time recently at Farnborough. Some see it as an achievement. I say, "about damn time" "
Yes, I agree on this point, but IOC date is actually the same as that of the Rafale. -
[quote]Originally posted by YourFather:
"I thought we've gone thru this B4?! They cannot deny us integration of the AMRAAM on the Typhoon, as its already integrated on the plane! we're not the only ones using that plane. Germany,UK, they use it too, and the AMRAAM is their principal AAM for the Typhoon until the Meteor comes online."
Ahhh...thats where you're wrong my friend. After the last time we talked about this I did a little digging, and shaking down some of my contacts. AMRAAM is CLEARED FOR the Typhoon, Rafale etc but NOT repeat NOT integrated. Clearing for carriage and integrated for carriage are 2 totally different things. Same deal with RSAFs F-5S/T, cleared for but not integrated with AMRAAM. These same sources have confirmed that the among the tactics used by the Yanks to dissuade the S.Koreans from buying "Not made in USA" was telling them integration with AMRAAM on a non-Amercian platform was a DEFINITE non-starter.(ie you don't buy "made in USA" plane, you don't get "made in USA missile")
"Uhh, nope. Much easier said than done. If we wanna Derby on the Rafale, we gotta pay for the integration costs ourselves"
At least it won't be a case of "can pay but barred by Yank export restrictions situation like we so often seem to find ourselves in"
"You're waaay too cycnical. The Typhoon's Tranche 3 configuration is already under study, and it's considered a prime candidate for the UK's FOAS system."
Like the case with all European defence plans. I'll believe it when I see it. Its now nothing but a pipe dream(like quite alot of aspects of the Typhoon program
). They say they want this and that, but how often will the plans come through without cuts here, amendments there or cancellation altogether? Maybe I'm cynical, but its cynicism borne of experience. Look how everyone went their separate ways once the Jaguars and Tornadoes joined their respective services...
"Yes, I agree on this point, but IOC date is actually the same as that of the Rafale"
Really...so how come the Aeronavale were celebrating the first operational combat cruise, first combat missions, and first combat missions carrying LIVE weapons for the Rafale *before* the consortium was celebrating the first time 4 Typhoons fly in formation?
I'll admit, if all the qualities on paper are true, Typhoon and Rafale are almost evenly matched, I do believe the entry into service dates of a lot of weapons, as well as of the aircraft themselves, swing the advantage to the French, not to mention the lesser leverage the Americans have over the French to place "export restrictions" on this and that.
And before anyone says that thats not going to happen, we don't need to look beyond Singapore's Sidewinders for this. Why have we always been stuck with second rate AIM-9P-3/4s while the best in market then were the AIM-9L. And when we finally get the L derivative, its again the downgraded S instead of the M carried by US/NATO.... -
It does look a bit flimsy to me also, it might be able to withstand normal flight parameters, but the thing looks like it won't take much to snap it off and fling the assembly through the cockpit or worse, the rotor. Looks to me like it was designed by one of the "The computer says it'll work means it will work" brigade.(ie. one of those engineers who's doesn't know a spanner from a screwdriver - believe me we get a lot of those)Originally posted by Joe Black:The FLIR on the nose look a little too flipsy for my liking. Wonder what kinda stress fracture if they mount the FLIR as per the model (Viper, maybe you can enlightening some of us here - do you do structure integrity/stress fracture in your course?).
BTW, does anyone know what happen to the "small number" of naval chopper RSN is supposed to be ordering now? I haven't heard anything. The last article I read about it said that a decision is due in either June/July. I haven't seen anything remotely mentioned about a selection yet. I hope either the NH90 or the Seahawks will be chosen.
As for the selection, I have no idea, vut should be any time now.... -
""I thought we've gone thru this B4?! They cannot deny us integration of the AMRAAM on the Typhoon, as its already integrated on the plane! we're not the only ones using that plane. Germany,UK, they use it too, and the AMRAAM is their principal AAM for the Typhoon until the Meteor comes online."
Ahhh...thats where you're wrong my friend. After the last time we talked about this I did a little digging, and shaking down some of my contacts. AMRAAM is CLEARED FOR the Typhoon, Rafale etc but NOT repeat NOT integrated. Clearing for carriage and integrated for carriage are 2 totally different things. Same deal with RSAFs F-5S/T, cleared for but not integrated with AMRAAM. These same sources have confirmed that the among the tactics used by the Yanks to dissuade the S.Koreans from buying "Not made in USA" was telling them integration with AMRAAM on a non-Amercian platform was a DEFINITE non-starter.(ie you don't buy "made in USA" plane, you don't get "made in USA missile" "
Cleared but not integrated?
I dont understand. If its not integrated, then what's the UK, German etc Typhoons going to carry as their principal medium range A2A missile until the Meteor comes online? Even if its not integrated (yet), it'll be.
As for the rest, well, its up to us to believe what we want, yes?
""The computer says it'll work means it will work" brigade.(ie. one of those engineers who's doesn't know a spanner from a screwdriver - believe me we get a lot of those) "
The B2 was totally designed from the computer. Heck, Boeing's X-32 design was CAD/CAM, and its flying characteristics were simulated on computer. The results were so similar to its real flying qualities that their engineers were stunned. So why the skeptism over computers? -
"Cleared but not integrated? I dont understand. If its not integrated, then what's the UK, German etc Typhoons going to carry as their principal medium range A2A missile until the Meteor comes online? Even if its not integrated (yet), it'll be."
Cleared for carriage simply means the external stores has been cleared to carriage by the parent aircraft, ie pylons are suitable for it, weight of the stores won't break the wing off the aircraft, and can be integrated. Integrated means the stores electronics gizmos work with the aircrafts gizmos, the FCS, the radar etc etc. A big world of difference.
Same deal with our F-16s and F-5s, they've been cleared to carry AMRAAM, but the software has not been installed in the aircraft computers yet. Word from a US contact of mine down at Luke says that the RSAF Vipers there have only recently had the AMRAAM software uploaded and the pilots have begun the AMRAAM software training. See the difference? It simply means that our Vipers have all this while been cleared to carry the AMRAAM, but only reently have they been integrated with it.
The Americans allow integration of AMRAAM for the Germans and the Brits and the Spaniards. Why not? They're all NATO members. Like it or not, Singapore is a 2nd rate ally compared to the countries mentioned above. They've already used that non-integration tactic to twist the RoK's arms to get them to buy Eagle, and I'm willing to bet my life savings they'll do the same to us when its time to decide on our next fighter.
"The B2 was totally designed from the computer. Heck, Boeing's X-32 design was CAD/CAM, and its flying characteristics were simulated on computer. The results were so similar to its real flying qualities that their engineers were stunned. So why the skeptism over computers?"
Because I have worked with several different FEM programs as well as CATIA, the CAD/CAM program used by Dassault to design the Rafale, albeit in a learning, as opposed to a working, environment. And always, without fail, our instructors for each of the different programs cannot stress often enough that the results obtained through the program do not ALWAYS mirror the real thing, and if the real results are similar to the computer simulation, it is more of a fluke than anything else(why do you think the X-32 engineers you mentioned were stunned? Cos it ain't supposed to happen, not often anyway...). Experimentations we did in real world environments gave us results that vindicated what our FEM + CAD/CAM instructors said.
I attended a lecture last year on aircraft fatigue, taught by a big shot from IAI and attended by people throughout the Aussie aviation industry. One thing that stood out in my mind from the course is this little snippet.
When LM designed the C-130J using the CAD/CAM and FEM programs, out on a whim, they put through the designs of the basic C-130A to H models through the same programs. Did you know what the result was? The computer simulations concluded that the C-130A,B,E and H are not flyable, as in, the damn designs were not supposed to take off and sustain flight.
Now, who/what do you believe? 40+ years of sterling service from the polar caps to the hottest deserts in all loadouts and missions, or a computer that tells you the design will not be able to fly?
And finally, no, I'm not denouncing computers in anyway or saying they're totally useless. My point is that we should always take things in perspective and realise that computers are not the be all and end all of things, they are not necessarily always right. That is a fact thats been proven time and time again. -
Singapore's position as 2nd rate ally probably won't change much. But, we are now one of the few better equipped allies in the region. We are now in the "hot zone," where any confrontation is more likely, on a smaller scale. Can Malaysia or Indonesia, or anyone else nearby be as reliable an ally as us? Thinking along this line, I guess they might be able to provide us more... =)
-
Ahhh...but will THEY think along that line? Look at how long they took to release the AMRAAMs for sale to Singapore, and then only with the silly arrangements of "basing in US till Singapore is faced with imminent threat". On the surface, the relationship is rosy, but it has been riddled with constant US reservations over the transfer of technology to SingaporeOriginally posted by Shotgun:Singapore's position as 2nd rate ally probably won't change much. But, we are now one of the few better equipped allies in the region. We are now in the "hot zone," where any confrontation is more likely, on a smaller scale. Can Malaysia or Indonesia, or anyone else nearby be as reliable an ally as us? Thinking along this line, I guess they might be able to provide us more... =)
No matter how you look at it, South Korea is a closer ally to the US than us, esp with the Stalinist hordes north of the 38th, and yet the US still sees fit to pull that AMRAAM integration stunt with them. I'm sorry to say this, but I don't share your optimism over this. The history is against it... -
Yes, I know the difference between "cleared for" and "integrated". But since the software codes for AMRAAM integration has been released to the Eurofighter consortium, I dont see why they cannot provide it for the Eurofighter when selling it to us. The US can deny the codes for integration to the Rafale, as it hasn't been integrated on that plane yet. Not so for the Eurofighter. I dont believe Austria decided to buy the Typhoon without the AMRAAM being able to be used on it.
As for the computer part, I really have to say that you know more than me.
But the impression I got from articles was that the advance in computer simulation technology was so great that most of the time, they were almost 90% correct. (Of course, that depends on how well the simulation software is written, rite?)
"silly arrangements of "basing in US till Singapore is faced with imminent threat". "
That is just being consistent with not introducing a new capability into a region, such that the arms balance is affected. No big deal, they've been doing that for long long time.
"US still sees fit to pull that AMRAAM integration stunt with them"
Well, that's not really totally incomprehensible. First of all, much American blood has been shed for Korea in the Korean war. If they feel Korea owes them a debt, that's not really unreasonable. Maintaining American presence in Korea ain't cheap either, and their presence HAS been more than useful in maintaining the peace. Of course they will use as much political leverage as they can to secure the order. (Its a big order, its a VERY important order for Boeing, they are owed a favor, it ain't fair to other competitors, but they dont have no troops stationed in Korea, do they?) -
Regardless of which Euro-canard planes (ie Rafale or Typhoon), US reserve the rights to release AMRAAM software to the each sales from manufacturers regardless if they have already previously been integrated. US can effectively remove the AMRAAM software on the Vipers and Super bugs why not the euro-canards?Originally posted by YourFather:Yes, I know the difference between "cleared for" and "integrated". But since the software codes for AMRAAM integration has been released to the Eurofighter consortium, I dont see why they cannot provide it for the Eurofighter when selling it to us. The US can deny the codes for integration to the Rafale, as it hasn't been integrated on that plane yet. Not so for the Eurofighter. I dont believe Austria decided to buy the Typhoon without the AMRAAM being able to be used on it.
In all my real world experience, computer simulation also serves as a rough estimates and never could produce highly accurate results. There are too many variables in real life world to be able to accurately put them into simulations. Too many times US armed forces people have discovered that their weapons do not work as well as they have expected and that practices in simulations did not equate to realities. Of course, then again, I have to say that computer simulations have gone a long distance and being refined all the time. They do have their place in manufactoring and design. They speed things up by and large. The refinement will have to be done during real life prototyping stage to refine what the computer does not "see" or "predict".
As for the computer part, I really have to say that you know more than me. But the impression I got from articles was that the advance in computer simulation technology was so great that most of the time, they were almost 90% correct. (Of course, that depends on how well the simulation software is written, rite?)
Wind-tunnel tests and all different sorts of computer simulations are at best 80 to 90% accurate. The rest of the 10 to 20% refinement has to be done by experienced designers and engineers on the ground...
Overall computer simulations have done lots of wonderful things, just look at current and next US Submarine designs, they are almost all done by computer simulations; the F22 avionics, (though the refinement sare still done on the test-bed aircraft), and of course the well known NASA X35...
Thus it might be prudent to get the Rafale/Mica or Rafale/Derby mix given that we know that our neighour up North are trying to integrate their Mig29s with AMRAAMski.
That is just being consistent with not introducing a new capability into a region, such that the arms balance is affected. No big deal, they've been doing that for long long time. -
Hello there,
I think Singapore should select the Rafale Mk2 from Dassault.
- F-18E/F has very good avionics and radar, but it is beaten by Rafale and Typhoon in raw aerodynamic performance. You may like to know that F-18C/D did ACM dogfight with CDG Rafales during Afghanistan operations and the Hornet was apparently dominated. Just for the info, the F-14 was slaughtered, but it's kind of normal as it was never meant to be a dogfighter. No BVR engagements have been performed because the US and the French do not want to reveal the firing parameters of the latest C-5 AMRAAM and MICA.
And of course the very fact that Malaysia is getting F-18E should de facto rule out this option for Singapore IMHO.
- Typhoon is great and yes it does reach IOC at the same time as Rafale for the French Air Force but there is a big difference in a sense that 2005 Rafale for the French Air Force are F2 variant with considerable a2g capability (all kinds of PGM, including GPS-guided AASM, SCALP cruise missile...). 2005 Typhoon is strictly air-to-air... Rafale will also have the nice OSF and I believe Typhoon will feature the PIRATE IRST.
However it should be said that by 2008 the Typhoon should get all its a2g modes and by that time the Rafale will get upgraded to F3 which is basically a F2 with a new software for the RBE2 TFR mode for very low level nuclear strike using the new ASMP-A missile. In a2a both planes are getting their new targeting helmets with off-boresight short-range missiles (ASRAAM for Typhoon, probably IRIS-T for Rafale).
IMHO Singapore should get some Rafale Mk2 with the RBE2+active antenna (very comparable to APG-79) and the uprated M88-3C. The increased thrust does not very much increase the dogfighting performances according to simulations but it will definitely increase the climb rate and for a country which does not have a E-3 it may be of some use to be able to scramble its fighters in case of a late detected intrusion in the Singapore airspace.
For the missiles, Singapore should get a mix of MICA EM and MICA IR. Forget about Magic 2, use the MICA IR for short range (mounted on the wing tips). When Meteor becomes available, get them if your neighbour gets AMRAAM or R-77 in good qty.