Singapore At War
-
[quote]Originally posted by Joe Black:
"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?"
Exactly. Even if Eurofighter has all the software codes it needs to integrate AMRAAM onto any Typhoons Singapore gets, who does the software belong to in the end? The Yanks! and if they tell the consortium not to upload the codes to the Typhoons Singapore orders, YourFather do you seriously expect the Europeans to circumvent the American objections and give us the sourcecodes?
"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."
Yup, better to get a missile/plane combi which is at least the equivalent of the Typhoon/AMRAAM if not better that you know will definitely be available for purchase(Rafale + Derby/MICA) rather than hedge our bets on a combination that is seriously lagging and whose export availability is less than assured(Typhoon + AMRAAM). -
Originally posted by Viking1:
Well, Viking1, there are a few of us who reckon RSAF is better of getting Rafale F2/F3 too. RKoAF recently had the fighter competition and Rafale came in top, the only real sad thing is that due to political issues, RKoAF chose the F-15K instead.
Hello there,
I think Singapore should select the Rafale Mk2 from Dassault.
In terms of avionics - purely on the radar performance, I think the Superbugs kick asses. Not only the AESA radar APG-79 have greater Air-to-Air modes and range compared to the current Rafale radar and the ECR-90, but also it has greater number of Air-to-surface modes, notably the Syntactic Aperture and Terrain Following modes. However, as you have pointed out, in terms of raw aerodynamics performance, the superbugs lose out to the euro-canards (with the exception of Gripen) by quite a fair bit.
- 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.
However, if RSAF want a air supermacy fighter and BVR engagement is the prime mission, then getting Typhoons and Superbugs make senses (once again provided US is willing to release the AMRAAMs) or RSAF will have to wait for the Meteors. I am impressed by how many AMRAAMs the superbugs can carry. I have seen a AAM config with 10 to 12 AAMs. The Super bugs does lose out in stealth though because they lack an IRST like that of Rafale and Typhoon. The radar signature will betray the Superbugs' positions albeit they out range most fighters' radars range.
I won't be surprised. I suspect the current C-5 version may outrange the Micas, but Micas are almost certain to outrange the As and Bs version, maybe the pre-C5 versions too. The only thingy that is different from the C and B versions as I understand is that C version has the folding fins so that 6 can be installed inside the Raptors weapon bay instead of 4 in the As and Bs.
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.
Why? It is ok to have the Super bugs even if RMAF have a few of them. Afterall, the worst case scenarios is the RSAF superbug face an RMAF superbug. In terms of performance, they will be equivalent, then it really comes down to the pilot skills and overall C3I over the sky. Given RSAF's investment in AEW platforms and various datalink technologies, I favour RSAF's survivbility. Of course, RMAF may only be able to fund an E version with the same APG-72(?)/75(? forgot which number) radar whereas RSAF version may get the AESA version.
And of course the very fact that Malaysia is getting F-18E should de facto rule out this option for Singapore IMHO.
I think Rafale has already reach IOC with the French AF, and the French Navy is not far behind. Typhoon...
- 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.
hee hee... we all know that they have a few more years to go.
Rafales have been, from the onset, to be a multirole. Typhoon on the other hand has always been designed first as an air superiorty fighter (to replace the German F-4F, GB's F2 Tornadoes, Italian's StarFighters/F2, Spainish's F-4s). The French wanted a true multirole and that was partly the reason why they left the EFA project.
I see the only real hinderance for greater French sales is that Rafales are currently only integrated with French weapons but not standard NATO ones even when they are cleared to carry them. I think if Dassault Aviation makes some effect in integrating NATO weapons as a standard export version, then I'm confident the sales will come. Furthermore, I think its time the French get their HMS integrated ASAP. Furthermore, the French can also do the naughty trick of getting in bed with the Israeli Rafael and integrate their Python 4s and Derbys with the Rafales.
I am confident that RSAF would probably ask for the F3 variant with the nice RBE2+ active phased array radar and the uprated M88-3 engines; and most probably Micas. If the French can't deliever this in the 2005 to 2007 timeframe, I am pretty sure a "free" upgrade clause will be in somewhere in the contract. If we are "lucky" we might even see the Rafales carrying Python 4 with an Israeli made HMS (DASH-3 or JHMS).
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. -
Hi Joe Black,
A few comments on your input...
- The Rafale that is proposed to Singapore is called the Mk2, and it does include the AESA variant of the RBE2. So "Active RBE2" and APG-79 share the same technology and both have been built as multirole radars, i.e not necessary with a huge range in a2a (but still quite respectable) but with a lot of modes. I don't think APG-79 has more modes than the active RBE2, and if you look at the size of the two system (very compact), they probably have the same power output. Both use the same first generation of T/R modules. "Active RBE2" will have 1,000 modules, not sure about APG-79.
- Warload for a2a: Rafale can also carry 12 MICA (this configuration was proposed during the Korean tender).
- AMRAAM outranges the MICA by a little bit (confirmed to me by a MBDA guy during the Singapore Aerospace show).
- I still think it is a problem for Singapore to get the SH if Malaysia also gets that aircraft. Even if you count on Singapore alledged superiority in training, you will still be flying an aircraft that has no secret to your adversary. For example, Malaysia could easily learn how to fine-tune its SAM to maximise kill probability against a SH.
- Rafale has not reached IOC within the French Air Force, only in the Navy and only 8 planes in F1 variant (strictly air-to-air) onboard CDG. The Air Force will get its first squadron operational by late 2005. And again, these will be F2 Rafales, with a2g modes. By the way, just to illustrate this, the first quadron to get the Rafale will be the 11th squadron which currently flies... the Jaguar. So you can see that ground strike will be a primary mission for the first Rafale in the French Air Force.
- You are right that Typhoon was designed as an interceptor first, and was then assigned a2g mission during its development. The consequence of this... the Typhoon put on weigh... 1 ton extra ! Don't trust websites that talk about an empty weigh of 10t for the Typhoon, this is only for the first prototypes. Production aircrafts will be in the 11t range. The main reason is that the Engineers had to strenghten the airframe, especially the wing which is very thin. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to badmouth the Typhoon, I think it's a great performer actually.
- About NATO ordinance for the Rafale...yes you are right that it's a problem for some potential customers, even thought the French have or are developping a pretty complete range of PGM/missiles (SCALP, Apache, AASM, LGB...). Rafale still lacks a SEAD missile though. As for the HMS, it will be ready at the same time as the Typhoon's. (around 200
. The issue is not so much on the capability side than on the cost side: French missiles are expensive.
- Lastly, there is no problem for the timeframe, by 2006 the French can deliver RBE2 active, M88-3 and MICA IR. RBE2 active already exists and is in test (not flying though). M88-3 has actually been running for more than a year, but again not integrated into the airframe. As for MICA IR, they just entered service in the French AF this year on their Mirage2000-5, 3 years after getting their first MICA EM. OSF will be ready for the first French squadron aircrafts, and it's a very nice kit.
Take care,
Viking1 -
Hi viking1,
firstly, welcome to the discussion.
Firstly, regarding to AMRAAM vs MICA range. I have already posted something in regards to this a couple of pages back i think. Raytheon has quoted the maximum range for the AMRAAM(the range when its motor stops burning), but at that range(in fact beyond 30km) its hit rate is very poor, esp against hard manoeuvring targets, the Dutch took 3 AMRAAMs to down the Serbian MiG-29 in 1999. The quoted range for the MICA however is the range whereby it can hit an agile target with high accuracy. Therein lies the difference...
As for weapons integration, US Mk.80 series Paveway series LGBs have already been sucessfully carried and dropped on targets by the Rafale. Obviouslly things like Apache/SCALP are also integrated. Ditto for MICA. Most European weapons systems are handled under the EADS umbrella, and France has a big say in EADS, and of course owns MBDA which builds lots of stores. So export/integration will unlikely be an issue. As for american weapons, yes its true that Rafale has not been integrated for stuff like JSOW, JDAM and the like, but then we'll also have to consider if the Americans will sell us those weapons even if Rafale is integrated. My case has always been: Go for the equipment thats at least the equal of, if not better than American ones. -
Hey Viper, I read somewhere that the C5 has an improved range in the region of some close to an addition of 10 to 15 nm. The "quoted" range for a C-5 version could be around 70km. But as you have said, at these extreme range, the Amraams might not have the energy to hit anything other than a straight flying large target, just like a Phoenix flying to 200 Km to hit a target. If memory serves me right, the Mica (active radar) version has a quoted range between 30 KM to 50 KM hitting an agile target whereas the IR version has a slightly lower range, or was it the other way round...Originally posted by Viper52:Hi viking1,
firstly, welcome to the discussion.
Firstly, regarding to AMRAAM vs MICA range. I have already posted something in regards to this a couple of pages back i think. Raytheon has quoted the maximum range for the AMRAAM(the range when its motor stops burning), but at that range(in fact beyond 30km) its hit rate is very poor, esp against hard manoeuvring targets, the Dutch took 3 AMRAAMs to down the Serbian MiG-29 in 1999. The quoted range for the MICA however is the range whereby it can hit an agile target with high accuracy. Therein lies the difference...
Source:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/mica.htm
http://pollux.com/defenseweb/1996/may96/air2air.htm
(this article quote 60 km)
http://www.3dpaper.gr/eng/weaponssystems/mica_weaov080101.shtml
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/AAMs.html
(Here they quote AMRAAMs at 75 KM - I think this figure is about the max range at optimal launch perimeter. At this range, the Amraams will have no energy left to hit pratically anything. The 30 to 50 KM range is still more belivable).
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-120.htm
(quotes only 20+ miles, which is about 30+ km, thus again the 30 to 50 KM range is more accurate).
http://defence-data.com/f2000/pagefa1026.htm
http://www.awgnet.com/shownews/berlin3/topsto03.htm
Interestingly, Derby's range is also quoted at 50 KM. Does it represent effective range or max range? -
Derby weighs about the same as MICA but from an aerodynamic standpoint looks more like an AMRAAM, so it probably has more drag than a MICA. However, 50km is probably possible since MICA already achieved 67km in live firing by ROCAF (Taiwan).Originally posted by Joe Black:Interestingly, Derby's range is also quoted at 50 KM. Does it represent effective range or max range?
But the thing about Derby is that it has no datalink, so hitting a high maneuvring target 50km away without any sort of refresh seems unlikely. But on the other hand, you can still disrupt your oponent tactics by firing at max range, and also no datalink means the Derby is quite cheap to purchase. A good alternative for countries who are denied AMRAAM and/or don't want to go for an all-French solution. -
Originally posted by Viking1:
Hmm... I suspect Mica travel anywhere more than 50+ km won't have the agility to kill much. The last bit of distance are almost certainly done by the kinetic energy of the missile. But it still some decent distance though.
Derby weighs about the same as MICA but from an aerodynamic standpoint looks more like an AMRAAM, so it probably has more drag than a MICA. However, 50km is probably possible since MICA already achieved 67km in live firing by ROCAF (Taiwan).
Come to think about it, it would be a real cool thing for RSAF to armed the F-5S/T with Python 4 and Derby, the Vipers with Python 4, AIM-9 for WVR targets and AIM-120 and Deby for BVRs. Of course the F-5 S/T would then need the DASH-3 helmets and the Vipers would get either the DASH-3 or JHMDS
But the thing about Derby is that it has no datalink, so hitting a high maneuvring target 50km away without any sort of refresh seems unlikely. But on the other hand, you can still disrupt your oponent tactics by firing at max range, and also no datalink means the Derby is quite cheap to purchase. A good alternative for countries who are denied AMRAAM and/or don't want to go for an all-French solution. -
Hi Everyone ,
AMRAAMs, Micas, Derby, R 77 etc are really NOT FIRE & FORGET missiles -
All such missiles have to be " continuous " steer to the target aircraft by the firing aircraft radar by way of datalink .
When the target is within AAM radar seeker range, only then AAM seeker will then switch on to searched for & lock-on to the target AC.
Only when the AAM itself lock into the emey AC , then it become really "" FIRE & FORGET "" .
Without the datalink , the missiles is next to useless in BVR mode.
If the loss of even a few second of the datalink control will render the AAM flying off target area .
As for aircraft can be load with 10 - 15 AAM is not the true indication of the aircraft multi-targeting capabilities
But the question that should be ask is how many AAMs can be control by the firing fire control system ??.
One aircraft can control up to 2 - 3 AAMs at one time ??
For the above missile to be really to be FIRE & FORGET without use of datalink control - the AAM seeker radar itself has to lock onto the target aircraft before firing.
Since such missiles radar seeker have a range of less than 15 kms - ??? and with a limit seeker radar coverage
By the way, all you
should know that the datalink systems can be jammed etc.
For disscussion :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Viking1
"" But the thing about Derby is that it has no datalink, so hitting a high maneuvring target 50km away without any sort of refresh seems unlikely. ""
_____________________________________________________
Derby missile system come with a date link system.
Chile AF have installed antennas on the front of their F-5 - (just behind the radar dome / in front of the cockpit. ) in order to guide the Derby missile. -
If EW is so good at dealing with BVR missile... why bother to have BVR missiles in view of the proliferation of EW suite all over the world??
I would have thought... that the Missiles designers would have taken into account.. the possibility of having the BVR missiles flying in EW active zone....
I think.... maybe the RSAF should consider putting laser on its fighter planes... such weapons have immense range... accuracy and can hit so fast and be invisible to the eye.... I heard that the F22 is gonna get a laser gun..... or isit the JSF is gonna get a lazer gun..... -
No really man, not long ago, the SAF weaponary purchase state only Western weaponary. Now you can see russian weaponary in our inventory (the IGLA missile is one good example). Even the Su30 also appear in the list of possible weapon purchase. At 8 million a copy that is dirt cheap, so in economy point of view buy more cheap and rugged plane which we have the "ability" to maintain using our existing know-how is not a bad option either
Originally posted by Orcishwarrior:Dun be silly as to think of the chinese plane.They are planes that MIndef dun even bother off... -
See the Iglas is a portable sTa missiles,while su-30 is a combat jet which consider tons of components it carrys with it.One small minor damage in any one of many component could doom the jet.Which can be in a dogfight.Surely we dun want this to happen to our jet.
Russian planes are dirt cheap well all of us know that is y many third world countries prefer russian stuff.For a country which could afford the better western tech .Why do we need to get something which is unreliable,the russian planes can be a clocking time bomb
it can explore when we need them most
.For yr information we need their spare parts ok and they simply have a bad reputation for it lousy logistic support.
U KNOW WANT I DISMISS THAT PROBABLITY THAT SINGAPORE WILL EVER GET RU PLANES
-
So far, Singapore govt. doesn't seem to have the habit of buying brand new products, such as the Typhoon. The F-16 for example, was already a proven and widely acknowledged fighter when Singapore decided to order them. So far, among the shortlisted fighters, only the F-15E, F-16 Block60, Rafale, F/A-18E/Fs have been flown in combat sorties. The New F-16 of course, has not actually been flown in any sorties, but its predecessors has, so I am quite reluctant to include it into the "more likely" list. And only 3 of the above 4, are in active service.
The F-15E is a proven mudhen. No contest over that fact.
The Superhornets are not so proven yet. Moreover, I doubt that Singapore would buy Superbugs cos Malaysia's already gettin them. Its not a matter of pride, technological secrets or anything. Just that, if action gets close, pilots will have to look out for the Markings on the wing before he pumps lead into the target.
Rafale, same as Superhornet, hasn't really won its spurs yet though. But still a likely candidate.
Su-30s are in active service with the Indian Air force if I'm not wrong. We'll probably get feedback from them. Perhaps our President might have some relatives there. Note, the Su-30MK is an EXPORT model.
The only problem with the Typhoon, i feel, is that its too new. -
I m quite convinced that RSAF/DSTA has send pliots to test fly the eurofighter and the su-30.Well we dun really know the outcome of these test flight,but the typoon being in one of the shortlisted fighter definite
Basically saf have been acquiring hardwares that are NEW,one example will be the new"Arrowhead" sensor(lockheedmartin) for the apache longbow and she is the 1st oversea customer........... . .These procurement are done by the DSTA , the indian airforce has a bad flight technical safety record,their fighters are poorly maintanence .
The eurofighter has been undergoing intense flight and testing to prove its reliablity.It is also an effort by a cosortium of well-developed technological countries such as german,england..... -
Thats exactly my point. The Eurofighter is still trying to prove itself. Considering the several other options already being "Proven", the eurofighter's chance is slimming indeed. Perhaps we might get the Rafale after all. Maybe even the Strike Eagles.
-
I won't rule out Superbugs just yet as they are also fully operational with the US Navy and the neighour up North might not get the Super bugs. Afterall, RSAF can always obtain the Superbugs version with the AESA radar.Originally posted by Shotgun:Thats exactly my point. The Eurofighter is still trying to prove itself. Considering the several other options already being "Proven", the eurofighter's chance is slimming indeed. Perhaps we might get the Rafale after all. Maybe even the Strike Eagles.
However, I think as most of us have agreed so far, the chance for a Rafale win looks excellent. The Strike Eagles may look promising if the Koreans do get a good deal out of their package. So far they have successfully obtain the Tiger Eyes as part of the package. -
Well, I have said this before and I'll say it again. Realistically the final 3 in our shortlist will beOriginally posted by Joe Black:I won't rule out Superbugs just yet as they are also fully operational with the US Navy and the neighour up North might not get the Super bugs. Afterall, RSAF can always obtain the Superbugs version with the AESA radar.
However, I think as most of us have agreed so far, the chance for a Rafale win looks excellent. The Strike Eagles may look promising if the Koreans do get a good deal out of their package. So far they have successfully obtain the Tiger Eyes as part of the package.
- Rafale F2/F3
- Typhoon
- Toss-up between Strike Eagle and Superbug
If its a straight fight between capabilities, package(training and other goodies) and delivery times, I would think Rafale F2/F3 would be a clear winner. However, do not factor out politics, and thats where waters will get murkier
Back to the RoK deal, I don't think I've mentioned this before, but the F-15K package does not include the new AESA radar. Not because the Yanks didn't offer, they did, but RoK found it too expensive. While Dassault offered Rafale F2/F3 with AESA as well, and whats more it was within RoK budget, and yet we knew which way the Koreans went.
Politics...what else makes a man cut off his nose, to spite his face? -
Hey it is quite clear that the korean F-X project is not a fair competition between the US contender and contender from other countries.US and korea deal have too much political manipulation.
They bought the fighters one main reason was because US is their ally...........this "sucks"....all those asian nation who are strategically alliances with the US surely has no mind of their own a more offending word will be be "LACKEY".
I disagree with u that EF2000 chances are slim.Yes!EF2000 are New or shall i say very new,that doesnt mean its chance are slimmer compared to f-15/f-16...!If u do some research/comparison u will release that the EF2000 is just as agile and highly advanced
as the falcon and it can even take the load which the f-16 cant witout allowing the speed to suffer.
This project also involved many countries, determining EU future while trying to break US global weapon monopoly.So dun desprise EF2000
-
Yes, the EF2000 is a new and VERY capable plane. Without a doubt. But what I said was that it is NOT combat proven. It still has not won the respect the F-16 and F-15 already has. Of course, I would be more than Happy if RSAF bought EF2000s, but we will be the "guinea" pigs as we would be one of the first few users outside EU. So whatever difficulties we encounter, would be almost brand new.
-
Orcishwarrior, I think you've misunderstood the point of our argument against the Typhoon.
The Typhoon is very capable aircraft. No doubts about that. On paper, everything in its specs would make it almost Rafales equal, or even surpass it slightly. However here's where the problems start stacking up against Typhoon for Singapore.
1)
Everythings on paper. The program has faced numerous delays and problems, brought about in part by having to sort out the kinks in the working relationships between the partners. Almost every aspect of the scheduling so far has been pushed back, again and again. The latest high profile delay is German delays over the Typhoons main armament, the Meteor BVRAAM. The CFT program only exists on paper(pretty much like everything else). The multirole version is still a few years off. Compare this to the Rafale development. It is in squadron service, has already undertaken combat missions over Afghanistan, the CFT program is on track with aircraft having already flown with CFTs, the multirole versions are ready for production once the French frees up the funding
2) Weapons
Both Rafale and Typhoon are scheduled to receive the Meteor BVRAAM. But its only scheduled to arrive in the later part of this decade(even before the Germans started their old tricks again). So whats in the interim? The American AMRAAM for Typhoon and the French MICA for Rafale. Both radar versions of the missiles are rough equivalents of each other, little to choose between each other. Which is fine and good if you're an EU/NATO operator of the Typhoon. But, as has already been demonstrated in the Korean F-X program, the US will not allow integration of AMRAAM to countries which buy non-US products, effectively relegating non-NATO/EU users of Typhoon to Skyflash and Sparrows until Meteor is ready, which are only semi-active radar homing, and at least a full generation behind AMRAAM/MICA. Of course MICA will have no such export restrictions to the Rafale.
3) Timetable.
Eurofighters order book is 600+ machines. Rafales is 200+/300. While some have taken this to mean that the Rafale is an export failure, things must be put into perspective. All except 12 Typhoons for Austria will go the the development countries. And export order of 12 units hardly makes Typhoon a roaring export success. Where the advantage of Rafale is that if Singapore does order it, we will be assured of receiving our aircraft according to OUR timetable, and not having to wait till other countries who've ordered earlier receive theirs before we get ours.
4) Training
Singapore has a training detachment set up already in France. A training detachment for Rafales in France will also make things simpler in terms to logistics, and theres no need to set up a new detachment in another country. -
Totally agree with Viper here. Rafale currently presents the best choice in terms of capabilities and value for money. If the French can assist DSTA/DSO to integrate some current NATO weapons with the Rafales, then it is hard to see any other options beating Rafales.
The Americans can always do the naughty thing to entice RSAF to getting either the Super Bugs or Strike Eagles by clearing delievery of AMRAAM straight away and perhaps throw some sweeteners like SLAM and AGM-142, JDAM etc. Who knows, perhaps they even allow Singapore to be the first Asia pacific country to purchase AIM-9X with the JHMCS?
I think the F-16 Block 60 will be the dark horse. Still, my preference goes as follow:
1. Rafale F3
2. Typhoon Trenche 2/3
3. F-18 E/F Super Hornets
4. F-15 Variant
6. F-16 Block 60
7. Su-30 MK? variant with Western avionics and integrated with NATO weapons including AMRAAM. Getting AMRAAMski won't be that bad though.
I personally don't think RSAF should be too much distracted from the top 3 selection. If they are to get the Super bugs, then I think they will have to demand the AESA radar as a precondition, as well as the JHMCS and Amraam, integration with AGM-142/Popeye or Slammer for stand-off strikes, and perhaps ARM-88 Harm as well. -
AGM-142, and slammer as a stand-off package? Not gonna happen. Now, here is the question. Who is selling us the planes?
Issit, the manufacturers, or the US. Government? Too my limited knowledge, it is the manufacturers that want to sell it, and the Government that approves it. So how on earth is the manufacturers gonna tell you that, "Oh, if you buy our Superhornets, or Block60s, we will include delivery of the AMRAAMs and Stand-off weapons!" Can they affect their government's decision to export weapons?
In anycase, the AMRAAMs we "have" are bought and paid for. Its just that they are stuck in "the land of the brave and the free," while we, who are in "the land of the not so brave, and definitely not free" sit here wondering if they will actually deliver those damned missiles or not.
If Rafale/Mica is the only way to gain effective BVR weapons for RSAF, then by all means go for it. I just wonder how they can integrate the MICA onto our Vipers too. -
Hey hey, where's your patriotism ye men' of lil' faith? Are you not confident that Singapore will win any war
? Do you think that the Army with reveal all it's hidden secrets and powers in depth?
Come on, the SAF was set up to defend the nation and not to attack/invande others. I mean it's like the whole SAF will not even be able to fill up even Johor Bharu. So, if a war actually happens (let's say with Malaysia), our troops will be pushed forward and everything will be fought away from home. That's where the Home Team comes into play... and... I heard that if a war were to be fought within our HDB flats, it would have already been considered a losing battle. So, people do not doubt Singapore's military capabilities, we have a very good anti-everything system, sea, land, air...
***** over land over sea, we will strike our enemy. we are the men from the Singapore infantry... ***** -
Originally posted by Shotgun:
but haven't you noticed that the UAE Viper purchases and the Korean eagles all have all these sweeteners attached to the deals.
AGM-142, and slammer as a stand-off package? Not gonna happen. Now, here is the question. Who is selling us the planes?
Issit, the manufacturers, or the US. Government? Too my limited knowledge, it is the manufacturers that want to sell it, and the Government that approves it. So how on earth is the manufacturers gonna tell you that, "Oh, if you buy our Superhornets, or Block60s, we will include delivery of the AMRAAMs and Stand-off weapons!" Can they affect their government's decision to export weapons?
Well, Pakistan has successfully integrated Magic 2 unto their Vipers, whilst the Israeli with their Pythons and Derbys. Vipers are also known to be cleared for other French weapons and sensors. I can't see why Mica cannot be integrated into the RSAF Vipers. LM and Dassault Aviation will have to help integrate the two though.... unless DSO and ST Aero can do that themselves.... but I really doubt so.
If Rafale/Mica is the only way to gain effective BVR weapons for RSAF, then by all means go for it. I just wonder how they can integrate the MICA onto our Vipers too. -
it is quite conspicious that Bush adminstration has decided to more or less loosen its restrict on weapon export to friendly nation such as SIN and thailand,singapore governement requested the US gov to transfer the apache to be schedule earlier and i believe this request is quite welcomed by the US side.Amraam...who knows might already be in our base.Hey they really hated the terrorist so much US wants to wipe them out u know!!!!when terrorist munch their memorable "kit kat chocolate bar!!!
US actually wants us to be their ally in SEA but i think it is rejected by our gov,hey the us plan to engulf CHINA since they see china as a threat........smart enough we did not otherwise we will be in a dilemma between US & china........... -
Originally posted by Orcishwarrior:
Actually, contrary to the popular beliefs, Singapore govt, Snr Prime Minister Lee, is known to see China as a "strategic opponent", and thus the Sg govt are constantly engaging the US, and having the US to maintain their presence in SEA and offer Sg as a logistic base for the US Navy (darn, if only our land size is bigger, you might see a whole US AF base here), etc. Sg sees China as a economic partner only and that is just that. Politically and militarily, China is not compatible with Sg. There is no direct threat to Sg from China but neither any political benefits. If Sg is under foreign attack, guess who would come to our rescue? China or the US? It most likely be US, Australia and Britan.
US actually wants us to be their ally in SEA but i think it is rejected by our gov,hey the us plan to engulf CHINA since they see china as a threat........smart enough we did not otherwise we will be in a dilemma between US & china...........
[/b]
Yes, most of us are yellow in color and we do have a closer enthic and blood relationship with the Chinese, but do remember this, the Chinese govt did not blink an eye when they rolled their tank in Tian an meng square, why would one think they care about Singapore at all.
A domocratic chinese govt might be different, but for the time being, we know that the communist govt doesn't care less if it has to sacrifices 100 million or more population (on its side alone, btw, statistically, it doesn't even mean much to its 1.5 billion population) just to take over Taiwan. For now, I will say, less make friends with them but never be close. I would rather have US as my friend.